Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 169934 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.

amanda

Clay City, KY

#115704 Oct 28, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
"I'll take Unanswered Questions for $1,000, Alex."
"The point of the founding fathers and the counterpoint to religious strangleholds."
"What is the Age of Enlightenment"
"Correct, and rational people remain in the lead."
Well thanks for totaly NOT answering the question. But, I guess it wasn't your question to answer.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#115705 Oct 28, 2013
SistaNoneYa wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times do I have to say-I am not into all that CONdemnation stuff. So you can stop torturing about it.
(if I take a notion to reread all that however, I'll let ya know)
I know you are not about condemnation when atheists do it, but I have yet to see you object to any condemnation when it is of god, or the theists here. So really, I have no clear understanding of what your standards are. They at least appear to be of a double standard. Maybe if you had the balls to actually object to someone other than an atheist, we could take your standards as less than double.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#115706 Oct 28, 2013
amanda wrote:
You do realize that persecution still exists, and that Christians and Jews are being murdered in the middle east right now? Do you think that's justice? A little eye for an eye?
My main issue with people who say the things you are saying is that you seem to believe that Christians living today should be punished for the things that people associated with Christianity did in the past. That it's perfectly fine for a christian to be persecuted for trying to spread thier "ju ju" because some christian did some bad thing some time ago. For some reason, some feel they are dishing out some justice for the sins of the past. Well, let me run this by you: white people enslaved blacks. Therefore, by your logic, it's perfectly okay to persecute those associate with whiteness living today for a crime they never commited. Is that true?
Who are you talking to? Their is a reply feature on this forum.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#115707 Oct 28, 2013
SistaNoneYa wrote:
<quoted text>
Lumping and labelDUHMing everything and everyone all the same-because of some sort of preconcieved notion based upon narrow minded sterotyping-is IGNORANT.
No matter the race, creed or color spewing it.
And I note you only post this to atheists, and never point to a theist or the bible for doing this. A clear double standard.
amanda

Clay City, KY

#115708 Oct 28, 2013
non believer wrote:
<quoted text>
I find your statement hard to believe. Atheist test your faith. Do you think it is wrong to help someone out of a Christian cult? If so then you are also destroying their belief. Is not testing ones faith a Christian doctrine?
How does an atheist debating testing a Christian degrade them? When those of faith have no proof or testable evidence to prove the reason for faith would you say that is degrading them?
Give evidence how atheist degrade Christians. Put the cheese on the cracker.
Do I think it's wrong to help them out of a christian cult? Ahhhhhh.....by cult do you mean the churches that some of us voluntarily go to on Sundays? In that case....yeah, and it's pretty insulting while we are at it. But I'm sure you will go with the most over the top, drama filled option possible so.......Is it wrong to save a person from a christian cult that expects them to drink poison koolaid? No, that's heroic. Hit me up next time you actually save somebody from anything and I'll give you a cookie.
Typically, to try to adress your other questions, when I see these atheist vs Christian debates as you call them......it isn't really a "debate" per say. It's usually one attacking the other, and not for the point of learning something new or gaining mutual understanding. The point is typically to degrade that person and make them question their faith. Questioning would be okay it the intent were that innocent, but you and I both know it isn't. It's obnoxious, quite frankly.
But even debate would be fine if it ended there. It doesn't, and these people who soley identify themselves as atheists have made it their porpuse in life to destroy any remnant of our christian heritage and run the devout into hiding against the will of the majority.
So what's the difference, right? For one, Christianity is an actual major religion where the faithful believe that they must convert others to save their souls. I don't believe Atheists are trying to save anyone, and from what I see it's mostly an ego patting movement built from those who have been angered at some point by Christian relatives. Have Atheists been persecuted? Absolutely. Do two wrongs make a right.......no. At least Christians do a butt load of charity work, maybe if I saw atheists do anything other than b!tch I would no doubt feel differently.
Last but not least, LOL......I can't give you evidence of my opinion. Maybe you aren't well versed in fact vs opinion. Sorry, I think the whole militant Atheist movement is all consuming, petty, obnoxious, bratty, spoiled, senseless and a complete, hateful waste of time. That's my opinion, sorry if you don't like it.
amanda

Clay City, KY

#115709 Oct 28, 2013
Hey, non believer, if it makes you feel better I do believe that Christians created this monster. You know, scaring tbe hell out thier kids and such. I still think the monster is behaving like a child.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#115711 Oct 28, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So the lesson you take from this story is, it is good to kill those who are a threat due to religious beliefs?
Not a lesson I want taught in public schools.
I see you as a threat to our society, but I do not think murder is the moral solution. If religious worship hurts our society and I cannot curb that threat in a peaceful manner, then we must learn to accept that we live in a dangerous society.
This is only moral, something you clearly do not understand.
That is your misguided interpretation , not mine.
My beliefs can get me jailed or killed in some societies.
As has been the case with many Christian believers.

You try to explain the events of the Golden Calf by natural means when they can only be understood by suoernatural means.
Something that I willl not attempt to explain to you again ,as it would be fruitless.
You need to start attending the Church founded by Atheists in the city of London.
The founders claim that they borrowed much fron Christian tradition ,as they claim that attending church is very beneficial.
Though they claim not to believe in God , they will downplay their belief in Atheism.
Outwardly denying God , their subconscious is leading them in the right direction , as the benefits gained from attending church are not derived from attending church , but in one's belief in God.
Some will soon find that out and will begin seeking the true reason for these benefits.
Our God lives , our God has stated that it is his desire that none be lost and when asked by the apostles , who can then be saved, He responded , What is impossible to man,is possible to God.
Who can know his plans? He will provide a way.
Seek and ye shall find?
Thosed who seek ,guided by their subconscious,will find?
Oddly enough , The Atheist church has designate Sunday as their day of worship , To which an Atheist exclaimed, Oh my God ,can you believe it!!!
Known Fact

Somerset, KY

#115712 Oct 28, 2013
amanda wrote:
You do realize that persecution still exists, and that Christians and Jews are being murdered in the middle east right now? Do you think that's justice? A little eye for an eye?
My main issue with people who say the things you are saying is that you seem to believe that Christians living today should be punished for the things that people associated with Christianity did in the past. That it's perfectly fine for a christian to be persecuted for trying to spread thier "ju ju" because some christian did some bad thing some time ago. For some reason, some feel they are dishing out some justice for the sins of the past. Well, let me run this by you: white people enslaved blacks. Therefore, by your logic, it's perfectly okay to persecute those associate with whiteness living today for a crime they never commited. Is that true?
Ha, isn't your God punishing everyone for Adam and Eve's mistake?

"I learned it from watching you God."
Known Fact

Somerset, KY

#115713 Oct 28, 2013
amanda wrote:
<quoted text>
Do I think it's wrong to help them out of a christian cult? Ahhhhhh.....by cult do you mean the churches that some of us voluntarily go to on Sundays? In that case....yeah, and it's pretty insulting while we are at it. But I'm sure you will go with the most over the top, drama filled option possible so.......Is it wrong to save a person from a christian cult that expects them to drink poison koolaid? No, that's heroic. Hit me up next time you actually save somebody from anything and I'll give you a cookie.
Typically, to try to adress your other questions, when I see these atheist vs Christian debates as you call them......it isn't really a "debate" per say. It's usually one attacking the other, and not for the point of learning something new or gaining mutual understanding. The point is typically to degrade that person and make them question their faith. Questioning would be okay it the intent were that innocent, but you and I both know it isn't. It's obnoxious, quite frankly.
But even debate would be fine if it ended there. It doesn't, and these people who soley identify themselves as atheists have made it their porpuse in life to destroy any remnant of our christian heritage and run the devout into hiding against the will of the majority.
So what's the difference, right? For one, Christianity is an actual major religion where the faithful believe that they must convert others to save their souls. I don't believe Atheists are trying to save anyone, and from what I see it's mostly an ego patting movement built from those who have been angered at some point by Christian relatives. Have Atheists been persecuted? Absolutely. Do two wrongs make a right.......no. At least Christians do a butt load of charity work, maybe if I saw atheists do anything other than b!tch I would no doubt feel differently.
Last but not least, LOL......I can't give you evidence of my opinion. Maybe you aren't well versed in fact vs opinion. Sorry, I think the whole militant Atheist movement is all consuming, petty, obnoxious, bratty, spoiled, senseless and a complete, hateful waste of time. That's my opinion, sorry if you don't like it.
I use to be a Christan. Knocked on doors, gave talks at assemblies with thousands of people there and all that. It was places like this and Google that helped me realize how stupid I was and how I wasted my youth playing make believe.

These places are truly a gift from God. Ha, what a joke.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#115714 Oct 28, 2013
amanda wrote:
<quoted text>
There's nothing wrong with knocking on a door, and there's nothing horrific about about one telling you the "good news". Your stance, forgive me if I'm wrong, seems to assume that adults are not capable of hearing one out and making this decision for themselves. I would have a problem though, if those same Christians went to those far flung places and changed laws against the will of the people and destroyed the monuments that had become a thing of tradition for thier communities.
Yet going to someone else's land, killing the people and destroying their monuments is exactly what the god of the Bible commands his people to do.

Barbaric, isn't it?

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#115715 Oct 28, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
You just threw another stinkbomb as a smokescreem.
It is 1 God ,living , intelligent and conscious,who created the Universe and all therein.
That which you worship , that nothing created something from nothing can be compared favorbly with the many monikers that appear
on this thread.
The monikers are nonliving ,nonintelligent and nonconscious ,albeit we can conclude that these monikers were created by some form of intelligence.
Nevertheles , they posses no living power of their own.
That being said,they are more real than the nonsense you place your faith in , which you are quite unable to defend.
You've already explained how you believe the universe must have been created by something.

However, that reckoning of yours doesn't limit the creator to just one cosmic mega-being.

For all you know there could have been 50 deities working together to make the universe.
non believer

Rancho Cordova, CA

#115716 Oct 28, 2013
amanda wrote:
<quoted text>
Do I think it's wrong to help them out of a christian cult? Ahhhhhh.....by cult do you mean the churches that some of us voluntarily go to on Sundays? In that case....yeah, and it's pretty insulting while we are at it. But I'm sure you will go with the most over the top, drama filled option possible so.......Is it wrong to save a person from a christian cult that expects them to drink poison koolaid? No, that's heroic. Hit me up next time you actually save somebody from anything and I'll give you a cookie.
Typically, to try to adress your other questions, when I see these atheist vs Christian debates as you call them......it isn't really a "debate" per say. It's usually one attacking the other, and not for the point of learning something new or gaining mutual understanding. The point is typically to degrade that person and make them question their faith. Questioning would be okay it the intent were that innocent, but you and I both know it isn't. It's obnoxious, quite frankly.
But even debate would be fine if it ended there. It doesn't, and these people who soley identify themselves as atheists have made it their porpuse in life to destroy any remnant of our christian heritage and run the devout into hiding against the will of the majority.
So what's the difference, right? For one, Christianity is an actual major religion where the faithful believe that they must convert others to save their souls. I don't believe Atheists are trying to save anyone, and from what I see it's mostly an ego patting movement built from those who have been angered at some point by Christian relatives. Have Atheists been persecuted? Absolutely. Do two wrongs make a right.......no. At least Christians do a butt load of charity work, maybe if I saw atheists do anything other than b!tch I would no doubt feel differently.
Last but not least, LOL......I can't give you evidence of my opinion. Maybe you aren't well versed in fact vs opinion. Sorry, I think the whole militant Atheist movement is all consuming, petty, obnoxious, bratty, spoiled, senseless and a complete, hateful waste of time. That's my opinion, sorry if you don't like it.
So you are against atheist being converted to a belief in God? Did not the bible tell you that your fight is not with flesh and blood? Then why such hatred for atheist showing they are not against your freedom of religion. Your comments show that you harbor hate for them and unable to debate with words season with salt that the bible admonishes Christians to do.

What is militant about the Atheist? Ah.. so you fear man rather than God. That man is more powerful than God so your only defense to debate is to rely on histrionic rhetoric rather than a civil debate? Why should anyone think your really a true Christian? Showing no faith in bible on how to conduct yourself?

Sound like your the one who's militant. Instead of listing how atheist degrade Christians like i asked you for you instead have gave me all this prattle.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#115717 Oct 28, 2013
amanda wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean "non believers" refused to buckle? Who is this historical group of non believers that put an end to religious persecution? Please answer that before you make any other point.
I wasn't referring to an organised group of non-believers co-ordinating their resistance to religious persecution.

I was thinking more in terms of specific individuals whose thoughts and writings were hugely influential.

People like:

King John
Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Otway
Thomas Woolston
Jean Meslier
David Hume
Benjamin Franklin
Frederick the Great
Thomas Paine
Denus Diderot
etc,
non believer

Rancho Cordova, CA

#115718 Oct 28, 2013
amanda wrote:
Hey, non believer, if it makes you feel better I do believe that Christians created this monster. You know, scaring tbe hell out thier kids and such. I still think the monster is behaving like a child.
Could you be more specific? You seem to be projecting.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#115719 Oct 28, 2013
amanda wrote:
And khatru, to answer your question, YES this country was settled by Christians (protestants) from Europe.....they wanted to escape (drum roll) religious persecution! Also, it was also "founded" (I guess you are referring to the founding of our government) by people who were mostly protestant Christian, who didn't want to repeat the same mistakes that the country they had sought independence from had made.
Yes, I'm aware that a handful of them were not devout or spiritual, that still doesn't take away the fact that nearly everyone else with a hand in it and living at the time was. However, I still don't see what that has to do with you trying to diminish the faith of other posters here, right now.......today.
Yes, I remember reading how the early settlers were escaping from religious persecution and tyranny in Europe. So they came over to America and commenced their own persecution and tyranny against the indigenous inhabitants.

I don't want to take away anyone's faith and I don't really care what someone does in their religion )as long as it's legal). Hell, I'm even OK if they want to skin a rabbit, nail it to the bedpost and dance round it naked while howling at the moon. Who am I to interfere with something that may give meaning to someone's life?

Just on an aside:

The oppressively religious Spanish went into South and Central America. They went for gold, silver and souls. They raped, looted and smallpoxed their way through the native Indian civilisations and wiped them out. The Spanish seized whatever riches they could lay their sweaty little hands on and they went to the Spanish crown and church.

The Spanish were in South and Central America yet those lands fell way behind North America. Why was that?

It was because the less religious Brits were in North America.

The British brought ideas, not guns and swords. Ideas that weren't about instant plunder. Ideas involving land ownership and years of toil leading to a share in the process of law-making. In other words - real estate and representation. In the 17th century, up to 80% of Brits that came into the Chesapeake came to work as indentured servants. Leaving behind the poverty of home they came to work hard and eventually their period of service would be up and they became their own masters.

European migration quickly followed and during the British colonial period around 75% of European immigrants followed the British method. Social mobility. Thanks to the Brits, people could arrive in the New World with nothing, and in a few years become a land owner and a voter.

Compare that to the Spanish colonies where land ownership rights were only given to a tiny elite.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#115720 Oct 28, 2013
amanda wrote:
You do realize that persecution still exists, and that Christians and Jews are being murdered in the middle east right now? Do you think that's justice? A little eye for an eye?
My main issue with people who say the things you are saying is that you seem to believe that Christians living today should be punished for the things that people associated with Christianity did in the past. That it's perfectly fine for a christian to be persecuted for trying to spread thier "ju ju" because some christian did some bad thing some time ago. For some reason, some feel they are dishing out some justice for the sins of the past. Well, let me run this by you: white people enslaved blacks. Therefore, by your logic, it's perfectly okay to persecute those associate with whiteness living today for a crime they never commited. Is that true?
The Christians and Jews are being murdered in the countries where religion has the greatest influence.

In this case, the religion is Islam.

In secular Islamic nations tolerance of other religions is a lot higher.

Rewind many years to when the christian religion held sway in the west and you'll have found the Jews and non-believers being persecuted unto death.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#115721 Oct 28, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>

European migration quickly followed and during the British colonial period around 75% of European immigrants followed the British method. Social mobility. Thanks to the Brits, people could arrive in the New World with nothing, and in a few years become a land owner and a voter.
Yup , Those peaceloving Brits will long be remembered as The Good Samatitans of The New World.....NOT....
Britain, the 'nefarious trade' and slavery
Britain followed in the footsteps of the Portuguese in voyaging to the west coast of Africa and enslaving Africans. The British participation in what has come to be called the 'nefarious trade' was begun by Sir John Hawkins with the support and investment of Elizabeth I in 1573.(15) By fair means and foul, Britain outwitted its European rivals and became the premier trader in the enslaved from the seventeenth century onwards, and retained this position till 1807. Britain supplied enslaved African women, men and children to all European colonies in the Americas.

The 'Slave Coast' came to be dotted with European forts, their massive guns facing out to sea to warn off rival European slave traders. Each 'castle' incorporated prisons or 'barracoons' in which the enslaved women, children and men were kept, awaiting purchase by the traders, who could initially only reach the coast at those times of the year when the winds blew in the right direction. The prisons without sanitation, with little air must have been hell-holes in the humid coastal climates. The death rates are not known.

The trade became a very lucrative business. Bristol grew rich on it, then Liverpool. London also dealt in slaves as did some of the smaller British ports.(16) The specialised vessels were built in many British shipyards, but most were constructed in Liverpool. Laden with trade goods (guns and ammunition, rum, metal goods and cloth) they sailed to the 'Slave Coast', exchanged the goods for human beings, packed them into the vessels like sardines and sailed them across the Atlantic. On arrival, those left alive were oiled to make them look healthy and put on the auction block. Again, death rates (during the voyage) are unknown: one estimate, for the 1840s, is 25 per cent.

Plantation and mine-owners bought the Africans and more died in the process called 'seasoning'. In the British colonies the slaves were treated as non-human: they were 'chattels', to be worked to death as it was cheaper to purchase another slave than to keep one alive. Though seen as non-human, as many of the enslaved women were raped, clearly at one level they were recognised as at least rapeable human beings. There was no opprobrium attached to rape, torture, or to beating your slaves to death. The enslaved in the British colonies had no legal rights as they were not human they were not permitted to marry and couples and their children were often sold off separately.

Historian Paul Lovejoy has estimated that between 1701 and 1800 about 40 per cent of the approximately more than 6 million enslaved Africans were transported in British vessels.(It must be noted that this figure is believed by some to be a considerable underestimate.) Lovejoy estimated that well over 2 million more were exported between 1811 and 1867 again, many believe the numbers were much greater.(17)

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115722 Oct 28, 2013
amanda wrote:
<quoted text>
Well thanks for totaly NOT answering the question. But, I guess it wasn't your question to answer.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/campbellsvill...
No, it was yours. You're welcome. It's the least I could do for a member of that oh-so-poor-us-we're-being-pers ecuted group that occupies 90%+ of all government offices and board room seats.
juggalo

Greenville, SC

#115723 Oct 28, 2013
amanda wrote:
You do realize that persecution still exists, and that Christians and Jews are being murdered in the middle east right now? Do you think that's justice? A little eye for an eye?
My main issue with people who say the things you are saying is that you seem to believe that Christians living today should be punished for the things that people associated with Christianity did in the past. That it's perfectly fine for a christian to be persecuted for trying to spread thier "ju ju" because some christian did some bad thing some time ago. For some reason, some feel they are dishing out some justice for the sins of the past. Well, let me run this by you: white people enslaved blacks. Therefore, by your logic, it's perfectly okay to persecute those associate with whiteness living today for a crime they never commited. Is that true?


i hear ya ...that's like making some rediculous claim like "were all being punished for what adam and eve did" lol ...oh wait ...bad example

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115724 Oct 28, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup , Those peaceloving Brits will long be remembered as The Good Samatitans of The New World.....NOT....
Britain, the 'nefarious trade' and slavery
Britain followed in the footsteps of the Portuguese in voyaging to the west coast of Africa and enslaving Africans. The British participation in what has come to be called the 'nefarious trade' was begun by Sir John Hawkins with the support and investment of Elizabeth I in 1573.(15) By fair means and foul, Britain outwitted its European rivals and became the premier trader in the enslaved from the seventeenth century onwards, and retained this position till 1807. Britain supplied enslaved African women, men and children to all European colonies in the Americas.
The 'Slave Coast' came to be dotted with European forts, their massive guns facing out to sea to warn off rival European slave traders. Each 'castle' incorporated prisons or 'barracoons' in which the enslaved women, children and men were kept, awaiting purchase by the traders, who could initially only reach the coast at those times of the year when the winds blew in the right direction. The prisons without sanitation, with little air must have been hell-holes in the humid coastal climates. The death rates are not known.
The trade became a very lucrative business. Bristol grew rich on it, then Liverpool. London also dealt in slaves as did some of the smaller British ports.(16) The specialised vessels were built in many British shipyards, but most were constructed in Liverpool. Laden with trade goods (guns and ammunition, rum, metal goods and cloth) they sailed to the 'Slave Coast', exchanged the goods for human beings, packed them into the vessels like sardines and sailed them across the Atlantic. On arrival, those left alive were oiled to make them look healthy and put on the auction block. Again, death rates (during the voyage) are unknown: one estimate, for the 1840s, is 25 per cent.
Plantation and mine-owners bought the Africans and more died in the process called 'seasoning'. In the British colonies the slaves were treated as non-human: they were 'chattels', to be worked to death as it was cheaper to purchase another slave than to keep one alive. Though seen as non-human, as many of the enslaved women were raped, clearly at one level they were recognised as at least rapeable human beings. There was no opprobrium attached to rape, torture, or to beating your slaves to death. The enslaved in the British colonies had no legal rights as they were not human they were not permitted to marry and couples and their children were often sold off separately.
Historian Paul Lovejoy has estimated that between 1701 and 1800 about 40 per cent of the approximately more than 6 million enslaved Africans were transported in British vessels.(It must be noted that this figure is believed by some to be a considerable underestimate.) Lovejoy estimated that well over 2 million more were exported between 1811 and 1867 again, many believe the numbers were much greater.(17)
It's the uber-logic of "I know you are and so am I" defense again, curious? The American pot calling the British kettle black? Tell me, why is the District of Columbia no longer a square?

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
Did you get smart dan 22 min Good news 1
Mcdonald's Cassidy BLVD (Aug '09) 34 min Avery 7
What's mitch McConnell done for coal, when ther... (Jul '14) 44 min Abe 38,534
Hillary Clinton OUR next President (Jun '15) 1 hr ahillarydeportable 5,891
Pike Central Basketball Under Investigation? 2 hr PRlCKS 17
Keith Faces New Charges 8 hr Uh Oh Ray 9
JKC 2018 for Pikeville City Commissioner 8 hr Lmfao 7
Ray Jones on WYMT 18 hr Ray and UMG 26

Pikeville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pikeville Mortgages