Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 137919 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.

stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104146 May 19, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
How obliviously stupid does one have to be to harp on a time worn statement of sarcastic irony and simultaneously allege that they understand the Bible? Too dull to be embarrassed - your life must be blissful, indeed.
Why are you addressing that to me? I KNOW LOL in a Suit is STUPID and now I know you are blissfully STUPID too! If all you have in your "battle armour" of wits is to make an ironic statement; what exactly have you proven other then your ultimate stupidity in the dicussion!
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104147 May 19, 2013
Wow.... It must be time for the agnostic/athiest to go back and post their childish pety "Judge it!" icons on all the new comments! Like those lil icons have some great significance to the contribution to the post.

(laughing) I'll wait till you've finished playing catch up!
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104148 May 19, 2013
great contribution OF the post...

A little typo there

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104149 May 19, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you addressing that to me?
Because you are clueless and nuts.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#104150 May 19, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not concerned with what you believe in. Granted, I think it's as ignorant as a burlap bag full of sheep urine, but as I've stated before, I'm concerned with idjits perpetuating mythology as fact and "educating" children with absurdities such as man is 6,000 years old and that 4,500 years ago the entirety of the Earth's land masses were submerged.
In a previous post you said that you'd given up self righteousness a long time ago.
Mind your 9th commandment.
Since I've never stated any of what you've mentioned as a basis for my faith,It is a poor excuse indeed,in order to keep inquiring.
But,I do not have a problem with that.
When you have a question,be sure to define the basis for your question,then,once I know thee basis,I will do my best to provide the answer to that which you are seeking.
Let us not be deceptive in our search,otherwise,you may not get the answer you are so diligently seeking...
Self deception,to my knowledge,never provides the right answer..

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#104151 May 19, 2013
"clueless and nuts"
That would be the right and left cerebral hemispheres of the religie brain which also includes an ignorance stem.

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#104152 May 19, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Self deception,to my knowledge,never provides the right answer..
The level of irony is over 9000.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104153 May 19, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
The quote speaks for itself. I do not need to interpret it to give it a meaning to fit my beliefs,as you have done...
But,I fully understand the reason why you need to do that
Case Closed......
So you think this evolutionary biologist is claiming that science is wrong? Are you that insane?

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104154 May 19, 2013
LOL in a suit wrote:
Good posts KittenKoder, the religies tend to get all caps and shiite when the facts smack em.
I sometimes get all caps when the stupid is too much to handle.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#104155 May 19, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think this evolutionary biologist is claiming that science is wrong? Are you that insane?


QuoteEvolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review,

January, 1997, page 31:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

That is what he said,which has caused you to get very defensive and make some wild allegations,which are in fact,baseless.
What is your interpretation of what he meant and if I quoted him out of context as you erroneously charged,what did he mean?

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104156 May 19, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
QuoteEvolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review,
January, 1997, page 31:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
That is what he said,which has caused you to get very defensive and make some wild allegations,which are in fact,baseless.
What is your interpretation of what he meant and if I quoted him out of context as you erroneously charged,what did he mean?
I thought I already covered this. In fact, I did. The quote comes from a review of a Carl Sagan book (a favorite of mine). The original quote is longer, the Creationist version is always snipped and cropped just to get this juicy bit.

*sigh*

He is trying to make a subtle point about science. Sometimes it suggests things that are not easily acceptable to common sense. I gave you some examples in previous posts.

When he says that it won't let a "divine foot in the door" he is not trying to say that it SHOULD. He is pointing out a basic fact of science. That is, the supernatural is NOT PART OF IT. Yet at the same time some of its claims SEEM almost supernatural.

It is a subtle, powerful point.

Creationists take it out of context and never offer the full quote, which I previously linked to.

It is really common for Creationists to do that sort of thing. To be so Christian, they lie quite a bit. You might want to vet these quotes that you find at Answers In Genesis or wherever. Run them through Google and see where they really come from and what they really mean.
So true

United States

#104157 May 19, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
great contribution OF the post...
A little typo there
love that song, been there as well .. Creedence did it so awesome. May u find your train to where it is you go !!!! Safe travelin
So true

United States

#104158 May 19, 2013
May we always see the light. Left shining for us all...
How stupid can you be

Winchester, KY

#104159 May 19, 2013
LOL in a suit wrote:
No god exists. No fairy tale of a devil and church ignorance should be in public schools.
Believe what you want... We know differently!
curious

Ocoee, FL

#104160 May 19, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought I already covered this. In fact, I did. The quote comes from a review of a Carl Sagan book (a favorite of mine). The original quote is longer, the Creationist version is always snipped and cropped just to get this juicy bit.
*sigh*
He is trying to make a subtle point about science. Sometimes it suggests things that are not easily acceptable to common sense. I gave you some examples in previous posts.
When he says that it won't let a "divine foot in the door" he is not trying to say that it SHOULD. He is pointing out a basic fact of science. That is, the supernatural is NOT PART OF IT. Yet at the same time some of its claims SEEM almost supernatural.
It is a subtle, powerful point.
.
Yiago said
When he says that it won't let a "divine foot in the door" he is not trying to say that it SHOULD. He is pointing out a basic fact of science. That is, the supernatural is NOT PART OF IT. Yet at the same time some of its claims SEEM almost supernatural

Richard Lewontin Quote
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories,

Says I;
In other words,the Scientific community accepts unsubstantiated just so stories,in spite of the patent absurdity of some of it's constructs and in spite of it's many failures to fulfill many of it's extravagant promises,because we "science" have a prior commitment to materialism. That materialism is an absolute,for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Seems to me ,he is strongly implying that,by intentionally refusing to accept any supernatural evidence,that Science ,by it's nature,can not allow nor will it consider any evidence that is not materialistic in nature.,regardless of how compelling that evidence might be.
On the other hand,it will permit unsubstantiated evidence,in spite of the patent absurdity of some of it's constructs and in spite of it's many failures.
That seems to sum it all up. Objectivity has been thrown out the window. Science will only accept what it wants to accept..That is my interpretation.

Any how,Science is useful in the natural world.
They believe that life and intelligence can be proved to be a natural event,unfortunately,their foundation for those beliefs stand on nothing .
They can neither explain or validate the basis for their theories or opinions.
My beliefs are not based on Scientific theories or the opinion of others.
It is based on my personal experiences,My personal experiences are based on actual events that have taken place,which Science or Atheists are unable to disprove,other than arbitrarily dismissing them,since those events are beyond your or Science's understanding.
That Atheists can claim that they understand those events that I experienced better than I do,is arrogance at it's most extreme form.
But,you go on believing what you want....I know what I believe in,and without any doubts or reservations,
I can proclaim that,My God Lives...

because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#104161 May 19, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you are clueless and nuts.
Hahahaha...
You said "Clueless"....
We know God is real, and you call us Clueless???
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#104162 May 19, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
QuoteEvolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review,
January, 1997, page 31:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
That is what he said,which has caused you to get very defensive and make some wild allegations,which are in fact,baseless.
What is your interpretation of what he meant and if I quoted him out of context as you erroneously charged,what did he mean?
Great post!
So many of them fallow that philosophy...
They just cannot prove their point to be true, and they cannot
let one mention of God into it... they make stuff up!
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#104163 May 19, 2013
Here's a lil something you liberals might like to learn!
.
Colson's law of four "C"s

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintay...

This is so true!

Good night to all :-)
ProvenScience

London, KY

#104164 May 19, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
I sometimes get all caps when the stupid is too much to handle.
Like this?

N 0THING BUTAlphabet SOUP

(what a joke!)
LO.Lol 2013

:-)

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#104165 May 19, 2013
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>Hahahaha...
You said "Clueless"....
We know God is real, and you call us Clueless???
If you knew you would have verifiable and demonstrable evidence. So, where is this evidence? If you do not present it, then you just lied.

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.

Pikeville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Word Association (Aug '11) 19 min Red_Forman 6,410
Add a word, Drop a word (May '10) 20 min Red_Forman 24,319
What's mitch McConnell done for coal, when ther... (Jul '14) 1 hr pokey 27,002
PC Board Battle Royale 1 hr Greasy Creek 107
Whoas me.....I had me a check. Now I dont. 1 hr living dead girl 2
Pmc women 4 hr Kurt 20
SS Is Notifying People That Lawyer Committed 4 hr I hate a bully 7
Amy Where did Combs Thread Go 8 hr Truth Sayer 15
More from around the web

Pikeville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]