Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 147260 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

#134755 Jul 25, 2014
SNYB wrote:
<quoted text>
My feet are firmly planted on the floor...I'm not whining..and I don't lump and labelDUHM ANYONE into a category, and judge it all as the same.
Therefore, YOU are guilty, of "lying" on another- immorally.
And as long as you act like a moron, I just may continue to point that out and call you a moron. Not denying that at all. So, another "immoral" lying check mark for you.
(and BTW, just because someone does not act, think or respond as YOU think they should, dos NOT mean that they have a "double standard". It just means they have their OWN MIND--and do NOT need YOU or anyone like you-to think, talk or anything else for them!)
Religious institutions culture conformity of thought, belief and deed. Most Christians make no bones about likening themselves to being shepherded like sheep of the flock. That is the whole point of sermons and clergy led services - not public worship and prayer. Matt. 6 is quite specific about that.

"It just means they have their OWN MIND--and do NOT need YOU or anyone like you-to think, talk or anything else for them!" But that is PRECISELY what priests and preachers do. It's what the congregations pay them for - it's their JOB.

"I don't lump and labelDUHM ANYONE into a category, and judge it all as the same."
"...YOU or anyone like you..."
Why did you lie, Sistahypocrite?
get real

Holland, MI

#134756 Jul 25, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>We did stop trying, that is why science is taught no matter how much the religious fundamentalists do not agree with it. You see, public schools try to teach what is evident, not what is believed without evidence.
No, basic science yes, but the science you are referring to does not have conclusive evidence. Dawrins theory of evolution is still that, a theory, and nothing more. We have not found the missing link, this belief has not by any stretch been confrimed. Global warming not confirmed. We've been keeping track of weather for only 150 years, not even a tick of the clock geological time, there is no evidence at all that this type of weather (and from where I live I've yet to see any extreme weather) hasn't happend tens of thousands of times in the past. Nothing conclusive here

Besides science isn't even a definite, The craters on the moon at one time were made by ancient vulcanic eruptions, that was what was taught, that was science fact, no question. We of course now know they we're made my meteor impacts, or at least that is the popular scientific conclusion at the moment.

Better to believe in something like religion, that never changes, and to people like myself has been without a doubt, absolutely proven. However science is far from worthless and its views should be taught as well.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#134757 Jul 25, 2014
get real wrote:
<quoted text>
No, basic science yes, but the science you are referring to does not have conclusive evidence. Dawrins theory of evolution is still that, a theory, and nothing more.
A theory *never* becomes anything more than a theory in science.
get real wrote:
We have not found the missing link, this belief has not by any stretch been confrimed.
We've found dozens of fossils of earlier forms of humans.
get real wrote:
Better to believe in something like religion, that never changes, and to people like myself has been without a doubt, absolutely proven. However science is far from worthless and its views should be taught as well.
Why is it better to believe in something that never changes if that something is wrong the entire time?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#134758 Jul 25, 2014
get real wrote:
<quoted text>
No, basic science yes, but the science you are referring to does not have conclusive evidence. Dawrins theory of evolution is still that, a theory, and nothing more. We have not found the missing link, this belief has not by any stretch been confrimed. Global warming not confirmed. We've been keeping track of weather for only 150 years, not even a tick of the clock geological time, there is no evidence at all that this type of weather (and from where I live I've yet to see any extreme weather) hasn't happend tens of thousands of times in the past. Nothing conclusive here
Besides science isn't even a definite, The craters on the moon at one time were made by ancient vulcanic eruptions, that was what was taught, that was science fact, no question. We of course now know they we're made my meteor impacts, or at least that is the popular scientific conclusion at the moment.
Better to believe in something like religion, that never changes, and to people like myself has been without a doubt, absolutely proven. However science is far from worthless and its views should be taught as well.
Do you have any inkling why you shouldn't get your "science" from Christian bloggers and political pundits? There are no less than 11 discreet items that I could refute >with facts< at some length but I know that it would be like arguing with wall.
get real

Holland, MI

#134759 Jul 25, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
A theory *never* becomes anything more than a theory in science.
<quoted text>
We've found dozens of fossils of earlier forms of humans.
<quoted text>
Why is it better to believe in something that never changes if that something is wrong the entire time?
Wow, not sure how to respond here.

1. That was my point

2 We have 0 fossils of the missing link

3 It's been proven to me that it is "right" the entire time, so thats simply your point of view.

The third does bring us back to the basic question though, and if they don't teach religion in school that's fine by me, I do that at home, church, and just the friends we associate with. As long as they don't under-mind religion (which so far my childs school has not, in fact its full of church going conservative teachers thank the lord) then I'm good with that. And I think most parents of faith would be as well.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#134760 Jul 25, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that's your choice, then. See you there.
By your own admission you hold the #2 New Testament commandment in contempt: "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
I never said I would make it to heaven, but I have a date tonight so maybe heavens Just a sin away..
I will let you know.
Loving thy neighbor and worrying about where he shyts and packing around a shovel to clean up his mess is another story.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#134761 Jul 25, 2014
get real wrote:
1. That was my point
You said it was "still" a theory, as if theories turn into something else at some point. The idea that we're made up of atoms is "still a theory". It's also a fact. The idea that germs cause disease is "still a theory". It's also a fact.

Essentially, your statement had no meaning.
get real wrote:
2 We have 0 fossils of the missing link
You're simply wrong.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fos...
get real wrote:
3 It's been proven to me that it is "right" the entire time, so thats simply your point of view.
How can it be proven right to you when it has demonstrable scientific and historical errors?
get real wrote:
As long as they don't under-mind religion (which so far my childs school has not, in fact its full of church going conservative teachers thank the lord) then I'm good with that. And I think most parents of faith would be as well.
Education in general undermines religion by teaching children to think critically.
get real

Holland, MI

#134762 Jul 25, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have any inkling why you shouldn't get your "science" from Christian bloggers and political pundits? There are no less than 11 discreet items that I could refute >with facts< at some length but I know that it would be like arguing with wall.
I'm simply stating that science changes, religion does not, and I choose to go with the for sure thing since it has personally been proven true to me. Science has much to offer, and I listen to that as well. But my decision making comes from my faith, and every one I've made based on that has worked wonderful.

The times I've made decisions with selfishness, or other reasons, have not turned out. So I will continue to make decisions, including who and what I vote for based on faith.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#134763 Jul 25, 2014
get real wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm simply stating that science changes, religion does not
Don't you realize this isn't even true though? Religion changes all the time.

Hundreds of years ago, most Christians belief in a literal Genesis with Adam and Eve. Currently, most reject a literal Genesis.

Hundreds of years ago, most Christians were okay with slavery, against women voting or working, and strongly against gay people having any rights. For modern Christians, none of those things are true.
get real

Holland, MI

#134764 Jul 25, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you realize this isn't even true though? Religion changes all the time.
Hundreds of years ago, most Christians belief in a literal Genesis with Adam and Eve. Currently, most reject a literal Genesis.
Hundreds of years ago, most Christians were okay with slavery, against women voting or working, and strongly against gay people having any rights. For modern Christians, none of those things are true.
You are confused by what I'm saying, or perhaps I didn't word it right. But it this way the morale teachings of the bible never change. With few exceptions what was right and wrong two hundred years ago, is right and wrong now, and will again be in 200 years.

I do expect an argument due to the fact that liberals don't believe in right and wrong (because it's something they are to weak to follow) and instead believe that there is no right and wrong, only opinion.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#134765 Jul 25, 2014
get real wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm simply stating that science changes, religion does not, and I choose to go with the for sure thing since it has personally been proven true to me. Science has much to offer, and I listen to that as well. But my decision making comes from my faith, and every one I've made based on that has worked wonderful.
The times I've made decisions with selfishness, or other reasons, have not turned out. So I will continue to make decisions, including who and what I vote for based on faith.
Of course science changes with new information. It must or it would be dogma. How do you consider that a fault? The Bible says that insects have four legs - are we supposed to print that in entomology texts because religion does not change? News flash, Bubba - religion does change with the times, it just lags behind by its own inertia. The Southern Baptist Convention has had a negro president and apologized for its role in the Civil War, the Jehovah's Witnesses accept a 4.5 billion year old Earth, the Methodists have no problem with the ToE and the Vatican urges international agreement on AGW. The "science" you believe in is only supported by a vocal but insignificant minority of crackpots.
Religion and politics have filled some void in your life. No doubt you take whatever up-welling and buoyant >feeling< you have as some sort of evidence that what you choose to think is honest, consistent with the Gospels, accurate and literally real. The real evidence points in another direction.
get real

Holland, MI

#134767 Jul 25, 2014
Mohandas Ghandi wrote:
Which bible? There are several hundred different religions and interpretations of those religions.
That is so old. This is a typical liberal ploy in a failed attempt to lessen the importance of the Bible by suggesting that its only one of a countless number and therefore shouldn't carry the weight it does..........much like liberals are attempting to do to marriage.

The fact is that there are a handful of legid religios texts and from the Bible to the Coran they all suggest the same morale values, which is what liberals detest about the Bible the most. They are too weak to follow its teachings (unable to deny themselves immediate gratification for something far more important) and they don't want to be called wrong for not doing so.

The moral teachings that the "Bible" as well as other God inspired texts are very similar and simply support the Bibles teachings regardless of how much liberals would not like it to be so.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#134768 Jul 25, 2014
get real wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm simply stating that science changes, religion does not, and I choose to go with the for sure thing since it has personally been proven true to me. Science has much to offer, and I listen to that as well. But my decision making comes from my faith, and every one I've made based on that has worked wonderful.
The times I've made decisions with selfishness, or other reasons, have not turned out. So I will continue to make decisions, including who and what I vote for based on faith.
It rarely matters what your motivation or reasoning is for making bad or good decisions. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. In the end, they are simply bad or good decisions and will result with the same bad or good consequences.
Voting for a candidate not because of his true qualifications and record, but by what church or party he belongs to is not making a decision. A robot could do that.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#134769 Jul 25, 2014
get real wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused by what I'm saying, or perhaps I didn't word it right. But it this way the morale teachings of the bible never change. With few exceptions what was right and wrong two hundred years ago, is right and wrong now, and will again be in 200 years.
Again, untrue. The moral teachings changed from the OT to the NT alone.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#134770 Jul 25, 2014
get real wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused by what I'm saying, or perhaps I didn't word it right. But it this way the morale teachings of the bible never change. With few exceptions what was right and wrong two hundred years ago, is right and wrong now, and will again be in 200 years.
I do expect an argument due to the fact that liberals don't believe in right and wrong (because it's something they are to weak to follow) and instead believe that there is no right and wrong, only opinion.
The morals (not morale) of the Bible change as the churches' interpretations of it change.
Do not confuse the Bible with religious doctrine and society. Jesus had no issues with slavery - he didn't tell the Centurian to free his slave, did he? Do we still hang witches? Did Jesus endorse the death penalty? What is the divorce rate among Christians?
You are quick to proclaim what "liberals" believe, but you just parrot your sensationalist hatemongers who make a buck selling ads to paranoid nincompoops. Arguing from arrogance and ignorance might serve your Lords, but it does not serve Jesus.
get real

Holland, MI

#134771 Jul 25, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, untrue. The moral teachings changed from the OT to the NT alone.
That is rediculous, it's the Bible, and yes when Jesus came there we're some changes, but we're still talking about the Bible. Example, homosexuality was wrong in the old testament (Leviticus) and is equally spelled out as wrong in the new testament (in both the first book of Romans and Corinthians).

What you are trying to attempt has failed miserably many times before. You are attempting to use any type of changes, regardless how minor in order to discredit the Bible itself, while completely ignoring that the meat of what it says, the basics of what it says, it's main teachings and of course the part you hate the most hold steadfast, and have through time and will as long as the Bible exists.

As far as I know, no religion is going to "give up" the Bible in preference for something else, and I highly doubt the originals writers are going to come back to life and shout, "ooops, we we're wrong, the liberals we're right all along".

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#134772 Jul 25, 2014
get real wrote:
<quoted text>
That is rediculous, it's the Bible, and yes when Jesus came there we're some changes, but we're still talking about the Bible. Example, homosexuality was wrong in the old testament (Leviticus) and is equally spelled out as wrong in the new testament (in both the first book of Romans and Corinthians).
What you are trying to attempt has failed miserably many times before. You are attempting to use any type of changes, regardless how minor in order to discredit the Bible itself, while completely ignoring that the meat of what it says, the basics of what it says, it's main teachings and of course the part you hate the most hold steadfast, and have through time and will as long as the Bible exists.
As far as I know, no religion is going to "give up" the Bible in preference for something else, and I highly doubt the originals writers are going to come back to life and shout, "ooops, we we're wrong, the liberals we're right all along".
You do know how, where and when the canonized Holy Bible came about, right? You understand that Romans, Corinthians and Timothy are not the Gospels of Jesus? You understand that according to Christian doctrine Jesus fulfilled the Covenant?(That's why you can eat shrimp and catfish - and it is why Leviticus is irrelevant to your bigotry.) You understand that the writers of the Bible wouldn't care really much about Hannity, Limbaugh or Brietbart... or can you?
You have a very shallow understanding of your own tenets. In fact, you seem to have a very shallow understanding of just about everything that's been discussed so far. But you seem to be quite satisfied with that.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#134773 Jul 25, 2014
SNYB wrote:
<quoted text>
But astray from bonehead morons like...well...anyway....away from temptations NOT of anything good-- is a GOOD thing.
Now, Is it impossible for you to comprehend an actually rational and logical answer?
It would be good to not be lead into temptation, but why must one ask the god, and many do so daily, as this is the lords prayer that is a daily ritual for many believers. If you must ask, then it seems reasonable it is not automatically expected the god will not lead you to temptation. So why would a god lead one into temptation?

Note how I wrote all that with no insults? Can you ever do the same?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#134774 Jul 25, 2014
SNYB wrote:
<quoted text>
My feet are firmly planted on the floor...I'm not whining..and I don't lump and labelDUHM ANYONE into a category, and judge it all as the same.
Therefore, YOU are guilty, of "lying" on another- immorally.
And as long as you act like a moron, I just may continue to point that out and call you a moron. Not denying that at all. So, another "immoral" lying check mark for you.
(and BTW, just because someone does not act, think or respond as YOU think they should, dos NOT mean that they have a "double standard". It just means they have their OWN MIND--and do NOT need YOU or anyone like you-to think, talk or anything else for them!)
So because I do not think as you, I am a moron? I have pointed out many times you have labeled groups and condemned them as a whole. Deny it all you wish.
So you think I lie. I would love for you to actually provide evidence of one of my lies. Claiming you do not whine is not evidence. First, it is a simple opinion, and of course our opinions vary, and it seems you condemn me for mine differing from yours. How hypocritical.

I am not claiming you have double standards due to a different opinion, I claim it due to the standards you hold for atheists compared to the standards you hold for Christians. When we label and condemn, you whine, when they label and condemn, you are either silent, or even back them up to some degree. I will admit I have seen you condemn them a few times on this thread. I noted you called them no names. Well you call us names most every post.

I get you have no comprehension of what a double standard is, and no amount of me trying to explain it to you will ever encourage you to self introspect.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#134775 Jul 25, 2014
SNYB wrote:
<quoted text>
Otay....
Did it get it's wittle feeling all wadded up in a bunch?
Too bad. Get over it!
(there now, you're welcome.)
My opinion is, this is a bunch of whining.

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
~~Keep A Word~~Drop A Word Game. (Jun '10) 1 hr Doug77 1,196
Stupid neighbors revving their motors up for ho... 1 hr Jami 4
Setting the record straight. 2 hr IGA Guy 16
Couple seeking female for Threesome (Mar '13) 2 hr Jenny Hinkle Mills 16
sunday sales!!!!!!! 4 hr Fact 5
KCHS Cheerleaders (Feb '09) 9 hr Change 59
Give to the church 9 hr Glory 6
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages