Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 165516 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

#134124 Jul 14, 2014
wwwcurious wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly should not bother you ,since you don't believe in his existence...Yet, the thought of God keeps you posting about his nonexistence on a fairly regular basis. Guess if you believed in Him you'd spend 30 hours a day writing about Him
Something odd about someone devoting so much time writing about God, whom you don't believe in.
I daresay, you atheists devote more time to God than many who claim to believe.
I guess you missed the idea of it simply pointing out your hypocrisy.

It does fascinate me when I see so many that firmly believe in a god, or the idea Jesus was a deity, yet do not bother to read the book that is claimed to be the words of said god. It makes me think somewhere in their mind, they really have some doubts the book is authentic.
SNYB

Hudson, OH

#134125 Jul 14, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Well no one here ever claimed floods did not exist in ancient times as they do now. But for some odd reason you keep acting as if the atheists do make this claim. I figure it is your desperate attempt to divert.
I also hear no atheists demanding others they are not allowed to believe in dogma, or mythical floods.
Now I see no harm being done by informing people the flood contradicts the known science of the day. You see, I think information is good. Seems you have no problem when the flood stories are pushed on us, but you have serious problems when someone tells the other side, that has evidence to back it up.
This is why I call you Sistadoublestandard.
Well, my doublestandard thinks you are a bit of an extremist exaggerator, in that I seriously doubt anyone has your ears or eyes tied to an audio or retina receptive device, "forcing" or "pushing" you to listen to any "flood stories", Mr pitchfork and torch age histrionics.

You choose to do that of your own free choice...just like the rest of us posting on here.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#134126 Jul 14, 2014
wwwcurious wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Crow,you atheists are part and parcel of the insane group that claims Nothing created Something from nothing while self proclaiming their insanity as sanity.
You ,Yiago and the rest of you atheists believe and have faith in the atheist magical miracle
"Nothing can create something from nothing, we just can not explain how this may be possible.
We don't even dare attempt to explain it for fear of making further fools of ourselves.
We have learned our lesson, better to be thought a fool and say nothing,than to open our mouths and remove all doubt
So you could not refute the comment? Diversion is your only friend.
ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, I mostly post about how f'ed up y'all's thinking is and how y'all are so often just bass ackward plain wrong. I guess you've been too preoccupied with your delusions to notice
SNYB

Hudson, OH

#134127 Jul 14, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>You mean like the task of calling people names in your nasty way? I can see that takes up a lot of your time. Diverting from the debate seems to consume your time also.
Let's take a guess here-now you're claiming to have some sort of majikcurl insight as to how I use MY time?

Consider yourself omnipresent much Duquette?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#134128 Jul 14, 2014
SNYB wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, my doublestandard thinks you are a bit of an extremist exaggerator, in that I seriously doubt anyone has your ears or eyes tied to an audio or retina receptive device, "forcing" or "pushing" you to listen to any "flood stories", Mr pitchfork and torch age histrionics.
You choose to do that of your own free choice...just like the rest of us posting on here.
Did I say "forcing"? Nope, that would be an exaggeration of what I said.
SNYB

Hudson, OH

#134129 Jul 14, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, debating nonsensical comments often does lead me to look things up. I do learn from debating. Not that I think it was your goal.
The image the bible paints of Noah is nothing like the image Einstein's words painted of himself.
I can see you refuse to understand this simple concept.
Why would they be?

There's a good deal of difference between the theory of relativity and common sense, even if common sense would relatively equate out to having a decent floating apparatus in a flood.
SNYB

Hudson, OH

#134130 Jul 14, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I fully aware you turn the other cheek to those who literally believe in the bible as they insist we atheists are mentally unstable for not believing as they.
You do not turn the other cheek to atheists, you cast the first stone. It is called a double standard, Sister.
We've already been there--Duhquette.

Need a refresher?
I(!) don't form opinion based upon labelDUHm labels and consider them all the same. YOU however, seem to.
SNYB

Hudson, OH

#134131 Jul 14, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Yet you did give an opinion of him. I have yet to hear you waver of the opinion you gave, so it seems to be concrete to you. I showed much evidence that opinion has flaws, yet you divert when it is presented. So it seems as if you refuse to allow it to be a factor in your opinion making.
I was not around back then either. That is why I keep pointing out that I am basing my opinion upon what the bible claims, and what Einstein said.
I cannot know just what you think, I can only go by the words you write.
Probably because you and I have different opinions, Duquette.
You have yours, and I have mine.

C'est la vie...in the real world.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#134133 Jul 14, 2014
wwwcurious wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Science has failed,as have others and there is no reason to believe they will find an explanation other than, nothing can not create something out of nothing. Therefore God.
You certainly have not made an effort to give a plausible explanation,BECAUSE YOUR faith does not have one , All you can do is avoid the issue by hoping that someday science can explain,, Your faith is not wellfounded anything based on excuses never is...
You Are a loser and you know it but can't admit it
The fruits of atheism are based on false hopes and the magical miracles of atheism
Nothing can create something out of Nothing, sciencew fiction that can be found in atheism,which atheists lack the courage to defend
The atheist credo is based on a Beatles song I'm a loser"
Science has failed?

Says you, who believes in magic.

Science is the investigation of the universe using observation and reason and it provides us with the best explanations we have. The expectation and trust I place in science is down to it's astounding and brilliantly successful track record career of explaining and predicting nature.

In fact, science has been so amazingly incredibly successful that I rightly expect it to carry on succeeding as it goes from strength to strength and explains our reality without the need to invoke magic and superstition.

Contrast the astounding success rate of science with religion and what do we get? What are your religion's successes in explaining our reality.

The Bible tells us about a flat earth with four corners under a dome. This earth is orbited by the sun. You've got a ration of three for pi, cud chewing rabbits, giants, dragons, witches and unicorns as well as talking snakes and donkeys.

The lesson to be learned is that science provides us with real and tangible truths while religion relies on superstitious mumbo jumbo.
SNYB

Hudson, OH

#134134 Jul 14, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>99% of the Christians on this forum believe in the bible as it reads, verbatim. I am on your side here, as I do not believe it as it reads.
I do not believe Moses was as the bible reads. I do not believe the events happens as it reads. But the Christians here do. Yet you are passive to them, while you condemn me for pointing out how it is not logical to believe the bible as it reads verbatim.
I never claimed you were a Falwell fan. I claimed the bible describes Noah as having the same mentality as Falwell.
This is not all about you.
That's YOUR interpretation and opinion Duquette.

And you are certainly entitled to it, just as others are entitled to theirs...no need to juveniley "pick a side" Duquette, because certainly it is not all about me, nor is it all about you either.

However, I will venture on to say (since you pursue such further) I am also of the opinion, that Noah was more likely more of a "common man"... and Einstien less of one...Einstien perhaps more apt to surround himself with those who shared interest in the same areas that he himself pursued. Preacher Falwell, I would consider to be more of commercial type nature, than either Noah OR Einstien...more like an antiquities version of a CEO, at the heads of the tables among the many temple vendors...unlike Einstien at all, or Noah even in that aspect.

And I see no need for anyone to ascribe to, or attack a "labeled" sector of any sort, to express their opinion.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#134135 Jul 14, 2014
wwwcurious wrote:
<quoted text>
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, I'm not wrong,if I was,you would present the evidence.
Now,let us put your unreliable credibility to the test again.
YOU SAID that although inceast makes your skin crawl, you could condone it under what you called a small window.
This small window comprised of 3 parts...
1) consensual, both parties had 2 consent
2) Both parties had to be of legal age
3) A contraceptive or protection had to be used so as to prevent pregnancy.
Under those conditions ,you stated that you could condone incest
So,I ask you again,If your son wanted to have an incestuous relationship with your daughter,as long as those conditions that YOU specified are met,would you intervene or would that degenerate behaviour be acceptable to you.
If your son wanted to have an incestual relationship with his mother,your wife and your conditions were met,would you intervene or would that type of degenerate behaviour be acceptable to you
If your son wanted to have an incestual relationship with his grandmothrt,your mother,would you intervene or would that type of degenerate behaviour be acceptable to you.
Put your money where your mouth is,, Defend your beliefs...Answer the questions.
YOU are the one that made those statements, now stand behind them or denounce them
If you deviate from the subject ,I will take that to mean that you stand behind your statements and conditions and would permit your son to have sex with his sister,his mother and his grandmother and that you find that behaviour morally acceptable....
Ignoring it will not make it go away as Iam Always ther to remind you"
Dionne Warwick 1967
Go back and read my posts and you'll see that I refer to a fourth condition.

I am responsible for what I say and not what you think I said.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#134136 Jul 14, 2014
chinwendu1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not straight.
God is sovereign true but has given us certain authorities. We are not like robots or like a computer already programmed. We have free will and we, our choices are a factor because we are free to choose. God does not give cancer. There is scripture that says if we being evil know how to give good things to our children, what more God. So please do not receive this twisted image of God, as it is being used to deceive many. There is not one account in the New Testament where Jesus gave anyone any sickness, etc. If any one can find an account, please share it? As well, if God did such, then Jesus would be undoing what God did, isn't that correct?
Matthew 12:25 (KJV)
25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand;
If you haven't read the Bible for yourself, I would respectfully suggest your doing so and maybe start with the book of John in the New Testament. As well, an older version. My preference is King James Version and New Living Translation but there are others. Though, I know God exist without a shadow of doubt, there are many who do not know or believe it but don't let any of us sway you...please find out for yourself?
Oh, there you are.

Any chance of responding to the many posts I made to you?

Your constant failure to refute is becoming quite conspicuous now.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#134137 Jul 14, 2014
chinwendu1 wrote:
God did not create evil...all that God created was good.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Isaiah 45:7

==========
Looks like the supreme creator being of the universe disagrees with you.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#134138 Jul 14, 2014
chinwendu1 wrote:
God is a very effective communicator and has done so in numerous ways.
One of my many posts you failed to refute highlighted one particular contradiction in the Bible.

An effective communicator would have no contradictions in his message

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#134139 Jul 14, 2014
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>Again....
No he was NOT a Liberal!
for one example...
He told the adulterous women, that he did not condemn her, AND
to Go, and Sin NO More!
Can you see the contrast here, or are you too Liberal?
If so... I'll explain it to you later!
Yes he WAS a Liberal!
for one example
He fed the 5000 people for free

If Jesus was conservative he would not have provided free food. He would have told the crowd that they should feed themselves because if he did it, they would lose the incentive to do it for themselves and become dependent on him.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#134140 Jul 14, 2014
Wrong again Sparky wrote:
<quoted text>No it is NOT!
That is a Liberal lie!
Come over to the UK

You'd love it here because there is no separation between church and state.

On second thoughts,you might not because even with a state religion, we are much more atheistic than you guys.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#134141 Jul 14, 2014
Yes and Amen wrote:
Repent, Evilution will not save you,
Only Christ can do that!
Repent?

What? Like your god repents?

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#134142 Jul 14, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
An atheist believes the existence of God can be disproved. So please atheists, tell me how one of you has done that?
Oh No!

Here comes SevenTee to scatter us unbelievers with his sword of truth and shield of righteousness.

Surely we are undone!

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#134143 Jul 14, 2014
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
So we have a "destiny" but we also have "free will"? That creates a binary choice. Choose your destiny or do not choose your destiny.
That isn't free will. You are suggesting that things are preordained a certain way and we have to choose whether to allow them to unfold or not. Binary choice. Not free will.
The universe makes a lot more sense when you give up the idea of an all powerful ruler lording over it (except where it is convenient to say he isn't lording over it).
If I was the supreme creator being of the universe I wouldn't just give my people free will.

I'd also give them free wi-fi.

Looks like Jehovah missed a trick with that one.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#134144 Jul 14, 2014
wwwcurious wrote:
<quoted text>
Wellllllllllllllllllllllllllll lll, Let us talk about delusional and insane atheists.
Since atheists do not believe that God is the creating agent, that leaves them in the preposterous position of having to explain how Nothing created Something from Nothing.
They need also explainm how Nothing not only created Something, but also endowed this Somthing with life,intelligence and consciousness,,,,
That is a magical miracle that makes Houdini look like Nothing.
Of course the atheist will claim that he has faith and hope that Science will find an answer.
Atheists will also make unsubstantiated illogical hypothesis as to how these events occured.
Mucho bullcrap.
Science is no closer to finding an answer than a gorilla in the mist.
However,if you believe their insanity, you would have to conclude that Nothing has been able to accomplish what atheist scientists, with their intelligence ,knowledge and sophisticated technology have failed to accomplish, Nothing can best be described as nonexistent non living blind deaf and dumb. Yet nothing has accomplished where intelligent atheists have failed miserably' But there is more,atheists claim there is no God, yet, they spend hours,days,weeks,years and the better part of their life railing against s God they claim does not exist.....
Now, you wanna talk about delusional and I wanna talk about insanity within the atheist faith
and if atheist behaviour is not insane,you need explain.
But ,there is more;;Then you have acrackpot like Kraktu, who has stated that under certain conditions that he specified,consent,legal age and protection, he finds incest not to be immoral
If those conditions are met,then a male can have sex with his sister,mother and grandmother, which Kraktu would accept as moral behaviour and is now trying to weasel out of that problem by claiming it is a srawman argument,concocting an illconceived excuae so as not to answer the question" Do you condone that type of behaviour.
And there is more
atheist Proffesor Peter Singer is a believer in beastiality as long as the animal in question consents,atheists peter Dawkins, Chris Hitchens and Sam Harris, 3 of the 4 horsemen of atheism agree with Singer's philosophy, However,their pets are in total disagreement,especially Singer's pet gerbil...
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, the fruits of atheism,how deranged and disgusting.
You're a smart believer.

You never swallow anything that Satan is trying to put into your mouth.

For you, Jesus always comes first.

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
Trump is loosing it! 1 hr Literate 4
Moonshine mafia 1 hr Yes 10
Barbourville arh hospital 2 hr Nursinghome 12
School nurses who got the contract? 2 hr Nurse 5
Snapchat! 3 hr Disgusting 10
yard sale 3 hr Working class 5
Today's Generation. 4 hr Grandmomma 6

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages