Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 137911 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.

curious

Ocoee, FL

#104287 May 21, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Do me a favor. Before you post, paste your text on this website:
http://www.grammarly.com/...
It will tell you where your grammar is wrong. You do not understand where to put commas and it drives me insane.
Regarding the god stuff, I don't care. We put people on the god-damned Moon. We got rid of polio and smallpox. We cracked the genetic code. We didn't do any of it with Bibles.
Yes,all great achievements Scientific Achievements
And how was that accomplished?
Guided by our limited Intelligence,man was able to device,design and enact plans that accomplished those goals.
They were not coincidences and can be naturally explained.
Compare that to Science and Evolution's foolish attempts to explain the creation of the Universe and life as we know it by describing these events as having been caused by a series of unwitnesssed, unexplainable coincidences that may have taken place billions of years ago ,guided by nonintelligent and nonliving matter .

And all this,in a futile effort to deny God's existence.
And we know why they are unwilling to explore any possibility that points to God's existence.
God is alive and well and will continue to exist forever,regardless of how many people deny his existence.

Wishful thinking has lead Scientists Evolutionists and Atheists to reach some obviously foolish conclusions...
Your wisdom has failed you
ProvenScience

London, KY

#104288 May 21, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>No I did not see the stat, but what does the stat mean? It tells me that some kids were not urged to use them as they should have been. Maybe someone felt it was not their job to urge the use of contraceptives.
When I say teach, I really mean urge, as most know something about contraceptives.
Quote from an actual conversation of females discussing "personal responsibility" and contraception. You might find the first line of this one as "stupifying" as I did.

Female 1: but "I" used contraception, t(HE) condom just bwoke.

Female 2: Um okay...while nodding quietly, while scientifically thinking about assuming actual PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for such-

.o0..Ummmm...really...well golly gee...whoDUH ever thunk such a thing.
----------
Why SOME might appreciate the LOGIC of REAL "personal responsibility" of personal coverage in 99 percent effectiveness, in COMBINATION with ADDED coverage of disease control.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#104289 May 21, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
Not only does contraceptions (i.e. condoms) prevent unwanted pregnancies, it also prevents getting some kind of disease Ajax or clorox won't wash off! If for nothing else, shouldn't we all practice safe sex just on that point alone. Why bring a religious aspect into the mix. I have children; as most baby boomers and older generations do, I will encourage them to be safe and practice safe sex because in my opinion the other (don't have sex till after your married) is just unrealistic in this day and age! Although I encourage the ladder, I don't expect them to listen.
Then you should realize condoms are NOT all that of an effective means of of birth control and should have No issue in promoting that standard of PERSONAL accountability AND responsibility-- for BOTH genders-NOT just one!!!
ProvenScience

London, KY

#104290 May 21, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text> Hold on! I forgot something, I was just gettin started with those 6, I can go back and show you hundreds of more posts where people type with the same manner as myself, all those people are morons too? Yeah I'd be calling other people morons too If I were a dulusional freak like you! I guess I'm all those hundreds of people too. What is Cool is you are a Total Idiot and a Paranoid Skitzo! AND YOU CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG! Did you remember to take your Meds this a.m.?
ok. now I'm done .
lol
Did you remember to promote girls taking personal responsibility for themselves and taking THEIR birth control today?
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104291 May 21, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you should realize condoms are NOT all that of an effective means of of birth control and should have No issue in promoting that standard of PERSONAL accountability AND responsibility-- for BOTH genders-NOT just one!!!
I did not say it was 100% fool-proof. The majority of people who put the condom on in the correct manner do not experience "bursting or breakage". My point is; it's better than having no protection and risking such diseases.

For your second point, I said I encourage NO SEX UNTIL AFTER MARRIAGE, what part of that did you not understand? But I'm not going to pretend to be stupid in thinking that they will marry as a virgin! It is my responsibility as a parent to teach them SEX ED 101. for both genders!
Doodle

Horse Cave, KY

#104292 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence?
Well apparently you do have doubts my friend or why else would you be on here even talking and naming someone whom you say doesn't even exist! I do believe you believe He exist or else you really wouldn't even want to debate it. You wouldn't even be on here if you weren't curious and that's the real truth!
social butterfly

United States

#104293 May 21, 2013
This world is crashing around us as people keep cutting God out of everything.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104294 May 21, 2013
using condoms are 90 to 95% effective when used with other agents as spermacide or birth control. This is fact! I cannot answer for those people who are not smart enough to read directions for use of how to apply poperly , or are not informed on the risks/benefits factor.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104295 May 21, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor was I. You may want to re-read.
<quoted text>
I didn't accuse you of suggesting that. No re-reading necessary.

Medical breakthroughs happen all the time with these situations that arise, and sometimes doctors are wrong about their assessment of an unborn child. If it is 100% certain that the child will die a horrible painful death, then I may change my stance on this scenario. But this is rarely the case.

Ummm_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it ever fine to terminate a pregnancy after an egg has been fertilized, in what cases, and why?

If you mean "morning after" pills, no. I do not think this is ok either because to me, the fertilized egg has the capacity to become a human.

_Ummm_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Is the body, life, and livelihood of a pregnant rape victim more or less important than a cluster of a few hundred cells sitting in her uterine wall?
Recognizing that rape can result in pregnancy (unwanted by both parties, one had no choice), permanent body changes for the victim, stigma of being a young single mother for the victim, major setbacks in the life of the victim, and the passing on of the genes of a complete waste of life... do you agree that from the second the egg is fertilized forward, there should be no action taken to stop the pregnancy?

In the case of rape, the victim is scarred for life already. She is scarred emotionally and many times physically. This is one of the two instances that I fully agree does not warrant a cut and dry answer. If the rape victim is of a very young age, it is likely that carrying out the pregnancy will permanently damage her body. Of course there are cases where there is no permanent damage too. But if the victim is pre-teen, I would certainly understand a wanted abortion. In most rape cases, the victim is older and there is no abnormal risks to her body. I think adoption is best in these cases, but understand if they wanted an abortion.

Again, these cases represent less than 1% of abortions.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104296 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I cannot reword, and if you are looking for a cookie cutter argument, you certainly do not want to deal with me. It's simple, we are already opposing nature, thus if there is a god the will of that god, by increasing the number of pregnancies born alive by a huge number, not a small number, but a lot. So is it better to continue to deny the natural course of things, or to give the responsibility to the woman to determine what is right in this matter? Either way, you or she is taking fate in their hands, if you take the fate in your hand, ban abortions, then you are also taking responsibility for the outcome, complete responsibility, as a human being, and in doing so, more than likely also opposing the will of nature, the will of your own god that you profess to believing in.
I see what you mean now. You are asking if taking pre-natal vitamins (for example) is playing God and increasing the population more than what He planned?

No, I don't think so, because I believe that all knowledge and medical advancements are made possible by God. You could ask the same question about people that have heart attacks. Should we just let them die and not use the knowledge that we now have, to save them? Or let them die and call it God's plan. If I'm misunderstanding you, let me know.

I believe if we can save a life, we should in almost all cases.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104297 May 21, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Humans have sex drive. Teenagers have TONS of sex drive. They are going to f*ck.
Taking abortion off the menu is a recipe for unwanted babies.
You gonna raise 'em? Or just baptize them after they die?
Great attitude. Just hand out condoms (as if they work all the time) and send the message that total irresponsibility with procreational powers is A Ok.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104298 May 21, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>The "if" you wish for is not a reality. Abortion is not off the table and you keep forgetting the realities of human nature. Are their any other factors that you forget in your equation?
I do not think contraceptives are a silver bullet, but they do lead to less abortions.
You forget I push for adoption. The contraception part is what we disagree about so I focus on that part now. Wow you have a short memory.
Maybe instead of using pregnancy as some sort of punishment, just teach them that adoption is ok and not a sin.
Fact is, many who are religious fail to uphold the abstinence pledge and do have abortions. Why? Because some feel it is not their job to teach about contraceptives.
You can whine about the churches job description all day. I gave a good rebuttal for it and you have yet to address the point.
I am sure you have now forgotten that point. Here is a reminder. Is the job of the church to keep rights from homosexuals?
You run from many of our points and questions. You claim not to,but that is just an outright lie.
In case you haven't noticed, we don't disagree on contraceptives. We disagree on churches having the responsibility on teaching how to use contraceptives. I agree with Kitten, doctors are much better sources for this knowledge, I would have thought you would agree since you think churches teach fiction anyway.

I also didn't say the religious shouldn't teach youth about contraceptives. I said churches shouldn't. Parents most certainly should educate their children, religious or not.

No one thinks adoption is a sin. Pre-marital sex is a sin. Part of the repentance process is making amends for the sin. Adoption or raising the child are certainly great choices to repent of the sin.

I'm using my phone, so when you ask 5 or 6 questions at once, it is difficult for me to answer all of them. For that, I apologize. I don't avoid questions on purpose.

To answer this last one: yes, I believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and I believe it is fine for a church to support this doctrine. Civil union is fine. Marriage indicates a connection with God.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104299 May 21, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>No I did not see the stat, but what does the stat mean? It tells me that some kids were not urged to use them as they should have been. Maybe someone felt it was not their job to urge the use of contraceptives.
When I say teach, I really mean urge, as most know something about contraceptives.
You missed it. They did use them. But they aren't 100% reliable so they still got pregnant.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#104300 May 21, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I see what you mean now. You are asking if taking pre-natal vitamins (for example) is playing God and increasing the population more than what He planned?
No, I don't think so, because I believe that all knowledge and medical advancements are made possible by God. You could ask the same question about people that have heart attacks. Should we just let them die and not use the knowledge that we now have, to save them? Or let them die and call it God's plan. If I'm misunderstanding you, let me know.
I believe if we can save a life, we should in almost all cases.
Where did I mention vitamins?

However, saving a life is playing god.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104301 May 21, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I am sure before black persons were able to hold the priesthood, the average Mormon would have said, that is just how god works.
This is just how god works is the worst answer you could have thought up. It is damning evidence for your beliefs to be false. It is evidence of why the religious are so often bigots. It is just how god works can be the answer for any blind faith and bad morality, but it never is a good answer.

Men and women should not be limited to equal rights, they should also be afforded equal privileges.
That rights versus privileges argument is typical of bigotry and racism. You use all the same language of racists.
Don't mix topics.
That's how God works is the best answer you are getting right now about the priesthood. Yes I could go much deeper into doctrine, but you have shown me you aren't ready to talk about it. I'm not going to give you more fuel to bash things that I hold sacred.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104302 May 21, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Your church spent a lot of time effort and money on prop 8. Now keep running from this point. We see you running and we see your priorities.
Urging contraception should be a priority.
And looking at the numbers of obese people in churches, maybe they should teach a bit about eating more vegetables and less bread.
I'm not running from it. We aren't talking about that topic anymore. You seem to think gay marriage and contraceptives are the same topic.

Urging contraception is not relevant to church. The purpose of a church is to teach people about God and His gospel. Abstinence before marriage is God's law. This should be taught from the pulpit. It is the responsibility of the parents to educate their youth about other protection when they succumb to weakness.

And really? You are going to link obesity to churches? I'm sorry but this was the dumbest comment you have made to me. I hope it was just a childish jab and you weren't really serious.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104303 May 21, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>If your church is worries about abortions, I would think it would be proactive with contraceptive teaching.
Your excuses are getting more and more irrelevant.
No, you are just wrong about the purpose of a church.
That's like making an argument that Piggly Wigglies should educate people on car maintenance. Without it, they won't be able to make it to their stores.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104304 May 21, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So you agree that contraception is a path to slowing unwanted pregnancies? Great, now quit wasting time and effort complaining about my mistake in writing and promote what is good to slow unwanted pregnancies. If abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies, this should be the logical conclusion. Yet you have a variety of excuses for you and your church to leave it off the priority list.
Your mistake in writing changed the entire meaning of your post.

One final time: sex education should not be taught in church. It should be taught in the home. I would say it should be taught in schools as well, but I've never seen it done well so I didn't see the benefit. If they modify the program, maybe that would be best. Maybe bring a doctor in to teach that day.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104305 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I mention vitamins?
However, saving a life is playing god.
Is this your stance on the broad scale or just on the abortion ? Do Whut made a reference to the Heart Attack scenario and you did not comment on that position, just wondering

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104306 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Where did I mention vitamins?

However, saving a life is playing god.
What medicine are you talking about? Again I have no experience with having to medically help a pregnancy.

That's what I was trying to find out from you. I disagree that saving a life is playing God.

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
Anybody know David Allen smith? (Jul '13) 20 min Love is in the air 25
Crystal Bingham 23 min Interested 4
Charles Arthur Wombles II (Mar '14) 26 min heard that 27
t-run wreck 1 hr bill 1
Brett ledford 1 hr Fireman 19
Scotty Powell selling pot wide open !!!!! 2 hr jack 2
silver queen corn 7 hr cornman 2
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]