Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 167641 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.

SisterNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109270 Jul 30, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
And what if it does hurt themselves and others? "If" people vote and "If" people try to run other people's lives according to their religion.
That's not how this nation works. This nation is a DEMOCRACY, not a theocracy, commieocracy, marxistocracy, not even a meritocracy (ALTHOUGH, that last one is not a Bad thing--and maybe we actually need to lean more towards stuff like actual MERIT again).

I think people would pelt the orval office with rotten tomatoes first.
SisterNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109271 Jul 30, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree it is not a Lie to you for it to be a Lie you would actually have to think there was no god and then say there was.... The Word is Delusional... You have been Deluded into Absolutely Believing in magic therefore you are not Lying... No more than the poor soul that is not lying when he truly Believes Elves and says they are real... No more than the Greeks that Truly Believed in the gods on Olympus when they said their assorted gods were real.... No more than the Billions of long dead ancient peoples around the world the Truly Believed in their 1000's of assorted gods when they stated categorically, They Are Real....
You don't know that...so quit lying.
SisterNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109272 Jul 30, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Right... prison is a crucible for the wholesome introspection which leads to born again salvation. How insensitive of me not to consider the real world through your eyes.
See how you trump stuff up, and twist and distort it!!(except for the you being insensitive of others part)

Shame on You!
SisterNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109274 Jul 30, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So where in the bible does it say when the flood occurred?
Sea fossils on top of Mt. Everest does show it was once under water, but that alone does not show when it was under water. Are their any human fossils to be found on Mt. Everest to show evidence of a flood in mans time on earth? Nope. So what is your excuse for this? Their are a lot of sea animals and no land animals. Just what one would expect if the science of the day was correct, but not what one would expect if the flood story was true. If the flood story was true, one would expect to find many land animal fossils on Mt Everest.
You just don't conceptualize the theory of limited spatial probabilities in considerations, do you.
SisterNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109275 Jul 30, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So you have no logical rebuttal? No surprise.
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
No, roughly 80% of the US population claims to be Christian, and that directly correlates to the 80% of inmates who also claim to be Christian. It has nothing to do with fooling parole boards or seeing the error of their ways though born again salvation.
No logical statistical citations, no logical effort in response.
SisterNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109277 Jul 30, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Do you consider the Christian posters here, moderates? I see them as extremists and are doing things in our society that I feel is harmful. I note you continue to avoid this debate.
The "if" you cite is the point. Do you think we would be arguing this if religion was not harmful?
If they're not stalking-harrassing you at your home, or stalking-harrassing you in state places..

YOU don't have to appease ANYONE (with your dialogue) either, ya know.

They're just stating their beliefs, not demanding you do this, or do that, eat your peas or else, or anything.

(THOSE that DO try and manipulate and demand UNreasonably of others like that--are the types that anyone SHOULD be concerned with..and NO, I don't see any of the ones truly professing their beliefs in GOOD faith, getting ugly or hateful with anyone.

Except for a few atheist maybe-THEN I DO see a lot of hateful, disrespectful of others things being said.
SisterNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109280 Jul 30, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>First, lets teach the kids where to put question marks, then lets work on classes that teach myths.
Then they can maybe comprehend well enough to move up to some real world history,with out having meltdowns?

Every now and then, some of what you post, make some sense.
SisterNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109281 Jul 30, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>"Most all"? Why not all? Are some whole churches ignoring the holy ghost? Or are most churches just following what they have been taught by others?
You can claim a ghost all day long, but the facts show no ghost need be. People tend to follow their peers and family. The facts do not dispute this.
Their are a billion Catholics that have some fundamental disagreements with Protestants. Now all this would logically be cleared up if a holy ghost existed and helped people to interpret the bible, but the facts show this does not happen at all.
This post however, was not one of them lol.(rather mired up in that labelduhm label doctrine stuff, confusing it with some sort of kumbaya majik wand and poof-"everyone in the world will agree on everything" a little bit eh? I'm kind of thinking that's not gonna happen, people aren't preprogrammed robots, remember?)
SisterNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109282 Jul 30, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Of course their is no way to prove, this is why I think it is but a myth. The facts point to it being a myth. In other words, the evidence is against you, not with you.
The only similarities between the many churches are the ones that are clearly claimed in the bible. No ghost needed here.
Now see, I would disagree with you there, because I think there IS that type of a more "spiritual higher order feeling", and people that have felt it, can substantiate it.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.pixoto.com/quantumm

#109283 Jul 30, 2013
SisterNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know that...so quit lying.
Yes I do, I actually studied in my life, you should give it a shot sometime.....
SisterNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109284 Jul 30, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Hell no. Christmas has become a fully secular tradition. We celebrate it and I love it. It has nothing to do with Jesus. Hell, even when I was a kid going to grandparents for Christmas nobody ever talked about Jesus. Ever.
Christmas is Christian only to the extent that the name contains the word "christ".
That's according to who you would be speaking with about it as well.
(customarily and traditionally--like St Nick- IS a CATHOLIC religious thing...while trees are maybe more pagan, representing the more "spring like" weather of warmer months....and in some countries, many "believed that evergreens would keep away witches, ghosts, evil spirits, and illness.")

Christmas is both a sacred religious holiday and a worldwide cultural and commercial phenomenon. For two millennia, people around the world have been observing it with traditions and practices that are both religious and secular in nature.

Christians celebrate Christmas Day as the anniversary of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, a spiritual leader whose teachings form the basis of their religion.

Popular customs include exchanging gifts, decorating Christmas trees, attending church, sharing meals with family and friends and, of course, waiting for Santa Claus to arrive. December 25–Christmas Day–has been a federal holiday in the United States since 1870.

So ummm...atheist are GUILTY of a little "cherry picking" themselves?

(yeah, kinda looks that way lol)
SisterNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109285 Jul 30, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Read our own comment here carefully. You begin with "if there is a creator". That's a big if. And as I pointed out in the last post lots of things are possible, but what is probable?
So far through science and reason we have solved a lot of important problems and learned the nature of many other mysteries. None of that was due to god, gods, monsters, or ghosts.
What does that tell you about the universe? Where is god in all of this?
As Q pointed out, science does not disprove god. However it damn sure hasn't found any evidence of god.
So the rational point of view is to not believe in such a thing.
"In the beginning there was light"....

The one sentence, that both Science And the Bible, seem to agree upon.

(See the BB theory and Genesis 1:3)

PHYSICS.
SisterNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109286 Jul 30, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do, I actually studied in my life, you should give it a shot sometime.....
You do not know.

and Alienware anything is wayyy overrated.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#109287 Jul 30, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
Science does not try to use that knowledge to say he doesn't exist... Science just tests, observes and verifies... If science ran across a single piece of evidence of a God it would produce it and plaster it all over the globe... Science does not try to prove Flying Unicorns that Poop Glitter do not exist.... Science could give a crap about something that has no evidence of it's existence....
Science only attempts to describe that which we observe... It does not try to explain Magic since there is never been an observed example of it's reality.....
Well now, let us get back to which came first,the chicken or the egg?
When that question was asked, you said the egg.
Scientists determined that the chicken had to come first,because only a chicken can lay a chicken egg.
If only a chicken can lay a chicken egg , then,where did the chicken come from?
Logic would point you to someone having created a chicken and a rooster, the rooster fertilizing the egg and thereby , a continuation of the species...
But no,,,That would entail a creator,,,,So,,,,How to explain that away...
The chicken that laid the egg, from which chickens come from,,,
That chicken was hatched from some other type of egg....
Tha is nonsense,unreal,an abominable excuse,,,and did any one observe that process....NO,,It was invented as an excuse so as not to have to deal with the reality that our God is the creator of all.
And, according to science, where did pur intelligence originate?
"If you ever wondered about the origin of intelligence in humans and other mammals, here's the answer from a team of researchers led by Professor Seth Grant of the University of Edinburgh.

A genetic accident experienced by an invertebrate sea animal, about 500 million years ago, led to extra copies of brain genes being made. These extra genes benefited the sea animal's descendants, leading to behaviorally sophisticated vertebrates, including humans, suggest the scientists.
Moreover,keep in mind....Huxley,Freud,Nietzsche ,Darwin,Madalyn O'hair and others to many to mention had 2 things in common..
Atheists and mental problems....
When it comes to God,I do not trust,nor do I rely ,on Science or Atheists...
I rely on what I have personally experienced
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#109288 Jul 30, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I posted about how I stopped drinking(if you wish to call that a drinking problem) when someone claimed (I think YAA)only religion can help alcoholism.
I see you refuted none of my points and simply posted part of one of the studies you posted.
An atheist very well might not see suicide as immoral in certain situations. And if you posted the source of the study, I could show where the study was done on the elderly and thus likely had a situation that would fit the moral dilemma.
But you refuse to have an honest debate so you can stay in denial.
I note the study showed several reasons the atheist subjects might have chose suicide. Care to debate those reasons?
Strangely the study was so careless in not having subjects that had the same situations, such as being married or with children. That is a lack of controls. Of course someone with a spouse or children would have more motive to not commit suicide, so why on earth would the study not use subjects with the same circumstances is beyond me.
The study said the atheists had fewer family members visiting.
So just what are the reasons for this? One could be that the religious family did not approve of the atheist in the family. Who knows, but either way it is but one more lack of controls in the study. Of course and elderly person with health problems in some sort of old folks home that is not being visited by anyone is going to have a higher chance of suicide. Does it take a study to deduce this?
Responding in the book The Irrational Atheist to criticisms that religion is harmful, Theodore Beale argues that religious individuals tend to be happier and healthier, more likely to have children, and more sexually satisfied than non-religious individuals.[84] There is substantial research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed.[85][86] Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[87] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[88] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[89][vague][90] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health,[91] and a meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 also found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[92] Andrew E. Clark and Orsolya Lelkes surveyed 90,000 people in 26 European countries and found that "[one's own] religious behaviour is positively correlated with individual life satisfaction.", greater overall "religiosity" in a region also correlates positively with "individual life satisfaction". The reverse was found to be true: a large "atheist" (non-religious) population "has negative spillover effects" for both the religious and non-religious members of the population.[93] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[94]

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109289 Jul 30, 2013
SisterNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
You just don't conceptualize the theory of limited spatial probabilities in considerations, do you.
Seeing as how you cannot articulate a full argument or present evidence, I will just ignore your broad stroke accusation as it would take to many assumptions to debate.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109290 Jul 30, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Responding in the book The Irrational Atheist to criticisms that religion is harmful, Theodore Beale argues that religious individuals tend to be happier and healthier, more likely to have children, and more sexually satisfied than non-religious individuals.[84] There is substantial research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed.[85][86] Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[87] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[88] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[89][vague][90] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health,[91] and a meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 also found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[92] Andrew E. Clark and Orsolya Lelkes surveyed 90,000 people in 26 European countries and found that "[one's own] religious behaviour is positively correlated with individual life satisfaction.", greater overall "religiosity" in a region also correlates positively with "individual life satisfaction". The reverse was found to be true: a large "atheist" (non-religious) population "has negative spillover effects" for both the religious and non-religious members of the population.[93] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[94]
Again you fail to debate my points and just cut and paste your propaganda. How predictable.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109291 Jul 30, 2013
SisterNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
"In the beginning there was light"....
The one sentence, that both Science And the Bible, seem to agree upon.
(See the BB theory and Genesis 1:3)
PHYSICS.
Now if you could only show a god had a darned thing to do with either one.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109292 Jul 30, 2013
SisterNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
That's according to who you would be speaking with about it as well.
(customarily and traditionally--like St Nick- IS a CATHOLIC religious thing...while trees are maybe more pagan, representing the more "spring like" weather of warmer months....and in some countries, many "believed that evergreens would keep away witches, ghosts, evil spirits, and illness.")
Christmas is both a sacred religious holiday and a worldwide cultural and commercial phenomenon. For two millennia, people around the world have been observing it with traditions and practices that are both religious and secular in nature.
Christians celebrate Christmas Day as the anniversary of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, a spiritual leader whose teachings form the basis of their religion.
Popular customs include exchanging gifts, decorating Christmas trees, attending church, sharing meals with family and friends and, of course, waiting for Santa Claus to arrive. December 25–Christmas Day–has been a federal holiday in the United States since 1870.
So ummm...atheist are GUILTY of a little "cherry picking" themselves?
(yeah, kinda looks that way lol)
Umm, you failed to show what we picked.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109293 Jul 30, 2013
SisterNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
Now see, I would disagree with you there, because I think there IS that type of a more "spiritual higher order feeling", and people that have felt it, can substantiate it.
They can claim feelings, yes, so? Does it mean the feeling is of a god? Nope. "Spiritual higher order" can be the order of nature.

One might feel monsters live under his bed. Does it mean monsters live under his bed? Feelings can be deceiving. Some call this a delusion. Is this the first you have heard of this?

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.

Richmond Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
A Trip To Stately Wayne Manor and Fisherman's W... 32 min Nobody 1,785
RANDY FRYER return the laptop you stole 2 hr DR Francisco 5
$100 reward for info on who stole a laptop on L... 5 hr Captain Obvious 5
Heating & Air Co 5 hr Captain Obvious 5
Tajii Shephard 5 hr Captain Obvious 2
Annie 5 hr Captain Obvious 2
Cheating Spouses 5 hr Curious_68 12

Richmond Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richmond Mortgages