Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 149017 comments on the The Courier-Journal story from Feb 10, 2010, titled Bible study rules for public schools proposed. In it, The Courier-Journal reports that:

FRANKFORT, Ky. - The state would create rules for teaching about the Bible in public high schools under a bill filed Monday by three Democratic senators.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Courier-Journal.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109949 Aug 8, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it a double standard that a different set of people that were not equally spiritually prepared were given different sets of rules?
The atonement of Jesus Christ changed everything. I'm sorry you don't understand this. I can keep trying to explain if you care to open your mind
Maybe if you actually answered the question, I could understand.
I asked, Is an eye for an eye just "carnal and basic" where as "turn the other cheek" just a spiritual concept?

Now were the people of the old testament unable to turn the other cheek?
You failed to answer.
How can you expect me to understand your views if you continue to avoid answering so many of my questions?
You never answer the ones on the atrocity of Noah's flood.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Manchester, KY

#109950 Aug 8, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So the crustal shift causes global warming? Either way, it is global warming, as in warming temperatures. I know right wingers cannot admit global warming but this is ridiculous.
No Mike... Did you ever notice that it's Cold at the North and South Pole, And Warm at the Equator? Keep that in mind .... Grab a ball and pretend it's Earth and but a little white paint on spots where the Poles are and Spin it... with the white parts at the spin axis... Now rotate the ball with the spin axis 20degee off of the white spots...

Notice how the white spots are now not in the Cold area and are in Warm areas..... Ice melts fast, ice age ends, sea levels rise and the Average Global Temps remain the same.... But if we Measure those temps and we Assume the locations of the measure remains the same we Assume a Global Temp rise... Like measuring temps now close to heat islands of sprawling cities and comparing that to temps taken before the cities were so large and not taking the heat island into account and using such data to bolster claims of Global change...

The Point was that if you consider the speed of the melt of the Ice Sheet that covered north America then IF Global Warming was the Cause then the Average Global Temps would have had to have risen 20deg in a fairly short time period... Which would have given us Extremes at the equator... But during the Time Frame of the last glacial period we can find evidence at places along the equator of Tropical Forests... That does not fit with a Global Ice Age ... If the whole of the planet was 20 degree colder then we should see evidence of Cold temp pine forests and absolutely no Tropical forests... But we find places with Tropical Forests during the time North America was covered in a mile thick sheet of Ice...

You cannot have it both ways... You cannot have a Global 20 degree average drop and Tropical forests... But yo can Move the area covered in Ice 20deg into a more southern climate and have it melt while the average global temps remain relatively stable... As Hapgood and Einstein theorized...

It's really not hard to understand and the theory better fits what we have found than global warming and cooling ....

But like any religion, those that are member of the church of Man Caused Global Warming B'Leve... Great Gia almighty, B'Levers Believe... can I get a Amen!!!

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109951 Aug 8, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Joseph would have needed to have the priesthood as well to understand the prophecies foretold of this messiah that would be under his care. And the priesthood would have needed to be a part of that household.
Bloodline may not have been necessary, because I can confer the priesthood upon anyone that has sufficiently prepared themselves to receive it. But due to tradition, it was much safer to assume father would continue to pass it to his sons.
Talk about a contraction. You can believe no blood line is needed for the priesthood, but then take a one eighty and claim a bloodline was needed back then for understanding? As if that holy ghost could not send a message to a non blood line priest. Dude, you cannot have your cake and eat it also. It simply makes the story sound fabricated.
This is my main point. The bible and its claims like this are just fabricated from mans imagination. It appears this way and you guys unwittingly confirm this on a regular basis.
What blows my mind is, you guys never can see it even when it is pointed out. I can understand not seeing it at first, but after it is pointed out, how can you just ignore it?
I suppose the want to believe, tucks all that new knowledge under the rug so you can stay in denial.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109952 Aug 8, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
No, dude, stop twisting my words. You are the one that compared Mormons to Islamic extremist terrorists.
Yes I know God saved me. And I would assume it would be to care for the family that was put under my responsibility to provide for.
You speak of me discriminating. Have you noticed how your prickish comments only go one way? Notice I don't degrade you for your beliefs, and endure your hateful remarks? Hmmm and I discriminate?
Maybe because you have no homosexuals to be a prick towards here.
I do not discriminate upon others for their religious beliefs.
Do you know the difference between being a prick and discriminating? Evidently not.
You can sound very pleasant as you withhold equal rights and privileges from others. It makes you no less an immoral person for doing so.
This is not about your family, this is about others. I note the selfish theme to your values.

Am I a prick to those who discriminate? Yes. Got a problem with it? To damned bad.

Do you think I am doing harm to society in any way? If so, please tell me, as I have heard of none from you as of yet.
So if I am not doing harm to society, then I see no reason you should speak dimly of my beliefs.
But I do have a problem with your actions in society, thus I speak dimly of your reasons for your actions.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109953 Aug 8, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
No, dude, stop twisting my words. You are the one that compared Mormons to Islamic extremist terrorists.
Yes I know God saved me. And I would assume it would be to care for the family that was put under my responsibility to provide for.
You speak of me discriminating. Have you noticed how your prickish comments only go one way? Notice I don't degrade you for your beliefs, and endure your hateful remarks? Hmmm and I discriminate?
I would compare how your beliefs of homosexuality and discrimination are that of how many Christians discriminated against black persons, but your religion is the one who did this, so I am running low on comparative religious examples.

When I compare the terrorists with you, I acknowledge one is more egregious than the other.
The example was purely to show what blind faith can lead to. It can lead one to do wrong and not think openly about the moral implications of his actions.
I do not feel you think openly about your discrimination of women and homosexuals due to your blind faith. I do not feel you think fully about the moral implications of your actions.

To claim this has no similarity to what the terrorist do psychologically is just denial. Blind faith is blind faith. Some lead to murder, some lead to discrimination. The crime is different, but the reasons for doing so are equal.

I am fully aware it is demeaning to be compared to a terrorist in any way, but I demonstrated my reasons. If you can refute them, please do so. As of yet, you just ran and whined about it. This does not get you off the hook. Man up and defend your beliefs or admit I have a point.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109954 Aug 8, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it didn't sufficiently answer the question.
You get to the point you can understand righteousness and then I can explain righteous judgment.
So you refuse to explain what "righteousness judgment" is, and you expect me to just magically understand what is in your mind?
Answer the questions or do not expect others to understand your beliefs. Pretty simple concept. Try it someday.

Do you know what "sufficiently" means? If it sufficiently answered my question, then why can I not sufficiently understand what in the hell you are talking about? Maybe because you use religious speak and I cannot understand religious speak. So I ask you to clarify the religious speak, and you refuse. Yet expect me to have been sufficiently answered?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109955 Aug 8, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it didn't sufficiently answer the question.
You get to the point you can understand righteousness and then I can explain righteous judgment.
I get that is likely hard, if not impossible to show me a difference between "righteousness judgement" and just plain old "judgement".
When you run from questions like this, I assume you just have no logical answers so you just whine.
I note, Jesus did not say one cannot use "righteous judgement", so I assume some holy ghost told you this line of crap or your church made this line of crap up.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109956 Aug 8, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
We are preparing for something more than we know now. Kinda like when a bird has to be kicked out of the nest to learn to fly on their own.
I see you still do not understand the question. I get the reasons why you see faith as needed as in the sense god made it a rule and you blindly follow that rule with no logic needed to back it up. I need an explanation of why a god would need a person to have faith at all. I see zero logical reasons one would need blind faith in order to be ready for something. Can you explain it or is this just going to lead to a one sentence answer that explains nothing yet again?
This is a complex question. I would expect a complex answer.

How is a bird learning to fly in the manner you speak in anyway like believing in a god?
The bird has instincts for flying. He has wings. He can see his parents fly. He can flap around in the nest and get some lift. He can physically see and fly before being kicked out of the nest.
This is not blind faith.

Their is no god for us to see flying around. All of the claims of heaven or a spiritual world have absolutely zero evidence for us to see.
This bible might as well be claiming we can fly, so jump of a cliff. But that would end in a result we could see and learn from. So it is far different than a bird seeing his dad jumping off a cliff and flying to safety.

So maybe pick and analogy that I can see a hint of a relationship to next time.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109957 Aug 8, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Believe what you wish.
I speak of a different type of perfection than superficial perfection. I'm talking about living sin-free.
Well you cannot know what all Jesus did in his life, all you can base your beliefs of his sins are upon the claims of some man, who also could not have know all Jesus had done in his life.
You also base your perfection upon what you feel is perfection. We have different standards of perfection. So you can claim the Jesus was perfect in your eyes and views, but to claim he was perfect in general is like claiming a Utopia exists. It cannot be.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109958 Aug 8, 2013
SistaNoneYouBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
"Mitochondrial Adam and Eve"
Chromosome Eve-traceable.
Chromosome Adam-still remains UNKNOWN.
That simple enough, for Adams' sake??
(If so that would be great, then I won't have to stoop to the ghetto, gutter low level snarky route of juvenile kindergarten theatrics!!)!)
You don't seem to understand when you write sentences like the last one here, it is a snarky route. How ironic.

So the Adam in the case not having a traceable chromosome is ironic, why again?
You keep claiming something is ironic, but until just now did you explain just what you found ironic. But you have yet to explain what is ironic about it. I see nothing apparently ironic about it.
Why? Because their may be so many reasons why it is not as yet have been tracked. Evidently you think science must have all answers laid out instantly and perfectly for you in order for something to be called the metaphorical Adam.

Personally I think science should never use those mythical words. They just confuse the lay persons. The "god particle" should never have been used.
I suppose scientist expect most people to be able to differentiate the science from the myths. They assume to much in this instance.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109959 Aug 8, 2013
SistaNoneYouBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
and that's what REALLY bothers the ones that aren't as lol.
Who says I am not as lol? Learn how to write coherently please.
I know you do not realize this, but your writing is not as good as you think it is. Most times it is gibberish.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109960 Aug 8, 2013
SistaNoneYouBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
All in the way it's read.
Kind of like, if anyone doesn't clean the logs out of their own eyes, and open their minds for the greater enlightened perspectives...
Then you might as well just expect a --"How's that living mired under a dark age, mudhole rock working out for ya?"
Again with the snarky ending. How ironic.
So hating your parents allows you to take the log out of your eye? Kind of puts a crimp in that whole commandment of obeying your parents.
The massive contradictions Jesus introduced, shows me why the believes of the OT had him killed.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109961 Aug 8, 2013
SistaNoneYouBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
Kind of like a point A in World History; 160 BC-37BC or so...Simon, Jonathan, Judah, 2nd, 3rd and 4rth gens on into the times of Herod the Great.
(Who'd've thought huh!! Strongly researched scholarly Secular books even- that speak of some of the SAME exact people, places and events as found in the Bible!!!!)
So if the people are of really in that place, does it mean any of the claims about them are true? Of course not, but that sure seems to be what you guys keep inferring.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109962 Aug 8, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they are directly related. Why?
1. You are on a roster and eventually will be visited by some eager home teacher.
2. No one will ever know your desire to have your name removed from the church records because you never took the time to express this in a letter to the church. So face to face contact would be the only way this would happen because the initiative would come from the guy in number 1 since you did not have that initiative.
That's why I automatically put those two together.
What? Dude, you are automatically confusing the whole post I wrote.
Again, I have no problem with Mormons knocking on my door, for any reason. So to tie them with my possibly wanting to be taken off the members list has nothing to do with it. Mormons knock on non members doors also. How could you forget this?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109963 Aug 8, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not dispute claims of the Bible. I do think there are translation errors and quite a bit that is left out of the Bible, whether intentional or unintentional, that should have been in it. Because I don't believe it was supposed to be left to interpretation and open up the opportunity for so many different denominations or opinions on the meaning of scripture.
I don't need to condone God's actions. I simply accept them and humble myself before Him.
Man is His creation. And man's spirit and resurrected body are eternal. So taking them out of this earthly experience doesn't mean they cease to exist. If He deemed that they were willingly that evil that it was going to hurt the children that wished to be good, then I can accept that He took them out of the game, so to speak. They still exist, just not on earth. They showed that they weren't ready for the freedom He gave them, so He took it back. Those that perished before the age of accountability, would go directly to live in the presence of God and be spared from being raised by parents that practiced iniquity.
So translation errors could not result in contradictions of claims of the bible? What? Might as well stop using the line at all about not believing blindly in all the claims of the bible. You clearly believe it is perfect enough not to dispute it at all.

Now you believe the god murdered everyone for being so darned sinful, but gave them all a pass to come to heaven? Where did you pull this idea from?

Reminds me of the parents who claim they produced the child, so they have the right to kill the child. Poor morality is poor morality. Again, were is the moral story to Noah's ark again?
All I hear from you is gods excuse to murder in mass. Excuses excuses. I see a trend for the poor morality of the bible. They produce some magical excuse to be immoral.
It is ok to kill them. They will thank us in heaven.
I wonder if this is what the Christian Nazi's thought as they tried to exterminate the Jews.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109964 Aug 8, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not dispute claims of the Bible. I do think there are translation errors and quite a bit that is left out of the Bible, whether intentional or unintentional, that should have been in it. Because I don't believe it was supposed to be left to interpretation and open up the opportunity for so many different denominations or opinions on the meaning of scripture.
I don't need to condone God's actions. I simply accept them and humble myself before Him.
Man is His creation. And man's spirit and resurrected body are eternal. So taking them out of this earthly experience doesn't mean they cease to exist. If He deemed that they were willingly that evil that it was going to hurt the children that wished to be good, then I can accept that He took them out of the game, so to speak. They still exist, just not on earth. They showed that they weren't ready for the freedom He gave them, so He took it back. Those that perished before the age of accountability, would go directly to live in the presence of God and be spared from being raised by parents that practiced iniquity.
Here is one reason why the bible is not really so good to be taught in a secular classroom.
The claim of the bible is, this moral god murdered all humans once. It is not a moral story.
Now you have your religious excuses for why a god is allowed to be a murderer, but that is not really what a secular school can teach. You see, their is the great dispute of a god existing at all. Then there is a dispute of who gets to murder whom.
It is not the place of public schools to be teaching a god is allowed to murder.
Now if the teacher was allowed to point out how immoral it is for a god to murder, or at least open the debate up to the class, I would have less of a problem with this being taught. But this is not the case with the classes in question.
The fact is, so many Americans think this story is true and the god is allowed to murder. So this makes the story even more controversial to tell in public schools. If it were some dead myth like the ancient Egyptian myths, the contriver would end, as no one today(that I know of) believes the god of Isis was even real.
The god of Isis is taught only as something ancient men once believed.
The bible stories are claims many still believe. This changes everything.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109965 Aug 8, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>

I don't need to condone God's actions. I simply accept them and humble myself before Him.
.
I am sure this is the exact philosophical beliefs of the terrorists.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109966 Aug 8, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>

I don't need to condone God's actions. I simply accept them and humble myself before Him.
.
Do you condone Moses's actions of having three thousand men, women and children slain for worshiping a golden calf god?

I get it, you do not condone or condemn what god does, or what the leaders of the bible did.
Just as so many Muslims refused to condemn 9/11.

Sometimes silence is more of a problem.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109967 Aug 8, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does this doctrine come from? Prior to Moses I don't recall a whole lot of information in the Bible about priests and priesthoods. But then again it is a dreadfully boring book to read so I might have skimmed that part.
From what I can tell, Moses made up the entire god and religion. Often borrowing ideas of past gods. But then again, maybe no Moses ever existed at all(likely)and some men just made up the idea of Moses to invent a new god.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109968 Aug 8, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Well alrighty then. If you aren't claiming that Noah's Ark was a real boat built by a family lead by a man over a hundred years of age who managed to gather two of ever god-damned animal on the planet then we have no quarrel.
Look, if the Noah story has one tiny grain of truth, it must be told as truth. God murdered everyone and that is the moral of the story. God gets to be a ruthless murderer and worshiped by many at the same time.
He has much in common with Hitler, except there is evidence of a Hitler and his holocaust.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barbourville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Loreana patterson peace 29 min Fake 8
stinking creek 48 min swampfoot 98
Three liquor stores in bville 54 min swampfoot 27
Just Wondering!! 4 hr Kayak 4
has anyone seen april partin (Nov '08) 5 hr April partin 51
Shawntaea and curt Brown? 6 hr John 35
Merrill speaks out, where? 6 hr Really 8
Jessie J. Mills 9 hr Olive 5

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages