Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Courier-Journal

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.

Comments
99,361 - 99,380 of 129,042 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103958
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I am trying to leave religion out of this. We aren't talking about when the soul enters the body or anything like that. We are talking about the development of a child and the choice to end that life.
A believer cannot "leave religion out of this," that or the other thing.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103959
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>A lot of money does go to prevent pregnancies. Why do Christian churches often oppose this funding? Why do churches often oppose the birth control efforts?
Your team fights this effort all the time. So get your own house in order.
Churches often have a lot of money to spend. When you guys start promoting birth control, we will accept you are on the side of reducing abortions. Until then, you are just talk.

I once read a statistic that abortions reduce when democrats are in power. Not sure how true this claim is, but it does stand to reason. Democrats fund birth control measures where as republicans underfund them. Democrats fund the teaching of sex education, thus teaching birth control, where as republicans fight against this.

You oppose funding of abortion clinics, but these are for many of the people who cannot afford to raise children. And it does not help that republicans do not wish to help these people financially.
This is another reason abortions likely reduce when democrats have more power in government.

Their is more than one way to reduce the amount of abortions. Calling it murder or sin is but one way and I do not think it is very effective overall.
I don't oppose birth control, neither does my church. So most of the rest of what you said is irrelevant to me.

Refusing to call it murder does not make it less so.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103960
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>A believer cannot "leave religion out of this," that or the other thing.
So far I have. Re-read my posts if you don't believe me.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103961
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I agree. What could lead to less abortions? Pushing for adoptions. Churches should not condemn people for putting a baby up for adoption, nor should anyone, yet they do.
Also the stigma society puts on the young for being pregnant is large. So many abort just to hide the fact they had sex.
Maybe if a church member is looking to adopt a child, they should let it be know amongst the whole congregation and plead for anyone who gets pregnant and is not ready to raise a child to offer adoption.
If a kid does not see other solutions clearly, they will likely opt for the easy out of abortion. Just telling them adoption is an option is not enough. You must make it easy for them and stop making them feel guilty.
Kids will have sex, it is a matter of biology. Offer solutions, and do not stigmatize.
Also, pushing for abstinence only and not teaching birth control is a large problem the churches fail on consistently.
Yeah, the religion problem is that they assume a soul. Therefore the only rational line they can draw between human and not human is when the egg is fertilized. Once that happens, you have a baby. If you choose to abort, you are a murderer.

Their logic is valid. The problem is their premise - that souls exist - is not. There is no evidence AT ALL for souls. ALL the available evidence points to the fact that we are what we are...physical entities in time. We live, we die, end of story.

But if you are enamored of this idea of a soul then all other options seem scary. But I like what the late, great film critic Roger Ebert said about his own impending death:

"I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state."

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/roger_ebert/

As long as 85% of Americans continue to be obsessed with magical thinking, the rights of women to control their own reproductive health will be in jeopardy.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103962
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I am trying to leave religion out of this. We aren't talking about when the soul enters the body or anything like that. We are talking about the development of a child and the choice to end that life.
You do not seem to be trying very hard, as you went into the concept of the soul and choices it made before conception pretty extensively. You opened the door, now you close it when it is proving your holy ghost as a fraud. How convenient. Keep up the excuses, it only makes you look all the more guilty.

You believe that life of a zygote has a soul, thus you are trying to protect that soul. Atheists do not believe it has a soul. I do not think a zygote is a human in the sense of what a being with a brain is. Potentially it could be a human. But the word, potentially is key. You use that term because a zygote is not a human at the point. It might be human-like, but that is not human. It is a potential human. This is why other human-like examples were given by another poster.
A zygote has no brain. It has zero thoughts. You believe a soul has thoughts. So we have a fundamental disagreement of what this zygote is capable of. Before the life has thoughts, I feel it is not bad to terminate.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103963
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Are you saying, we should not listen to our feelings?
Do you feel bad when kids are suffering due to overpopulation?
Our conscience is what drives our morality. Condemn that at your peril.
Christians burned people alive at the stake for the harmless crime of unbelief. Likely the most painful way to die. What blinded their conscience?
I feel bad for anyone that suffers. And I help who I can. Overpopulation is a relative issue in our current world. There are places on this earth that are not overpopulated. Think of all the relief we could offer if we spent money on relocating families to less crowded areas instead of all the countless things we waste money on as a society. It is amazing to me the red herrings you will throw out there to justify murdering unborn children. And bringing up terrible things that people did hundreds of years ago makes it no more relevant to Christians today. That's like accusing southerners of slavery today. We can't help, nor are responsible for, anything people did before we were born.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103964
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't oppose birth control, neither does my church. So most of the rest of what you said is irrelevant to me.
Refusing to call it murder does not make it less so.
So the political ideas are not relevant to you? Are you a republican? I spoke of a lot things, not just about your church. And do you always ignore everything that is not "your church"?
Does your church promote birth control? You claim it does not oppose it, but you diverted from my main point, they do not promote it. Thus they do not do what is going to reduce abortions in the greatest numbers. Just as I pointed out how democrats do what reduces abortions in the greatest numbers.
You ran from all these points with one swoop.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103965
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, the religion problem is that they assume a soul. Therefore the only rational line they can draw between human and not human is when the egg is fertilized. Once that happens, you have a baby. If you choose to abort, you are a murderer.

Their logic is valid. The problem is their premise - that souls exist - is not. There is no evidence AT ALL for souls. ALL the available evidence points to the fact that we are what we are...physical entities in time. We live, we die, end of story.

But if you are enamored of this idea of a soul then all other options seem scary. But I like what the late, great film critic Roger Ebert said about his own impending death:

"I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state."

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/roger_ebert/

As long as 85% of Americans continue to be obsessed with magical thinking, the rights of women to control their own reproductive health will be in jeopardy.
This has nothing to do with the soul. Stop trying to trivialize my point of view.
Unless this fertilized egg dies on its own, it most certainly will become a human being.

Your way of thinking is like saying you think it is repulsive to kill a beautiful butterfly, but I'm just fine with killing nasty little caterpillars.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103966
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't oppose birth control, neither does my church. So most of the rest of what you said is irrelevant to me.
Refusing to call it murder does not make it less so.
The CORE of religion is refusing to call mythology what it is. The LDS is not the largest church organization in the world. Like it or not, what the Vatican decrees is relevant to you.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103967
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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.
Is this religion?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103968
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I was asked what the LDS church stance is on those that die before born. I answered accordingly.
Is this religion?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103969
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>You do not seem to be trying very hard, as you went into the concept of the soul and choices it made before conception pretty extensively. You opened the door, now you close it when it is proving your holy ghost as a fraud. How convenient. Keep up the excuses, it only makes you look all the more guilty.

You believe that life of a zygote has a soul, thus you are trying to protect that soul. Atheists do not believe it has a soul. I do not think a zygote is a human in the sense of what a being with a brain is. Potentially it could be a human. But the word, potentially is key. You use that term because a zygote is not a human at the point. It might be human-like, but that is not human. It is a potential human. This is why other human-like examples were given by another poster.
A zygote has no brain. It has zero thoughts. You believe a soul has thoughts. So we have a fundamental disagreement of what this zygote is capable of. Before the life has thoughts, I feel it is not bad to terminate.
I have talked about religion a lot. I can do so all day. But on abortion, I'm trying to speak your language and leave religion out. I'll be glad to insert it back in if you keep asking me to.

What am I guilty of exactly?

And as for your feelings on the zygote, refer to my last post about caterpillars.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103970
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I explained what happens to the unborn. They still need a physical body, even if they are so righteous that they do not need to be tested.
Is this religion?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103971
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they need to gain a physical body to continue their progression to become more like God.
Is this religion?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103972
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
This has nothing to do with the soul. Stop trying to trivialize my point of view.
Unless this fertilized egg dies on its own, it most certainly will become a human being.
Your way of thinking is like saying you think it is repulsive to kill a beautiful butterfly, but I'm just fine with killing nasty little caterpillars.
And yet it is the conservative front that resents spending money on education and benefits for children - even for food. Love the fetus, ignore the child?

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103973
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
So you make yourself feel better about ending this life by saying it can't feel any pain?
Yes, it does make me feel better to know that if a woman elects to end her pregnancy the fetus will never know about it or feel it in any way. That should make you feel better too.

Then she can get on with her life. Go to school. Fulfill herself. And when she's ready to have a kid, if she wants to, she can do it. The kid she has will benefit from her wisdom and her love.

We won't agree on this. Ever. But for me this is about suffering vs. not suffering. I don't care about god, souls, or magic. I care about reality.

In Mexico last year there was a 10-year-old girl who was raped repeatedly. She got pregnant. Because their abortion laws are so strict, she was denied an abortion.

She had a baby at 10.

"She was raped repeatedly by her stepfather when she was 10 years old, but local laws do not allow terminations after three months."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/10-year...

Does that make you feel better or worse?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103974
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Want to talk probabilities?
Yes, but when you were shown the stats, you ran as always.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103975
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I have talked about religion a lot. I can do so all day. But on abortion, I'm trying to speak your language and leave religion out. I'll be glad to insert it back in if you keep asking me to.
What am I guilty of exactly?
And as for your feelings on the zygote, refer to my last post about caterpillars.
You are guilty of claiming a ghost gives you answers, yet you cannot show us one does.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103976
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So the political ideas are not relevant to you? Are you a republican? I spoke of a lot things, not just about your church. And do you always ignore everything that is not "your church"?
Does your church promote birth control? You claim it does not oppose it, but you diverted from my main point, they do not promote it. Thus they do not do what is going to reduce abortions in the greatest numbers. Just as I pointed out how democrats do what reduces abortions in the greatest numbers.
You ran from all these points with one swoop.
I can't speak for everyone. I feel comfortable speaking for my church.

I have no political affiliation, not that it is relevant.

My church has said they do not oppose birth control and that the choice to use it or not is the choice of the couple. It is not a church's job to educate people on the forms of birth control. I'm not sure why you think it is. A church's main function is to bring people closer to God. Discussing birth control or overpopulation is not the responsibility of a church.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103977
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
And imagine that, none of them purposely abort their pregnancies.
Yet without medical assistance, nature aborts a hundred times more than purposeful. Medical science is the only reason most human offspring are even born alive. Medical science is the only reason most of those are healthy enough to live even longer. Medical abortion is just undoing what medical science has done.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

48 Users are viewing the Barbourville Forum right now

Search the Barbourville Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min JOE NASTY 147,258
Who will barbourvilles NEW police chief 2 hr I think 23
New club in Barbourville? 2 hr Wally 14
Teresa Johnson and Rex 10 hr wondering 5
john sowders 10 hr Lay student 10
Please Ladies answer this question for me 10 hr LMAO 7
KY Hundreds of birds die in western Ky. (Jan '11) 11 hr Gfm 81,565
•••
•••
•••
•••

Barbourville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••