Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Full story: The Courier-Journal 135,032

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.

Read more
curious

Ocoee, FL

#109749 Aug 6, 2013
Nox Aeterna wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you figure I lack morals? I'm a very moral person, you don't need religion to have morality. Religion actually has a negative effect on morality when you get down to it. It's moral and righteous to be tolerant of all people, but your religion teaches you to shun and hate homosexuals. It's moral to respect everyone's beliefs, whether you agree with them or not. Religion teaches you to respect other people's beliefs if they match up with your own, but to be intolerant of those with different views.
And, where do you get the idea that I "hump, kill, sit on my butt, take from the rich", etc? You know absolutely nothing about me, how can you presume to know anything at all about what I may or may not do? That sounds very judgmental, which is immoral, I might add.
While I won't deny that I hump, I'm strongly against violence in any form. So, I have to dispute that I kill, or that I have even hurt someone physically. Taking from the rich? First off, I'm not on welfare and never have been. Second, the rich don't pay taxes in this country, so even if I were on welfare it wouldn't effect them, it's the middle class that pays the lion's share of taxes. And, taking and never giving? When's the last time you did something for someone else just for the sake of being a decent human?
I've donated money to the Red Cross numerous times for disaster relief funds. After Katrina I went door to door locally to get donations, bought supplies such as water, blankets, and canned food, then drove those supplies in a rented U-Haul to New Orleans. Not once, but 4 times.
When have you ever done anything to help your fellow man? I imagine when the earthquake hit Japan you prayed for them and went about your business, while I gave them money. When the big tornadoes hit the midwest this past spring, again I bet you prayed while I donated money. After Katrina, again you most likely prayed, while I gave up my time and money to travel to New Orleans and actually make a difference. I also volunteer quite often at local soup kitchens to feed those who would otherwise go hungry.
Don't ever presume to be more moral or a better person than someone else simply because you believe in a story book and they don't. As I've just shown you, this particular atheist is a much better citizen than you're likely to be. While you sit in your pew and mumble I actually go out and make a difference.
Though I may not personally have a huge impact in the overall scheme of things, I know for a fact that that world is a better place because I am in it. Can you say the same?
The virtue of self proclaimed self righteousness
,,,,,,,,,,is a fallacy.
Kitten Kodder lives.
I see you made mention of all your good qualities"real or imagined"
but made no mention of any faults or defects in your human nature.
As you stated before"You hAve never done anything for which you need feel ashamed. EEEEEEEKKKKKSSSSS

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109750 Aug 6, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
And I'll break it down phoneTically for you.
My points are legitimate, quite valid and NON contrary...and they no where assimilate the non-sensical blather that you spew.
YOUR opinion however, strikes me as being rather narrow minded and stunted iintellectually-most pointedly because you seem to not even comprehend the FACT that;
The Bible is a BOOK, like any other BOOK on the shelves in any Library--NOT a "religion".
Are you AFRAID of people learning of real world histories, the cultures and beliefs of ancients, prose, parabables etc., or just the efforts in depths of reading in general that are sometimes required to do so?
Once again-The Bible is NOT a "religion". IT is a BOOK.
And I for one, am NOT afraid of BOOKS.
"Essentially" what you are saying, is that a BOOK-an inanimate object is promoting "religion". That is one of THE most ABSURD assumptions I have ever read. Are you always that afraid of BOOKS?
The government has NO business in trying to stifle ANYONE'S knowledge should they choose to READ and perhaps LEARN, especially trying to "tell" them what or what not, they should or should not READ.
This is NOT, repeat NOT, a communisTic nation.
What would ones like you want to "ban" next? Crayola crayons, for fear someone might color a nicer picture than yourself?
Too bad...get used to it-that's the REAL world. People will READ what they want to, LEARN what they want to and so long as they are not harming others or themselves with such-there is NOTHING commieTic types like you can do about it.
THAT is what our CONSTITUTION stands for and is about! Freedom OF,OF,OF religion, whether we like all that THAT encompasses or not.
Perhaps YOU like living in a dark, unlightened world, but do NOT expect everyone to, because that won't ever happen.
This is AMERICA-OF THE PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE and FOR the People-Not Against them, Not some stone age, craggy rock, despot, rogue hater, marxist/commie, corrupt power hungry Dictatorville!
GOD BLESS AMERICA, and thank you Jesus!
(don't like THAT-TOO BAD, stick your finger in your earwax filled ears!)
So you think books are not able to promote religion? Maybe we should just fill the schools with books from Sean Hannity seeing as how they cannot promote anything. Now do not allow them to have Allan Comb books, because that might get to fair and balanced. Kind of like having a Koran class along side a bible class.

And freedom "of" religion does not mean have government teach religion. Hence, not respecting an establishment of religion. You guys keep forgetting that part.
Fact is, Kentucky has no Koran class. So the point stands, Kentucky government is respecting an establishment of religion.
Most all of us do not mind the bible being used in school to teach mythology and ancient cultures, but the class in question is not doing this at all.
If the book is used for comparisons, I have no problem with it.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109751 Aug 6, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
You're Ignorance and lack of respect of others is showing.
I could care less what you believe or don't believe-NOT my business.
And some how,I don't think you'd last long in a consulate in the middle east with that brainless type of low level mentality, dude.
Why, because many in the middle east have no respect for freedom of religion? I know, just like Moses and Deuteronomy.
Teach the kids the comparison of how the religious books consistently promote no freedom of religion and how that contradicts what America was founded upon.
America was not founded upon mandating the citizens to respect others superstitions. It was founded upon allowing freedom to have superstitions.
If I make fun of your fear of the number 13, that is protected by the constitution. You see, their is this other freedom we Americans enjoy the bible has a contradictory view upon, freedom of speech. You see, even in the top ten commandments of the bible, freedom of speech is prohibited. Thou shalt not take the lords name in vain.

Seems to me you have confusion with "respecting" and "freedom". Maybe look the words up or something.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#109752 Aug 6, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>No, I made no claims that remotely suggest this. Are you talking to the voices in your head?
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>First show some evidence god ever created a single thing, then show us evidence he created a bunch of stuff in one day.
Fact is, their is absolutely zero evidence the creation story of the bible is as claimed.
But yes, their is no reason to assume man can create what nature took billions of years to do.
Mike Duquette wrote;It is not reasonable to expect man to be able to duplicate in a lab what took ten billions years of natural forces to create.
But yet man has produced the building blocks of life in a lab that leads one reasonably assume nature could have produced life naturally over the span of a billion years of earth existing.

Says I; Man has produced in a lab the building blocks of life by using his lntelligence and designing different methods till he found the right formula....Intelligent design

Article from new York Times

“Scientists cannot prove that this is how life arose on Earth, but they can do the next best thing. They can make their own RNA, and see if they can then breathe life into it.”- These two sentences are the key to a true understanding of the real conclusions that should be drawn from current Origin of Life research. All the amazing breakthroughs that these outstanding scientists have accomplished in their quest to create life in the laboratory have one thing in common: They are only possible under the strictest and most rigorous of laboratory procedures, processes, and protocols, and only under the guidance and direction of the most brilliant scientific minds working with the most advanced equipment available. These procedures and processes did not pop out of thin air; they are themselves built on the collective acquired knowledge and experience of thousands of different researchers and represent, literally, millions of man-hours of intensive labor, contemplation, and analysis. None of them could have conceivably taken place in a prebiotic swamp through undirected processes.
No one has summarized it more incisively and succinctly than Dr. Robert Shapiro, a self-proclaimed agnostic who is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at NYU, and a world recognized authority on Origin of Life research. Dr. Shapiro wrote the following in 1999, in anticipation of the creation in the laboratory of “self-sustained RNA evolving systems,”(which are discussed at length in Overbye’s article):“The media probably will announce it as the demonstration of a crucial step in the origin of life…The concept that the scientists are [actually] illustrating is one of Intelligent Design. No better term can be applied to a quest in which chemists…prepare a living system in the laboratory, using all the ingenuity and technical resources at their disposal.”

(In other words, these scientists have made it incontrovertibly clear that all the steps that are necessary for the emergence of life require the conscious and direct involvement of an active, guiding, and highly intelligent force. The very language that Overbye must inescapably use in describing the efforts of these scientists, strikingly illustrates this notion:)

The Bible tells us God is the Author and Power behind Creation.
Atheists tell us it was an accidental occurence and cite unwitnessed and unobservable events to back up their claim.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109753 Aug 6, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>If I told you to kill everyone in Burnside and assured you there were no innocent people...even the babies...would that get you off the hook if you carried it out?

And what do you think of god torturing and killing David's baby because of what David did? That's your god, by the way.
Under the higher law, I would know that this request was not of God.

As far as David, when I researched this before, I was told that it was because the child was conceived before David was forgiven for this sin so this son could not have been the child that would carry the lineage to Jesus Christ. The bloodline would have to be pure. And also it was to punish David for this sin.

To me, it may just be that the child got sick and died (I'm sure that happened frequently back then with little medical advantages), and David felt it was a punishment for what he had done.
It was a common belief that children were born with sickness or disabilities because of sins the parents committed but Jesus seems to have taught otherwise.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109754 Aug 6, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>That's good to know.

And I don't bash the LDS too much on this topic. From the various interviews I've heard with former members its a mixed bag on getting out. For some it was a nightmare, for others it was really fast and easy. I guess it depends on the local hierarchy.
Maybe. There may be some that drag their feet hoping the person changes their mind. I've worked with some that would go to their house and pressure them to either be back on Sunday, or sign the paper, today! Depends on personalities I would guess.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109755 Aug 6, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>Most people don't think about the period of the dino's was around 200 Million years long and during that time there were many, many Ice ages, Warm periods, Meteor impacts, Volcano outbreaks and a whole host of crap happen that killed off some and made other thrive... Dinos were as small as humming birds or Huge... We really only find the bones of those dino's that had large widely spread population because only one in a million or one in a Hundred Million individuals found themselves in conditions that would lead to fossilization...

It was no different then than today ... How many times have any of you out there ran across a intact carcass in the woods.. But we know Millions of animals die every year.. In Michigan during the winter more deer die from starvation and cold, old age and natural causes than are killed by hunters... Yet in the 10 Years I hunted the forests I may have run across 2 dead deer in the woods and they didn't last a week until all you found was hair...

Same thing would have happened during the dino eras... It took a rare set of events for a fossil to form... And the smaller, more fragile the life form the less likely for it to form a fossil...

Also today we know that even the big guys didn't live to long.. by looking at Growth rings in fossilized bones we know that full grown and aging Tyrannosaurus Rex only live to be about 30 years old... And started out from an egg about the size of an ostrich egg... And some full grown dino's were smaller than mice...
Didn't know that about the ages, thanks

“Topix Idiotae plena estut tibi”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#109756 Aug 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Under the higher law, I would know that this request was not of God.
As far as David, when I researched this before, I was told that it was because the child was conceived before David was forgiven for this sin so this son could not have been the child that would carry the lineage to Jesus Christ. The bloodline would have to be pure. And also it was to punish David for this sin.
To me, it may just be that the child got sick and died (I'm sure that happened frequently back then with little medical advantages), and David felt it was a punishment for what he had done.
It was a common belief that children were born with sickness or disabilities because of sins the parents committed but Jesus seems to have taught otherwise.
So, basically you're saying you condone the torture and murder of children if it's the "will of God" or to teach that child's parent a lesson due to their bad behavior?

I mean, you have to condone it, right? You'd never disagree with the Bible which is the "literal word of God". But, if you say you do condone it then it makes you a huge asshole because you think there are times it's ok for children to be tortured and murdered.

Who knew such complex moral dilemmas existed just by believing that an ancient book of fairy tales was real?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109757 Aug 6, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
Could ya ban some of those stations proselytizing some of that earache awful, incoherant and inconhesive mouth full of marbles metal and rap by the decibals DAILY, in and around and on public school grounds while yer trying? Thx in advance lol.
Is the government playing the rap and metal? Nope, so there is no connection to the situation in question.
The freedom of religion is for citizens. The restrictions on religion is for government. To have freedom for citizens, the government must be restricted. You cannot have it both ways.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it also.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109758 Aug 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Under the higher law, I would know that this request was not of God.
As far as David, when I researched this before, I was told that it was because the child was conceived before David was forgiven for this sin so this son could not have been the child that would carry the lineage to Jesus Christ. The bloodline would have to be pure. And also it was to punish David for this sin.
To me, it may just be that the child got sick and died (I'm sure that happened frequently back then with little medical advantages), and David felt it was a punishment for what he had done.
It was a common belief that children were born with sickness or disabilities because of sins the parents committed but Jesus seems to have taught otherwise.
So does the bible claim god had anything to do with the child's death? If so, then are you telling me the holy ghost could not inspire the writers of the bible to tell the story correctly?

I see you avoided the mass murder question. Why can none of you guys defend the morality of your god? If the bible is a lesson of morality, why do you not include your god in this standard?
The bible is a book of moral lessons with a variety of standards. In other words, just as with man morality, it is all subjective. It is as if man made up the whole darned thing.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109759 Aug 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Under the higher law, I would know that this request was not of God.
As far as David, when I researched this before, I was told that it was because the child was conceived before David was forgiven for this sin so this son could not have been the child that would carry the lineage to Jesus Christ. The bloodline would have to be pure. And also it was to punish David for this sin.
To me, it may just be that the child got sick and died (I'm sure that happened frequently back then with little medical advantages), and David felt it was a punishment for what he had done.
It was a common belief that children were born with sickness or disabilities because of sins the parents committed but Jesus seems to have taught otherwise.
"Under the higher law,", otherwise known as another standard of law. In other words, a double standard.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109760 Aug 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Under the higher law, I would know that this request was not of God.
As far as David, when I researched this before, I was told that it was because the child was conceived before David was forgiven for this sin so this son could not have been the child that would carry the lineage to Jesus Christ. The bloodline would have to be pure. And also it was to punish David for this sin.
To me, it may just be that the child got sick and died (I'm sure that happened frequently back then with little medical advantages), and David felt it was a punishment for what he had done.
It was a common belief that children were born with sickness or disabilities because of sins the parents committed but Jesus seems to have taught otherwise.
So until David was forgiven, the blood of the child was tainted in some way?
First, to say the Messiah must be related to the royal family is so ancient minded, it proves to me this is just a man made tale. It is a monarchy concept.
America does not use such a system in its hierarchy for government, and this is due to it being absolutely stupid. It is the ways of tyrants and dictators. Man made systems that are not good. We have learned better ways. But your bible insists this is the way of perfection?

Of course David thought it was god punishing him, because he was taught god punished people in such barbaric ways. He had no line to god, he was just an ignorant, superstitious dictator.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109761 Aug 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Under the higher law, I would know that this request was not of God.
As far as David, when I researched this before, I was told that it was because the child was conceived before David was forgiven for this sin so this son could not have been the child that would carry the lineage to Jesus Christ. The bloodline would have to be pure. And also it was to punish David for this sin.
To me, it may just be that the child got sick and died (I'm sure that happened frequently back then with little medical advantages), and David felt it was a punishment for what he had done.
It was a common belief that children were born with sickness or disabilities because of sins the parents committed but Jesus seems to have taught otherwise.
Yes, in the days of little medical knowledge, people thought all illness was due to the gods. No wonder the bible spreads such ignorant superstitious dogma.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109762 Aug 6, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike Duquette wrote;It is not reasonable to expect man to be able to duplicate in a lab what took ten billions years of natural forces to create.
But yet man has produced the building blocks of life in a lab that leads one reasonably assume nature could have produced life naturally over the span of a billion years of earth existing.
Says I; Man has produced in a lab the building blocks of life by using his lntelligence and designing different methods till he found the right formula....Intelligent design
Article from new York Times
“Scientists cannot prove that this is how life arose on Earth, but they can do the next best thing. They can make their own RNA, and see if they can then breathe life into it.”- These two sentences are the key to a true understanding of the real conclusions that should be drawn from current Origin of Life research. All the amazing breakthroughs that these outstanding scientists have accomplished in their quest to create life in the laboratory have one thing in common: They are only possible under the strictest and most rigorous of laboratory procedures, processes, and protocols, and only under the guidance and direction of the most brilliant scientific minds working with the most advanced equipment available. These procedures and processes did not pop out of thin air; they are themselves built on the collective acquired knowledge and experience of thousands of different researchers and represent, literally, millions of man-hours of intensive labor, contemplation, and analysis. None of them could have conceivably taken place in a prebiotic swamp through undirected processes.
No one has summarized it more incisively and succinctly than Dr. Robert Shapiro, a self-proclaimed agnostic who is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at NYU, and a world recognized authority on Origin of Life research. Dr. Shapiro wrote the following in 1999, in anticipation of the creation in the laboratory of “self-sustained RNA evolving systems,”(which are discussed at length in Overbye’s article):“The media probably will announce it as the demonstration of a crucial step in the origin of life…The concept that the scientists are [actually] illustrating is one of Intelligent Design. No better term can be applied to a quest in which chemists…prepare a living system in the laboratory, using all the ingenuity and technical resources at their disposal.”
(In other words, these scientists have made it incontrovertibly clear that all the steps that are necessary for the emergence of life require the conscious and direct involvement of an active, guiding, and highly intelligent force. The very language that Overbye must inescapably use in describing the efforts of these scientists, strikingly illustrates this notion:)
The Bible tells us God is the Author and Power behind Creation.
Atheists tell us it was an accidental occurence and cite unwitnessed and unobservable events to back up their claim.
So first you claim man could not produce life and this proves god is the creator. Now you see man can produce life to a certain extent, and thus you claim this proves their is a creator.

You see how you take anything and twist it to mean their must be a creator?

No one, including me, can know if a god created anything. But it is you who claims he must have. You have absolutely zero evidence to show he did, yet keep insisting he must have. This only makes you look to have little standards in claims. This is why I tend not to believe biblical claims.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109763 Aug 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never heard of Mormons flying planes into buildings, so to compare us to Islamic terrorists seems immature at best.
I'm not asking you to dive in. Stay on the side of the pool if you want. That's your choice. "Faith is a virtue" are words I have not said. Faith is a hope and belief of things not seen. I have faith because I have received answers that could not have come from my own thoughts. I know I have heard the voice of the Holy Ghost because I learned something that I didn't know before. I believe in the Holy Ghost because had I not listened to the words He spoke, I would be dead today.
I don't expect you to believe me, but I would hope that these things I say could happen to others, to enrich their lives. These experiences, and even better ones, can happen to anyone if they seek God.
I compare Mormons to Islamic terrorists because the same theme of using blind faith for the actions you take that are detrimental to society. Case in point, the Mormon actions to keep homosexuals from having equality. Case in point, the actions Mormons have taken to keep black persons from having equality.
All this is due to faith, nothing more. The question is about faith, so the comparison shows, albeit in an extreme fashion, how faith can be harmful to society. It often takes an extreme example to show the effect. If I gave an exact equivalent comparison, I doubt you would think faith is harmful at all.

Yes, faith is a hope of the things unseen. In other words, things that cannot be known. The Islamic terrorists had faith their god would put treat them as kings for killing the infidels. It was an unseen hope. It was a hope they actually believed would enrich the lives of others. Clearly not of the lives of those taken, but of others lives.

I see you give the same personal claims as YAA. I get it, you have the belief a god had something to do with saving your life. And Kind David thought a god had something to do with his child's life(or death). Does it mean the god had anything to do with it, or was it just the hope?
If you did not have the hope of god, you might realize their are many things that can replace those sorts of hopes that can have the same sort of effects.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109764 Aug 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Q answered the question very well. The oxygen. It's interesting to me. I'm not disputing anything. Get your panties out of a wad.
Most people think about Tyrannosaurus rex for Brachiosaurus or pteranodon types when they think of dinosaurs. Most people don't think about the dinosaurs that lived in the water. But if I need to be more specific, there you go. My question was about land dwelling dinosaurs. Why don't we have creatures that size anymore? Oxygen content was an interesting answer. Does anyone else have any thoughts?
Yes, most people are very ignorant of dinosaurs, the science of the past eras, and the life forms that existed in the past. And if you have an honest question, I welcome them. But in case you are not aware, their is a large dispute going on here about the past between your team(creationists) and the science of the day. Thing is, you guys do not seem to understand much about the science, yet keep insisting it is not correct.
Now I see you are not as insistent as most others on your team here, but either way, you are promoting the faith based (cannot be known/zero evidence) view of creation.

In the times of the Jurassic extinction, vegetation was reduced greatly. So it stands to reason the large creatures would not easily flourish. It took millions of years before vegetation grew back to normal levels. By this time the smaller animals gained such a great advantage, large animals never had a good chance competitively. There is always a race for resources.
I see this as harmful to our society. It retards some from advancing in knowledge.
Just wanted to explain why my panties are in a wad.

“Topix Idiotae plena estut tibi”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#109765 Aug 6, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, most people are very ignorant of dinosaurs, the science of the past eras, and the life forms that existed in the past. And if you have an honest question, I welcome them. But in case you are not aware, their is a large dispute going on here about the past between your team(creationists) and the science of the day. Thing is, you guys do not seem to understand much about the science, yet keep insisting it is not correct.
Now I see you are not as insistent as most others on your team here, but either way, you are promoting the faith based (cannot be known/zero evidence) view of creation.
In the times of the Jurassic extinction, vegetation was reduced greatly. So it stands to reason the large creatures would not easily flourish. It took millions of years before vegetation grew back to normal levels. By this time the smaller animals gained such a great advantage, large animals never had a good chance competitively. There is always a race for resources.
I see this as harmful to our society. It retards some from advancing in knowledge.
Just wanted to explain why my panties are in a wad.
You also need to look at the fact that the atmosphere now also has a much lower concentration of oxygen than it once had. The oxygen content of the atmosphere currently is about 21%, in the time of the dinosaurs it's been estimated that it was closer to 45%.

That increased oxygen allowed creatures to grow much larger, they were able to easily get oxygen into their lungs because the air was so oxygen rich. That's one of the main things that limits the maximum size of organisms in a biome, the concentration of oxygen since they need to be able to be able to draw in enough to stay alive.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109766 Aug 6, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
To me it illustrates the difference in the lesser law and the higher law. Because Moses' people were too wicked to live the higher law, God gave them lesser laws like: eye for an eye.
We live today under the higher law that Jesus restored. So I would not expect any Christian to teach this as a good practice. But forgiveness should be taught. Jesus taught it was our job to forgive everyone, as hard as that may be, and leave the judgment to God. But if we must judge, we are to do so with righteousness, because as we judge, we will be judged.
Sorry, but the double standards of laws only shows me this is not a law of a perfect god, but of men who learn what is a better law due to the lessons of history.
Not that turning the cheek is the best way, but it might have deterred a few from killing someones baby for the crimes of the father.
Obviously our society does not turn the other cheek. And it does sometimes take an eye for an eye. So ironic it is typically Christians who are for the death penalty, often quoting an eye for an eye. How insanely ignorant of them.

Humans judge, and we must judge, in my opinion. If we did not judge, the criminals would run free and likely harm us. This is why America has laws, judges and punishments. Society cannot settle for the hope a god will do the judging.

People like King David should have been judged by man and punished by man. He should have been kept from power so as to help prevent future crimes of the nature he committed.

This does not mean I do not forgive people, but I do not do it automatically. I do not forgive someone just because they asked for forgiveness. Depending upon the transgression, I may see they need to be punished and or give some reparations. So some transgressions need earned forgiveness. One must build and earn the trust, not be handed trust no matter the past transgressions.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109767 Aug 6, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's not too complicated. Its just vacuous. Re-read your post. You said absolutely NOTHING. What in the world are you trying to say?? You typed almost 150 words to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about but you didn't identify even one specific thing I said that was wrong.
At least when I rail against crazy Fundies I point out what it is about their beliefs that are incorrect. For example, the Noah story is a myth that was copied largely from another myth, which almost certainly came from some earlier myth. That's how these things work.
Do you disagree with that? If so, why?
That is Sistas M.O.- Judge others and leave out any specifics or evidence of what actual wrong they made.
Clearly not follow the advice of the Jesus, judge not. Likely also is pro death penalty, citing an eye for an eye.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109768 Aug 6, 2013
Nox Aeterna wrote:
<quoted text>
You also need to look at the fact that the atmosphere now also has a much lower concentration of oxygen than it once had. The oxygen content of the atmosphere currently is about 21%, in the time of the dinosaurs it's been estimated that it was closer to 45%.
That increased oxygen allowed creatures to grow much larger, they were able to easily get oxygen into their lungs because the air was so oxygen rich. That's one of the main things that limits the maximum size of organisms in a biome, the concentration of oxygen since they need to be able to be able to draw in enough to stay alive.
Yes, but DoWhat had already been told about that, so I was just adding to it.

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
Kchs baseball team BULLY ( EXPELLED ) 35 min Not true 5
Heather C 38 min Know her too 2
Sarah tye 1 hr Wondering 12
lets go to florida 3 hr Hatti_Hollerand 85
Stacy keys and jason carnes 4 hr notsure 13
Silverscreen Tanning - Ringworm 5 hr brownie 16
want to open small music venue in Barbourville 5 hr Fisherman 3
Barbourville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]