Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 138134 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.

“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

Ocoee, 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

Ocoee, 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

Ocoee, 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

Somerset, 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.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#117191 Nov 16, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Why are you such a hypocrite? Is that what your beliefs tell you to be?

You talk about lack of evidence and then go on to insist the universe was magicked together.

Your ridiculous creation story involves a talking snake a fruit tree and a disobedient woman.

You prefer myth and magic over science.

It doesn't matter how you dress it up, your faith is simply you pretending to know something that you don't really know. Your faith is irrational and deluded. You fill the gaps in our knowledge with ancient superstition and ju-ju.

Anyway, speaking of getting dressed up..was Jesus a cross dresser?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#117192 Nov 16, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Calm down, I can understand you're mad with yourself for being suckered into believing in ancient myth.
Parent

Clintwood, VA

#117193 Nov 16, 2013
I agree

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117194 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.
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me your definition of Intelligent Design {in detail} in your own words
In case you missed it here is the question again: Give me your definition of Intelligent Design {in detail} in your own words....I find it interesting that you can give explicit reasons as to why it must be intelligent design yet cannot give a simple definition of what you think Intelligent Design means.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#117195 Nov 16, 2013
Well alas, it's obvious Curious is not going to elaborate on the meaning of Intelligent Design..so I will let the Discovery Institute, perhaps the most visible and vocal mouthpiece for the ID cause, explain precisely what ID is:
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
....Curious, would you agree with that definition?
curious

Ocoee, FL

#117196 Nov 16, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you such a hypocrite? Is that what your beliefs tell you to be?
You talk about lack of evidence and then go on to insist the universe was magicked together.
Your ridiculous creation story involves a talking snake a fruit tree and a disobedient woman.
You prefer myth and magic over science.
It doesn't matter how you dress it up, your faith is simply you pretending to know something that you don't really know. Your faith is irrational and deluded. You fill the gaps in our knowledge with ancient superstition and ju-ju.
Anyway, speaking of getting dressed up..was Jesus a cross dresser?
Seems that your faith has led you into the mental state of idiotism and noncomprehension.
You try to imply that the criteria for my beliefs are the same criteria you have for your beliefs.
At no time have I mentioned magic as the basis for my beliefs.
If I were to believe , as Atheist Scientists do , that natural laws are able to create life,intelligence and consciousness where none existed previously,then I would be using magic as the basis for my faith.
WE KNOW THAT LAWS ARE INCAPABLE of creating or designing anything.
The laws of nature are merely a series of words which we use in explaining how things may or do occur.
Abracadabra is a "magical" word and is quite uncapable of creating all the abovementioned properties which humans posses.
That is the formula that you base your faith on and Atheist Scientists subscribe to;
"That which has no previous existence and has no way of knowing that it has never existed is somehow capable of self creating properties that are so complex and pass them on to nonliving,nonconscious and nonintelligent matter."
And Atheist Scientists , determined to prove that life does not need a creator and determined to prove their point , are doing so by attempting to create life in their laboratories.
That is the type of logic that one expects to find among imbecilic ,idiotic and raving lunatics.
Of course , you choose to defend that faith by claiming you don't believe in Magic.....
And you may be right ,you don't believe in Magic.
Your faith is based on less than magic , it is based on lunacy.

BTW Hersheys is looking for some Atheist nuts to put into their new candy bar. The wrapper will carry an emblem of the moon and will be named LUNATIC in honor of it's primary ingredient

curious

Ocoee, FL

#117197 Nov 16, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
Well alas, it's obvious Curious is not going to elaborate on the meaning of Intelligent Design..so I will let the Discovery Institute, perhaps the most visible and vocal mouthpiece for the ID cause, explain precisely what ID is:
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
....Curious, would you agree with that definition?
Foolish one , You finally went and did for yourself what you wanted me to do for you...
Moreover , your temper tantrum which led you to say you were going to put me on "IGNORE" was exactly that , a temper tantrum.
Seems you went to the vet and got a distemper shot.
I am not a Scientist.
My belief of ID is based on my belief that " that which does not posses nor is aware of certain properties " natural laws" is somehow able to create those properties , not for itself , but in order to pass them on to what we know as matter.
If you can explain to me , how all that can be made possible , then I will have to rethink my position.
In case you forgot,the properties in question are Lifr, intelligence and consciousness.
BTW If you are going to contact Khatru , MD , CHroe or any of the others in order to bombard me with smokescreens and stinkbombs
Fugedaboutit... I have become immune to them

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#117198 Nov 16, 2013
SistaNoneYa wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen worm, if I need a translator, I'll ask a brick wall.
That would explain it.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#117199 Nov 16, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Calm down, I can understand you're mad with yourself for being suckered into believing in ancient myth.
Foolish one , I am as calm as the eye of a storm.
It is you and the legion of fools that inhabit this website that need be worried
Soon,all of you will be the main Ingredient for HERSHEYS NEWEST CANDY BAR.
As soon as consumers find out that the main ingredient is composed of Atheist Nuts ,they will refuse to buy and you will sit on the shelves for years on end and become stale , much like your Atheist Faith.

I see that you also posted as Parent ,agreeing with this post.
What a Klutz.......

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117200 Nov 16, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Is god of life? If so, then life must have created it, unless you change the rules you just laid out.
Fact is, you have double standards for your version of life starting, so this game is fixed.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117201 Nov 16, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
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"
Quoting something and posting a link are two very different things. I have yet to see a link.
Btw, this was not in reference to his drinking, as it is irrelevant to his logic. Nice diversion though.
Again, you have yet to show the context of his claims. You simply believe some article that shows no logical reason for the statement.
And as others have shown, he has made the claim in the context of showing an example of a poor belief.
So face it, even shit faced drunk, you have nothing to pin on Hitchens so you resort to lying.
Compared to Moses and king David, he is a saint. He had no one killed unjustly as they certainly did.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#117202 Nov 16, 2013
preacher wrote:
<quoted text>there's no such thing as separation of church an state.... we need the church in the state, but not the state in the church....
So the state should promote Mohamed and institute sharia law? Get ready for some war.
This is why their is a separation of church and state.

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
Ralph smith 38 min lol 5
Taylor Jordan 54 min yup 1
divorce lawyer 1 hr over it 6
where did wild roses go? 1 hr nature lover 1
KC baseball 2 hr fixthis 2
Who is your man Boo ? 6 hr lepracan 6
steven bingham love triangle 11 hr Just saying 1
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]