Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Full story: The Courier-Journal 131,883

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.

Full Story
curious

Ocoee, FL

#103865 May 17, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>
OK then, moron... why are you responding with things that don't apply? Are you just an intentionally wasting everyone else's time?
Just shut up. That was rhetorical. You're such a petulant child. And a hypocrite. You post a bunch of ambiguous Bible garbage with interspersed ranting and then try to play gotcha when the people you're "arguing" with think that you are talking to them.
Try this on for size:
In your rush to judgement, you assumed that I thought you were referring to atheists (or even cared in the slightest). I did not. I didn't even read it, because (for the millionth time) I'm not here to read your cherry picked Bible verses. If you can't be bothered to reciprocate and have a real thought (as I always do), I'm not going to bother to read what you vomit out onto the internet. All I did was make fun of your complete inability to form your own thoughts.
So, as always, I am rightfully calling your judgement into question. On every level. About everything I've seen you state an opinion on.
A general statement was posted.You,Chrome and Mike took it personally.
Why you might have felt it applied to all of you,I can not explain.
Otherwise,why did you respond?....
I tend to wear shoes that fit me,if they don't fit,I throw them out.

Since: May 13

Somerset, KY

#103866 May 17, 2013
Yiago, except for rape, abuse or incest, the mother of a baby expended her rights when she CHOSE to have sex. That was HER right. She knew she could get pregnant and make a new LIFE. A new PERSON. After she had expended HER rights, if she became pregnant, then the rights became the baby's rights and NOT hers.

Furthermore, since this topic has sprouted out of the topic of teaching the Bible in schools, I will add this little tidbit. If the pro-choice, and the right-to-life camps came together and spent all that energy and money on teaching PROPER sex education (a subject which the parents have abdicated), self-erotica (no, you won't go blind or grow hair on your knuckles), taught about proper birth control, including but not exclusively abstinence, helped pregnant mothers through term, then helped them adopt their babies, well, all this BS would be a much smaller topic. The GOOD sex education would drastically decrease pregnancy, and decrease sex before marriage as well. Helping the poor mothers adopt their babies would keep them from the burden of rearing a child they cannot care for, and decrease the incidence of child abuse. Also, it would help out a family who "must" have an infant, rather than adopt an older child who desperately needs a good home as well as a newborn. But, they cannot see past their eyelashes, cannot see what harm they are doing. They are mean, short-sited and dangerous. I am pre-life myself, but not a pro-LIFER.

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#103867 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Life begins at conception because unless aborted or miscarried, a human will result. Any other definition was created to justify murder and make it seem less terrible.
Are you seriously unable to provide an answer? Do you not understand or do you think that clarification would make your position weak?

Not "when does life begin". Not "is ______ living". Not "what results in a human". Just define "human", as applies to your statements. Then define living as it applies to the human you define. Exceedingly simple, and essential to establishing any point you're trying to make.
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about? A fetus that is left alone, or one extracted from the mother?
My statement is true. Please explain what type of twist you are trying to put on this to make it false.
It is estimated that a very large percentage (around 50%, some say higher) of fetuses do not survive pregnancy. About 40% of these losses are considered "know pregnancies". That's all they are saying (or at least that's how what they are saying matches my knowledge on the subject).
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
With or without medical attention, a fetus thrives in a uterus and is born. I can read, you just can't make your point clear. Nor can you address the questions I asked.
You are simply not understanding. I got the point. I'm sure others did, as well.
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
A general statement was posted.You,Chrome and Mike took it personally.
Why you might have felt it applied to all of you,I can not explain.
Otherwise,why did you respond?....
I tend to wear shoes that fit me,if they don't fit,I throw them out.
Read, you moron. Read the things you JUST quoted. I just told you what I did, and it is none of the bullsh!t you're claiming. Stop putting words in my mouth, and stop posting pointless inane "general statement" crap just so you can feign amazement that people think you're talking about them when you're talking about them.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103868 May 17, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
This is kind of fun, watching you completely deny everything about reality:
Here's with medical assistance, in the US:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fetal_death.htm
In 2006 there were 25,972 fetal deaths within 20 weeks of gestation.
An interesting paper on the very subject:
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/6/07-0...
You should learn how to look things up before you repeatedly make a fool of yourself.
I'm the fool? I'm talking about abortions and intentional miscarriages, not still born babies from natural causes. Why are you avoiding the topic and bringing something totally unrelated to the table and then calling me a fool?

This is like me talking about 1st degree murder and you bringing up statistics on deaths from natural causes in a nursing home.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#103869 May 17, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>
y not understanding. I got the point. I'm sure others did, as well.
<quoted text>
Read, you moron. Read the things you JUST quoted. I just told you what I did, and it is none of the bullsh!t you're claiming. Stop putting words in my mouth, and stop posting pointless inane "general statement" crap just so you can feign amazement that people think you're talking about them when you're talking about them.
Calling people names,getting angry and showing your frustrations are not the right path to get you to the solution you are seeking.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103870 May 17, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you seriously unable to provide an answer? Do you not understand or do you think that clarification would make your position weak?
Not "when does life begin". Not "is ______ living". Not "what results in a human". Just define "human", as applies to your statements. Then define living as it applies to the human you define. Exceedingly simple, and essential to establishing any point you're trying to make.
<quoted text>
Webster says:
Definition of HUMAN

1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

2: consisting of humans

3 a: having human form or attributes

b: susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature

Lets take #1.
Characteristic of humans. By week 4 it is undeniable that the embryo has appendages, eyes, a head, a spine, etc. It is a human from conception.

Have you ever seen body parts of an aborted baby? The tiny hands, feet, and face? It is a human, and how anyone could deny this, or try to justify the murder of such, is beyond me. Some babies have been shown to react to the torturous death they have to endure.

Define living? Not dead. If the embryo is still in stages of development, it is alive.

What is your definition of human and living?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103871 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want my opinion: God allows us to choose, but He knows us so well, He knows which Mother will more than likely abort.
So you still cannot get an answer out of that ghost?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#103872 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm the fool? I'm talking about abortions and intentional miscarriages, not still born babies from natural causes. Why are you avoiding the topic and bringing something totally unrelated to the table and then calling me a fool?
This is like me talking about 1st degree murder and you bringing up statistics on deaths from natural causes in a nursing home.
No, you denied what I stated, which again was: Without medical assistance most fetuses are not born alive.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#103873 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Webster says:
Definition of HUMAN
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2: consisting of humans
3 a: having human form or attributes
b: susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature
Lets take #1.
Characteristic of humans. By week 4 it is undeniable that the embryo has appendages, eyes, a head, a spine, etc. It is a human from conception.
Have you ever seen body parts of an aborted baby? The tiny hands, feet, and face? It is a human, and how anyone could deny this, or try to justify the murder of such, is beyond me. Some babies have been shown to react to the torturous death they have to endure.
Define living? Not dead. If the embryo is still in stages of development, it is alive.
What is your definition of human and living?
Based on your definition here, apes, monkeys, chimpanzees, cats, dogs .... well a lot of animals are human as well.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#103874 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
So you blame born children for crime?
And you think a parent has the right to kill their own children?
No, no.

Statistically, crime correlates with poverty. Poverty is increased when reproductive rights are decreased or denied. That much should be common sense, right? Look at areas where poverty is a problem. Look at the families. What do you see? Tons of kids. Look at areas of affluence. What do you see? Fewer kids.

People with privilege tend to be educated. They tend to control their reproduction, pushing more of their resources into fewer offspring.

In families where living on food stamps is essentially a tradition they pump out a lot of babies. You sometimes see kids coming out of those groups break that tradition by NOT having kids early or at all.

It is NOT the kids fault. But uncontrolled reproduction HARMS children that are already here. Controlling reproduction (abstaining, using the pill, using condoms, and aborting unwanted pregnancies) greatly improves average income and living standards.

The second part is a loaded question. If a woman gets pregnant and then has an abortion within a reasonable amount of time she is not killing her child. She is ending her pregnancy. A fetus is not a kid with snotty nose, it doesn't even have a sense of self or awareness before 26 weeks or so.

Now, we can have a serious discussion about limiting "late term" abortions. I'm down with that discussion. But prior to 26 weeks it ain't your business, it ain't my business, and it damn sure ain't the government's business. So don't go down that road of "baby killing" argumentation. I don't have any patience for claptrap.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103875 May 17, 2013
Electratroll wrote:
just my opinion, the state, as the article reads, is trying to make guidelines on Biblical courses that are already electives. Now, I've never seen a school grade 1-8 that has electives. But I'm as old as the dinosaurs! So, essentially, they are spending our money on something that already exists. They are simply fine tuning it--in their minds.
What I think. The constitution specifically provides for separation of school and state. Someone up there said it so much better than I can. Government schools cannot teach religion due to the constitution. It's not up to debate. They can teach about Moses crossing the desert in the context of escaping from the Eguptions, but cannot teach about the events leading up to their leaving, for example. So, to address someone's post about teaching our rich history, it can be done without mention of religion, except maybe in the very fewest of words. I know my English is wrong there, but it is the best I could think of on such short notice.:)
Actually teaching that Moses did anything is not history, as zero evidence exists to any of the claims. Also the evidence shows many if the claims as likely false. I am not even speaking if the supernatural claims.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#103876 May 17, 2013
Electratroll wrote:
Yiago, except for rape, abuse or incest, the mother of a baby expended her rights when she CHOSE to have sex. That was HER right. She knew she could get pregnant and make a new LIFE. A new PERSON. After she had expended HER rights, if she became pregnant, then the rights became the baby's rights and NOT hers.
Furthermore, since this topic has sprouted out of the topic of teaching the Bible in schools, I will add this little tidbit. If the pro-choice, and the right-to-life camps came together and spent all that energy and money on teaching PROPER sex education (a subject which the parents have abdicated), self-erotica (no, you won't go blind or grow hair on your knuckles), taught about proper birth control, including but not exclusively abstinence, helped pregnant mothers through term, then helped them adopt their babies, well, all this BS would be a much smaller topic. The GOOD sex education would drastically decrease pregnancy, and decrease sex before marriage as well. Helping the poor mothers adopt their babies would keep them from the burden of rearing a child they cannot care for, and decrease the incidence of child abuse. Also, it would help out a family who "must" have an infant, rather than adopt an older child who desperately needs a good home as well as a newborn. But, they cannot see past their eyelashes, cannot see what harm they are doing. They are mean, short-sited and dangerous. I am pre-life myself, but not a pro-LIFER.
Let's come together. Let's make a compromise: abortions prior to 26 or 28 weeks (I'll have to look it up, can't remember which is the prevailing science) are OK. Always. No questions, no subjecting girls to horrifying videos to slut shame and pressure them away from their decision. No Bible beating. You want an abortion at 14 weeks, here you go.

But after 26 weeks we limit it to rape, incest, risk of death of either the baby or the mother or both.

I can have that conversation. But when it comes to voluntary, early abortion that is not something we can compromise on. It is the right of the mother, period.

Regarding sex ed, I agree we need a much more robust approach to that topic. Abstinence can be part of it, but not exclusive. Kids are going to get nasty as soon as they can. If you were ever a teenager you know this is true. The only thing stopping a teenager from having sex at any given moment is opportunity. Prepare them correctly.

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#103877 May 17, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Calling people names,getting angry and showing your frustrations are not the right path to get you to the solution you are seeking.
Those aren't merely "names". You are really an idiot. And although it is highly frustrating to be unable to make a useful person out of a steaming pile such as yourself, I'm not angry. And I'm also not seeking any solution.
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Webster says:
Definition of HUMAN
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2: consisting of humans
3 a: having human form or attributes
b: susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature
Lets take #1.
Characteristic of humans. By week 4 it is undeniable that the embryo has appendages, eyes, a head, a spine, etc. It is a human from conception.
Have you ever seen body parts of an aborted baby? The tiny hands, feet, and face? It is a human, and how anyone could deny this, or try to justify the murder of such, is beyond me. Some babies have been shown to react to the torturous death they have to endure.
Define living? Not dead. If the embryo is still in stages of development, it is alive.
What is your definition of human and living?
I really don't think you get it. That definition may be fine in a literary sense, but it does absolutely nothing for you because it uses the word human to describe the word human. I need to know what YOU consider human. Not some "it looks like a human" garbage. Scientifically speaking, what do you consider "human". Homo sapiens? 46 chromosomes? High cognitive function? ANY result of combination of a sperm and egg from a being with those characteristics? DEFINE IT. THEN, once people know what you consider human, explain what living is as applies to a human. WITHOUT using an antonym, synonym, or anything of the sort.

As for my definitions: it does not matter in the slightest to your position. So don't try to muddy the waters. Clarify the parameters so that people can understand your position. Then you may defend it from whatever scrutiny is supplied, once people can understand. If your position is sound/well thought out, it will stand.

Really. It's that simple. Please do it.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103878 May 17, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
A general statement was posted.You,Chrome and Mike took it personally.
Why you might have felt it applied to all of you,I can not explain.
Otherwise,why did you respond?....
I tend to wear shoes that fit me,if they don't fit,I throw them out.
Again you forget how you earlier directly called us foolish.
We did not forget.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103879 May 17, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's come together. Let's make a compromise: abortions prior to 26 or 28 weeks (I'll have to look it up, can't remember which is the prevailing science) are OK. Always. No questions, no subjecting girls to horrifying videos to slut shame and pressure them away from their decision. No Bible beating. You want an abortion at 14 weeks, here you go.
But after 26 weeks we limit it to rape, incest, risk of death of either the baby or the mother or both.
I can have that conversation. But when it comes to voluntary, early abortion that is not something we can compromise on. It is the right of the mother, period.
Regarding sex ed, I agree we need a much more robust approach to that topic. Abstinence can be part of it, but not exclusive. Kids are going to get nasty as soon as they can. If you were ever a teenager you know this is true. The only thing stopping a teenager from having sex at any given moment is opportunity. Prepare them correctly.
Jus who would decide the risks of health? Problem is, you would be trusting government with life and death decisions. Would you trust the government with your loved ones life?
No one is pushing for abortions, but their is a massive problem when you let government make these decisions.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103880 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is a failure to hold someone accountable for the misuse of their bodies. It is a failure to recognize that another life form is now dependent on what they do with their body. You favor granting people the right to be irresponsible at the expense of another life.
irresponsible? So if a married couple is using contraception yet it fails to stop a pregnancy, are they irresponsible?

What I struggled to understand as a Christian was, if god does not want you to have a lot of sex, why did he make it so desirable?
It makes much more sense that we evolved that desire in order to ensure reproduction.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103881 May 17, 2013
LOL in a suit wrote:
Ahhhh, the old should abortion be legal discussion has returned. In the holyhatebible god killed lots of kids. From what one reads in the holyhatebible it can be said god still kills kids. I would go as far as to say god likes killing the bible shows us this. Just one of the many reasons the holyhatebible should not be around our children in public schools with all the bad moral lessons the holyhatebible contains no wonder crime is on the rise. 98% of prison populations are religies. Go figure.
And they think we atheists oppose them because we are just searching for god. The many reasons we list do not add up in their mind.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103882 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Very weak argument.
85% of abortions are from unwed mothers.
25% unmarried women
36% of abortions are on women whom it is not their first abortion
13% had more than 2 children already
33% are women 20-24 in age
24% were 25-29
50% are less than 25 years old
Abortion rate of women on Medicaid is three times that of other women.
For reasons given: 75% say a baby would interfere with their work, school, or other responsibilities. 50% say they are single or having trouble with a spouse.
Only 12% say it was health related with the mother.
Under 1% was due to rape.
So between 1973 to 2008, 50 million abortions took place. And only 13% were due to health or rape. Almost all the others boil down to irresponsible behavior.
Average cost of an abortion is $451.
Your argument is weak to support murder.
My argument is so strong, it is why abortion is legal.
What may be the less likely person getting the abortion is the person who's rights we still must protect.
I gave a hypothetical that is based upon reality. You failed to answer the hypothetical.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Somerset, KY

#103883 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>And they think we atheists oppose them because we are just searching for god. The many reasons we list do not add up in their mind.
I love being repetitive....

"It is Impossible to have a Logical, Rational conversation with a Irrational, Illogical person" - Q

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103884 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I was asked what the LDS church stance is on those that die before born. I answered accordingly.
So you trust mans answers?

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.

Barbourville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
fire station or not 1 hr firehot 5
Preachers 2 hr Fact 7
Heard Nick Mandel almost died 2 hr Concerned 3
Need food badly 3 hr Helper 49
what happen on the creek ambulances an law is u... 4 hr Right 7
{keep a word drop a word} (Oct '11) 4 hr _Zoey_ 3,604
Court Dockets 7 hr Hot T OTC 2
Porsche mills 13 hr Well.... 24
To the Garland family 21 hr Well.... 3
How to make homemade ice melt for steps, sidewa... (Jan '13) Dec 15 Corky 51
Barbourville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Barbourville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Barbourville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:39 pm PST

Bleacher Report12:39PM
Thomas Seeking Broncos Record for 100-Yard Receiving Games
ESPN 1:03 PM
Browns' Mingo fined $16,537 for hit on Dalton
NFL 1:47 PM
'Sound FX' spies Manziel's meeting with Marvin Lewis
Yahoo! Sports 2:09 PM
RT Eric Winston quickly settling in with Bengals
NBC Sports 3:14 PM
Losers of 13 of 14, Titans set for top draft pick - NBC Sports