Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 20 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.

ProvenScience

London, KY

#104638 May 24, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree there are similarities in all belief systems, and even claims like these. Interesting topic.
But he is claiming to know the origins of religions. Neither the religious or the non-religious can prove this.
Why the "written" parts of such, really ARE rather pertinent, for any sort of studies of anything!

Just mine own "written" opinion though :-).

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104639 May 24, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>"Equally important"? So just what is equal to the priesthood? What is equal to your prophet? What role do women of your church hold that "most" consider "more" important?
One good example: Motherhood trumps anything man can do.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104640 May 24, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>again, do you deny the church complains about abortion?
Many complain civil unions do not get equal benefits. Why should they call it something other than marriage? It is a marriage by definition, so seems your complaint is pure superstition with zero reasons given.
Again I ask, in what way does gay marriage hurt you or your marriage?
Keep running from this question.
I haven't denied or confirmed it. I asked that you show me.

As for how does it hurt me: I answered your question dude. Go back and read.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104641 May 24, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
So, how does gay marriage weaken society? You still haven't explained how a gay couple getting married threatens another family's structure. Or am I missing something?
I didn't say a gay couple getting married threatens another family's structure. It threatens their family's structure.

I'm anxious to see more statistical data as time goes on, now that gays are allowed to marry in some states. For now, statistical data shows that gays prefer more variety in sexual partners and are less monogamous. So this would suggest that divorce rates would be higher, which certainly affects those with children. I truly hope that this won't be the case, because when children are involved, they suffer the most in divorces.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#104642 May 24, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>We tell you the answer to this post daily, yet you fail to get it.
Lets start again with my number one beef with you. You demean science due to your religious beliefs. I think this hurts our society.
If my religious beliefs,meaning ,I believe in God and Jesus Christ as my saviour, demean science,I could care less.
Science is not my God and my Faith is not based on misguided Scientific theories and opinions..
If Atheists are offended by my beliefs,that is their problem.
If you ,are expecting an "I'm sorry you feel that way" or an apology,you will get neither.
I neither apologize nor am I sorry for my beliefs
I am honored that God has adopted me and that Christ is my saviour.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104643 May 24, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>again, do you deny the church complains about abortion?
Many complain civil unions do not get equal benefits. Why should they call it something other than marriage? It is a marriage by definition, so seems your complaint is pure superstition with zero reasons given.
Again I ask, in what way does gay marriage hurt you or your marriage?
Keep running from this question.
What benefits don't a couple get with a civil union, that married folk get?

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#104644 May 24, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
So, how does gay marriage weaken society? You still haven't explained how a gay couple getting married threatens another family's structure. Or am I missing something?
"Or am I missing something?"

Yes, "special understanding"(the religie or topix kind) you will have to become a religie to use it, good luck.
defender

United States

#104645 May 24, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>again, do you deny the church complains about abortion?

Many complain civil unions do not get equal benefits. Why should they call it something other than marriage? It is a marriage by definition, so seems your complaint is pure superstition with zero reasons given.
Again I ask, in what way does gay marriage hurt you or your marriage?
Keep running from this question.
What does Gay marriage hurt? Why not group marriage? Or human-animal marriage?... Look most people today are afraid of saying what they really feel... Not me... I'm not saying everyone shouldn't have equal rights ... That's fine but that isn't what the homosexual movement wants anyway... How do I know that? Cause they already are getting what they want in every state... That battle is over... What they want is to cram their lifestyle down everyone's throat and bully people like you are this nice guy... Bottom line is it's disgusting... If you want to have sex with men then burn it up bro... You want to marry a man then great! Good for you... But don't look to darkin my door with your nasty ass lifestyle cause you just might get to meet the God you mock...

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#104646 May 24, 2013
Lmao, "bully people". Just like every religie on here has done with the "damnation" threat.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104647 May 24, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
What does Gay marriage hurt? Why not group marriage? Or human-animal marriage?... Look most people today are afraid of saying what they really feel... Not me... I'm not saying everyone shouldn't have equal rights ... That's fine but that isn't what the homosexual movement wants anyway... How do I know that? Cause they already are getting what they want in every state... That battle is over... What they want is to cram their lifestyle down everyone's throat and bully people like you are this nice guy... Bottom line is it's disgusting... If you want to have sex with men then burn it up bro... You want to marry a man then great! Good for you... But don't look to darkin my door with your nasty ass lifestyle cause you just might get to meet the God you mock...
You know what they say about homophobes...
defender

United States

#104648 May 24, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>If my religious beliefs,meaning ,I believe in God and Jesus Christ as my saviour, demean science,I could care less.
Science is not my God and my Faith is not based on misguided Scientific theories and opinions..
If Atheists are offended by my beliefs,that is their problem.
If you ,are expecting an "I'm sorry you feel that way" or an apology,you will get neither.
I neither apologize nor am I sorry for my beliefs
I am honored that God has adopted me and that Christ is my saviour.
Don't let these bozos tell you the science is on their side... Not by a long shot!!! They can prove nothing.. In fact ToE (theory of evolution) has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese... It's the desperate hope of agenda pushing lefties... Science in fact points to an intelligent design... It's the 900 pound gorilla in the room that the evolutionist doesn't want to face....

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104649 May 24, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say a gay couple getting married threatens another family's structure. It threatens their family's structure.
Now I'm getting confused, are you suggesting that homosexual couples would have a more stable family structure if they didn't get married?
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm anxious to see more statistical data as time goes on, now that gays are allowed to marry in some states. For now, statistical data shows that gays prefer more variety in sexual partners and are less monogamous. So this would suggest that divorce rates would be higher, which certainly affects those with children. I truly hope that this won't be the case, because when children are involved, they suffer the most in divorces.
It smells like red herrings in here. Are you against gay marriage or gay adoption? Or both?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104650 May 24, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't let these bozos tell you the science is on their side... Not by a long shot!!! They can prove nothing.. In fact ToE (theory of evolution) has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese... It's the desperate hope of agenda pushing lefties... Science in fact points to an intelligent design... It's the 900 pound gorilla in the room that the evolutionist doesn't want to face....
Mmhmm. Everyone knows that Darwin was an agenda pushing lefty...

So, care to elaborate on the "science" that is pointing to ID?

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#104651 May 24, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
This certainly describes how atheists feel about religion.
Replace "how atheists feel" with "what scientists have determined based on evidence" and you've got a factual statement. You'll note the complete lack of the words "atheist" or "atheism" in the Wikipedia article you quoted, so you'd do well to not insert it for them (especially when it appears as though you'd use the label simply to discredit a well thought out and well supported hypothesis). I'm not saying that almost all atheists don't SHARE that opinion with scientists, because they do, but there is no reason to label something in that manner.

Also, I have not seen a response to my previous post. Did you miss it or did I?
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
What does Gay marriage hurt? Why not group marriage? Or human-animal marriage?
Yes, offensive hyperbole has never been used to restrict the rights of a group of people before. You're cutting a new path. Yawn.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Science in fact points to an intelligent design... It's the 900 pound gorilla in the room that the evolutionist doesn't want to face....
Yes. Science, the one thing that never comes to a conclusion without any evidence for it, will clearly point to the convoluted and self serving idea of "intelligent design" by some being that we have no evidence of, no method of interaction for, and no consistent concept of instead of a simple, proven theory that is entirely based in observed evidence and tested processes. Sounds legit.

Let me guess: you don't know any scientists, but you "know" that they're all conspiring to remove God from the world so that they can live like immoral Heathens, right?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104652 May 24, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I'm getting confused, are you suggesting that homosexual couples would have a more stable family structure if they didn't get married?
<quoted text>
It smells like red herrings in here. Are you against gay marriage or gay adoption? Or both?
No, I doubt their family would extend past the two of them since it is so hard to adopt if you aren't married. I'm really only talking about families with children here.

I'm against gay marriage, not gay civil unions. If a gay couple is able to provide physically, and emotionally for a child, I'm fine with gay adoption. The child may have a tough life explaining why they have 2 dads or 2 moms, but as our society gets more used to it, this will get easier too. Not sure about in school though. Kids are relentless sometimes with the way they pick on each other.

What I was saying earlier though, is if the statistics for monogamy with gays rings true in gay unions, there will be more children hurt by families split up than we have currently. It's already bad with straight couples that divorce, but bring in a population with a worse record, then it will make the total worse as well. The end result will be more kids with a jacked up home life.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104653 May 24, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Replace "how atheists feel" with "what scientists have determined based on evidence" and you've got a factual statement. You'll note the complete lack of the words "atheist" or "atheism" in the Wikipedia article you quoted, so you'd do well to not insert it for them (especially when it appears as though you'd use the label simply to discredit a well thought out and well supported hypothesis). I'm not saying that almost all atheists don't SHARE that opinion with scientists, because they do, but there is no reason to label something in that manner.
Also, I have not seen a response to my previous post. Did you miss it or did I?
<quoted text>
Yes, offensive hyperbole has never been used to restrict the rights of a group of people before. You're cutting a new path. Yawn.
<quoted text>
Yes. Science, the one thing that never comes to a conclusion without any evidence for it, will clearly point to the convoluted and self serving idea of "intelligent design" by some being that we have no evidence of, no method of interaction for, and no consistent concept of instead of a simple, proven theory that is entirely based in observed evidence and tested processes. Sounds legit.
Let me guess: you don't know any scientists, but you "know" that they're all conspiring to remove God from the world so that they can live like immoral Heathens, right?
Not trying to discredit, but I will certainly note the bias. Since it is pretty much how every atheist feels, it still seems appropriate.

I thought I answered everything. I'm getting asked a lot of things and trying to respond to all makes it look like I'm monopolizing the thread, which is not intentional. If I missed it, I'm sorry. I know I responded to one of yours today. Hopefully that was the one you are talking about.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104654 May 24, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you it was in D&C. Chapter 84 shoes the oath of the Priesthood. He speaks of how the Priesthood is passed from Father to son, and He tells us it was for the sons of Moses. Here is an excerpt:
For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.
They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.
You should read the whole chapter.
The origins of marriage predate recorded history, so my only source is the Bible. Other religions tell a similar story of the origin.
The only other speculation of origin is for a man to feel paternal rights to his own children and access to sexual relations with the same female. Usually they paid a bride price to her father for this. That doesn't sound much like marriage to me, but maybe it was for that type of society.
The bible also tells of payment to the father for his daughter. It is a tradition set in days when women were viewed as property. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

I see you really could not find any absolute prohibition of women in the priesthood, but interpreted the old mentality of father son inheritance as some sort of reasoning for the discriminating behavior for your church.

Come to good moral ways then tell me how your church is better than others. As of now they are in the ways of old and bigotry.
defender

United States

#104655 May 24, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>Mmhmm. Everyone knows that Darwin was an agenda pushing lefty...

So, care to elaborate on the "science" that is pointing to ID?
Let's see... Cause and Effect, Entropy, Dependency, Irreducible Complexity, Endogenous Retrovirus study, DNA decay rate study and lack of intermediates in the fossil record... How's that?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104656 May 24, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>The bible also tells of payment to the father for his daughter. It is a tradition set in days when women were viewed as property. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
I see you really could not find any absolute prohibition of women in the priesthood, but interpreted the old mentality of father son inheritance as some sort of reasoning for the discriminating behavior for your church.
Come to good moral ways then tell me how your church is better than others. As of now they are in the ways of old and bigotry.
Not just the father to son ordinance, but also the obvious parts where He says the sons of Moses, and sons of Abraham.

Do you not acknowledge the differences between men and women as a whole? Men are better at some things, and women are better at other things. This is by design. It isn't bigotry, just pay attention to the obvious differences that exist even today. We aren't talking about equal rights in the workforce or political world. We are talking about several different things that you are trying to lump into one.

If you want to talk about ancient times, there are several different cultures that used a bride payment type arrangement. In most cases, the batchelor was offering a price for his bride because he was taking a helper out of the father's house. One less had to help with all the manual chores that needed to be done for survival. So he paid in sheep or crops or whatever to compensate. In some cultures it was a social status thing. How many cows is my wife worth? etc. It wasn't necessarily that they were treated like property.
Is this the path you want to talk about now? Or today?

Today, in my church, callings hold no status. We've disagreed about this before. The calling of a prophet means his scope is bigger and he receives revelation for the whole church. The Bishop receives revelation for his local church members and how it should be run. It isn't a big deal though because tomorrow he could be called as the newsletter maker and someone else could be called as Bishop. No one would blink about this decision.
Women hold presidency callings within the church as well. Welfare commitees, Relief Society (largest women's society in the country), Young Women's program, Primary. The priesthood has a different purpose that has nothing to do with status in the church. Men and women are equally important in furthering the work of God and in the family. Poll female LDS members and the overwhelming majority will not feel inferior to men in the church. Of course there are outliers, but that is the case in almost every situation imaginable.

Why are you so intent on deeming me a bigot?
defender

United States

#104657 May 24, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>The bible also tells of payment to the father for his daughter. It is a tradition set in days when women were viewed as property. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

I see you really could not find any absolute prohibition of women in the priesthood, but interpreted the old mentality of father son inheritance as some sort of reasoning for the discriminating behavior for your church.

Come to good moral ways then tell me how your church is better than others. As of now they are in the ways of old and bigotry.
The bible also says that the would be husband must have a good home and means to take care of the daughter.. Funny how that's always left out... Woman was created to be mans helper and was indeed to answer to the man but also the man was to provide for and protect the woman and children... But I guess God should have checked with you first huh?
The simple fact is (like it or not) women cannot do the physical work men can..

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
Check drawers 1 hr gator 12
Little Alvin Hubbard running scared !!! 1 hr gator 6
Stephen trace 8 hr Teresa 1
Kim Brock who knows her? (Feb '13) 9 hr Kimberly Farrow 18
state police 11 hr Yes 5
Derek Hatfield 11 hr School mate 5
Knox County Sheriff speeding 12 hr Chris229 25
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]