Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 148345 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.

curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117170 Nov 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I've told you my position - it's science over magic.
Don't play your foolish games with me.
You do not mean Science over Magic.
You mean Science over God , since the topic being discussed is based on precisely that.
But , you dare not say God ,because that would place you in a more untenable position that the one you have already staked out for yourself.
Since you dare not voice your view , but instead hide behind Science , let us see where Science stands on the issues in question.
Science can neither prove or disprove God's existence , thereby Atheist Scientists automatically eliminate God from the equation.
Now they are stuck.
They have to explain how it is possible that life,intelligence and consciousness can be attained by natural means.
They have completely failed in determining how this may be possible. By their own claim , they have no idea as to how this may occur by natural means.
All they can say is that,since they do not believe in God , then God is not responsible and that life needs no creator , nor does intelligence or consciousness.
They are reduced to" God did not make it happen and we have no idea how how it happened , it has to be by natural means , not by a creator.
There is no evidence whatsoever that supports that opinion .
Therefore , Atheist Scientists must resort to try and create life by using their intelligence and latest technology...
In order to prove their point that life does not need an intelligent creator , they Attempt to prove the opposite of what they base their beliefs on.
In essence , their beliefs are based on Natural laws ,which have no spiritual or natural existence , are nonliving,nonintelligent and nonconscious and only serve the purpose of explaining the mechanics of how certain events take place.
By their claim that these laws ,with all their inabilities to create anything, since they are merely words used to explain something , are more intelligent by far and posses more abilities by far,than Atheist Intelligence.

You guys need to be careful, Natural laws may put all your brains on recall and replace.
Planters Peanuts will be thrilled with this newa as they will be providing the replacements
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117171 Nov 15, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text>that was to curious, and I do not think you are in a position to try to psychoanalyze him based on his posts. Furthermore, why would you want to talk sense into such an awful person? I want nice people on my side, not nasty ones. I even mildly chide the brilliant ones with whom I agree when they make excessive mistakes of incivility toward the rightwing nutcases. Why would you want such a person to come around to your way of thinking? To have a disgusting person agree with you should be worrisome, not a success story!
If what you say is true , Then You should be worried instead of bragging about your successes
BTW I believe it may have been Lodi or LOL , who once claimed that Atheists ruled this Thread because they were in the Majority , which is true, they have more monikers.
But let us not forget the old axiom
"When the majority rules, it's because the fools are all on one side.
Some come from as far away as Nottingham UK and we just had a recent arrival from the State of Iowa
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117173 Nov 15, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> (I) am very political, and one of(my) basic principles is that one wants nice people on one's side, and nasty people on the other side, and a means of letting the nasty people hang themselves by being so obviously evil. That is why when someone has a nasty style,(I) want someone to be on the other side. The mayor Toronto for example, is a rightwinger, which is useful.
Spitzer on the other hand - though not nasty in his talk - caused himself personal disgrace, and he was a good guy in going after financial crooks,( I) think. That was something to be sorry about.
John Edwards was too smooth sometimes, which (I) disliked - but he had a brochure in 2004 full of excellent policy views, which (I) liked. even when (I) agreed with Weiner in some diatribe against the rightwing Republicans in the House,(I) disliked him and his manner.(I) want the folks I agree with to be splendid people, like Jim McGovern of Mass. and Elizabeth Warren.
And (I) want people who are disgusting to be obviously so, and on the wrong side on political, economic, religious issues. That explains why (I) do not want to convert any of the disgusting religious nuts on topix, and why (I) prefer either to insult them briefly, or -- much more pleasant - to have intelligent discussions with the intelligent persons - like you and several others - on this forum.
If you attempted to convert me ,I would have to consider what it is I am giving up and what it is I am getting in return?
That would be akin to my exchanging a mine overflowing with Gold
for an overflowing latrine,. Not gonaa happen.
More over , those who need proclaim themselves and their friends to be intelligent do so in an attempt to deceive others.
You are a narcissist , as evidenced by your posting

Pathological narcissism is the art of deception. The narcissist projects a False Self and manages all his social interactions through this concocted fictional construct.

The narcissist brags incessantly. His speech is peppered with "I", "my", "myself", and "mine". He describes himself as intelligent,


I have put in parentheses()the number of times you peppered your speech with I and my,,, 12 times within one short paragraph
Then you brag about having conversations only with intelligent persons like yourself.
You better call the Psychiatrist at Planters Peanuts. He is performing free evaluations all this week on nuts like you.
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#117174 Nov 15, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a scientific formula to prove the existence of God.
The Holy and Revered word "Christianity" is worth twice as many points (20!!!) in Scrabble than the wretched loathsome word "atheist" is (a miserably inferior pathetic 10).
Is that counting the bonus squares? Starting points? RT errors?
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117175 Nov 15, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> (I) am very political, and one of (my) basic principles is that one wants nice people on one's side, and nasty people on the other side, and a means of letting the nasty people hang themselves by being so obviously evil. That is why when someone has a nasty style,(I) want someone to be on the other side. The mayor Toronto for example, is a rightwinger, which is useful.
Spitzer on the other hand - though not nasty in his talk - caused himself personal disgrace, and he was a good guy in going after financial crooks,( I )think. That was something to be sorry about.
John Edwards was too smooth sometimes, which (I) disliked - but he had a brochure in 2004 full of excellent policy views, which (I))liked. even when (I) agreed with Weiner in some diatribe against the rightwing Republicans in the House,( I) disliked him and his manner.( I) want the folks I agree with to be splendid people, like Jim McGovern of Mass. and Elizabeth Warren.
And (I) want people who are disgusting to be obviously so, and on the wrong side on political, economic, religious issues. That explains why (I) do not want to convert any of the disgusting religious nuts on topix, and why (I) prefer either to insult them briefly, or -- much more pleasant - to have intelligent discussions with the intelligent persons - like you and several others - on this forum.
If you attempted to convert me ,I would have to consider what it is I am giving up and what it is I am getting in return?
That would be akin to my exchanging a mine overflowing with Gold
for an overflowing latrine,. Not gonaa happen.
More over , those who need proclaim themselves and their friends to be intelligent do so in an attempt to deceive others.
You are a narcissist , as evidenced by your posting

Pathological narcissism is the art of deception. The narcissist projects a False Self and manages all his social interactions through this concocted fictional construct.

The narcissist brags incessantly. His speech is peppered with "I", "my", "myself", and "mine". He describes himself as intelligent,


I have put in parentheses()the number of times you peppered your speech with I and my,,, 12 times within one short paragraph
Then you brag about having conversations only with intelligent persons like yourself.
You better call the Psychiatrist at Planters Peanuts. He is performing free evaluations all this week on nuts like you
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#117176 Nov 15, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Try to stay relevant, Sista. No one was talking about NSAIDs, asprin is not a street drug, and methamphetamine is not an analgesic.
Okay.

How did people who were born in the 30s and 40's ever managed with all of the junk peddled out by the FDA these days?
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#117177 Nov 15, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
If what you say is true , Then You should be worried instead of bragging about your successes
BTW I believe it may have been Lodi or LOL , who once claimed that Atheists ruled this Thread because they were in the Majority , which is true, they have more monikers.
But let us not forget the old axiom
"When the majority rules, it's because the fools are all on one side.
Some come from as far away as Nottingham UK and we just had a recent arrival from the State of Iowa
Iowa state has been around awhile-at least since about the Dust bowl era.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117178 Nov 15, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ignorance and unabitlity to comprehend even the simplest terms is astounding.
Moreover ,you further complicate your discombobulated mental stateby not being able to submit your views on the topic in question.
Since you only have one option and that is to deny God by any means possible ,bar none,you can only throw stinkbombs and post gibberish and nonsense in a futile attempt to defend your indefensible position ,which you dare not state...And it is not only you who fails to do so,,, You know who you are
The self proclaimed intelligent Atheist debaters have been reduced to fishing in the North Atlantic for herrings ,painting them red and posting them in Topix under the guise of Atheist INTELLECTUAL
debating.
You guys need to get a job packing sardines as that seems to be more in tune with your talents
You've had our views.

I can't help it if you don't like the fact that they are more likely than yours.

Stick to your magic,ju-ju and talking animals; there's for you to think.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117179 Nov 15, 2013
curious wrote:
Don't play your foolish games with me.
You do not mean Science over Magic.
You mean Science over God , since the topic being discussed is based on precisely that.
But , you dare not say God ,because that would place you in a more untenable position that the one you have already staked out for yourself.
By "God" you mean one of the many imaginary beings which humans have dreamed up over the centuries.

Sorry, I can't accept your god or indeed any of the other gods are for real.
curious wrote:
Since you dare not voice your view , but instead hide behind Science , let us see where Science stands on the issues in question.
Yes, let's see explanations that don't use magic.
curious wrote:
Science can neither prove or disprove God's existence , thereby Atheist Scientists automatically eliminate God from the equation.
Now they are stuck.
No they're not. They'll only be stuck when yours or someone else's god comes out of hiding and reveals him/her/it/self. There is not a shred of evidence for any gods.
curious wrote:
They have to explain how it is possible that life,intelligence and consciousness can be attained by natural means.
They have completely failed in determining how this may be possible. By their own claim , they have no idea as to how this may occur by natural means.
All they can say is that,since they do not believe in God , then God is not responsible and that life needs no creator , nor does intelligence or consciousness.
They are reduced to" God did not make it happen and we have no idea how how it happened , it has to be by natural means , not by a creator.
There is no evidence whatsoever that supports that opinion .
What they don't do is make things up and pretend to know something that they don't know. It's what you call faith.
curious wrote:
Therefore , Atheist Scientists must resort to try and create life by using their intelligence and latest technology...
In order to prove their point that life does not need an intelligent creator , they Attempt to prove the opposite of what they base their beliefs on.
Like I said, if it took your god billions of years to finally create life, you're being pretty impatient with us mere mortals, aren't you.
curious wrote:
In essence , their beliefs are based on Natural laws ,which have no spiritual or natural existence , are nonliving,nonintelligent and nonconscious and only serve the purpose of explaining the mechanics of how certain events take place.
By their claim that these laws ,with all their inabilities to create anything, since they are merely words used to explain something , are more intelligent by far and posses more abilities by far,than Atheist Intelligence.
You guys need to be careful, Natural laws may put all your brains on recall and replace.
Planters Peanuts will be thrilled with this newa as they will be providing the replacements
What's wrong with believing in a natural universe?

It's what we live in.

Of the millions of explanations that science has provided us with, not one has relied on the supernatural.

Why? Because there's no such thing as the supernatural - it's an invention of frightened, primitive and gullible minds, which is where it remains to this day.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117180 Nov 16, 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.

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.

Laws and natural means are not the Creating agent.
Give me your definition of Intelligent Design {in detail} in your own words

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#117181 Nov 16, 2013
SistaNoneYa wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay.
How did people who were born in the 30s and 40's ever managed with all of the junk peddled out by the FDA these days?
You mean Big Pharma with the bribed blessings of the FDA. Some of it's junk, some of it takes lives, some of it saves lives. Overall, the human lifespan is decreased by personal decisions more than it's lengthened by medications.
The subject wasn't prescription drugs, it is brain damage. Exhibit A: The first word of the topic subject line.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117182 Nov 16, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me your definition of Intelligent Design {in detail} in your own words
I'm guessing his definition will go something like:

Without the gravitational constants and perfect balance of forces we would not have homosexuality.

Therefore his god is a designer who likes homosexuals.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#117183 Nov 16, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> I hope you do not mean to imply that there is an equivalence. The phrase sounds catchy but what do you really mean? It all depends on how one defines right and left of course. There are left libertarians and rightwing libertarians in politics and economics - the leftwing ones emphasize civil liberties, the rightwing ones emphase economic laissez faire, with each man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. Occasionally left, center, and rightwing libertarians may agree on something - for example, if a government uses eminent domain to seize property of an individual, in order to re-sell the property to a big developer with the intent to bring in more tax money. As a left libertarian I find that a decent rightwing libertarian is likely to also oppose that - which I think was upheld by the USSC a few years ago.
If we subdivide the line between left and right long enough, there will be a hundred factions and splinters on each side, so I will only consider the main, more visceral groups for this. I think most people fall into a moderate category.
In conversing with die-hard conservatives, I've found that they often (misrep) resent moderates and left wingers not as much because of policies, but simply because it is their policy. Among their opponents, the tendency is more that the right is criticized for its actions. Truth be told, both parties have more than their share of shortcomings and less than their share of ethics and competence.

Ironically, the left component of the SCOTUS upheld eminent domain "for the economic good of the community" and the right component opposed it. One would think that it would have gone the other way, as prior to the court ruling it was implemented by Texas Gov. Bill Clements for the Carlyle Group in an extremely questionable manner. I wonder if the SCOTUS deliberately overcompensates some decisions to make themselves appear non-partisan.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117184 Nov 16, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
By "God" you mean one of the many imaginary beings which humans have dreamed up over the centuries.
Sorry, I can't accept your god or indeed any of the other gods are for real.
<quoted text>
Yes, let's see explanations that don't use magic.
<quoted text>
No they're not. They'll only be stuck when yours or someone else's god comes out of hiding and reveals him/her/it/self. There is not a shred of evidence for any gods.
<quoted text>
What they don't do is make things up and pretend to know something that they don't know. It's what you call faith.
<quoted text>
Like I said, if it took your god billions of years to finally create life, you're being pretty impatient with us mere mortals, aren't you.
<quoted text>
What's wrong with believing in a natural universe?
It's what we live in.
Of the millions of explanations that science has provided us with, not one has relied on the supernatural.
Why? Because there's no such thing as the supernatural - it's an invention of frightened, primitive and gullible minds, which is where it remains to this day.
By "GOD " I mean the Living Author of creation. Do not attempt to pin your foolish beliefs on me.
If you want to see explanations that don't use magic , you need to stay away from the nonsensical Atheist Scientific explanation that somehow , life originated as the result of an unexplainable accident ,which supposedly occured billions of years ago, in an unnamed place ,not witnessed by anyone,for which there is no written or unwritten record and which no one has personally experienced.
There is absolutely no evidence that life can be created by natural means. Atheist Scientists are frantically trying to create life ,not by natural means ,but by attempting to Design experiments
that will lead them to the correct formula.
So far, they have utterly failed to design and create that which they claim does not need a creator . If that is not an absurd contradiction ,what is?
What Atheist Scientists have done so far,is to deny the Supernatural ,presenting no evidence for that opinion.
That is an unfoundrd belief ,completely based on their faith.
, thereby destroying the argument that"they don't make up things and pretend to know something that they don't know"
That is what YOUR faith is based on, delusions ,contradictions , stinkbombs and excuses.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117185 Nov 16, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm guessing his definition will go something like:
Without the gravitational constants and perfect balance of forces we would not have homosexuality.
Therefore his god is a designer who likes homosexuals.
More inane comments emanating from The Hershey Factory in Pennsylvania , where Nuts are one of the main ingredients used in making candy bars that are detrimental to your Health
hello

Cody, WY

#117186 Nov 16, 2013
No truth.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117187 Nov 16, 2013
SistaNoneYa wrote:
<quoted text>
Iowa state has been around awhile-at least since about the Dust bowl era.
So has Haven't Forgotten,
Only difference is that Iowa has always been known as Iowa and has never had a reason to change it's moniker in order to hide it's identity in order to mislead.
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#117188 Nov 16, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean Big Pharma with the bribed blessings of the FDA. Some of it's junk, some of it takes lives, some of it saves lives. Overall, the human lifespan is decreased by personal decisions more than it's lengthened by medications.
The subject wasn't prescription drugs, it is brain damage. Exhibit A: The first word of the topic subject line.
Listen worm, if I need a translator, I'll ask a brick wall.
hello

Cody, WY

#117189 Nov 16, 2013
Surrender to truth.
hello

Cody, WY

#117190 Nov 16, 2013
Surrender to truth is for 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
Bonita voted no 1 fastest post remover in ky 6 min meet po 2
Prayers Needed 2 hr PleasePray 1
Char partin 2 hr Lol 8
rodney at the jail (Jun '11) 2 hr Freakness 30
can someone tell me y it is so hard to get divo... 2 hr helper 6
Wet vote already DESTROYING Barbourville!!!! 2 hr Freakness 22
Who owns the Barbourville Vendors Mall 2 hr BallGame 1
Teaching jobs 3 hr Mary 8
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages