Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Full story: The Courier-Journal 132,148

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

#103905 May 17, 2013
Pitbullie wrote:
Seriously, dude, have you ever read the thing? Or studied any history? Or actually listened to the people who claim to literally believe its the final word? More people have been killed in the name of religion than in any other cause.
<quoted text>
Seriously, dude, have you ever read the thing? Or studied any history?
Obviously you have not
Worst Atrocities of the 20-21st centuries
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 7,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Ottoman Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915)+ 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22)+ 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
Suharto (Communists 1965-66) 500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000?(Chinese civilians)
Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh)
Ante Pavelic (Croatia, 1941-45) 359,000 (30,000 Jews, 29,000 Gipsies, 300,000 Serbs)
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97)?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000
Suharto (Aceh, East Timor, New Guinea, 1975-98) 200,000
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam, 1953-56) 200,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) 150,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99) 100,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000
Tis Quanty

Prestonsburg, KY

#103906 May 17, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
"Tis simple for a intelligent man to feign ignorance, Tis Impossible for the ignorant man to feign intellect" - Q
'Tis embarrassing when the ignorant man makes a mistake with his articles "a" and "an" right in the middle of scolding the other ignorant men.

It should say, "an intelligent man," Shakespeare.

Perhaps,'tis better to keep your trap shut.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Somerset, KY

#103908 May 17, 2013
Tis Quanty wrote:
<quoted text>
'Tis embarrassing when the ignorant man makes a mistake with his articles "a" and "an" right in the middle of scolding the other ignorant men.
It should say, "an intelligent man," Shakespeare.
Perhaps,'tis better to keep your trap shut.
A is used when speaking in the Specific, An is used when speaking in the General... What the Bard had to do with anything is confusing ... But carry on...

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103909 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.
What changes about the status of the child at 26 weeks makes the difference in your mind?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103910 May 17, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
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.
Look in the mirror. You are a human. Physical characteristics like you see in the mirror, define a human. Simple enough? Why are you playing word games?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103911 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Most married couples would be smart enough to know that contraception is not 100% effective and should be ready to accept the consequences if it fails. 85% of abortions in 2008 the woman reported using contraceptives. With that awful rate, who would trust it?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103912 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Legal <> right

You wouldn't want your mother to kill you right now. But it would have been just fine if she killed you before you were born?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103913 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So you trust mans answers?
It lines up with the rest of what I believe just fine.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103914 May 17, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>No, I'm not saying treat the symptom instead of the cause. I'm pointing out the fact that allowing women to choose their own reproductive futures reduces poverty. Restricting women's reproductive rights *increases* poverty. This is a fact. It is not controversial, it is not speculative, and it is not subject to your opinion or mine. The numbers bear it out. Do some poking around outside of religious websites and you will see what I mean.

Regarding the second issue I understand where we have a breakdown in communication. I do not believe in magic or souls, I do not think that when my sperm busts into an egg God zaps a soul into the mix. I am a naturalist. It is biology and nothing more.

My moral foundation is about well being. Suffering is a moral issue. If a fetus does not have the wiring hooked up to have feelings then there cannot be any suffering *by definition*. Therefore there is no moral problem. I don't care if the fetus might become a great person, that is not something I can know. All I can know is the statistics and the desires of the human being who is 100% responsible for growing the fetus into a real baby or deciding not to finish the process.

As long as the fetus has not yet developed into a person who can feel, know, or sense anything at all then there simply CANNOT be any suffering involved.

That is why I say prior to 26 weeks should be nobody's business. And I'm only saying it that way because I can accept that once the wiring is all hooked up suffering CAN happen. Then it becomes a moral issue. Messy, but morally important to talk about.
You are beyond ignorant on abortion. Google some videos that show a child less than 26 weeks writhe while the needle breaks the barrier of the protective membrane and begins melting the child with saline. Then tell me it didn't feel anything.

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#103915 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Look in the mirror. You are a human. Physical characteristics like you see in the mirror, define a human. Simple enough? Why are you playing word games?
What the f*#^ are you talking about? Word games??? What exactly do you think I'm doing when I ask for specifics and you give me ambiguous stupidity? That is not a game, on my part. I don't know what you're trying to make it, but it's not intelligent communication on your part.
It is exceedingly irritating to have to request, over and over, such a simple thing. I even cited specifics of the sort of detailed answer that would clarify your position. The best that you can come up with is definitions that include the word "human" or telling me to look in a mirror.
So, if the look in a mirror test is really all there is to it, then there are thousands upon thousands born every year that fail and would be declared not human. A chimp would look more like any us, as a whole, than a fetus with many "survivable" birth defects would. I have a feeling this would not fly with you. SO... do better. Put some actual thought into it if you haven't bothered to do so.

And what is "living" for a "human"?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#103916 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.
A statement that was clearly intended to be accusatory was cut and pasted. You might have thought it the pinnacle of righteousness, but I only had one word to say about it, and in no way did I take it personally.
You are the one who makes that illogical leap, and the one who chooses to discard racks of well formed footwear.
Idjit.
Sam

Horse Cave, KY

#103917 May 17, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>
What the f*#^ are you talking about? Word games??? What exactly do you think I'm doing when I ask for specifics and you give me ambiguous stupidity? That is not a game, on my part. I don't know what you're trying to make it, but it's not intelligent communication on your part.
It is exceedingly irritating to have to request, over and over, such a simple thing. I even cited specifics of the sort of detailed answer that would clarify your position. The best that you can come up with is definitions that include the word "human" or telling me to look in a mirror.
So, if the look in a mirror test is really all there is to it, then there are thousands upon thousands born every year that fail and would be declared not human. A chimp would look more like any us, as a whole, than a fetus with many "survivable" birth defects would. I have a feeling this would not fly with you. SO... do better. Put some actual thought into it if you haven't bothered to do so.
And what is "living" for a "human"?
You sound delusional!
LEGIONS

Elkhorn City, KY

#103918 May 17, 2013
Dr. Duane T. Gish is the Vice President of ICR. Dr. Gish has degrees from both U.C.L.A. and the University of California at Berkeley (Ph.D., Biochemistry), as well as 18 years experience in biochemical and biomedical research at Berkeley, Cornell University, and the Upjohn Company
The Origin of the First Completely Independent, Stable, Self-Reproducing Unit—The First Living Cell
The simplest form of life known to science contains hundreds of different kinds of enzymes, thousands of different kinds of RNA and DNA molecules, and thousands of other kinds of complex molecules. As mentioned above, it is enclosed within a very complex membrane and contains a large number of structures many of which are enclosed within their own membrane. The thousands of chemical reactions which occur in this cell are strictly coordinated with one another in time and space in a harmonious system, all working together towards the self-maintenance and eventual reproduction of this living cell. Every detail of its structure and function reveals purposefulness; its incredible complexity and marvelous capabilities reveal a master plan.
It seems futile enough to attempt to imagine how this amazingly complex system could have come into existence in the first place in view of the vast amount of contradictory evidence. Its continued existence from the very start, however, would have required mechanisms especially designed for self-maintenance and self-reproduction. There are numerous injurious processes which would prove fatal for the cell if repair mechanisms did not exist. These injurious processes include dimerization of the thymine units in DNA, deamination of cytosine, adenine, and guanine in DNA and RNA, deamidation of glutamine and asparagine in proteins, and the production of toxic peroxides, just to cite a few. The cell is endowed with complex, defense mechanisms, in each case involving an enzyme or a series of enzymes. Since these defense mechanisms are absolutely necessary for the survival of the cell, they would have had to exist from the very beginning. Life could not have waited until such mechanisms evolved, for life would be impossible in their absence.
The ultimate fate of a cell or any living thing is death and destruction. No dynamically functioning unit therefore can survive as a species without self-reproduction. The ability to reproduce, however, would have had to exist from the very beginning in any system, no matter how simple or complex, that could have given rise eventually to a living thing. Yet the ability to reproduce requires such a complex mechanism that the machinery required for this process would have been the last thing that could possibly have evolved. This dilemma has no solution and thus poses the final insuperable barrier to the origin of life by a naturalistic process.
We conclude that a materialistic, mechanistic, evolutionary origin of life is directly contradicted by known natural laws and processes. The origin of life could only have occurred through the acts of an omniscient Creator independent of and external to the natural universe. "In the beginning God created" is still the most up-to-date statement we can make concerning the origin of life.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103919 May 17, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
What the f*#^ are you talking about? Word games??? What exactly do you think I'm doing when I ask for specifics and you give me ambiguous stupidity? That is not a game, on my part. I don't know what you're trying to make it, but it's not intelligent communication on your part.
It is exceedingly irritating to have to request, over and over, such a simple thing. I even cited specifics of the sort of detailed answer that would clarify your position. The best that you can come up with is definitions that include the word "human" or telling me to look in a mirror.
So, if the look in a mirror test is really all there is to it, then there are thousands upon thousands born every year that fail and would be declared not human. A chimp would look more like any us, as a whole, than a fetus with many "survivable" birth defects would. I have a feeling this would not fly with you. SO... do better. Put some actual thought into it if you haven't bothered to do so.

And what is "living" for a "human"?
I gave you Webster's dictionary definition of the word. If you are smarter than them, by all means submit your own dictionary to the public.
You are so arrogant that you can't take the definition that Webster's gives. So I told you to look in the mirror for the definition. I can't help you anymore if you can't figure out the definition of a human.

As for your ridiculous comparison to other animals, show me one that aborts their babies, then this might be relevant.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Somerset, KY

#103920 May 17, 2013
LEGIONS wrote:
Dr. Duane T. Gish is the Vice President of ICR. Dr. Gish has degrees from both U.C.L.A. and the University of California at Berkeley (Ph.D., Biochemistry), as well as 18 years experience in biochemical and biomedical research at Berkeley, Cornell University, and the Upjohn Company
Net time you speak to the Doc ask him One Question.... Doc, What Specifically Defines Life?..

He would be able to win the Noble Prize if he can answer that question....

The Point being that Science has no idea what the Specific Definition of Life is... Is a Virus that can only replicate with the inclusion of a host DNA alive? Is the sub set of the simplest life form we know that cannot replicate without it's symbiotic components alive? Since you as a Human Being would die instantly if the 2 pounds of bugs in your body were eliminated, being that there are 10 bugs for each Human Cell in your body, Are You Alive or are you just a Vessel for the Bugs..... Is a Crystal that absorbs surrounding material and uses those compounds to grow and produce offspring Alive?.... Id the Life as we know it here on Earth the Only Possible form of life that could exist?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103921 May 17, 2013
LEGIONS wrote:
<quoted text>Dr. Duane T. Gish is the Vice President of ICR. Dr. Gish has degrees from both U.C.L.A. and the University of California at Berkeley (Ph.D., Biochemistry), as well as 18 years experience in biochemical and biomedical research at Berkeley, Cornell University, and the Upjohn Company
The Origin of the First Completely Independent, Stable, Self-Reproducing Unit—The First Living Cell
The simplest form of life known to science contains hundreds of different kinds of enzymes, thousands of different kinds of RNA and DNA molecules, and thousands of other kinds of complex molecules. As mentioned above, it is enclosed within a very complex membrane and contains a large number of structures many of which are enclosed within their own membrane. The thousands of chemical reactions which occur in this cell are strictly coordinated with one another in time and space in a harmonious system, all working together towards the self-maintenance and eventual reproduction of this living cell. Every detail of its structure and function reveals purposefulness; its incredible complexity and marvelous capabilities reveal a master plan.
It seems futile enough to attempt to imagine how this amazingly complex system could have come into existence in the first place in view of the vast amount of contradictory evidence. Its continued existence from the very start, however, would have required mechanisms especially designed for self-maintenance and self-reproduction. There are numerous injurious processes which would prove fatal for the cell if repair mechanisms did not exist. These injurious processes include dimerization of the thymine units in DNA, deamination of cytosine, adenine, and guanine in DNA and RNA, deamidation of glutamine and asparagine in proteins, and the production of toxic peroxides, just to cite a few. The cell is endowed with complex, defense mechanisms, in each case involving an enzyme or a series of enzymes. Since these defense mechanisms are absolutely necessary for the survival of the cell, they would have had to exist from the very beginning. Life could not have waited until such mechanisms evolved, for life would be impossible in their absence.
The ultimate fate of a cell or any living thing is death and destruction. No dynamically functioning unit therefore can survive as a species without self-reproduction. The ability to reproduce, however, would have had to exist from the very beginning in any system, no matter how simple or complex, that could have given rise eventually to a living thing. Yet the ability to reproduce requires such a complex mechanism that the machinery required for this process would have been the last thing that could possibly have evolved. This dilemma has no solution and thus poses the final insuperable barrier to the origin of life by a naturalistic process.
We conclude that a materialistic, mechanistic, evolutionary origin of life is directly contradicted by known natural laws and processes. The origin of life could only have occurred through the acts of an omniscient Creator independent of and external to the natural universe. "In the beginning God created" is still the most up-to-date statement we can make concerning the origin of life.
Thanks for sharing
LEGIONS

Elkhorn City, KY

#103922 May 17, 2013
Quantummist writes:Net time you speak to the Doc ask him One Question.... Doc, What Specifically Defines Life?..

two basic "ingredients" in living systems are DNA (or an equivalent nucleic acid) and protein. DNA is the molecule of heredity, and proteins are the fundamental molecules of structure and function.

this and the post above pretty much defines life.
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#103923 May 18, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you do the pre-plant readiness of pulling weeds? Pesky things.
LOL, I Pray for less weeds, n more food!
Then I till, n hoe the heck out of them... when I can!
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#103924 May 18, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
Not Coming anywhere, Was there before there was a there there...
Hahaha... LOL
Osama says "There's no there, there!"
Good day to ya!
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#103925 May 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Fetus and child are two different classifications.
The word "Fetus" is ONLY used to dehumanize a Child in the womb!
If you did NOT kill it for convenience...
It could be a Blessing for Life!

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
jason hughes 1 hr Cuzzo 9
jessica napier 3 hr hmm 1
brandon bryson 3 hr old friend 4
food stamp office 4 hr Jdp889 15
{keep a word drop a word} (Oct '11) 5 hr _Zoey_ 3,608
teena Marie mills 6 hr Flatlick 4
Husbands with friends 7 hr Glenda 3
praying it's all a lie 13 hr Just the truth 5
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 10:45 am PST

NFL10:45AM
One Preview: Steelers could ride 'Triplets' to division title
NFL11:45 AM
Injury roundup: A.J. Green misses Bengals practice
NBC Sports12:17 PM
Jurrell Casey won't go to Pro Bowl as an alternate
Bleacher Report 2:15 AM
Should New England Patriots Rest Key Starters in Week 17?
NBC Sports 6:16 AM
A.J. Green's injured arm "feeling a little better"