Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 180221 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

#117321 Nov 18, 2013
SistaNoneYa wrote:
<quoted text>
"Exactly"..how much time elapsed from the beginning of the BB theory, to the completion of it?
At least you got the answer right for a change lol.
1931, Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang Theory.
The theory is not completed, and might never be.
There is no "Exactly" answer.
You already had that information, and I already knew you'd not be able to deduce the answer.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117322 Nov 18, 2013
We all know the myth of Adam and Eve.

They were told not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. However, the bible god was fooled by a talking snake who tricked Eve into eating the fruit.

What was the first thing that Adam and Eve realised after eating the fruit? They realised that they were naked and covered themselves up.

Of course this implies that nudity is evil because if it were good they'd have remained naked.

So........

If nudity is evil then the bible god made Adam and Eve that way.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117323 Nov 18, 2013
Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013
Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing thepossibility that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.

Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an "intriguing possibility". Intelligent life, he has explained, could have evolved elsewhere in the universe according to modern Darwinian theory, and this intelligent life could have eventually learned to engineer new life, and an engineered seed could then have ended up on earth and subsequently evolved into to all the life found here today.

Dawkins appears quite serious about the possibility of Intelligent Alien Design and has mentioned it on a number of occasions. From a recent documentary called "Expelled" we have:

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117324 Nov 18, 2013
con't

Why on earth would someone who vehemently argues against the existence of God by quoting Occam's Razor talk about space aliens designing and seeding life on planet earth?! Well, Darwin's Theory, although still hugely popular with the scientific masses and the educated public, is coming under increasing attack. A few very eminent and very serious scientists, including Nobel Prize Winners, are arguing that Darwin's Theory just doesn't work (eg Roger Penrose, probably the world's top scientific mind today). These scientists are not necessarily saying that this proves the existence of God, they are just saying scientists have absolutely no idea what caused life on Earth to originate and evolve. Whilst Richard Dawkins is still selling a record number of pro-Darwinian books to the public, in the upper echelons of the scientific community support for evolution is undoubtedly in decline. There are several major problems with Darwin's Evolution but for the sake of brevity I will detail here only the most popular one. Some notes on other problems can be found at this footnote.

At the heart of Darwin's Theory is random change and natural selection. Computer Scientists have been experimenting with "Genetic Algorithms" for a long time now, and its clear they have enormous limitations. A computer program to play chess, for example, looks several moves ahead and chooses the move that will lead to the strongest position in the future. The power of a chess playing computer is determined by the number of moves it can look ahead. Any modern computer can beat the average human chess player, but it took a massive supercomputer to beat Kasparov in 1997. As the computer looks further into the future the number of combinations it must analyse increases exponentially. Chess playing algorithms regularly make short term sacrifices for longer term goals. Genetic Algorithms, however, can not do this because they are concerned only with the strength of the next generation. It does not matter how large the population or the length of time, Genetic Algorithms just can not solve Chess problems. Genetic Algorithms are also unable to build a structure such as a bridge which is only useful once it is complete and requires a complex series of meanwhile wasteful steps. Most of the scientific resistance to evolution in the past has come from mathematicians and engineers who have complained about this truly enormous problem. Biologists, on the other hand, tended to wave the theory through - but recent scientific advances in microbiology have been changing that.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117325 Nov 18, 2013
Since the discovery of DNA Biologists have been gradually learning that the basic cellular unit underlying all known life on Earth is enormously complex. Far more complex than the latest Intel CPU for example. It's so highly mechanised with concepts such as hardware and software that many at the forefront of microbiology believe a genetic algorithm could not possibly have produced it. Time does not help, its technical structure, they say, simply exceeds what genetic algorithms are capable of ever producing.

Indeed so controversial has the theory of evolution now become that the famous philosopher Anthony Flew, who for many decades flew the flag for atheism, recently declared himself a believer in, well, something. In Feb 2008 (about 7 years after rumours of his 'conversion' first surfaced) he said at interview:

FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117326 Nov 18, 2013
cont
HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?[teleology is the philosophical study of design in nature]

FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that... the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

Dawkins condemned his old friend's volte-face as the "senile" thinking of an old man. Nevertheless, deep down and away from the public eye, perhaps Dawkins is beginning to believe that Anthony Flew and other critics have a strong case. Indeed what else can he have meant by: "I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that [Intelligent Design] if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer".

What Dawkins means by the "signature of some sort of designer" in the "details of molecular biology" is the idea that microbiologists might find, or have found, a level of complexity in the basic cellular unit underlying all life on Earth which is completely incompatible with Genetic Algorithms. If an intelligent alien came across a human satellite floating through space he would immediately recognise it as a machine not a living thing. But imagine humanity designing a satellite so complex it could reproduce itself. Imagine an intelligent alien coming across a satellite which had been 'born' in space, which had never been touched by human hand. Even in this hypothetical case, the alien could see that an intelligent designer had made the satellite possible if he noticed in the details of its construction certain types of structure, such as the bridge mentioned earlier, which can not evolve under the monotonically improving random mutations of Darwinian theory. Does Dawkins believe that elite scientists are now beginning to reach the same conclusion concerning the life on Earth? Is is not clear how speculative Dawkin's sentence "you might find evidence for that if you look at the details" is, but clearly he does not really think Flew's design point is at all "senile".
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117327 Nov 18, 2013
Khatru wrote:
The bibles were written by men. No invisible sky pixie had anything to do with them.
For example:
Paul tells us quite clearly in unambiguous terms that no one is righteous.
"As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one”
-Romans 3:10-
However, James says it differently:
"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."
-James 5:16-
How can a righteous man pray when Paul has said that no one is righteous?
Oh dear, looks like yet another of those many contradictions from the befuddled brain of the bible god.
Khatru , your lying deceptive ways are confirmed by yur intentional omission of what Paul said regarding righteousness;

(Romans 3:10-26 )(New International Version)

10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”[a]
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”[b]
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[c]
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[d]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[e]
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[f]
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

Righteousness Through Faith

21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[g] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[h] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Footnotes:

Romans 3:12 Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccles. 7:20
Romans 3:13 Psalm 5:9
Romans 3:13 Psalm 140:3
Romans 3:14 Psalm 10:7 (see Septuagint)
Romans 3:17 Isaiah 59:7,8
Romans 3:18 Psalm 36:1
Romans 3:22 Or through the faithfulness of
Romans 3:25 The Greek for sacrifice of atonement refers to the atonement cover on the ark of the covenant (see Lev. 16:15,16).
big guy

Versailles, KY

#117328 Nov 18, 2013
yeeeeahhhhh
Question

Cadiz, KY

#117329 Nov 18, 2013
REPEAT:

If you are going to have Bible study in the public schools, who is going to decide which Bible to study?

There are, after all, several different Bibles.

To most Protestants, it is the King James version. However, Roman Catholics have their own version, which has parts that the King James does not. They also object to their children having to study the King James or other Protestant versions. Protestants object to their children studying the Catholic Bible. The Eastern Orthodox have their own Bible, in at least two versions. Then there is the Ethiopian Bible, which has several books that none of the European Bibles have. I think the Copts and the Armenians also have distinct Bibles.

And, of course, Jews object to the New Testament, period.

I AM WAITING FOR AN ANSWER.

And how are you going to deal with the parental uproar when their children have to study a Bible that they object to?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#117330 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Khatru , your lying deceptive ways are confirmed by yur intentional omission of what Paul said regarding righteousness;
(Romans 3:10-26 )(New International Version)
10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”[a]
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”[b]
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[c]
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[d]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[e]
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[f]
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
Righteousness Through Faith
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[g] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[h] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Footnotes:
Romans 3:12 Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccles. 7:20
Romans 3:13 Psalm 5:9
Romans 3:13 Psalm 140:3
Romans 3:14 Psalm 10:7 (see Septuagint)
Romans 3:17 Isaiah 59:7,8
Romans 3:18 Psalm 36:1
Romans 3:22 Or through the faithfulness of
Romans 3:25 The Greek for sacrifice of atonement refers to the atonement cover on the ark of the covenant (see Lev. 16:15,16).
Why do you obsess on people like Dawkins while simultaneously obsessing on the whacked out notion that theology is in any way representative of reality? I'd not be a bit surprised if you had a whole bookshelf of Astrologies of the Rich and Famous. Have you had a stroke or have you always had a penchant for blathering about celebrities and hokum?
Believer

Adel, GA

#117331 Nov 18, 2013
They are afraid it just might help the children to grow up to be honest good people who help and love others.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117332 Nov 18, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, so you do not wish for explanations of how life evolved to the point of our intelligence, you wish to go back to point one, who created god?
You keep going around and around posting excuses and making yourself dizzy , hoping to do the same to me.
Again ,evolution attempts to explain the mechanics of how life,intelligence and consciousness may have evolved,it does fails to provide a creating agent. You say that a creating agent is not known ,if a creating agent is not known , then how can you claim it wasn't God?
Because you don't believe in him? You have no evidence , natural OR personal by which you can verify that claim.
All you can base it on is your faith of unbelief, which would imply that since you do not believe that ID is the causing agent,
then it must have been caused by a nonliving,nonintelligent and nonconscious nonforce...Natural laws...
That being the only other alternative , which you dare not claim because of it's absurdity,,,So you hide behind " It is not known"
but I don't believe it was God.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117333 Nov 18, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you obsess on people like Dawkins while simultaneously obsessing on the whacked out notion that theology is in any way representative of reality? I'd not be a bit surprised if you had a whole bookshelf of Astrologies of the Rich and Famous. Have you had a stroke or have you always had a penchant for blathering about celebrities and hokum?
I do not consider Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as celebrities , they are self confessed Atheists.
It is their blatherings and hokum that clearly demonstrate ther degree of foolishness.
Hitchens stated his VIEWS " Beliefs" that Earth is a dumping ground used by Superior beings , who created the human race ,found
them to be unfit to live in their world and dumped them here.
That is what he said,which he never disputed.
His fans have tried to explain what they believe he meant and have been unsuccessful in doing so , since they are merely guessing in order to explain the absurdity of that statement.
Dawkins now states that there is a probability that Mankind was "CREATED by a superior race also and that they brought us here.
Needless to say ,as an Atheist, which you claim you are not ,but your postings clearly indicate otherwise,what has been stated by 2 of the 4 self proclaimed horsemen of Atheism ,is blasphemy to those who share theirs AND YOUR FAITH.
Don't get upset with me for posting their views , If you have an issue with their views , take it up with them....
Well ,don't take it up with Hitchens , as he is not available, but if he were ,I amsure he would gladly admit the errors of his arrogance
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#117334 Nov 18, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you obsess on people like Dawkins while simultaneously obsessing on the whacked out notion that theology is in any way representative of reality? I'd not be a bit surprised if you had a whole bookshelf of Astrologies of the Rich and Famous. Have you had a stroke or have you always had a penchant for blathering about celebrities and hokum?
Since you claim you know the Bible , I see you lacked the courage to correct that intentional deceptive tactics used by the mentally befuddled BRIT KhatruEca loca

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#117335 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you claim you know the Bible , I see you lacked the courage to correct that intentional deceptive tactics used by the mentally befuddled BRIT KhatruEca loca
The only ones I've noticed that are intentionally deceptive are the ones who claim the Bible is the inerrant word of the Holy Spirit. I understand that you liars for Jesus don't want to face the fact that you are mentally and morally deficient, But that isn't Darwin's, Dawkins', Hitchen's or Khatru's fault.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117336 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013
Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing thepossibility that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.
Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an "intriguing possibility". Intelligent life, he has explained, could have evolved elsewhere in the universe according to modern Darwinian theory, and this intelligent life could have eventually learned to engineer new life, and an engineered seed could then have ended up on earth and subsequently evolved into to all the life found here today.
Dawkins appears quite serious about the possibility of Intelligent Alien Design and has mentioned it on a number of occasions. From a recent documentary called "Expelled" we have:
BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Humans designed by aliens?

Still far more likely than your preferred method of being magicked into existence by one or more cosmic mega-beings.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117337 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Khatru , your lying deceptive ways are confirmed by yur intentional omission of what Paul said regarding righteousness;
(Romans 3:10-26 )(New International Version)
10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”[a]
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”[b]
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[c]
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[d]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[e]
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[f]
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
Righteousness Through Faith
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[g] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[h] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Footnotes:
Romans 3:12 Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccles. 7:20
Romans 3:13 Psalm 5:9
Romans 3:13 Psalm 140:3
Romans 3:14 Psalm 10:7 (see Septuagint)
Romans 3:17 Isaiah 59:7,8
Romans 3:18 Psalm 36:1
Romans 3:22 Or through the faithfulness of
Romans 3:25 The Greek for sacrifice of atonement refers to the atonement cover on the ark of the covenant (see Lev. 16:15,16).
Hmmm, I make three separate posts about the bible and you only take issue with one of them.

I guess you agree with the other two.

The extra bits you added on are quite wrong as the Bible makes it clear that we're judged by our works. Faith (pretending to know something you don't) isn't relevant.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117338 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you claim you know the Bible , I see you lacked the courage to correct that intentional deceptive tactics used by the mentally befuddled BRIT KhatruEca loca
Brit?

What difference does it make where I'm from?

Is this yet another example of your hatred?

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.pixoto.com/quantumm

#117339 Nov 18, 2013
SistaNoneYa wrote:
<quoted text>
"Exactly"..how much time elapsed from the beginning of the BB theory, to the completion of it?
At least you got the answer right for a change lol.
I can answer that ....

"how much time elapsed from the beginning of the BB theory, to the completion of it?"

SO far between 14 and 20 Billion years is our best estimate... But we can't be more specific until the BB stops....

But the question is flawed since it asks for how long an event happened during the event happening... That's like a drag racer asking how long his run took just after he leaves the line while his foot is on the accelerator ....

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#117340 Nov 18, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not consider Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as celebrities , they are self confessed Atheists.
It is their blatherings and hokum that clearly demonstrate ther degree of foolishness.
Hitchens stated his VIEWS " Beliefs" that Earth is a dumping ground used by Superior beings , who created the human race ,found
them to be unfit to live in their world and dumped them here.
That is what he said,which he never disputed.
His fans have tried to explain what they believe he meant and have been unsuccessful in doing so , since they are merely guessing in order to explain the absurdity of that statement.
Dawkins now states that there is a probability that Mankind was "CREATED by a superior race also and that they brought us here.
Needless to say ,as an Atheist, which you claim you are not ,but your postings clearly indicate otherwise,what has been stated by 2 of the 4 self proclaimed horsemen of Atheism ,is blasphemy to those who share theirs AND YOUR FAITH.
Don't get upset with me for posting their views , If you have an issue with their views , take it up with them....
Well ,don't take it up with Hitchens , as he is not available, but if he were ,I amsure he would gladly admit the errors of his arrogance
What you consider them and what they are are two different things.

Your inane ramblings clearly show the hatred generated by your faith (that's pretending to know something you don't).

Just think how hateful it would sound if I said that I didn't consider someone a celebrity because they were a Christian. Unlike you, I am not so hateful - you can put that down to my lack of religion

All sorts of people are celebrities irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion or no religion, etc.

Become a Christian and be defined by your hate....

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
|keep a word, drop a word game| (Jul '11) 1 hr Jackie 510
Add a word, Drop a word (May '10) 1 hr Jackie 28,215
Word Association (Aug '11) 1 hr Jackie 8,946
4 Letter Word Game (Mar '11) 1 hr Jackie 2,169
dirty state police 3 hr big daddy 24
not so heavenly donuts 3 hr big daddy 21
Mark Putnam 5 hr Hey98 1
PMC PInk Slips 14 hr seen it 72

Pikeville Jobs

Personal Finance

Pikeville Mortgages