Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 156618 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

#117101 Nov 14, 2013
Look here wrote:
School is a place to learn, young kids should be taught the fundamentals of our forefathers believes there's all kinds of stories in our schools systems so let me break it down simple for you know it alls--there are the three little pigs, little red ridding hood, frosty the snowman, Santa clause and the flying rain deer, why not tell young children all the great stories in the bible? It's up to the individual to make their choice of who they believe in, there are more evidence that there are a greater power than ever before, just go outside and look up, day or night the sun is set in just the right place or we would burn up if it was any closer and if it was to far away we could not survive, the stars are all aligned for us to see and guide us and the solar system, just think of what we can not see, so far away that it's not humanly possible. So you also believe what you learned in your history class that Christopher Columbus discovered America, yeah right, so how did he discover something that the Indians had been there for 100's -1000's of years. This country world isn't what it appears to be,? Don't let the government tell you what you believe in, some of you need to stand up and not let others influence you logic in life, don't fall into the trap of the government, grow a set of balls,period
So many superstitions, so little time to tell the kids all of them. So the government sees it is better to let some be taught by churches.
Maybe they need to stop leading kids to believe Santa might be real also. No need to perpetuate false beliefs.

Out of trillions of stars, it is not unreasonable to think one planet might be in a good spot for life.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117102 Nov 14, 2013
SistaNoneYa wrote:
<quoted text>
Just admit it Dukey, you made a duhm comment.
(and I don't see any need to provide further evidence of just how duhm it was, because anyone with any common sense realizes better).
Moving along past stupid now-
See this one? Just in case you hand't..another one of those scientific type mistakes-(Well holy cow...whatdya know...Science is NOT perfect either!!)
Ming the clam was the oldest animal ever. Then scientists killed it
Guys, scientists found out a clam they discovered a few years ago was the OLDEST LIVING ANIMAL EVER — hurray! But they've also confessed that they accidentally killed it when they opened it up to see how old it was — oh. Ming the clam was thought to be around 405 years old when it was found by researchers in Iceland in 2006, but more recent dating methods have determined that Ming was actually 507 years old. That means the mollusk made its way into the world around 1499, which explains how it got its posthumous name (Ming was the Chinese dynasty in power when the clam was born).
Unfortunately, Ming's life came to an unglamorous end when it was opened up for scrutiny the first time around — a move researchers wouldn't have made if they had suspected how old it really was. "We got [the age] wrong the first time, and maybe we were a bit hasty publishing our findings back then," ocean scientist Paul Butler told ScienceNordic. We don't think the newly discovered discrepancy makes a difference to Ming now, but thanks for coming clean.(MSNNOW.Dashboard. 11/14/2011)
You never showed any evidence my statement was false.
I stand by my statement. I will gladly concede if you can show evidence I was wrong. I see you are unable to concede fault.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117104 Nov 14, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Evasive much ? Smokebombs many.?
What you posted has no relevance whatsoever to the topic in question and can be seen as a futile effort to change topics.
If you , or anyone else , disagrees with what I have posted , then, why don't you provide your versions of how those events may have occured.
To simply state that you disagree with my views and then not state your own views shows a complete lack of faith in what you believe and are afraid to let those beliefs be known.
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So now he lacks faith? Make up your mind. Do you simply argue for the sake of argument?
Perfect time for the post that Curious often says:Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.-Plato
The latter part of that quote describing Curious.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117105 Nov 14, 2013
SistaNoneYa wrote:
<quoted text>
Just admit it Dukey, you made a duhm comment.
(and I don't see any need to provide further evidence of just how duhm it was, because anyone with any common sense realizes better).
Moving along past stupid now-
You posted a site that did not say a single word about alcohol killing brain cells, and yet you are claiming some sort of victory for yourself?

I see you use the very names I heard in grade school. Grow up and man up. Just admit you were fooled by the myth of an idea that alcohol kills brain cells. Sure it would seem it does, but sometimes the world is not as it seems to the layman. It may seem as if the earth is the center of the universe, then someone comes along and proves it a myth.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117106 Nov 14, 2013
Keep Religion out of School, and we'll keep Education out of Church!
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117107 Nov 14, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Magic is not a plausible answer.
You are right,Magic is not the answer.
Neither is ignorance or the lame excuses that have been provided so far.
You need advise those who are locked into the incomprehensible belief that by some magical reaction Nothing can create Something out of Nothing that they need stop believing in abracadabra , Witchetty spells and Aladin and his magic lamp.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117108 Nov 14, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
Really??? YOU provided more than enough material???? Really???
YOU provided nothing but a quote taken out of text!
MD asked you specifically to show the content surrounding that quote, you didn't ... because you Couldn't! You are a Joke!
Curious said it was in his book. I am not sure if Curious knows how many books Hitchens wrote.
Of course it is clear Curious snatched this up from some extremist Christian site. They love to quote mine out of context. They prey upon those who do not research. They prey upon those that blindly believe those that agree with them.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117109 Nov 14, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
My beliefs and my personal experiences with my GOD ,make him real TO ME , and no one has provided me with any evidence that would lead me to question my beliefs.
Your assertion that Scientists will always go with their findings, no matter how those disquieting those findings may be , is not true.
In a debate between proffesors John Lennox and Peter Atkins , Atkins, a Scientist and an Atheist, clearly debunks that theory.
Look it up for yourself ,"Duelling Professors (Peter Atkins vs John Lennox)"
The idea of an Eternal Universe is not really accepted in the Scientific Community as I am sure you are well aware.
The Bible claims that God always existed . I believe that to be true, God is the Uncaused Cause.
If I were to believe that there was a point in time where NOTHING ever existed , then I would be confronted with the dilema we have been discussing.
How is it possible that Nothing can of itself , create Something from nothing ?
We've been there and done that.
So , I accept that some entity has to always have existed.
The question is, Does that entity posses the properties of life,consciousness and intelligence and is therefor able to pass those properties on to nonliving,nonconscious ,nonintelligent matter?
If that entity does not posses those properties , then how can they be accounted for , and how is that entity able to create those properties which it does not posses nor is aware of?
So we end up with ,Life can only be created from life.
Unconsciousness can not create consciousness and non intelligence can not create intelligence.
Therefore everything points toward intelligent design as the most plausible explanation.
Science and Evolution provide the mechanisms as to how events may have occured , but are totally unable to provide the Agent that caused them to occur
Neither laws or natural events are capable of CREATING or designing , they only serve as mechanisms in an attempt to explain.
Laws and natural means are not the Creating agent.
We have been over most of this, so I am going to focus upon one we have no discussed, at least recently. Consciousness. Now you claim non intelligence can not create intelligence.
First, that would assume you know all that can be known.
Evolution can account for a brain evolving. When it evolves to a certain size, it looks as if the mind is able to be of a conscious point that the being knows itself. There are different stages of this, and many apes pass what is known as the "mirror test".
Human children cannot pass this test until a certain age. I would have to look up that age, as I am writing this from memory.
I hope you would actually look it up yourself and see what science does know about the brain and consciousness. It knows a lot more than many think. I am sure you could still find some gaps in the knowledge that you can insert your god into, so do not be afraid to look.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117110 Nov 14, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Evasive much ? Smokebombs many.?
What you posted has no relevance whatsoever to the topic in question and can be seen as a futile effort to change topics.
If you , or anyone else , disagrees with what I have posted , then, why don't you provide your versions of how those events may have occured.
To simply state that you disagree with my views and then not state your own views shows a complete lack of faith in what you believe and are afraid to let those beliefs be known.
<quoted text>Perfect time for the post that Curious often says:Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.-Plato
The latter part of that quote describing Curious.
“Ask a sage, he will explain.
Ask a fool, he will complain.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117112 Nov 14, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>We have been over most of this, so I am going to focus upon one we have no discussed, at least recently. Consciousness. Now you claim non intelligence can not create intelligence.
First, that would assume you know all that can be known.
Evolution can account for a brain evolving. When it evolves to a certain size, it looks as if the mind is able to be of a conscious point that the being knows itself. There are different stages of this, and many apes pass what is known as the "mirror test".
Human children cannot pass this test until a certain age. I would have to look up that age, as I am writing this from memory.
I hope you would actually look it up yourself and see what science does know about the brain and consciousness. It knows a lot more than many think. I am sure you could still find some gaps in the knowledge that you can insert your god into, so do not be afraid to look.
No , you are misstating what I have said
"The question is, Does that entity posses the properties of life,consciousness and intelligence and is therefor able to pass those properties on to nonliving,nonconscious ,nonintelligent matter?
If that entity does not posses those properties , then how can they be accounted for , and how is that entity able to create those properties which it does not posses nor is aware of?"
And I have also stated that Nonlife can not create life ,nonintelligence can not create intelligence and nonconsciousness can not create consciousness.
That evolution can account for a brain evolving ,is the mechanism
not the creating agent.
So,we know that if we are alive , we will attain the property of consciousness and intelligence ,over a period of time.
Again,that is the mechanism , not the creating agent.
How we were able to ATTAIN those properties is not explained by the mechansim that leads to those properties being developed over a period of time.
It merely explains the Process , not the creating agent.
You are filling in the gaps by implying that all these events are caused by natural causes or natural laws.
I totally disagree with that view and it has no basis in fact.
Natural laws are only a means to explain ,not a means to create or design. Laws are not conscious ,intelligent or alive.
Intelligence ,life and consciousness need a creator and there is no law that can create such,neither can they self create themselves ,certainly ,there is no evidence for such an occurence.
Since I know you disagree with my beliefs ,don't just say that they are based on Magic. that is nonsense.
Give me an alternative scenario as to how these events may have occured.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117113 Nov 14, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Curious said it was in his book. I am not sure if Curious knows how many books Hitchens wrote.
Of course it is clear Curious snatched this up from some extremist Christian site. They love to quote mine out of context. They prey upon those who do not research. They prey upon those that blindly believe those that agree with them.
Keep yourself cloaked in ignorance ,denial and false allegations.
That dress code is very appropriate for those with foolish minds.
I quoted about 5 different sources as the basis for my information,including that extremist Christian Website at ABC TV network.
fact is that , as you know ,Hitchens was an alcoholic ,by his own admission.
And as he claimed ,he did his best writing when he was "SHEETFACED"

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117114 Nov 14, 2013
sandman365 wrote:
<quoted text>there is nothing in the first amendment that remotely indicates separation of church and state.
You are partially correct. Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government, although some states recognized religions even after ratification. But in 1947 Everson v. BOE incorporated the establishment clause made it apply against the states also.
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#117115 Nov 14, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>You never showed any evidence my statement was false.
I stand by my statement. I will gladly concede if you can show evidence I was wrong. I see you are unable to concede fault.
I said it was "duhm"...you said it was false...so, no disagreeing with you on that one!
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#117116 Nov 14, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>You posted a site that did not say a single word about alcohol killing brain cells, and yet you are claiming some sort of victory for yourself?
I see you use the very names I heard in grade school. Grow up and man up. Just admit you were fooled by the myth of an idea that alcohol kills brain cells. Sure it would seem it does, but sometimes the world is not as it seems to the layman. It may seem as if the earth is the center of the universe, then someone comes along and proves it a myth.
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa63/a...

Duhmmy.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117117 Nov 14, 2013
SistaNoneYa wrote:
That publication does not show the Killing of brain cells in Adults, damage but not killing.

Can't you fundies admit when you've been proven wrong?

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117118 Nov 15, 2013
curious wrote:
My beliefs and my personal experiences with my GOD ,make him real TO ME
No doubt as real as the drug-induced hallucinations are to Y&A
curious wrote:
and no one has provided me with any evidence that would lead me to question my beliefs.
Are you a YEC? DO you believe that the world is only 6000 years old? If so, then there's plenty of evidence.
curious wrote:
Your assertion that Scientists will always go with their findings, no matter how those disquieting those findings may be , is not true.
In a debate between proffesors John Lennox and Peter Atkins , Atkins, a Scientist and an Atheist, clearly debunks that theory.
Look it up for yourself ,"Duelling Professors (Peter Atkins vs John Lennox)"
Scientists who do not ultimately go with their findings are not scientists.
curious wrote:
The idea of an Eternal Universe is not really accepted in the Scientific Community as I am sure you are well aware.
Neither is the idea of yours or indeed, anyone else's gods
curious wrote:
The Bible claims that God always existed . I believe that to be true, God is the Uncaused Cause.
If I were to believe that there was a point in time where NOTHING ever existed , then I would be confronted with the dilema we have been discussing.
Actually, the Bible contradicts itself (it always does that) as it also claims that your god hasn't always been around.

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." - Isaiah 43:10-

There you have it - from the head honcho himself. He clearly refers to a time before him when he wasn't around and also a time after him when he won't be around.
curious wrote:
How is it possible that Nothing can of itself , create Something from nothing ?
We've been there and done that.
We have, you say something can't come from nothing so that negates your god.
curious wrote:
So , I accept that some entity has to always have existed.
The question is, Does that entity posses the properties of life,consciousness and intelligence and is therefor able to pass those properties on to nonliving,nonconscious ,nonintelligent matter?
I don't accept that there has always been a god. Do you accept that the universe has always existed?
curious wrote:
If that entity does not posses those properties , then how can they be accounted for , and how is that entity able to create those properties which it does not posses nor is aware of?
So we end up with ,Life can only be created from life.
You're filling in the gaps with superstition and myth.
curious wrote:
Unconsciousness can not create consciousness and non intelligence can not create intelligence.
Therefore everything points toward intelligent design as the most plausible explanation.
Ah yes, it's now clear to me that you know all there is to know and that there's nothing more for you to learn
curious wrote:
Science and Evolution provide the mechanisms as to how events may have occured , but are totally unable to provide the Agent that caused them to occur
Neither laws or natural events are capable of CREATING or designing , they only serve as mechanisms in an attempt to explain.
Laws and natural means are not the Creating agent.
Laws are the descriptions we give to observable phenomena.

Even you must see that there are probably an near infinite number of laws that we are still to define.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117119 Nov 15, 2013
curious wrote:
Atheist Scientists and Atheists hace painted themselves into a corner and have left themselves with no way of getting out ,paintless , brushless and surrounded by the mess they have created for themselves.
They claim that Intelligent Design "God"is not the creator. They insist that life was created by natural means.
Unfortunately for them, there is no evidence to support that theory.
Theory? Not believing in something there is no evidence for is not a theory. Neither is believing in something that there is no evidence for.
curious wrote:
They freely admit that they don't know how life was created , but they are certain life does not need an Intelligent Creator.
In order to prove their theory as being correct , THEY spend long
hours in their labs , using the latest technology and their intelligence in order create that which they say does not need a creator.
Give it time. After all, it took your creator billions of years before he created life on earth.
curious wrote:
To make the claim that the laws we have now , may not be the same laws that existed then is at best , a lame excuse in a futile attempt to get out of the horrible mess they have created.
Assuming that the laws are not the same now as they were then,
what or who is the agent that caused that change?
Isn't it great that we now refer to the "Laws of Physics" as opposed to the "Laws of God"? That's how people used to frame them - science has put paid to that silliness.
curious wrote:
It matteres not how you spin it ,slice and dice it or inject absurd theories into the equation....All evidence points to Intelligent design as being the MOST Plausible explanation.
Nothing you or anyone else has posted as an alternative explanation can compare.
You can't assume that human terms like purpose, order, first cause, design, good, evil, etc have anything to do with how we describe our cosmology. It's wholly ridiculous and only for addled brains.
curious wrote:
As a matter of fact , no alternative explanation has been posted.
Smokescreens and opinions intended to evade the topic being discussed ,abound.
Selecting one creation myth from hundreds of others is hardly an explanation.
Yes and Amen

Versailles, KY

#117120 Nov 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You must really hate your god for all the abortions he is responsible for. Which (according to the Bible) is every abortion.
No!
I Love God with all my heart...
He stopped me from being like you... Stupid!
Thank you Father God, for your Gift of a Savior!
Thank You Jesus for suffering, and dying the death
I deserved!
God is Good!
He saved me, and He can save you too!
Get to know Him personally, not what other haters say!
Yes and Amen

Versailles, KY

#117121 Nov 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a Christian
That means your idea of perfect love involves the creation of a torture pit, stocking it with demons and putting people in there so that they will burn for all eternity.
God gave you a way out...
If you do not take it...
IT IS ON YOU!
Not Him!
Yes and Amen

Versailles, KY

#117122 Nov 15, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, YaA. You have just substituted one obsession for another. That's fine, some people have those empty places inside that they need to fill with something. It was drugs, booze, women, gambling and now it's the invisible man in the sky. Hey, look at the bright side - it's better than being a Star Wars trekkie. Marginally.
"Star Wars trekkie"... I love them both, AND
I've went to a Trekkie convention in Jacksonville FL.
But the thing you are failing at, is...
God is real, and transcends this world...
You know, the Afterlife!
We have an enemy... he tells you to fill
that gap with anything other than God!

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
Mikey Bruner 1 min Andy Roo 27
Just curious Old Datsun 280Z 44 min Curious 8
Knox Schools 2 hr Luther 8
Is Donrick Blevins OK? 4 hr Well 12
Brittany spencer 7 hr Nick 1
Listen up people 8 hr humm 7
Dogs 11 hr wanted dogs and c... 2

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages