Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 156459 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.

Yes and Amen

Macon, GA

#80748 Jun 18, 2012
Peace For Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I so love my brothers and sisters in Christ. It's magnetic!
Amen!
I Love you too!
Funny thing is... These Jokers think we hate them!
I've been here for two years... If I hated them, I
wouldn't spend two minutes!
Have a Great day!
Blessings, and Strength from the Father to you :-)
Support marriage

Dallas, TX

#80749 Jun 18, 2012
In February 2011, Obama instructed the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)– the law that says marriage is the union between one man and one woman. It’s the law supported by the majority of American citizens who do not want marriage in America radically redefined by an aggressive homosexual lobby. Obama’s support for overturning DOMA is no mystery. But what the media hasn’t reported is that behind the scenes, Obama’s Department of Justice has been actively filing briefs against the law – on our dime!
As Concerned Women for America’s own legal counsel Mario Diaz wrote in
The Washington Times:“He even has forced the American people to spend their own tax dollars to fight against it in the courts. In the same manner that today he tries to make us believe that this is only his personal belief and that it will have no impact on policy … the administration sold many on the idea that it simply would stop defending the law and nothing more.” Not true. Diaz continues:“Since then,[the DOJ] has been actively filing briefs against the law arguing that its enactment was motivated in significant part by animus towards gays and lesbians.” So Obama is using our tax money to argue that those of us who support traditional marriage and wanted the sanctity of that union protected through DOMA were really motivated by hatred toward gays and lesbians? This idea and line of reasoning is ludicrous and an affront to the American people that is worthy of an immediate and strong response. That’s why CWA has launched a national petition campaign telling Congress to Stand for Marriage by protecting the Defense of Marriage Act.
++ Petition Delivery in Defense of DOMA Announced!
Since launching our petition, we’ve seen an incredible grassroots response from American citizens who are angry that Obama would simply put his personal opinions above those of the American people. From the response we are seeing American women and men who support traditional marriage aren’t willing to allow the President or the homosexual lobby to silence their outrage over DOMA, and they are eager to make their voices heard all the way to Capitol Hill! And we are hearing them. That’s why I’ve alerted my staff to start preparing for an Emergency Petition Delivery to key lawmakers – including House Speaker John Boehner - who may be considering backing away from defending traditional marriage in order to avoid the wrath of the homosexual lobby during a pivotal election year! We the People are duty-bound to speak up, demonstrating to Congress that this is a pivotal issue and that marriage must be defended. Beginning next Thursday, June 21, our staff will be marching into the Capitol Hill offices of key elected leaders letting them know that the majority of Americans think marriage is worth fighting for, and they should too! We simply cannot allow this administration, or a relatively small group of homosexual activists, to force us to accept the radicalization of marriage, our families and our culture. Study after study confirms what the majority of Americans already know, that society and our children thrive in traditional roles – one mother, one father. But if we do nothing, if we allow the radical homosexual lobby to speak for us, there will be no turning back!++ Alert your Conservative Friends! Forward this message to them. Encourage them to be part of this vital petition effort to defend traditional marriage by clicking below and allowing CWA to represent them on Capitol Hill on this issue! Urge them to go here to sign our “Stand for Marriage” petition: http://www.cwfa.cc/828/petition.asp...
With your help between now and June 21, I believe we may be able to rally and mobilize an additional 5,000 or even 10,000 citizens who have the courage to stand for traditional marriage in America. Thank you in advance for answering my call.
MirrorMan

Muskegon, MI

#80750 Jun 18, 2012
Support marriage wrote:
In February 2011, Obama instructed the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)– the law that says marriage is the union between one man and one woman. It’s the law supported by the majority of American citizens who do not want marriage in America radically redefined by an aggressive homosexual lobby. Obama’s support for overturning DOMA is no mystery. But what the media hasn’t reported is that behind the scenes, Obama’s Department of Justice has been actively filing briefs ...Yadayada blahblah
Irrelevant. you want the "Obama-Marriage" forum, dummy.
As I See It

Hurley, VA

#80751 Jun 18, 2012
IN Response to "Support Marriage" above:
Politicians have always wasted our tax money on things we
may or may not agree with. Obama and his crew are no exceptions.
I don't have an issue if homosexuals want to live together,
that is really not any of my concern what they do. Yes, they
have hi-jacked the word 'gay' which used to be used as a cute
name for a little girl or simply an expression for someone
being happy. When the word 'marriage' is used, I think of it
as being a union of one man and one woman being united in
matrimony or wedlock. Here again there is a hi-jacking of a
word, this time it's 'marriage'. Then again, what does it
matter what I think, I don't own a monopoly on any of the words
in the English language...like the air we breathe, we will share
it if we want to live, we simply can't hold our breath just
because there may be a thought somehow that someone that we may
not agree with has breathed it before.
MirrorMan

Muskegon, MI

#80752 Jun 18, 2012
Hoosier Hillbilly wrote:
(Page 3,872)
You think maybe schools could teach kids some manners, respect, and appreciation of the system?
Seems parents can't or won't, so where's that leave the kids raising their own children?
This is not something that 'just come up', look @ anyone 30 years old or younger and you see what happens "WHEN they're not taught the above"!MirrorMan, chew on that one for a spell...
HH, I agree with you 100%! I'm glad somebody looks for solutions instead of just criticism. Government raising kids? No thanks. How parents of <30 year olds fail? Not a fan of that, either. Schools teaching manners, respect and appreciation? Finally, somebody gets to the meat of the matter instead of quibble- quoting Genesis and Darwin! THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

I think that since the '70's the schools have been crippled with psychobabble. Students need structure and authority figures, and we've robbed that from the schools in a stupor of sensitivity. There is no reason kids need to have cellphones, ipods and pants around their knees in school, except that the other kids have them and do that, too. "But Suzy has one..., But Joey's folks let him..., But I saw it on TV...(!!??WTF are we watching?), But Andy's parents don't put their foot down..." But Nothing. Tough. Quit belly-aching. "And you can't make me..." Oh, yes we can, but we don't. Can't have school uniforms - that would injure their freedom of expression? On what planet? ET, phone home. It's time for the liberals to come back down to Earth. Better yet, take them with you!
It used to be that when you heard "kids raising kids" it meant teenage pregnancy, but now we have classmates teaching classmates how to act. Literally, kids raising kids, and maybe that's what's wrong with the <30 year olds - the entitlement generation. Tough. Quit Belly-aching. It should be clearly established from the get-go that school is not a social club and that RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH WANTS. But Nothing. Go home and FB about it. I'm not saying turn the education system into a POW camp, but establish rules and consequences early and back them up. Structure. With this we foster respect, and manners and appreciation follow. We can quit piddling around with "nail clippers are a weapon" and "Chap-stick is a drug" and be serious about what matters. When I was a child, you'd get sent to the principal's office for spelling b u t t. Now, when (not if) a third grader tells a teacher to f-off, the teacher is the one on the carpet apologizing for it and the parents back the brat because school is their best babysitter.(and of course the teacher gets crap because they make sooo much money they can almost pay their student loans.) The school board members are thinking of the PR for the next election, so the principal's worried about his job, too - so as long as nothing goes ballistic and hits the press, and the school passes the state tests, nobody gets fired. It's all so sweet to be PC, even when our teeth fall out.

A Bible class would fix this about like a splint on a concussion.
And meanwhile 99% of the seventy seven THOUSAND posts on the board is tit for tat opinions about theology. Nice.
What's the difference if we're #17 in education in the world, we have both MTV and TBN!

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#80753 Jun 18, 2012
MirrorMan wrote:
<quoted text>
HH, I agree with you 100%! I'm glad somebody looks for solutions instead of just criticism. Government raising kids? No thanks. How parents of <30 year olds fail? Not a fan of that, either. Schools teaching manners, respect and appreciation? Finally, somebody gets to the meat of the matter instead of quibble- quoting Genesis and Darwin! THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
I think that since the '70's the schools have been crippled with psychobabble. Students need structure and authority figures, and we've robbed that from the schools in a stupor of sensitivity. There is no reason kids need to have cellphones, ipods and pants around their knees in school, except that the other kids have them and do that, too. "But Suzy has one..., But Joey's folks let him..., But I saw it on TV...(!!??WTF are we watching?), But Andy's parents don't put their foot down..." But Nothing. Tough. Quit belly-aching. "And you can't make me..." Oh, yes we can, but we don't. Can't have school uniforms - that would injure their freedom of expression? On what planet? ET, phone home. It's time for the liberals to come back down to Earth. Better yet, take them with you!
It used to be that when you heard "kids raising kids" it meant teenage pregnancy, but now we have classmates teaching classmates how to act. Literally, kids raising kids, and maybe that's what's wrong with the <30 year olds - the entitlement generation. Tough. Quit Belly-aching. It should be clearly established from the get-go that school is not a social club and that RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH WANTS. But Nothing. Go home and FB about it. I'm not saying turn the education system into a POW camp, but establish rules and consequences early and back them up. Structure. With this we foster respect, and manners and appreciation follow. We can quit piddling around with "nail clippers are a weapon" and "Chap-stick is a drug" and be serious about what matters. When I was a child, you'd get sent to the principal's office for spelling b u t t. Now, when (not if) a third grader tells a teacher to f-off, the teacher is the one on the carpet apologizing for it and the parents back the brat because school is their best babysitter.(and of course the teacher gets crap because they make sooo much money they can almost pay their student loans.) The school board members are thinking of the PR for the next election, so the principal's worried about his job, too - so as long as nothing goes ballistic and hits the press, and the school passes the state tests, nobody gets fired. It's all so sweet to be PC, even when our teeth fall out.
A Bible class would fix this about like a splint on a concussion.
And meanwhile 99% of the seventy seven THOUSAND posts on the board is tit for tat opinions about theology. Nice.
What's the difference if we're #17 in education in the world, we have both MTV and TBN!
Great post, I agree.

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#80754 Jun 18, 2012
As I See It wrote:
IN Response to "Support Marriage" above:
Politicians have always wasted our tax money on things we
may or may not agree with. Obama and his crew are no exceptions.
I don't have an issue if homosexuals want to live together,
that is really not any of my concern what they do. Yes, they
have hi-jacked the word 'gay' which used to be used as a cute
name for a little girl or simply an expression for someone
being happy. When the word 'marriage' is used, I think of it
as being a union of one man and one woman being united in
matrimony or wedlock. Here again there is a hi-jacking of a
word, this time it's 'marriage'. Then again, what does it
matter what I think, I don't own a monopoly on any of the words
in the English language...like the air we breathe, we will share
it if we want to live, we simply can't hold our breath just
because there may be a thought somehow that someone that we may
not agree with has breathed it before.
Yep

Since: Feb 12

El Dorado Hills, CA

#80755 Jun 18, 2012
Peace For Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be lost. I have taught and studied God's Word for over 5 decades. Don't even tell me I don't know what "grace" means. You're not my judge nor are you even remotely aware of what "LOVE" truly means. Sad that. I know what hypocrite means, see I know your name. You're a JW? Wonderful, LMBO. Why don't you go harass the disbelievers instead of His sheep?
So you consider a JW as a brother in Christ? I don't think they would consider you as a brother. That would be interesting since they would condemn you beliefs. Maybe your just trying to be nice to him/her. I think it is good that you should be nice to one another. Using you bibles to debate one another is useful to us disbelievers to understand your teachings without name calling.

On the other hand youtube preachers are shown not to be nice. Maybe this street preacher is one of Socks disciples take at look.

&fe ature=related
The truth sets you free

Cape Canaveral, FL

#80758 Jun 18, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
This is kind of loopy. "God has control over Satan"...."but does not control Satan"...
I agree with the other poster, Xians are always saying that God can do anything but when someone asks why God does or does not do this or why God allows this or that to happen the reply is silence or "it's a mystery".
But you can hide a lot of BS under the big tent of "mystery". You can believe anything you like and explain it away with that view.
If God is not controlling Satan then it is because he chooses not to. If Satan is causing harm to people then God is, by default, allowing it to happen. If this is to teach us some kind of lesson he is absolutely SILENT about why. He supposedly told some sheep herders a few stories, which they wrote down. And for thousands of years we've been fumbling in the dark, killing and dying and experiencing the miseries of reality while he's sitting on a cloud watching??
It's messed up, in a big way.
It is much more likely there is no god. Things make a lot more sense when you let that fairy tale go.
Evidently you have never talked to one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The next time you have the chance ask anyone of them: Why does God premits wickedness? You will be pleasently surprised at the answer!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#80759 Jun 18, 2012
Support marriage wrote:
In February 2011, Obama instructed the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)– the law that says marriage is the union between one man and one woman. It’s the law supported by the majority of American citizens who do not want marriage in America radically redefined by an aggressive homosexual lobby. Obama’s support for overturning DOMA is no mystery. But what the media hasn’t reported is that behind the scenes, Obama’s Department of Justice has been actively filing briefs against the law – on our dime!
As Concerned Women for America’s own legal counsel Mario Diaz wrote in
The Washington Times:“He even has forced the American people to spend their own tax dollars to fight against it in the courts. In the same manner that today he tries to make us believe that this is only his personal belief and that it will have no impact on policy … the administration sold many on the idea that it simply would stop defending the law and nothing more.” Not true. Diaz continues:“Since then,[the DOJ] has been actively filing briefs against the law arguing that its enactment was motivated in significant part by animus towards gays and lesbians.” So Obama is using our tax money to argue that those of us who support traditional marriage and wanted the sanctity of that union protected through DOMA were really motivated by hatred toward gays and lesbians? This idea and line of reasoning is ludicrous and an affront to the American people that is worthy of an immediate and strong response. That’s why CWA has launched a national petition campaign telling Congress to Stand for Marriage by protecting the Defense of Marriage Act.
++ Petition Delivery in Defense of DOMA Announced!
Since launching our petition, we’ve seen an incredible grassroots response from American citizens who are angry that Obama would simply put his personal opinions above those of the American people. From the response we are seeing American women and men who support traditional marriage aren’t willing to allow the President or the homosexual lobby to silence their outrage over DOMA, and they are eager to make their voices heard all the way to Capitol Hill! And we are hearing them. That’s why I’ve alerted my staff to start preparing for an Emergency Petition Delivery to key lawmakers – including House Speaker John Boehner - who may be considering backing away from defending traditional marriage in order to avoid the wrath of the homosexual lobby during a pivotal election year! We the People are duty-bound to speak up, demonstrating to Congress that this is a pivotal issue and that marriage must be defended. Beginning next Thursday, June 21, our staff will be marching into the Capitol Hill offices of key elected leaders letting them know that the majority of Americans think marriage is worth fighting for, and they should too! We simply cannot allow this administration, or a relatively small group of homosexual activists, to force us to accept the radicalization of marriage, our families and our culture. Study after study confirms what the majority of Americans already know, that society and our children thrive in traditional roles – one mother, one father. But if we do nothing, if we allow the radical homosexual lobby to speak for us, there will be no turning...etc etc yadda yadda yadda. Thank you in advance for answering my call.
Spamtastic! Oh and an aggressive homosexual lobby would be a hallway painted vividly with a nice beat in the background.

Now back to clenching your sphincter in fear.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#80760 Jun 18, 2012
The truth sets you free wrote:
<quoted text>Evidently you have never talked to one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The next time you have the chance ask anyone of them: Why does God premits wickedness? You will be pleasently surprised at the answer!
Pretty familiar with the schtick.

Since: Feb 12

El Dorado Hills, CA

#80761 Jun 18, 2012
The truth sets you free wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently you have never talked to one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The next time you have the chance ask anyone of them: Why does God premits wickedness? You will be pleasently surprised at the answer!
Your comment was not to me but I have and idea.

Well beacause he can. It,s so much more fun for God to have a devil running around like a loose cannon sturring up the pot. God likes watching all the drama, his life would be boring without it.

One third of the angels is heaven knew God and forsaken thier position in heaven so they could have a good time here on earth. Must be really boring to be an angel,sitting around a stroking Jehohvah ego millenium and millenium.

I did not know angels could get horny, guess I was wrong.

“There's more than one religion”

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#80762 Jun 18, 2012
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>Your right!
I've never used them...
And we see what a good catholic like JFK did while in office...
Clinton...
Now Osama, only he wants to do the whole USA, the constitution, and not just some intern!
I will vote for Romney, even though he's not a Christian either, but better than what we have now!
I find it so funny that you interpret the constitution like you do your bible: i.e. selectively.

And by your inane personal rants in which you purposely refuse to show respect due his position and office, you yet again prove that IF you are due the amount of respect you show others, you are due none.

“There's more than one religion”

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#80763 Jun 18, 2012
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>Amen!
I Love you too!
Funny thing is... These Jokers think we hate them!
I've been here for two years... If I hated them, I
wouldn't spend two minutes!
Have a Great day!
Blessings, and Strength from the Father to you :-)
Yes, and you show Christ's love by name calling ("these Jokers"). Way to win another soul for Christ!

The reason you have been here for two years is because you can't stand not having the last word - because in your little mind, having the last word means the other person has assented to your argument.
As I See It

Hurley, VA

#80764 Jun 18, 2012
Teaching religion to our children is the
responsibility of the parents to do at
home. Too much diversity is found in religious
beliefs and for a public school to try weaving
it into the school curriculum would only end
in confusion and discord amongst the students
and staff.
Betterlatethanne ver

Creston, IA

#80765 Jun 18, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a wonderful post, as are most of yours. Thank you.
According to the American Religious Identification Survey, the number of people reporting that they have no religion rose from 14.3 million in 1990 to 34.1 million in 2008.
http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/files/2011/0...
That means the number of non-religious people doubled pretty much since the beginning of the internet. I think that is probably a meaningful correlation. The internet has given people access to information they would not have had any other way, or it would have been much harder for them to get it and in most cases they simply wouldn’t have.
I know, for example, since around 2005 there has grown a huge skeptical podcasting scene which reaches thousands of people all the time. A lot of these skeptical podcasts tackle religion and get airtime on university radio stations here and there. I think this is just an example of how the culture of freethinking is spreading pretty rapidly, especially among the young. And while it is fairly common for a religious believer to quit his or her particular faith it is pretty rare for a thoughtful non-believer to suddenly become a believer. It happens, sure, but in my opinion it usually only happens to people who never gave it much thought to begin with. Usually.
What scares me is the idea that non-theism, or skepticism in general, requires a certain kind of brain wiring…what if there is some crazy percentage of people who probably can’t think that way? What if pattern-seeking (ultimately expressed as belief in deities) is so hardwired for them they can’t overcome it?
Fun stuff to ponder.
It is possible that there could be a small percentage like that. I think that the emotional needs are probably the stronger ones, however. What matters is what percentage of persons can be educated or raised from early childhood to think relatively rationally, and what percentage of others can be educated or raised to be at least tolerant and not persecute others with different views. That is my opinion, at least.

I think it is possible to raise children to not need to have religious superstitions. I think it might be tougher to get them to not enjoy Santa Claus, especially with the real presents and fun celebrations. Santa Claus is much nicer than God, after all. I think many parents teach their children mostly about a very nice version of Jesus, who is a sort of a-sexual to feminine unconditionally loving parent, compensating for the lack of unconditional love by either God or real fathers, sometimes. If real fathers gave unconditional love, and made children feel secure - despite being critical of some specific unacceptable behaviors, for explained reasons - children would feel less threatened. A God the Father like that would be a nicer God. I wonder if whether just taking away the threat of hell would make Christianity a nicer religion?

That and the Rapture and last days stuff are the worst parts of Christianity. I think I figured out what is meant by Armageddon Welcoming Committee. Does it mean the folks who want it to happen soon and want to be "alive" to see it after they are raptured up to a save place?
Betterlatethanne ver

Creston, IA

#80766 Jun 18, 2012
As I See It wrote:
Teaching religion to our children is the
responsibility of the parents to do at
home. Too much diversity is found in religious
beliefs and for a public school to try weaving
it into the school curriculum would only end
in confusion and discord amongst the students
and staff.
That was a very smart comment, and the way you wrote it in those lines like poetry was very clever. It got our attention and made the point. I know I need to write shorter comments like others do. But sometimes I like reading the long ones too. Are you new on here too? Someone told me to come here and that it would be fun to write back and forth to other interesting people here.

Only I can't come often enough or stay long enough to get the replies and then reply back. It is hard to catch the folks one wants to talk with on here at the same time. That would be the most fun, I think.
Betterlatethanne ver

Creston, IA

#80767 Jun 18, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
This is kind of loopy. "God has control over Satan"...."but does not control Satan"...
I agree with the other poster, Xians are always saying that God can do anything but when someone asks why God does or does not do this or why God allows this or that to happen the reply is silence or "it's a mystery".
But you can hide a lot of BS under the big tent of "mystery". You can believe anything you like and explain it away with that view.
If God is not controlling Satan then it is because he chooses not to. If Satan is causing harm to people then God is, by default, allowing it to happen. If this is to teach us some kind of lesson he is absolutely SILENT about why. He supposedly told some sheep herders a few stories, which they wrote down. And for thousands of years we've been fumbling in the dark, killing and dying and experiencing the miseries of reality while he's sitting on a cloud watching??
It's messed up, in a big way.
It is much more likely there is no god. Things make a lot more sense when you let that fairy tale go.
I do not think that there are only two options for what is true. You seem to imply that the options are the sortofBiblical God (several different versions and interpretations) or no god at all. I do not see why that would have to be the only two possibilities. I think that two other possibilities that might make sense are dualism and pantheism.

Pantheism means that the all (everything, whatever it is) is God. It seems to me that this is just giving a new name to the cosmos or the universe or multiverses, if that is what the all is. Or to whatever the All really is, maybe both in Reality and as it appears to us. But it would mean that God gets hurt every time any feeling creature gets hurt, so he would not be so mean as the Biblical God - who never gets hurt himself but lets others get hurt, or actually hurts them himself. It would be as if the god were continually being crucified, as well as continually driving in the nails - to use a literary metaphor. The Biblical God was obviously mean to Jesus, to split off one of God's three selves and send Jesus down to suffer, while God either let it happen or made it happen.(Some folks think that Jesus was real, and really God, and knew that he had to be crucified, and told Judas to do it because that was his plan. So how could it have been the fault of Judas if it was God's plan? just an aside...)

As for dualism, the idea of an independent force of evil, and an approximately equal independent force of good, contending against each other, would let the name God be used just for the good one. I bet Sherlock Holmes could name the other one - Dr. Moriarty!(another aside, if you can, see the movie They Might Be Giants, with Joanne Woodward and George C. Scott - that is the thinking persons' Holmes and Watson).
Betterlatethanne ver

Creston, IA

#80768 Jun 18, 2012
As I See It wrote:
IN Response to "Support Marriage" above:
Politicians have always wasted our tax money on things we
may or may not agree with. Obama and his crew are no exceptions.
I don't have an issue if homosexuals want to live together,
that is really not any of my concern what they do. Yes, they
have hi-jacked the word 'gay' which used to be used as a cute
name for a little girl or simply an expression for someone
being happy. When the word 'marriage' is used, I think of it
as being a union of one man and one woman being united in
matrimony or wedlock. Here again there is a hi-jacking of a
word, this time it's 'marriage'. Then again, what does it
matter what I think, I don't own a monopoly on any of the words
in the English language...like the air we breathe, we will share
it if we want to live, we simply can't hold our breath just
because there may be a thought somehow that someone that we may
not agree with has breathed it before.
You express yourself in a very interesting way - both the style and the wording, especiallyi the last part about not owning a monopoly, and about sharing the air. That was very well written. Do not forget it. Write it down somewhere and use it if you write sometime more permanent than on topix. It was very well phrased.
Betterlatethanne ver

Creston, IA

#80769 Jun 18, 2012
Spaceship earth wrote:
<quoted text>
So you consider a JW as a brother in Christ? I don't think they would consider you as a brother. That would be interesting since they would condemn you beliefs. Maybe your just trying to be nice to him/her. I think it is good that you should be nice to one another. Using you bibles to debate one another is useful to us disbelievers to understand your teachings without name calling.
On the other hand youtube preachers are shown not to be nice. Maybe this street preacher is one of Socks disciples take at look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =lxGenQ_vh1UXX&feature=rel ated
oh, but have you seen Reverend Billy in the white suit? and with the choir, when they went to Disneyland to try to liberate the people inside the hot Disney costumes? He is fabulous!

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.

Pittsburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Kentucky (... (Oct '10) 2 hr Randy 752
wreck on 229 2 hr wondering 3
Wal-mart DC 6097 desperately needs to vote union! 2 hr Pro-union 97
Scott Shelton??? 2 hr wondering 32
Ricky and Ashley 16 2 hr Mark 19
new auction around walmart DC? 8 hr Caul 2
Krystal Burgers 9 hr Tony 4

Pittsburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pittsburg Mortgages