Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 163225 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.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#137095 Sep 12, 2014
BRAIN STORM wrote:
<quoted text>Whether or not the Red Sea parted is of no concern to me. I don't read the bible because I have found it to be very contradictory and biased. It is also full of unsubstantiated occurrences. However, there are some stories that "may" contain a vernal of truth. That is my point. If it really happened, I could care less.
I almost agree with you completely. But I do actually care if things are true.
colt 45

United States

#137096 Sep 12, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are on this debate forum to preach, not debate? I see.
Again, I do not think you can handle a debate, so you run.
still here never ran. But I'm not worried about your claims I got a life with God to live. Instead of wasteing my time listening to a moron on the bible that don't believe in nothing but bananas monkey brain.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.pixoto.com/quantumm

#137097 Sep 13, 2014
BRAIN STORM wrote:
<quoted text>
His statement that A belief system is strictly Religious is a fallacy. It can apply to other areas of thought and disciplines as well. A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, ideological, or a combination of these. the contradiction comes when, he speaks of his ideology and then claims that it isn't a belief system. Therefore his is either confused or contradicting himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
My use of terms are Specific and not casual ... I use the word "Belief" as a term that is religious in nature... To Believe in Casual form may seen to mean to most the same as "I Think I Know" but is Specifically different in that it denotes Faith in what one believes in... "I Believe the water is cold." denotes not the actual validity of the waters temp but the faith in ones Belief that it's cold. Such Belief requires no reproducible testing and denotes a faith based certainty of facts not in evidence...

I use the words "I Think I Know" as terminology to denote that while I have evidence of the specifics I do not have any faith in the specifics being absolute.. I accept that at any point new evidence can change my understanding of the specific point to "I Don't Know" or "I Know" and there is no Religious Faith in the specific point in contention.. "I Think the water is cold." denotes a generalized hypothesis based on limited evidence without any faith in the temp and would require specific reproducible testing against a relative standard. Without such a relative standard "Cold" becomes non specific.

Such Casual Use of "Belief", I Contend, leads to cognitive dissonance as the term self imposes emotional attachment to the point in question...

The point is that I come from a specific scientific position in use of terminology and not a casual usage. Such causal usage is the bain of science and is a pet peeve as such casual usage misrepresents the specificity that science requires... Two words that I, and others, think should be banned in any scientific discussion is "Believe" and it's variants and "Proof" and it's variants with the one and only exception of "Mathematical Proof"
Forcing never works

Cincinnati, OH

#137098 Sep 13, 2014
A parent has the right to educate their children on the religious beliefs of their choice and heritage. A parent also has the right to protect their children from religious beliefs of others. A faith responsible parent will take their child to Sunday school, vacation bible school or enroll in a private faith based school if their children's religious education is such a priority. Leave other people's children alone and stop pushing through people's front doors.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#137099 Sep 13, 2014
colt 45 wrote:
<quoted text>still here never ran. But I'm not worried about your claims I got a life with God to live. Instead of wasteing my time listening to a moron on the bible that don't believe in nothing but bananas monkey brain.
In other words, you can't reasonably or rationally defend any of your own statements or debate anyone else's, so you're just going to offer sophomoric insults and pretend that they don't reflect back on your own pronounced ignorance and inadequacies.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#137100 Sep 13, 2014
BRAIN STORM wrote:
<quoted text>The soul has weight. Here is an interesting experiment done on the weight of a soul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougal...
From your own link.....

"Later researchers showed that MacDougall's experimental results were flawed, due to the limitations of the available equipment at the time, a lack of sufficient control over the experimental conditions, and the small sample size.

Science writer Karl Kruszelnicki has noted that out of MacDougall's six patients only one had lost weight at the moment of death. Two of the patients were excluded from the results due to "technical difficulties", a patient lost weight but then put the weight back on and two of the other patients registered a loss of weight at death but a few minutes later lost even more weight. MacDougall did not use the six results just the one that supported his hypothesis. According to Kruszelnicki this was a case of selective reporting as MacDougall had ignored five of the results.[2]

The physicist Robert L. Park has written MacDougall's experiments "are not regarded today as having any scientific merit" and the psychologist Bruce Hood wrote that "because the weight loss was not reliable or replicable, his findings were unscientific."[3][4] "

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#137101 Sep 13, 2014
Forcing never works wrote:
A parent has the right to educate their children on the religious beliefs of their choice and heritage. A parent also has the right to protect their children from religious beliefs of others. A faith responsible parent will take their child to Sunday school, vacation bible school or enroll in a private faith based school if their children's religious education is such a priority. Leave other people's children alone and stop pushing through people's front doors.
I agree, but some phrases in your post raise questions.
"...protect their children from religious beliefs of others"?
"A faith responsible parent..."?
I'm of the opinion that a child of tender years hasn't developed the comprehension necessary to choose their own faith, if they are so inclined. I've never been a fan of brainwashing and there are cases where I would consider it abuse. "Protecting" from knowledge of other faiths is not a responsible act - particularly when there are knuckle-headed zealots who think that "Darwinism" and astrophysics are "faiths."

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#137102 Sep 13, 2014
colt 45 wrote:
<quoted text>still here never ran. But I'm not worried about your claims I got a life with God to live. Instead of wasteing my time listening to a moron on the bible that don't believe in nothing but bananas monkey brain.
You are here, but yet are running from the debate, as you openly admit here.
I can see you did not complete high school, as your grammar is that of a third grader. Your grammar is so poor, I cannot tell if you meant to say I believe in monkey brains, or that I have monkey brains. What does that make you?
colt 45

United States

#137103 Sep 13, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you can't reasonably or rationally defend any of your own statements or debate anyone else's, so you're just going to offer sophomoric insults and pretend that they don't reflect back on your own pronounced ignorance and inadequacies.
Man get a life. Point to hell do you be live in the devil.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#137104 Sep 13, 2014
BRAIN STORM wrote:
<quoted text>It makes me unfamiliar with the validation process of scientist.
"Of scientist"? Well a scientist can use whatever he wishes, but science as a whole will surely scrutinize the scientists standards. And if you simply trust one lone scientist that clearly used a poor validation process, you are not going to be considered a trustworthy debater on the subject.
Trust is important. A scientist that uses a poor validation process will likely not be trusted, at least by his peers or anyone with high standards for truths.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#137105 Sep 13, 2014
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
My use of terms are Specific and not casual ... I use the word "Belief" as a term that is religious in nature... To Believe in Casual form may seen to mean to most the same as "I Think I Know" but is Specifically different in that it denotes Faith in what one believes in... "I Believe the water is cold." denotes not the actual validity of the waters temp but the faith in ones Belief that it's cold. Such Belief requires no reproducible testing and denotes a faith based certainty of facts not in evidence...
I use the words "I Think I Know" as terminology to denote that while I have evidence of the specifics I do not have any faith in the specifics being absolute.. I accept that at any point new evidence can change my understanding of the specific point to "I Don't Know" or "I Know" and there is no Religious Faith in the specific point in contention.. "I Think the water is cold." denotes a generalized hypothesis based on limited evidence without any faith in the temp and would require specific reproducible testing against a relative standard. Without such a relative standard "Cold" becomes non specific.
Such Casual Use of "Belief", I Contend, leads to cognitive dissonance as the term self imposes emotional attachment to the point in question...
The point is that I come from a specific scientific position in use of terminology and not a casual usage. Such causal usage is the bain of science and is a pet peeve as such casual usage misrepresents the specificity that science requires... Two words that I, and others, think should be banned in any scientific discussion is "Believe" and it's variants and "Proof" and it's variants with the one and only exception of "Mathematical Proof"
Ok, I get it now. So I should say "I know I am typing on a computer" instead of saying "I believe I am typing on a computer"? Now that I wrote that last sentence, it is very clear how silly the latter sounds.
I had a feeling you would show me as wrong on this, and I am glad you did.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#137106 Sep 13, 2014
colt 45 wrote:
<quoted text> Man get a life. Point to hell do you be live in the devil.
Get an education.
Can you point to hell? I would love for you to show me exactly where it is, as no one can see it. Why would an atheist believe in such a place, as there is zero evidence of such a place? We do not fear imaginary places.
The very idea we would go to hell for not believing in the claimed place is illogical and immoral. Thus it leads me to think your bible is not true. It leads me to think the story of heaven and hell are false tales.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#137107 Sep 13, 2014
colt 45 wrote:
<quoted text> Man get a life. Point to hell do you be live in the devil.
I have a life, thank you. I was never cut out to be a groupie, a Trekkie or a Jesus freak. Two questions: Don't you realize that hell simply means grave? What does "be live in the devil" mean? If you meant "believe in", the answer is no, of course I don't believe in mythical creatures. That would be inane.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#137108 Sep 13, 2014
the reply option seems to be missing on the last few comments. Of course atheists do not believe that a devil exists. However, if one did, and if one defined it as an evil supernatural invisible being, it would resemble the right -wing extremist version of the Christian God.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#137109 Sep 13, 2014
I am not a fan of Quatumist's comments. However, his photographs are lovely and he should regularly put up a link to them. Also, there was a great program on public TV recently about the artistic abilities of various royals in English history - and also about Prince Charles and his niece.
Lovely scenery and amazingly good art.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#137110 Sep 13, 2014
sometimes the differences between non-extremists are more interesting - usually they are . so the discussion between forcing never works and his/her critic (mildly corrective but not hostile) is an interesting one. I suspect that they could have a civil conversation and reach many points of agreement. That is impossible between the extremes At the extremes there is clearly one rational point of view and one arrogant superstitioius point of view. The skeptics on this thread are particularly reasonable and rational persons. Too bad topix attracts too many extreme rightwing religious types. Some religious types do believe in separation of church and state, and some do not insist that their views are the only true belief system.
spaceship

Rancho Cordova, CA

#137111 Sep 13, 2014
colt 45 wrote:
<quoted text> Man get a life. Point to hell do you be live in the devil.
Hell is mistranslation of the Hebrew word Sheol which means the grave or where you are laid for eternity when you die.

Please note if Jonah was in "hell," as the KJV has it, then Jonah escaped from a place where, according to modern theologians, there is no escape.

Compare KJV
Jonah 2:2King James Version

2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

Compare NIV
Jonah 2:2
The New International Version: 1973

He said: "In my distress I called to the Lord, and he answered me. From the depths of the grave I called for help, and you listened to my cry.
----------

Books of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes and Job, insist that all of the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free man (Job 3:11-19).
spaceship

Rancho Cordova, CA

#137112 Sep 13, 2014
colt 45 wrote:
<quoted text> Man get a life. Point to hell do you be live in the devil.
The concept of evil men going to a place of torment after death first appeared in Jewish apocryphal writings of 3 to 1 B.C. These writings came from the thoughts of the Babylonian religions which the Jews brought back with them from Babylon. It was these books which spoke of eternal separation of good and evil and equating it to man's ultimate fate. Many Jews mixed these teachings with Judaism which brought about great problems. These writings, found their way into the Greek Septuagint. The Septuagint was used by the early Church. From there these writings got into the Latin Vulgate. Early English translations relied heavily on the Latin Vulgate. Those that used the Greek, also relied heavily upon the Septuagint. The early English translations were either translated from the Latin with the Apocrypha, or the Septuagint, which also contained the Apocrypha. Each translation also relied heavily on other translations. Tyndale, for example, borrowed greatly from Martin Luther. The King James directly copied much from previous translations that came directly from the Latin Vulgate.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theol...
Forcing never works

Cincinnati, OH

#137113 Sep 13, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, but some phrases in your post raise questions.
"...protect their children from religious beliefs of others"?
"A faith responsible parent..."?
I'm of the opinion that a child of tender years hasn't developed the comprehension necessary to choose their own faith, if they are so inclined. I've never been a fan of brainwashing and there are cases where I would consider it abuse. "Protecting" from knowledge of other faiths is not a responsible act - particularly when there are knuckle-headed zealots who think that "Darwinism" and astrophysics are "faiths."
So back to the original issue...religion doesn't belong in the public school system, there other appropriate places to teach your children if you're so incline to do so. If you feel the need to teach your child of other faiths send them to synagogue, mosque, prophet, monastery, private school or Christian camp...whatever your heart calls you to do. The public school classroom is not the place for it. I will and I have protected my children from a false prophet Ronald Weinland. I cant imagine what would qualify and be incorporated into our public schools if a religion class were allowed. Its a slippery slope my friend

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.pixoto.com/quantumm

#137114 Sep 13, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, I get it now. So I should say "I know I am typing on a computer" instead of saying "I believe I am typing on a computer"? Now that I wrote that last sentence, it is very clear how silly the latter sounds.
I had a feeling you would show me as wrong on this, and I am glad you did.
At least you get my point... Some never do... The word Believe gets tossed around so often that it becomes casual and even the most noted researchers fall into the trap... Then when the laymen hear it they take it and run with it never considering it does not mean what they think it does... The use of the word is really bad in some fields of study and has caused those that have not done a lot of research themselves to take it that the commenter is saying they "Know" something is a fact when it is not...

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
What is your All time favorite movie ever? 2 min The Specialist 24
Who's snitching on Knox co?? 3 min Everyone 3
Brittany Trent 21 min Bill 9
Walmart of Barbourville 1 hr Neverknow 24
wes abbot died 2 hr yes 1
rip wes abbot 2 hr yes 1
What happened to Connie davenport? 3 hr Friend 3

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages