Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 163321 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

#128469 Apr 17, 2014
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
You have just posted some inane rantings that are the dumbest thing ever.
You seem to be of the opinion that sex outside of marriage has no adverse consequences on the individual, the family , community or society at large.
That we should all do as we find pleasurable and consequences be damned. No rules are needed or wanted.
Sex at any age , any time ,anywhere with anybody.
Get pregnant , get an abortion , kill the child.
If you give birth and can't support the child , go on welfare and keep having more kids , no father in the house , Kids having kids........
You want unrestricted behaviour in order to fulfill your carnal desires and I understand that , but, it does not make it right..........
That is not what I think at all, but know it is the propaganda you believe of all atheists. Maybe try asking me what I believe instead of just assuming. I asked you and you again refused to answer. I will try again. Do you feel we should have a law that punishes a woman by death penalty for having sex before marriage? You claim it works so well, I am just curious if you feel it appropriate for today?
I do not doubt it does work to some degree, but that does not make it appropriate in my opinion. I just wonder why you seem afraid to tell us your opinion of it being law today?
Are you afraid your answer will show your flaws?
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#128470 Apr 17, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>At no time have I ever claimed that theists do not exist. What I debate about is your erratic beliefs. That belief is that god exists.
Well, in all your attempts to disprove God's existence have ended in futile failure.
If I am not mistaken , have not you and other atheists on this forum admitted to the pssibility that a God or Gods exists?
It seems that your faith is shaking and on unstable ground..........
Libertarian

Cadiz, KY

#128471 Apr 17, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Slave revolts. Plebian revolts. Peasant revolts. French Revolution. Chinese Revolution. The Arab Spring.
Inequality is the biggest cause of civil unrest. Poor people aren't very happy. Unhappy people will cause problems. It's not complicated.
Tocqueville was writing about this 200 years ago.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/ch3_2...
People in the middle class are *comfortable*. They don't want to upset things because they still have a lot to loose. Having a large middle class, and reducing poverty, leads to more stability, not less.
With the exception of Haiti, an unusual case because of the fact that it took place on an island on the opposite side of an ocean controlled by the British navy that prevented France from bringing the full force of its military power to bear, there has never been a successful slave revolt. They were all inevitably crushed. Likewise there has never been a successful peasant revolt. The French Revolution was a revolt by the frustrated middle class against the aristocrats. It was not a working class revolt, though socialists and communists tell the lie that it was. The Chinese revolution was a revolt led by people with aspirations to middle class status who could not attain that status and became leaders of the illiterate peasant bandit gangs in the countryside, Mao foremost. They could not have done that if the Chinese government had not been preoccupied fighting Japan. The Arab Spring? It was led and carried out by people who had been educated to expect a middle class lifestyle in an economic structure that could not provide enough jobs for them all. Egypt educated far too many people to to high a level. The government then provided jobs for them - until the expense of doing it became too great. Then the Arab Spring middle class revolt led to an Islamist takeover. The secular government and military then crushed both the would-be middle class and the Islamists.
Libertarian

Cadiz, KY

#128472 Apr 17, 2014
True, "Having a large middle class, and reducing poverty, leads to more stability, not less."

The trouble is not having a large middle class. The trouble comes when a society educates (and indoctrinates) people from the working class to expect a middle class lifestyle and status. Revolutions happen when those people can't attain what they have been taught to expect simply because the middle class does not have enough seats at the table to accommodate them all.

Our American situation is unique in that our "free and compulsory" tax supported public schools teach that if someone gets a certain level of education they are supposed to get a certain kind of (better) job and we have a welfare system that allows people who otherwise would have to take the labor job to become parasites on the middle and upper class taxpayers.
Libertarian

Cadiz, KY

#128473 Apr 17, 2014
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>

Let's say I'm in the low rung of your class structure. I'm the guy who cleans the toilets. In your world an education costs money. Y'know, it's a market. So I want my kid to have a better life. But how am I gonna even know what that means? I can't read. I don't make much money. My kid will end up a toilet cleaner too. Even if he's brilliant.

No thanks. Public education, or we sink. I've got my checkbook out ready to write the check for your kids to go. What about you?
Problem is, Mr. Toilet Cleaner, your bank account does not have enough money in it to cover the check even if you do write one.

In the USA today, there are somewhere around 90 million employed people. Slightly over half of them pay enough in taxes to pay more into the Treasury than they draw out in benefits. A few over 45 million taxpayers pay the tax bills that support the rest. If you include K-12 education the number of taxpayers who pay the bills shrinks even more. On top of that, a great many of the supporting taxpayers either do not have children or send their children to private schools which they have to pay for. They are thus paying for their own children's educations plus supporting the vast majority who do not pay their own way in "free" public schools.

Frankly, people who do pay the bills are getting damned tired of it.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#128474 Apr 17, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at curious attempt to put a spotlight on individual atheists who condone bad things while ignoring the fact that his religion explicitly condoned rape, slavery, and genocide.
I don't follow any other atheists. You follow your religion.
My faith is based on the Teachings of my Lord,Jesus Christ.
His mission was to fulfill the Old testament and provide us with a new covenant.
Your unbelief has blinded your eyes and you are incapable of understanding the difference.
Individual or not , they are still atheists who look to justify their immoral behaviour by any means possible . That is one of the many problems of atheism , each person is left to decide for themselves , based on their human nature's desires, what is moral and what is not.
That is why Witchetty could self righteously claim that ;She has never committed an act for which she needs be ashamed , that is why Peter singer isa ble to condone beastiality, that is why Leonard Krauss can defend incest , that is why Nambla can condone sex with children, that is the basis for condoning necrpphelia , that is the basis for Dawkins condoning being molested by one of his teachers and why MM O"HAIR condoned unrestricted and unsupervised sex begining at the age of 10.
Those are the views held by self proclaimed atheists..........
Obviously , those atheists adhere to a decadent moral code based on nothing else but justifying their search for immoral pleasure at whatever the cost......

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#128475 Apr 17, 2014
Libertarian wrote:
<quoted text>
With the exception of Haiti, an unusual case because of the fact that it took place on an island on the opposite side of an ocean controlled by the British navy that prevented France from bringing the full force of its military power to bear, there has never been a successful slave revolt. They were all inevitably crushed. Likewise there has never been a successful peasant revolt.
The success rate of such revolts is irrelevant. The fact is that such societies are unstable and prone to violence.
Libertarian wrote:
The French Revolution was a revolt by the frustrated middle class against the aristocrats. It was not a working class revolt, though socialists and communists tell the lie that it was. The Chinese revolution was a revolt led by people with aspirations to middle class status who could not attain that status and became leaders of the illiterate peasant bandit gangs in the countryside, Mao foremost. They could not have done that if the Chinese government had not been preoccupied fighting Japan. The Arab Spring? It was led and carried out by people who had been educated to expect a middle class lifestyle in an economic structure that could not provide enough jobs for them all. Egypt educated far too many people to to high a level. The government then provided jobs for them - until the expense of doing it became too great. Then the Arab Spring middle class revolt led to an Islamist takeover. The secular government and military then crushed both the would-be middle class and the Islamists.
The French Revolution involved the poor masses. The Chinese Revolution was people who aspired to be middle class? I think we call that the poor. The Arab Spring has significant roots in poor socioeconomic conditions aka the poor.

So, again, large amounts of poor unhappy people = instability. How much violence and instability do we see in 1st world nations, those dominated by large middle classes, compared to 3rd world nations, which exhibit vast wealth disparities between elites and the poor?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#128476 Apr 17, 2014
Libertarian wrote:
The trouble is not having a large middle class. The trouble comes when a society educates (and indoctrinates) people from the working class to expect a middle class lifestyle and status.
You don't want working class people to have any motivation or opportunity to try to move up in the world? They're just supposed to stay as the working poor, and be happy about it?
Libertarian wrote:
Revolutions happen when those people can't attain what they have been taught to expect simply because the middle class does not have enough seats at the table to accommodate them all.
Revolutions happen when people are extremely unhappy and have little to lose.
Libertarian wrote:
Our American situation is unique in that our "free and compulsory" tax supported public schools teach that if someone gets a certain level of education they are supposed to get a certain kind of (better) job and we have a welfare system that allows people who otherwise would have to take the labor job to become parasites on the middle and upper class taxpayers.
Our situation is not unique. Virtually all 1st world nations follow the same model. Social services are not in place to create parasites, but to help people who are not doing well maintain a minimum standard of living. Why? Again, poor desperate people create problems.
Known FRact

Kissimmee, FL

#128477 Apr 17, 2014
KarlMarxthespot wrote:
<quoted text> Gabriel, the arch angel in the Bible, is the one that instructed Muhammad in the Quran. Gabriel is of the same God, therefore, Allah is the same God as the biblical one. I do not hate Zeus or Krishna, for they are misinterpreted versions of the same God. Christ's suffering was cruel, but it was to show what God was willing to do to save mankind. Also, how in the hell do you know what God would do or not do??? He has given us all the materials that we need to survive. He has given us a planet that has all the needed nutrition and shelter. Mankind should stop whining and realize that the pain that they go through is largely brought upon themselves by their own actions. And NO I did not compare unarmed women and children to rabid dogs. I am just saying it is the same concept. Put your emotions aside for once and take in the Truth. I do not understand why you suggest raping rabid dogs, maybe that is your own inner desire to do so coming out for the world to see, but I will concede to you on this, I believe that it was man's decision to rape these women, not God's decision. Why God didn't stop them, I don't know. Maybe he was giving others the chance to prevent it from happening. Although God did innitiate many seemingly horrendous things upon mankind in the Old Testament, I believe that many of the so-called laws and actions taken by man in the Old Testament were not of divine origin. The version of God that I mainly focus on resides in the New Testament, although the Old Testament has its truths as well.
Correction: Gabriel is not an archangel the word arch means the very top. Gabriel does not occupy that position. Michael is the archangel and is second only to Jehovah God. The name Michael means "who is like God"
ChristWarrior

Louisburg, NC

#128478 Apr 17, 2014
Known FRact wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction: Gabriel is not an archangel the word arch means the very top. Gabriel does not occupy that position. Michael is the archangel and is second only to Jehovah God. The name Michael means "who is like God"
My apologies. Thank you for the correction.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#128479 Apr 17, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>That is not what I think at all, but know it is the propaganda you believe of all atheists. Maybe try asking me what I believe instead of just assuming. I asked you and you again refused to answer. I will try again. Do you feel we should have a law that punishes a woman by death penalty for having sex before marriage? You claim it works so well, I am just curious if you feel it appropriate for today?
I do not doubt it does work to some degree, but that does not make it appropriate in my opinion. I just wonder why you seem afraid to tell us your opinion of it being law today?
Are you afraid your answer will show your flaws?
Not all atheists may subscribe to the decadent behaviour that I have posted, however, the point remains. Atheism does not have a moral code, each person is left to decide for himself/herself what is acceptable behaviour based on their selfish human nature's desire.
That is why Peter Singer can condone beastiality. As he stated" some men can find pleasure in a sheeps vagina.
That is why Lawrence Krauss can justify incest,,, and I can go on and on. Inessence , it is not a search for that which is moral , but that which brings pleasure,regardless of the consequences.
My faith is not based on OT teachings....I try,as much as possible,to follow the NT teachings as authored by Jesus Christ.
I am sure that you are aware of his instructions to the woman caught in adultery and to those who would judge her.. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
Then ,jesus said , woman where are your accusers,has no one condemed you and she said , no one lord and Jesus said , neither do I condem you, and instructed her Go AND SIN NO MORE
Christ ,under the new testament , does not advocate stoning, neither do I
Libertarian

Cadiz, KY

#128480 Apr 17, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The success rate of such revolts is irrelevant. The fact is that such societies are unstable and prone to violence.
<quoted text>
The French Revolution involved the poor masses. The Chinese Revolution was people who aspired to be middle class? I think we call that the poor. The Arab Spring has significant roots in poor socioeconomic conditions aka the poor.
So, again, large amounts of poor unhappy people = instability. How much violence and instability do we see in 1st world nations, those dominated by large middle classes, compared to 3rd world nations, which exhibit vast wealth disparities between elites and the poor?
You are wrong. Simply spouting what the Socialist educational system has indoctrinated you to believe.

Balanced societies, those in which people are educated to the level necessary to do their jobs in the socio-economic pyramid are NOT unstable. They are in fact very stable.

Revolutions happen when, and only when, too many people are led to expect too high a position in the socio-economic pyramid. It has long been a known fact that "revolutions happen only in times of rising expectations." When an educational system is the foundation of those unfulfillable rising expectations, it is a positive danger.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#128481 Apr 17, 2014
Libertarian wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. Simply spouting what the Socialist educational system has indoctrinated you to believe.
You're wrong. And simply spouting typical libertarian BS.

What education system did you attend?
Libertarian wrote:
Balanced societies, those in which people are educated to the level necessary to do their jobs in the socio-economic pyramid are NOT unstable. They are in fact very stable.
Yes, your "healthy" societies where the majority of people are poor and miserable, with countless examples of revolt, rioting, and violence, are super stable.

Are you going to tell me why the nations which have large middle classes are so much more stable than those with small middle classes and large wealth disparities between rich and poor? Or are we just going to pretend that's not the case?

Just curious: out of the following traits, which ones are a hit for you:
15-25 years old?
White?
Male?
Middle to upper-middle class?
ChristWarrior

Louisburg, NC

#128482 Apr 17, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at curious attempt to put a spotlight on individual atheists who condone bad things while ignoring the fact that his religion explicitly condoned rape, slavery, and genocide.
I don't follow any other atheists. You follow your religion.
Curious is merely pointing out the fact that you are being a hypocrite for suggesting Christians are bad, while not pointing out the flaws of your own group of like-minded people (Hmmm! Hmmm!, atheists, Hmmm! Hmmm!). Atheists killed far more people in the 20th century than any Christian leaders ever did, and for far more sinister reasons. Have you ever heard of the Holodomor of 1933 in Ukraine? Atheist Bolsheviks intentionally cut off all food supplies to Ukraine, destroyed all of their food crops, leading to the death by starvation of 10 million largely Christian Ukrainians within a year. Why did they do this to the Ukrainians? Only because they did not want to follow atheistic Communism! Of course, you will probably enter and exit this website several times over so that you can give negative judgement icons to this statement, giving the impression that multiple people think that what I am saying is wrong, but in reality, what I am saying is the truth! Get used to it and get out of "The_Box"!

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#128483 Apr 17, 2014
ChristWarrior wrote:
<quoted text> Curious is merely pointing out the fact that you are being a hypocrite for suggesting Christians are bad, while not pointing out the flaws of your own group of like-minded people
But I'm not saying Christians are bad. I'm saying *Christianity* is bad. There's a very clear difference there.
ChristWarrior wrote:
Atheists killed far more people in the 20th century than any Christian leaders ever did, and for far more sinister reasons. Have you ever heard of the Holodomor of 1933 in Ukraine? Atheist Bolsheviks intentionally cut off all food supplies to Ukraine, destroyed all of their food crops, leading to the death by starvation of 10 million largely Christian Ukrainians within a year. Why did they do this to the Ukrainians? Only because they did not want to follow atheistic Communism!
This was a politically motivated genocide. What does it have to do with atheism? Atheism has no tenets. There is no book telling atheists to commit such acts.
ChristWarrior wrote:
Of course, you will probably enter and exit this website several times over so that you can give negative judgement icons to this statement, giving the impression that multiple people think that what I am saying is wrong, but in reality, what I am saying is the truth! Get used to it and get out of "The_Box"!
I never use nor read those weird icons, nor do I use any accounts other than this one. Why would anyone care about those icons? They do nothing.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#128484 Apr 17, 2014
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
NOOOOOOOO, I am not misinformed , their own words condem their behaviour,as you well know ,but can not admit.
Peter Singer, in his own words ,has claimed that beastiality is permissible as long as the animal in question is not harmed and consents to the act.
Pets are in no position to consent nor understand what consent entails.
To have sex with your pet is rape and most certainly the pet is being abused.
Hitchens , in a debate with William Craig , although he tried to avoid answering the question,finally admitted that beastiality was acceptable.
Lawrence Krauss ,in a debate,condoned incest.
Under the excuse that as long as the victim consents , necrophilia has also been condoned.
That excuse is not only immoral , it is laughable for obvious reasons and points to the irrational lengths that atheists will go to in order to justify their decadent morality.
NAMBLA is another example ,founded by atheist homosexuals , they attempt to abolish and weaken our child protection laws..... Those arre facts, not misinformation.....
Jesus. You even go to NAMBLA? You are fairly despicable. And no, you do not understand Peter Singer's point. I have actually read his opinion on this matter. It is provocative, but he is not saying what you are cartoonishly saying. You are basing this entire thread on a strawman argument.

And by the way, I don't agree entirely with Peter Singer so please don't start pulling that move. Represent his arguments correctly and disagree with them intellectually or you will not be taken seriously.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#128485 Apr 17, 2014
Libertarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem is, Mr. Toilet Cleaner, your bank account does not have enough money in it to cover the check even if you do write one.
In the USA today, there are somewhere around 90 million employed people. Slightly over half of them pay enough in taxes to pay more into the Treasury than they draw out in benefits. A few over 45 million taxpayers pay the tax bills that support the rest. If you include K-12 education the number of taxpayers who pay the bills shrinks even more. On top of that, a great many of the supporting taxpayers either do not have children or send their children to private schools which they have to pay for. They are thus paying for their own children's educations plus supporting the vast majority who do not pay their own way in "free" public schools.
Frankly, people who do pay the bills are getting damned tired of it.
And you think the solution is consigning untold numbers of people to poverty and ignorance? You do not understand reality, my friend. You seem like an idealist.

Your world view would be great if we all wanted to live out a Mad Max movie.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#128486 Apr 17, 2014
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Not all atheists may subscribe to the decadent behaviour that I have posted, however, the point remains. Atheism does not have a moral code, each person is left to decide for himself/herself what is acceptable behaviour based on their selfish human nature's desire.
Wrong. I am an atheist and I can assure you have a "moral code". Earlier when I pointed out that the Bible condones stoning people to death for homosexuality you were OK with that. I am not OK with that.

My atheist moral code seems to be superior to your Christian moral code. I at least recognize that stoning people to death for homosexuality is wrong. I also recognize that killing a woman because she had sex before marriage is also wrong.

I don't think you share my opinion, based on your own arguments.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#128487 Apr 17, 2014
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
That is why Lawrence Krauss can justify incest,,, and I can go on and on.
Hey what do you know! I just happened to listen to Krauss today and he brought this up. Here is the point he was making:

If a brother and sister want to have sex and they are responsible enough to use protection to avoid pregnancy then what moral are they violating? Who has been harmed? No child is being conceived so you can't make any sort of biological argument against it.

That is his argument in a nutshell. He is not "advocating incest". He is making a point about the nature of morality, specifically that it is not a fixed, Biblical code. It is much, much more complex than that and we need to take the topic seriously if we want to live in a better world.

The cartoon nature of Biblical morality doesn't work. See the previous discussions about stoning to see what I mean.
Libertarian

Cadiz, KY

#128488 Apr 17, 2014
ChristWarrior wrote:
<quoted text> Curious is merely pointing out the fact that you are being a hypocrite for suggesting Christians are bad, while not pointing out the flaws of your own group of like-minded people (Hmmm! Hmmm!, atheists, Hmmm! Hmmm!). Atheists killed far more people in the 20th century than any Christian leaders ever did, and for far more sinister reasons. Have you ever heard of the Holodomor of 1933 in Ukraine? Atheist Bolsheviks intentionally cut off all food supplies to Ukraine, destroyed all of their food crops, leading to the death by starvation of 10 million largely Christian Ukrainians within a year. Why did they do this to the Ukrainians? Only because they did not want to follow atheistic Communism! Of course, you will probably enter and exit this website several times over so that you can give negative judgement icons to this statement, giving the impression that multiple people think that what I am saying is wrong, but in reality, what I am saying is the truth! Get used to it and get out of "The_Box"!
I am not supporting "The Box's" militant atheism, but what you say here is true. The largest genocide in history was the work of Chinese Christian converts who went down an apocalyptic road. Ever hear of the Taiping Rebellion? At least 20 million dead. Some put the death toll at 25 million. That was a higher body count than the Bolsheviks in Ukraine and the Nazis in the Holocaust combined managed to rack up.

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
Can you Remember Life before the Internet? 13 min The Specialist 8
ainsi agatha bijoux soldes que des visites 45 min agathaparis 1
Jimmy mills 50 min Tim Lawson 1
Sav a lot 5 hr Maggie 14
I would like to know if any Knox county teacher... 6 hr Truth 62
Jackson manor 6 hr Curious 27
Sherry bar 6 hr The Real Yeti 14

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages