Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 153722 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

#105142 May 29, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can prove the speed of light is a constant that is.... Devil's in the details folks...
About that the speed of light "theory"...another rather in "question" these days huh?

(Ahhhhhahaha.. gotta love it-gotta love it lol)
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#105143 May 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Stoning people who disagree with you is decency? Stoning children for "bad mouthing" you is decency? You are an unethical person if you think that.
Do you know how many bad children were stoned way back then???
I'll bet... Not too many!
Now we spare the rod, and get school shootings because they
wanted pudding for lunch, and there was none to be had!
Kids are rotten, and it's our fault for letting them get that way!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#105144 May 29, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Call me what you wish. One last quote on the topic of women and the priesthood.
Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said:
“Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way. It is part of His program. Women have a very prominent place in this Church. Men hold the priesthood offices of the Church. But women have a tremendous place in this Church. They have their own organization. It was started in 1842 by the Prophet Joseph Smith, called the Relief Society, because its initial purpose was to administer help to those in need. It has grown to be, I think, the largest women’s organization in the world... They have their own offices, their own presidency, their own board. That reaches down to the smallest unit of the Church everywhere in the world...
“The men hold the priesthood, yes. But my wife is my companion. In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are co-equals in this life in a great enterprise.”
What do you mean as I describe women? Are you going to try to turn what I brought up from other cultures, ancient and current, as how I feel about women? Please.
OK, guys, here's the deal. I get direct word from God and I reveal it to you folks. You follow my lead. Guys, you're gonna have minor magic powers too in order to lead your household. It'll be awesome. We'll get women to cook and clean and take care of our kids. And since they might complain of being treated as lessers, we'll let them have a little club that um...I dunno....takes care of all the whiners with the flu or polio. That way we don't have to screw around with it.

Ready? Go!
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105145 May 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Knowing if the machine is designed still does not help understand how it works, you are failing to understand this very simple concept, and it's the concept that the intelligent religious people not only understand, it's why they don't deny the benefit of science at all.
My point is, who cares? So what if everything in the universe was designed, other than being a reason to fire that contractor, it does not answer any real questions and offers no solutions to our problems, none. So again, how does knowing that the computer is made by Dell help to understand how it works and how to repair it?
It would help it gathering essentials in repairing such correctly, because SIMPLY stated, a Ford designed motor part, will NOT necassarily fit, let alone repair, something that requires a part made specifically for a Chevy.

DUH.(Common Sense 101)

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#105146 May 29, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that marriage is a divine institution. I also believe that one of the main purposes of marriage is to increase the likelihood that children will be raised by a father and mother (because it is ideal to development that they have both examples)
None of this points to gay marriage degrading marriage in general. It seems you cannot answer the question.
I would wager that half the marriages do not result in offspring, so what you believe is the purpose of marriage is not the rule.
I think people marry due to love of each other first and foremost. You deny this to gay persons. Immoral.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105147 May 29, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
My view it isn't... The speed of light is variable and it determined by the total separation distance of all matter with inertial mass in the universe, the denser the local mass the slower the value of c... The Theory of photon absorption and retransmission can be better defined with variance of the value of c within a medium and the only reason absorption and retransmission is used in calculation of em wave traversing a medium is due to the long held view that c is Constant... If c is constant then a definable reason increase in time that occurs when a em wave/photon/electron passes through a medium ...
http://i1285.photobucket.com/albums/a582/Quan...
http://i1285.photobucket.com/albums/a582/Quan...
http://i1285.photobucket.com/albums/a582/Quan...
lol

Or why Science DOES indeed, play very impotant roles in things such as paper and ink observation and preservation lol.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105148 May 29, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually "light" em wave always travels in a straight line... It's the Quantum State (Space Time) that is bent by large grouping of particles with inertial mass... I know it's a difficult concept but it a relative issue.. From the Relative position of the light wave it goes in a straight line because it would not perceive the bending of space time from it's perspective... But from an outside observer it looks like it is bent...
or, the cause and effect on straight line particles in referencing the manipulated redirection of the same lol.
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#105149 May 29, 2013
LOL in a suit wrote:
*sigh*
Monkey unmensch does not even know what a "theory" is.
Pure speculation, and conjecture!
I think, therefore it could be!
I KNOW God is real, therefore... I'll never fall for a theory!
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105150 May 29, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, guys, here's the deal. I get direct word from God and I reveal it to you folks. You follow my lead. Guys, you're gonna have minor magic powers too in order to lead your household. It'll be awesome. We'll get women to cook and clean and take care of our kids. And since they might complain of being treated as lessers, we'll let them have a little club that um...I dunno....takes care of all the whiners with the flu or polio. That way we don't have to screw around with it.
Ready? Go!
Could you let some us into the experimental lab parts? Please? with frosted dog poo sugar on top?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#105151 May 29, 2013
Derwoodsgalleryof wrote:
<quoted text>
peanut brain cell.
"It hump day, bweak out duh everlutionary propogandna squawrk parrot and repeat(and repeat and repeat) scwipt, for the perpetually stuck in hor_monial land!!"
Proven Science, you are clearly deranged.
Yes and Amen

Winchester, KY

#105152 May 29, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
YaA might say "Great answer!" But then, it's the crazies and religious freaks who claim the voices in their heads are "God."
Any rational parent should be a little more cautious about leaving their daughter alone with a guy whose excuse might be "It's in the Bible. Here's 52 sheckles, keep the change." or "God told me to."
"Ask him" Is a great answer!
You will not, because you really don't want the truth... do you?
No!
It would mean you were wrong about... everything!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#105153 May 29, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Different law for a more carnal people. The NT applies to us more today. Jesus brought the higher law
Forgive me if someone has already covered this, but I call BS on this line of reasoning. It is one of the first things Christians say when challenged on the immoral behavior of God in the OT.

This view, that folks used to have a different moral code handed down by God, is exactly the same as the "moral relativism" that Christians accuse atheists and liberals of practicing. The morality you advocate is relative to the time. God seems to be practicing the very thing that Fundies rail against.

Here's a better explanation. Cultures evolve over time. Our moral intuitions are bolstered by good argumentation and historical lessons, over time. We develop more and more sophisticated systems of justice and governance over time, representative of this growing acceptance of our most basic moral intuitions.

Therefore our religions tend to grow less barbaric over time, in general. Christianity came about after the great golden age of Greece when intellectuality really started to come into its own. It is absolutely consistent and expected that a religious text written in this time period would be more sophisticated in its moral thoughts than things written before it.

There is no reason to do mental acrobatics and rationalize the massive difference in morality from the OT to the NT. It just makes religion and God look wishy washy.

As an aside, let me add that the morality taught in the NT is not nearly as good as people think it is. There is still the condoning of slavery, subjugation of women, hatred for gays, and a whole lot of self-shaming and wallowing in the misery of illusory sins like sex outside of marriage. For all its advances, the NT is still an ancient book that does not come close to matching our modern sense of morality.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105154 May 29, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>None of this points to gay marriage degrading marriage in general. It seems you cannot answer the question.
I would wager that half the marriages do not result in offspring, so what you believe is the purpose of marriage is not the rule.
I think people marry due to love of each other first and foremost. You deny this to gay persons. Immoral.
It could be soooo much easier if Vegas would just set up an on-line spawrkle spawrle gwitter, gwitter "Git yerself muharried heya" Twenty-nine ninty five... and for fitty cents some muzac of yer choice.

*Disclaimer: Do not expect anymore speshull rights as a result of it than anyone else however, cause that won't ever happen!
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105155 May 29, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
Proven Science, you are clearly deranged.
That's what the hereTics said about...well...you know how hereTics are lol.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#105156 May 29, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
No she can't hold the priesthood. And I can't have our children. This doesn't bother either of us. We have different roles.
I work and bring home the bacon. My wife stays at home with the kids. This is by choice. We decided that my wife would be a better parent to our kids than daycare. She considers this a privilege.
I rarely ever make a decision in our house unless she doesn't want to make it. I treat her like a queen and want her to be happy. I handle all the financials because she hates it and doesn't want to do it.
Funny thing is if you ask my wife if she feels inferior you'll have to wait until she finishes laughing to get a response.
It doesn't really matter what an individual feels about the situation. The point stands: her special place is decided by nature, your special place is decided by men.

That relationship, no matter how much you and she love it, is inherently unequal. You cannot rationalist that fact away.

You hold the position of authority, by force of church law. If your beliefs are to be taken seriously you were given this power by God himself. All she got was the power to be a breed mare.

It is not equal. You hold a superior position and she has no hope of aspiring to it. It does not matter how happy you are because you are a sample size of 1.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105157 May 29, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Forgive me if someone has already covered this, but I call BS on this line of reasoning. It is one of the first things Christians say when challenged on the immoral behavior of God in the OT.
This view, that folks used to have a different moral code handed down by God, is exactly the same as the "moral relativism" that Christians accuse atheists and liberals of practicing. The morality you advocate is relative to the time. God seems to be practicing the very thing that Fundies rail against.
Here's a better explanation. Cultures evolve over time. Our moral intuitions are bolstered by good argumentation and historical lessons, over time. We develop more and more sophisticated systems of justice and governance over time, representative of this growing acceptance of our most basic moral intuitions.
Therefore our religions tend to grow less barbaric over time, in general. Christianity came about after the great golden age of Greece when intellectuality really started to come into its own. It is absolutely consistent and expected that a religious text written in this time period would be more sophisticated in its moral thoughts than things written before it.
There is no reason to do mental acrobatics and rationalize the massive difference in morality from the OT to the NT. It just makes religion and God look wishy washy.
As an aside, let me add that the morality taught in the NT is not nearly as good as people think it is. There is still the condoning of slavery, subjugation of women, hatred for gays, and a whole lot of self-shaming and wallowing in the misery of illusory sins like sex outside of marriage. For all its advances, the NT is still an ancient book that does not come close to matching our modern sense of morality.
grasp...grasp (translated: SOME folks can just be sooo difficult..sniff sniff..wah wah).... lol.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105158 May 29, 2013
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>"Ask him" Is a great answer!
You will not, because you really don't want the truth... do you?
No!
It would mean you were wrong about... everything!
You should've told him any parent would be a little bit specktakul about leaving their son alone with one dem looking for duh fwee ride for lifers fleamales, telling him not to worry she gort all dar birf contwol stuff unner contwol!!

(BEWARE of ANYone like that kids!!! Learn to be SELF accountable AND actually responsible and Protect THY SELVES, from the parasites of the world!)

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#105159 May 29, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I'm not your cuz... Further more there should be no problem showing a step by step evolutionary line... Remember all the mountains and mountains of evidence? Overwhelming amounts of fossils!!! Yeah whatever...
Trillions of beings have died on this planet. The only ones to become fossils were caught in specific conditions, such as getting stuck in a tar pit or deep mud. We do not possess good fossils for all arbitrary stages of development.

And that is key to your misunderstanding. There isn't a Wal Mart of fossils we can go to and select every intermediate form you seem to want.

Also, intermediate forms are an artifact of our inability to think on a cotniuum. If you were to gain the magic power to watch evolution taking place over millions of years you would not see crocoducks, you would see gradual changes perhaps punctuated by sudden changes due to unusual pressures.

The God of the Gaps fallacy is what you seem to love most. If I showed you Animal 1, then 2, then 3 and there was a pretty clear pattern of evolution your response would be "Show me 1.5, 2.5!"

Then you'd ask for 1.25 and 1.75 and so on. Because those are the "Gaps". You find a dark hold of ignorance and shove God into it.

I mean for pete's sake, do feathered dinosaurs mean nothing to you? What more do you want?

Avimimus portentosus (inferred 1987: quill knobs)[12][13]
Pelecanimimus polydon?(1994)[14]
Sinosauropteryx prima (1996)[15]
Protarchaeopteryx robusta (1997)[16]
GMV 2124 (1997)[17]
Caudipteryx zoui (1998)[18]
Rahonavis ostromi (inferred 1998: quill knobs; possibly avialan[19])[20]
Shuvuuia deserti (1999)[1]
Sinornithosaurus millenii (1999)[21]
Beipiaosaurus inexpectus (1999)[22]
Caudipteryx dongi (2000)[23]
Caudipteryx sp.(2000)[24]
Microraptor zhaoianus (2000)[25]
Nomingia gobiensis (inferred 2000: pygostyle)[26]
Psittacosaurus sp.?(2002)[27]
Yixianosaurus longimanus (2003)[28]
Dilong paradoxus (2004)[29]
Sinornithosaurus haoiana (2004)[30]
Pedopenna daohugouensis (2005; possibly avialan[31])[32]
Jinfengopteryx elegans (2005)[33][34]
Juravenator starki (2006)[35][36]
Sinocalliopteryx gigas (2007)[37]
Velociraptor mongoliensis (inferred 2007: quill knobs)[5]
Similicaudipteryx yixianensis (inferred 2008: pygostyle; confirmed 2010)[38][39]
Anchiornis huxleyi (2009)[40]
Tianyulong confuciusi?(2009)[41]
Concavenator corcovatus?(inferred 2010: quill knobs?)[42]
Xiaotingia zhengi (2011)[43]
Yutyrannus huali (2012)[44]
Microraptor hanqingi (2012)[45]
Sciurumimus albersdoerferi (2012)[46]
Ornithomimus edmontonicus (2012)[47]
Ningyuansaurus wangi (2012)[48]
Eosinopteryx brevipenna (2013)[49]
Citipati osmolskae (inferred 2013: pygostyle)[50]
Conchoraptor gracilis (inferred 2013: pygostyle)[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosa...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/f/feathe...

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmenta...
ProvenScience

London, KY

#105160 May 29, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't really matter what an individual feels about the situation. The point stands: her special place is decided by nature, your special place is decided by men.
That relationship, no matter how much you and she love it, is inherently unequal. You cannot rationalist that fact away.
You hold the position of authority, by force of church law. If your beliefs are to be taken seriously you were given this power by God himself. All she got was the power to be a breed mare.
It is not equal. You hold a superior position and she has no hope of aspiring to it. It does not matter how happy you are because you are a sample size of 1.
Some people like it like that. In defense of, it beats the heck out of kids having to raise themselves, while (careless and without regard) parents just do whatever!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#105161 May 29, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Looking for a crockoduck?
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/...

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
Lynn camp school THEFTS reported to KEA Today 11 min Lynn camp parent 14
Who will be the next Knox Co. Judge Exec.? 37 min john 96
Timmy Jordan aka Pork and Shannon 1 hr Just Heard 3
shawn smith 1 hr John 5
Red Geo tracker & white Jeep Cherokee 1 hr Dust 1
No regrets 3 hr Ole Dad 22
broughton Lay Principal 3 hr Wondering 4

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages