Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 141264 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.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#112131 Sep 1, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't see any evidence of this soul thing... My position is on a point of law... a fetus by definition is a Human Being in that if someone kicks a woman in the belly and kills her fetus as 3 weeks gestation they can be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of homicide... Unjustifiable Homicide is the killing of a human being by another human being... Therefore the fetus by definition is a human being... So I am against the unjustified homicide of Any human being so I am Pro Life with the caveat of Legal Justification...
I disagree with your position on this because it seems like using a blunt tool to take care of a delicate problem.

Man kicks pregnant woman and kills fetus, man should be charged with some form of manslaughter or possibly murder. I agree. It is not his right to terminate that pregnancy.

Woman walks into Planned Parenthood and has an abortion. It ain't your business, nor mine. It was her body and the potential person growing inside her was 100% her possession from top to bottom.

I don't see a problem with this. The clear difference here is the choice of the woman, not the definition of what a human being is. That only becomes relevant when her right to choose has been taken away, then we can clearly say that the kicker has killed a human being.

If this leads to some weird situation that perhaps evades consideration and we can all mostly agree that it requires special treatment then we can amend our laws to deal with it. That's the hard part of governing 300+ million people...it ain't easy.

Now, I do accept that there is an issue with suffering here that needs to be addressed. I feel like if we can demonstrate clearly, with solid science, that a fetus is "conscious" and capable of experiencing pain and suffering then the rights of the mother to abort might need to be limited. I think that is reasonable, from a moral perspective. The problem is our ability to detect it is limited. We can give it a window of a few weeks in which consciousness begins, realistically...I think its between 24-28. And nearly all abortions are actually done prior to that window anyway.

Complex topic. We've hit this one a few times on this thread, I think. Nobody agrees and I doubt they ever will.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#112132 Sep 1, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
I am pro choice.... But I understand the concern depending what you feel is important between a possible soul and when a fetus receives it... A nervous system and when it receives it... When it is technically a human... Or maybe just the idea that it will eventually become a thinking breathing human being.
I'm interested in what everyone thinks in detail.
I replied to Q on this but basically it's the woman's choice. Ultimately it has to be the woman's choice since she is the only person who necessarily has to endure the rigors of pregnancy and have her life permanently altered as a result.

The man can walk away, as many do. Laws requiring him to do anything at all cannot match what the woman is required to do.

And there are a host of other arguments in support of the right to choose, such as the reduction of poverty and crime.

The main thing is to be sensitive of suffering, both of the woman and potential child. And that's the really hard part.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#112133 Sep 1, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course He had reason to create us. Just like the reason we have children: to continue our species and have joy with a family. We are His children. We know our children are going to mess up, a lot, but that doesn't keep us from having children. We know they will be exposed to even more crap than we were exposed to, but we choose to have children anyway. I'm not sure where your logic is in that statement.
Why is my position irrational just because you can't refute it, or understand it?
You are God's child, whether you accept it or not.
Your position is irrational because you posit a magical being that you cannot demonstrate to be true. If your position was tentative I would not find you irrational. If you said "I hope there is a god" then I could accept that. But "There is a god, whether or you accept it or not" is irrational. You have not demonstrated the truth of it.

Also, as we discussed before, the parent analogy is not accurate. God is perfect, we are far from perfect. But no parent is perfect. Kids are humans that come from humans. We have the DNA to demonstrate it.

Again, where is god's DNA? Show me that, then we can talk.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that your particular version of god is...weird. I've encountered a ton of theology and this idea that god is physical, has a body, is imperfect...is not standard. At all. You are arguing for a magical entity that is not all powerful. And I think that is going to be the hardest possible version of god for you to justify. Such a god would by all measures of logic leave some kind of trail we could follow to discover it.

And not a faith trail. I'm talking about hard evidence. Show me that.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#112134 Sep 1, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't about politics, it was about furthering the church and building Zion in preparation for the return of Jesus Christ. Plural marriage served its purpose at that time and was no longer necessary. Nor do I think the majority could practice it without lust interfering (my opinion).
It isn't that surprising to me that they had to move away from persecution and set up house in the middle of a desert, and still people jacked with them. It's pretty similar to Moses' story. God could have killed all the Egyptians and let the Hebrews stay there and kick their feet up in homes already built. God doesn't have a history of handing things over to the saints with no effort of their own. Again I think it is because they wouldn't appreciate it as much.
Oh, I totally agree that Mormons were persecuted by the mainstream religious community (everyone else, basically). I don't think they should have had their stuff taken away or put in jail for plural marriage or any of that nonsense.

But I do think you are willfully ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that "revelations" seem to be meaningless and powerless in the face of political/legal assault. And I think that stands as strong evidence that god is not real and "prophets" are full of crap.

You want your religion to be true. But you also want to be a rational person. So you rationalize. If it is embarrassing that the LDS was racist until the Civil Rights movement then they suddenly got a message from god to not be racist anymore...well that's just human error. If plural marriage was god's law until the law of the land said no...then another revelation says no more plural marriage...well that's just a necessity of building "zion". And when someone says an ear healed magically, well that's gods power.

Can you not even concede that we can describe all this stuff very easily with no appeals whatsoever to god or magic?

Racism was rampant in the LDS because it was rampant everywhere anyway. It changed its position when the social pressure became too strong to resist, just like every other institution.

Plural marriage was ended because it became a lethal liability to the further existence of the church itself. It was a rational move to make. You don't need to infer a divine decree.

The ear was never dangling by a shred of skin and it never healed suddenly in moments. People involved were simply mistaken and not remembering it correctly, which is entirely consistent with all psychological research on memory.

Why posit a supernatural element at all?

That's what I mean by "irrational".

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#112135 Sep 1, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not able to see that this is not superstition for others. It may be to you, but not to the people that it offends. You obviously missed my point.
No, the world does not need more profanity. It does not need more hate. It does not need more things to steer children wrong or desensitize them. It doesn't need more sex on regular prime time TV. It doesn't need more people that smoke in restaurants while you are trying to eat.
The attitude you have about this subject means you don't care what offends others so you are just going to be offensive wherever you want. This is selfish. If that's what you want to be, no one can stop you. Go for it. I give up.
With this mentality, nudists should have the right to do their thing in Walmart.
My opinion is that people should be considerate of others, and friendly, as this tends to brighten people's day. I believe there should be a broad effort to be nicer to those we come in contact with. Sorry you don't agree.
Well, I already said that I don't actually go around cussing at people. lol, that would be funny.

No, I don't do that. I use a degree of "foul" language consistent with my own style and the company I am with. Among good friends I talk freely and casually. If I'm with an elderly person I am very polite. At work I'm totally restrained in my conversation and I actually get uncomfortable when religion and politics are brought up. I think its inappropriate.

But in an online casual forum the kid gloves are off. If you are offended by what you read, then don't read.

I think the word game threads are dumb so I don't read them. But I don't pop in and say "You're being stupid".
Yes and Amen

Georgetown, KY

#112136 Sep 1, 2013
Spaceship earth wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi LOL, peace be with you also.
"peace be with you also"
This is the part everyone forgets about!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#112137 Sep 1, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I spent 3 semesters in Chemistry labs too, and had several biology and physics classes too, but that doesn't make me a scientist.
Sorry, but I've seen your interpretations of Bible stories. Remember?
The scriptures were not meant to be confusing and vague. This was the effect of Satan's influence to confuse people and lead God's children astray. Hence the need for a prophet to clarify and rectify.
So you can't talk about chemistry or biology or physics? You lack the ability to even have the conversation? Seriously?

And you think the reason the Bible is contradictory, confusing, and all over the map is because the devil did it?

Are you starting to see why this is irrational now?

Also...what kind of wussy does that make god? He has ONE METHOD for reaching us: his word. And he lets a fallen angel f*ck it up? He cast this guy out of heaven and down into hell. Yet he can't seem to stop him from mucking up the eternal Word? Not just once, but over the course of 1000+ years in which the books of the Bible were actually scrawled down?

Weak, weak sauce.

This is called rationalization. Look it up. It is not the same as *being rational*. Folks in the middle ages rationalized burning or hanging witches (they were evil, they cast spells on people, the church is OK with it, etc). Were they being rational?
Yes and Amen

Georgetown, KY

#112138 Sep 1, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
I am pro choice.... But I understand the concern depending what you feel is important between a possible soul and when a fetus receives it... A nervous system and when it receives it... When it is technically a human... Or maybe just the idea that it will eventually become a thinking breathing human being.
I'm interested in what everyone thinks in detail.
What I think... When the sperm hits the egg!
If we didn't make sex our god (we see what sexual depravity reigns in) People would wait for marriage to start a family!

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112139 Sep 1, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
Do duh plate comes with stalker judge it napkins to wipe duh chit up with?
HOw would I know? Ask YaA.
Yes and Amen

Georgetown, KY

#112140 Sep 1, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
Specifically, Ansar-al-Islam.
Now in total control of Libya.
It's a "regional" thing.
Doesn't matter...
IF their holy book says to lie, and kill people...
you get Ft Hood, Boston, 9/11....
List goes on!
They all read from the same book...
Search for pictures of Muslims celebrating the towers coming
down on 9/11...
God is God, and I'm sure He doesn't want us to kill each other
UN-Justified!
Yes and Amen

Georgetown, KY

#112141 Sep 1, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>
Another interesting fantasy from you. And you would do this HOW?
Call the Pres immediately! I'm sure he would love your input.
<quoted text>
How dare you decide what someone half the world away is capable of.
Since you have never been an uneducated, impoverished, Middle Eastern female, I'm going to try to forgive your abyssmal ignornace.
(1) You present the terms to both parties!
"IF" they care anything about their children, they would comply for their safety!
(My theory) The ones that do not comply, are the same ones that dropped the gas/napalm, NUKE them... No more suffering!
(again My theory)
(2) a 16 year old girl stood up for education... they shot her, and left her for dead!
Do you really think other women in that area are clueless?
No! If they want to come with the kids... A-Ok with me!
Yes and Amen

Georgetown, KY

#112142 Sep 1, 2013
I might add... leave the bombs at home!
Yes and Amen

Georgetown, KY

#112143 Sep 1, 2013
Good day to you all :-)

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Nancy, KY

#112144 Sep 1, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
In some cultures, using GD IS a personal affront of insult to many. It's just as DISREESPECTFUL, rude and as crass as the n word.
And there's no excuse for disrespectfulness, rudeness or crassness-not even IGNORANCE.
Not in My culture, in some cultures it's considered rude and as crass to draw a picture of Mohomid with a bomb on his head, Glad I don't live in such a culture....

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Nancy, KY

#112145 Sep 1, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
You can only speak with a half opinion, one of which does NOT include 100 percent of Reality.
Too bad Q, you'd have NO idea about the other half. NONE whatsoever, or you wouldn't be so legally arrogant about it all.
You are of course wrong in that I can and did speak with my whole opinion and is based 100 percent on the reality I see... With the added aspect of delusional mindset...

And I absolutely have some idea of the other half, You see I have heard the arguments, spoken to the other half and based my view partly due to those arguments....
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#112146 Sep 1, 2013
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>Doesn't matter...
IF their holy book says to lie, and kill people...
you get Ft Hood, Boston, 9/11....
List goes on!
They all read from the same book...
Search for pictures of Muslims celebrating the towers coming
down on 9/11...
God is God, and I'm sure He doesn't want us to kill each other
UN-Justified!
Yer preaching to the chior YaA.

Discernment is a wonderful thing.
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#112147 Sep 1, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in My culture, in some cultures it's considered rude and as crass to draw a picture of Mohomid with a bomb on his head, Glad I don't live in such a culture....
It's considered beyond rude in stone age, cultures of anarchy that would rather lob bombs, live in caves and act like totally uncivilized dirtbag rabid animals.

As for NOT living in That kind of dark stone age, uncouth, non-culture of depravity and ignorance-Me too.

Potty mouth.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Nancy, KY

#112148 Sep 1, 2013
but then wrote:
<quoted text>
There is such a thing as killing in self defense. If someone is endangering your life you can kill them and not even be charged in some cases.
I am sure you agree that a woman should have the right to save her own life by having an abortion, at any stage, if it comes down to it.
I stated clearly I have no problem what so ever with Justifiable Homicide... I have a problem with Homicide for personal convenience.... There may be many reasons to commit homicide that make it justifiable but the one committing the homicide is not the one that should be allowed to determine what is or is not justifiable because some people can justify anything... Chuck Manson thought he was justified in starting a race war by slicing a baby out of a white girls belly.... Some people think they are justified in setting bombs at abortion clinics.... Some people think it's justified to exterminate whole populations to save the earth...

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#112149 Sep 1, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>Stuff like this:

"The Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies for which there is no evidence in pre-Columbian America. These include asses, cattle, milk, horses,[7][8] oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants,[9] wheat,[10] barley,[11][12][13][14] figs,[15] silk,[16] steel,[17] bellows, brass, breast plates, chains, iron working,[18] plows, swords, scimitars, and chariots.[19] The Smithsonian Institution has stated that "none of the principal food plants and domestic animals of the Old World (except the dog) were present in the New World before Columbus."[20][21]"

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

There is nothing in the BoM that could not have been written by Smith and perhaps a collaborator or two. Nothing in it is inexplicable in that light. And in fact the most rational way to explain it is to say that it was invented by Smith and perhaps a collaborator or two.

It is irrational to assume the book is anything other than that.

Now you can certainly believe otherwise but you are firmly in a minority of intellectual opinion.
Hmmm

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/ash-michael/ar...
SistaNoneYa

London, KY

#112150 Sep 1, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
You are of course wrong in that I can and did speak with my whole opinion and is based 100 percent on the reality I see... With the added aspect of delusional mindset...
And I absolutely have some idea of the other half, You see I have heard the arguments, spoken to the other half and based my view partly due to those arguments....
It should never be in place to be viewed as any sort of easy access birth control means.

Rather a dire measure, for myriads of reasons...really uncalled for after 24 weeks or so though. SHOULD be a totally different perspective after that.

I don't get the depraved femnazi warcry on anything beyond that time frame. Sick in the head stuff then.

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
Danny Hudson is yummy 2 min sexythang 12
Williams Stop and Go (RUDE OWNERS ) 47 min Noway 44
truck payments (Dec '14) 1 hr gator 51
Best place to get your car fixed? 1 hr gator 10
Declaration of Independence 1 hr Be Informed 1
Stephen Trace Signs 1 hr Question 4
Paul Tate 1 hr Allstar 3
Jason Marsee shot Ford Collett 9 hr Hmmm 32
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages