Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 180214 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.

Wrong again Sparky

Richmond, KY

#109980 Aug 8, 2013
Fox News Is A Joke wrote:
<quoted text>The Founders were Slave Traders and Indian Murderers Stupid.
Since you have no clue, as to the Truth in Fox news...
I guess it would go over your head, that Slaves were not owned
by the first settlers, AND Not every one of the Framers of the
country owned slaves... That is a canard!
In fact... The abolition of slavery was championed by the Religious Right!
You might want to take your blinders off...
Fox will tell/prove things like NBC's editing of the 911 call
to make Zimmerman look bad... Like most of your people do!
Yes and Amen

Richmond, KY

#109981 Aug 8, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a rabid angry Atheist as evidenced by the foul words contained in many of your latest postings.
There is an unsurmountable gap between living and nonliving matter which Science is incapable of explaining by using natural means.
It is obvious that intelligent causes can accomplish things that undirected natural causes simply cannot.
This applies to the design and creation of both inanimate and living things.
Although science has been able to CREATE the building blocks of life, it has been unable to create the molecules that carry the information that produce life and it's continuation.
How did that information becomed part of these building blocks?
No one knows , no one can explain the natural causes that caused these events...
The creation of the Universe and all therein, including all the living species, was caused by a Supernatural event,not by accidental means...
Who caused it.....God Almighty.
Science can not explain God, nor will it find him in a lab experiment or in a test tube,,,,
If you want to knoew God, you must seek him and he will reveal himself...
To those who chose not to do that and keep insisting that they do not believe in his existence, may I again suggest that, you stop wasting your time debating something you don't believe in.
Then again, God may be so ingrained in your minds, that you can not help yourselves...
Which leads to the question, Why is it that your minds do not permit you to simply ignore that which you claim you do not believe in?
BTW,The building blocks that Science created , were created by Scientists designing and creating a means by which this could be accomplished,,,Not by accidental means...
The building blocks needed a creator....
Great post!
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#109982 Aug 8, 2013
The Treaty of Tripoli was stating Unambiguously. We are Neutral in matters of Religion, by the President and the Senate. Just because a majority of our citizens are Christian does not make us a Christian nation and on constitutional matters there is no majority rule. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religious belief or the lack of religious belief. The wisest policy is the constitutional one, and that is neutrality.
How stupid can you be

Richmond, KY

#109983 Aug 8, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
I'm really not sure why people continue to state that America was founded on Religion.. Nothing could be farther from the truth. One example is the Treaty of Tripoli, the first sentence alone is quite self explanatory for Pete's Sake! And Please don't say that's what the American Revolutionary War was about. They do not understand why we endured those bloody battles or the reason we decided that we could no longer be part of the Monarchy of United Kingdom in its form at the time. There are many in this country that have either chosen to ignore, were taught incorrectly or simply were never told why we felt it mandatory to dissolve our connection to the British Monarchy and its history of repeated violations to the basic human rights of those under its rule. The American Revolution was not about taxes alone and it had nothing at all to do with establishing a Christian nation. As the Declaration so aptly states, it was about being deprived of such things as the benefits of trial by jury, for taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms government without any input from the people. We are governed by the Constitution, which is a secular document and very purposely begins with “We the people” and of equal purpose does not contain any mention of God or Christianity.
Believe what you want... Facts are facts!

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109984 Aug 8, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Using vague words like "spiritually prepared" might be why the reasons for two different standards do not make sense.
A different set of rules is a different standard, no matter how prepared or not a group of people are.
So again, I get you see a reason for the two different standards, I just think having two different standards shows the god is not of the same being and is more likely just different men making different standards.

We can debate the reasons for the two different standards once you can understand or admit their are two different standards.
Dude, you live in, and support a society that does the exact same thing.

There are laws in America. However there is a lot more freedom outside of prison walls. For those that have done something against the laws of America, we put them in prison. And in prison they have a whole different set of laws and very little freedom to do whatever they want.
Is this a double standard? I mean after all, the prisons are located in America.

No these aren't double standards. God limited the freedom of those that showed Him that they would do evil with that freedom.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#109985 Aug 8, 2013
I don't click links,,,, Just letting you know

The Treaty of Tripoli was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797. It was then signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

Article 11 states: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any said nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

In Layman's terms: Article 11 intended to set aside the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. President John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#109988 Aug 8, 2013
Here are some quotes from a few Founding Fathers:

George Washington - "The father of our country"

The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.
Thomas Jefferson*-

I do not find in orthodox Christianity
one redeeming feature. The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
Abraham Lincoln -

The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.
John Adams -

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and... foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.
James Madison (considered the author of the U.S. Constitution)-

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and severity in the laity; in both superstition, bigotry, and persecution

“Topix Idiotae plena estut tibi”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#109989 Aug 8, 2013
Wrong again Sparky wrote:
<quoted text>Keep telling yourself that....
Maybe it'll become true!
I just feel.... you don't mind looking stupid... do you???
Prove that any of the things I've said are wrong. If you can show that proof I'll gladly change my stance, that's what rational people do. But, I'm not worried about that because I know that everything I said was true and verifiable.

It's well known that Washington was not a Christian, he followed a religion known as deism. Jefferson is a bit tougher to pin down, at times his writing is atheist in nature(he removed God from his own copy of the Bible, check out the Jefferson Bible), and at other times he mentions a non-specific "natural Creator" which would lead to him being a deist. The same is true for all the founding fathers, their writings paint a picture of men who in some cases are without faith, and in other cases believe in a god of nature, known as deism.

It's also easily verified that the phrases "In God We Trust" and "Under God" were added to our money and pledge long after the nation was founded. Almost a century later for "In God We Trust" and almost 2 centuries later for "Under God". There's no way to dispute this, it's a fact.

Same goes fro my quote from the Treaty of Tripoli which was signed shorted after the founding of the nation and the end of the Revolutionary War. There is no way you can deny the text states in no uncertain terms that the US was not founded as a Christian nation. It's in black and white, and spelled out in a way that cannot be misinterpreted.

So, tell me how basing my thinking on things that are factual makes me look stupid. To my thinking a person makes themselves look far more foolish by believing something that runs counter to what is known as a fact.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109990 Aug 8, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So just why would someone believe a certain person is speaking for a god?
It looks to me as if the main times in the bible that large groups listen to someone as a prophet is when they are a king. I know Moses was not called a king, but he was in the same capacity.
What came first, the chicken or the egg? Prophet or king?

I note the claimed prophets who were not kings were only really believed to be prophets after the fact and their letters were used by the kings to get the people to do their bidding.
That is the purpose of a prophet. As far as the rest of your post, examples please. Because this just sounded like you talking out of your rear.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109991 Aug 8, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Continuing....note how the new testament prophets did not gain wide recognition until the king (Constantine) held them up as prophets.

You see, claiming having a line to god can get the power of a king. Kings use the claim of having a line to god to hold power.
This is true for most any religious belief, thus shows this has nothing to do with actually having a line to a god.
It shows it has everything to do with how one uses a line to god for power over the masses of people.
It is politics. It is a political tool. It is a political tool still used today in American politics. The republicans claim to be the moral majority that holds Christianity on a pedestal. This is why republicans refuse to acknowledge the good of separation of church and state. This is why republicans want the bible class in public schools. This is why we are debating now. It is due to religion in politics, not your personal superstitions. It is due to how your superstitions affect politics.

Step back for a moment and look at this big picture. It is evident in every region of the world, during every time in history.
Even regions that are atheistic have this occurring, as the leaders of those countries mimic themselves as gods and demand worship and have the people blindly follow their absolute demands.

So we as a people need to understand the trends of history in order to prevent the problems they posed. If you cannot understand the problems of the trends I just cited, we will never overcome some of the recurring problems in societies.

Of course I do not expect a Utopia if everyone ever gets the memo on this, but I would expect some improvements.
Prophet does not equal king. They can exist at the same time and even be the same person, but they can also be completely different in beliefs.
A prophet delivers Gods messages and serves the people that follow his voice. A king rarely does this but expects others to serve him. Sure it is possible that a king would rather serve others, and in this case could hold both responsibilities.

And what prophets of the New Testament??

London, KY

#109992 Aug 8, 2013
Fox News Is A Joke wrote:
<quoted text>The Founders were Slave Traders and Indian Murderers Stupid.
Some were, but certainly NOT all.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109994 Aug 8, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>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.
You didn't ask me anything about Noah's flood.

Please review my previous answer to understand why the folks of the Old Testament were given a different, more temporal law to follow.

Some in the OT were able. As a whole, they were not able to live the higher law as demonstrated.

London, KY

#109995 Aug 8, 2013
uuummm wrote:
<quoted text>
It was flippin' fantastic if you happened to be a wealthy, white, male, landowner.
Which was actually a very SMALL, SMALL percentage of the REAL WORLD U.S. population.

After the early first settlers (whose hardships many could not tolerate even for a week these days) the largest majorities were STRUGGLING immigrants, deluded by "make believe tales" of afar, a country with "streets of gold" people that poured in from all ports overseas by the droves, to find REALITY meant just to scraping by daily, to make livings in WORKING class America...and for many they were GLAD still- to find America, and FREEDOM from continual Wars, Religious INtolerances, and overcrowded countries rife with plagues and food shortages.

THAT WAS and still is-the REAL America. NOT some fantasyland goodship lollypop docking station!

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109996 Aug 8, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>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.
No no no.
Follow me here. In the time Jesus was born, there were not that many worthy priesthood holders as demonstrated in the mongrels that made up the Sanhedrin and those that ran the temple. The bloodline from prophets, including David and Solomon, who were revered among the greatest of prophets, would ensure the priesthood would continue to be passed down and remain undefiled. Notice that John the Baptist was the only one in that time even preaching baptism, and it's no coincidence that he was kin to Jesus.
This was not about the Holy Ghost sending a message to a non priesthood holder. It was about the priesthood itself. The power and authority to act in God's name. Which includes ordinances such as baptism, which is essential to enter Heaven. So essential that even Jesus, a man without sin, had to be baptized too, to fulfill all righteousness.

Another reason it was important for Joseph to hold the priesthood, was so Mary would marry him. She would not have if he didn't hold that priesthood.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#109997 Aug 8, 2013
How stupid can you be wrote:
<quoted text>Believe what you want... Facts are facts!
Believing what I want???? hummm This is not about what I believe or What You Believe......This is about what is Written in the Constitution and the First Amendment, which is irrefutable. If you feel I represented it's truth's in error, then show me.

Show me with proof, that what I have posted is false.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109998 Aug 8, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Maybe I will ask my homosexual friends if I am a prick to them.

Nope, they said no.

I can be friends with people even though I don't approve of their choices. I am friends with people that drink heavily. I've even been their DD for years. I am friends with smokers, though I can't stand cig smoke. I have a cousin that got on drugs for a while. I still lived him unconditionally. Understand the difference?

Now, while they are free to choose these lifestyles, I do not want them affecting me, or my family. So no drugs or cigs or alcohol is allowed in my home. If I go to theirs, I expect to see it, and I keep my young children away from it. This is usually difficult, so I don't visit them as often as they visit me.

Homosexuality does not bother me, as long as it is not taught to my children as the norm, as I believe otherwise. I believe it is immoral as it goes against what God put in place. I also value my marriage and do not approve that this term be used for a union of homosexuals. I am just fine with civil union. I would rather see civil unions hold the same rights as marriage since my gay friends say that this is really the only important thing to them.

Continue being a prick, I don't care obviously, or I wouldn't respond on this thread anymore.
And I don't speak dimly on your beliefs. I have never degraded you for what you believe. I didn't say you were harming society either. Now as far as my actions, just which of my actions do you have a problem with, as you seem to think you have personally seen me.

London, KY

#109999 Aug 8, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>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.
No, I just think Science should have to have all those UNknown "answers" to everything, to consider anything to be an "absolute" as well, and it does not either.

I think the "God particle" is a good descriptive-it's respective and decent, as should be anything pertaining to anything similar, or of higher orders of studies, especially those with more frequent probabilities of being publically published, and it characterizes the subject matter well. It's an elusive subject, and while Science has a base theory, the continued speculations, studies and the formulated opinions, vary in degrees from one person to the next, and even from one study to the next...not unlike religion, as that is often the nature of Science as well. And should you desire to even THINK about debating THAT statement, I would remind in advance, just look at the history of moniker attached to the study of the Higgs Boson itself.

As far Science giving too much credit to the depths of general populative thought pattern percentages, that's a possibility...but a rather speculative one at best....Not enough data to give anything more than a broad opinion in return.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#110002 Aug 8, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Sorry your scope is so limited. Your example is about the same as comparing every alcohol drinker with murderous drunk drivers. In fact it's worse because you imply intent as well.

I can't imagine why you would tell me to defend my beliefs. This was laughable.
Just be aware that you just used the slippery slope argument with me.

London, KY

#110003 Aug 8, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>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.
No effort required writing usually does suck , doesn't it?

And you're WRONG about what I realize and what I don't--I know well enough by reading (and how to apply the SAME fundamentals to self)the differences in 80/20 grade grind from 60/40...and 100 grade? Well now Sir, we certainly would have some MAJOR, MAJOR divides on opinion there...but as stated earlier, I don't wish to stoop to just snarky rudeness so...perhaps yo can try and restrain your sharped forkedness as well?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#110004 Aug 8, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>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?
I have explained many things to you so far that you didn't understand.
In this case, it is milk before meat. You do not understand the atonement of Christ, nor how it changed this world and eternity. So trying to explain righteousness to you would be like explaining algebra before you have understood multiplication.
I'm not refusing. I'm waiting until you are ready to understand holy things. So far you have only mocked them or thrived to change their meanings to make believers look stupid.
Feel free to look it up if you don't care to wait on me.

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
John g Mills 9 min Weird 2
Body 17 min Some one who knows 10
Let's Play Word Association (Nov '08) 48 min Justme 4,405
Where you @Gothic girl? 1 hr Marlboro Man 8
Drugs 1 hr WOW 1
~~Keep A Word~~Drop A Word Game. (Jun '10) 1 hr Big Pete Dickerson 2,068
Anybody know Kamden Smith 2 hr Junier 4

Barbourville Jobs

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages