Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Full story: The Courier-Journal 131,410

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.

Full Story

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108413 Jul 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Tray shouldn't have bounced George's head off the street, what else can you expect? There were only two injuries on Tray, bruised knuckles and a bullet wound. Did you see the photos of George?
George started it and George ended it.

“I'll think about it.”

Since: Nov 07

central Florida

#108415 Jul 18, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and we can tell how the types of stars each element was processed through before it became you... We know that at least one Quasar and One Super nova was required to make you you....
Evolution started the Instant Physical Matter was converted from the Unified Indefinable Energy Quantum at least 14 Billion years ago... Each subatomic particle that self assembled in the universe was a step in the Evolution of man and all life... How ever you define life... And that is a moving target... Today Life exists from 60 below zero to 400 degrees above, live lives in oxygen and it lives in pure methane.... Live exists at pressures that would cause your blood to boil at altitude and pressures that would crush you like a semi running over a grape... Life Thrives in toxic acid baths and the hearts of nuclear reactors... And that is but Life as We Know It... A species that has been around for only a fraction of a tick of the cosmic clock.....
I agree that most people's idea of "Life" is far, far too narrow.
They are saying "Life, you know, like us" when the variety of possibilities of living creatures is endless.
The more we think we know, the more there is to learn.

“I'll think about it.”

Since: Nov 07

central Florida

#108416 Jul 18, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
And interesting article Sorta on the subject...
http://news.yahoo.com/earths-gold-may-come-co...
Thanks. Interesting.
I have never been a big fan of gold but I can see where that would make it pretty special.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108417 Jul 18, 2013
GWB wrote:
<quoted text>Do Mormons believe speaking on tongues "glossolalia" also? If not then why not?
Yes, but I have never seen it in the manner that is described in the New Testament. It is said to have happened in the Kirkland Temple in the early days of the church.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#108418 Jul 18, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>In a sense, if we're talking about supernatural beliefs, you are correct. It is no more crazy to believe that Smith was shown to an ancient document by a magical creature than it is to believe that a superpowerful being created the world in 6 days.

But if we juxtapose these beliefs against the actual evidence and a realistic worldview they do in fact pale by comparison.

I believe Smith was a fraud. My belief is far more plausible than your belief because it does not introduce magic. We know frauds exist, we do not know angels exist. And there is no such thing as Reformed Egyptian.
You also believe Jesus was a fraud, so your opinion is not important to me.
CivlLawsandEthic s

London, KY

#108419 Jul 18, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
George started it and George ended it.
People have a right to protect themselves, their loved ones and everything else that goes along with that.

Was just talking with a friend who lives in Fla last night-her elderly female parent lives in a similar nieghborhood watch type community..and she and her friends are out "watching" peaceably, every night, armed with cell phones, to call the police (as Zimmerman did)at anytime, should suspect give reason to do so.

To think that those people, that LIVE in those communities, have any less right to be out walking (especially when compared to anyone who does NOT actually live in such) than anyone else-or any less right to protect themselves while doing such-is Insane...the insanity of the liberal toxicness of thieves, thugs and CONS who seem to think they have some sort entitleMENTALed (NON) right, to ANY one else's anything.

BOTH TM and GZ had civil "rights" to be out walking/driving that night.
Evidence shows, one chose to ABUSE that right, by ABUSING another human being, opting for initiating Violence, rather than abiding by civil law, and ignoring the right to have just kept walking.

SAD, but true...but not as patheTically disgusting as teenagers shooting a thirteen month old baby point blank in the face, to further their own self serving evil agendas of nothing but vile GREED.

Where's the "rioting and national media froth" for that type of EVILness and vileness, not only trying take the rights of OTHERS away, but vilely ruining the lives of TRULY innocent people.
DISGUSTING.

Baby shot dead in stroller; 2 Georgia teens charged with murder

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/us/georgia-baby...

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108420 Jul 18, 2013
CivlLawsandEthics wrote:
<quoted text>
People have a right to protect themselves, their loved ones and everything else that goes along with that.
Was just talking with a friend who lives in Fla last night-her elderly female parent lives in a similar nieghborhood watch type community..and she and her friends are out "watching" peaceably, every night, armed with cell phones, to call the police (as Zimmerman did)at anytime, should suspect give reason to do so.
To think that those people, that LIVE in those communities, have any less right to be out walking (especially when compared to anyone who does NOT actually live in such) than anyone else-or any less right to protect themselves while doing such-is Insane...the insanity of the liberal toxicness of thieves, thugs and CONS who seem to think they have some sort entitleMENTALed (NON) right, to ANY one else's anything.
BOTH TM and GZ had civil "rights" to be out walking/driving that night.
Evidence shows, one chose to ABUSE that right, by ABUSING another human being, opting for initiating Violence, rather than abiding by civil law, and ignoring the right to have just kept walking.
SAD, but true...but not as patheTically disgusting as teenagers shooting a thirteen month old baby point blank in the face, to further their own self serving evil agendas of nothing but vile GREED.
Where's the "rioting and national media froth" for that type of EVILness and vileness, not only trying take the rights of OTHERS away, but vilely ruining the lives of TRULY innocent people.
DISGUSTING.
Baby shot dead in stroller; 2 Georgia teens charged with murder
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/us/georgia-baby...
This case had nothing to do with random or wanton violence and your baby killing example is wholly immaterial.
It should have ended with Zimmerman calling the police, but instead HE escalated the situation - very likely because of the false bravado of being armed. Zimmerman is the one who chased Martin to within 70 yards of his door and Zimmerman was the one who initiated the confrontation.
I never claimed that he didn't have the right to defend his life, but there are many who believe that defending their THINGS gives them the personal liberty to inflict capital punishment. The essence of the "stand your ground" law is that even if you have an avenue of escape, you have the lawful right to cause grievous bodily injury and/or death if you feel your life is threatened. This being the case, did Martin not also have a lawful right to stand his ground?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108421 Jul 18, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. Interesting.
I have never been a big fan of gold but I can see where that would make it pretty special.
http://www.miho.or.jp/english/member/shangril...
CivlLawandEthics

London, KY

#108422 Jul 18, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
This case had nothing to do with random or wanton violence and your baby killing example is wholly immaterial.
It should have ended with Zimmerman calling the police, but instead HE escalated the situation - very likely because of the false bravado of being armed. Zimmerman is the one who chased Martin to within 70 yards of his door and Zimmerman was the one who initiated the confrontation.
I never claimed that he didn't have the right to defend his life, but there are many who believe that defending their THINGS gives them the personal liberty to inflict capital punishment. The essence of the "stand your ground" law is that even if you have an avenue of escape, you have the lawful right to cause grievous bodily injury and/or death if you feel your life is threatened. This being the case, did Martin not also have a lawful right to stand his ground?
Yeah, he had the right to head right back to the door where he was staying as a GUEST, rather than choosing the option of his spoken intent to "just bash on" a neighborhood watch person.

No common sense, already IN trouble (rather than IN school, IN is own neighborhood) returning to Guest lodging from purchasing purple drank ingrediants, met lacking in common sense too resident, out watching/looking for trouble.
CivlLawandEthics

London, KY

#108423 Jul 18, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
This case had nothing to do with random or wanton violence and your baby killing example is wholly immaterial.
It should have ended with Zimmerman calling the police, but instead HE escalated the situation - very likely because of the false bravado of being armed. Zimmerman is the one who chased Martin to within 70 yards of his door and Zimmerman was the one who initiated the confrontation.
I never claimed that he didn't have the right to defend his life, but there are many who believe that defending their THINGS gives them the personal liberty to inflict capital punishment. The essence of the "stand your ground" law is that even if you have an avenue of escape, you have the lawful right to cause grievous bodily injury and/or death if you feel your life is threatened. This being the case, did Martin not also have a lawful right to stand his ground?
where's the outrage on the thirteen month old baby?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108424 Jul 18, 2013
CivlLawandEthics wrote:
<quoted text>
where's the outrage on the thirteen month old baby?
CivlLawandEthics wrote:
<quoted text>
where's the outrage on the thirteen month old baby?
And you have all of the answers?
You ask for repugnance of a single case when the causes of society's ills are manifold.
Where is the impotent outrage at any of thousands of other senseless atrocities? Where is the outrage at the numbers of Americans serving time for possessing certain plant leaves? At parental dis-involvement with their children? At the lack of accountability and disconnect from the public good in government and business? At the smut, violence, disinformation and pablum that passes for news and/or entertainment? At the generations of millions who believe and choose to perpetuate that fairy tales are real? At the promotion of selfishness, narcissism and materialism as virtuous? Have you been to Sanford, Heathrow, Midway? I have.
The facts remain. Machismo and adrenalin made all of the decisions that night. GZ placed himself in harm's way playing wannabe cop and it could have as easily led to his own death. Would or should TM have then been acquitted for defending himself against a belligerent and armed man?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108425 Jul 18, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
George started it and George ended it.
That's not what the evidence shows; George called the police, he was on the bottom, yelling for help. When T. bopped his head off the street, George shot.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108426 Jul 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's not what the evidence shows; George called the police, he was on the bottom, yelling for help. When T. bopped his head off the street, George shot.
The evidence shows that GZ spotted, profiled and chased TM, lost him, found him again and a confrontation ensued. We will never hear TM's side of the story. You can edit and confound the story any other way you want - and you usually do. That's why I loathe responding directly to your posts. Have a nice day.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#108427 Jul 18, 2013
The tantalising proof that belief in God makes you happier and healthier
By Tom Knox
God has had a tough time over the past few years. On TV, in newspapers and on the internet, the debate as to whether faith has any relevance in a sceptical modern world has been as ubiquitous as it has been vigorous.
And it has been pretty clear which side is the most splenetic.
From Richard Dawkins’ powerful atheist polemics to Christopher Hitchens’ public derision of the Roman Catholic Tony Blair and Stephen Hawking’s proclamation that the universe ‘has no need for God’, it seems that unbelievers have had the dwindling faithful on the run.
Or have they?
Proof? Research has found that religious believers have a healthy and happier life, but what is the secret and how does religion work its magic?
As research for my latest novel, Bible Of The Dead, I have spent months investigating the science of faith versus atheism, and discovered startling and unexpected evidence. It might just change the way you think about the whole debate, as it has changed my view.
I am not a religious zealot. On the contrary, I was a teenage atheist. And although in adulthood I have had a vague and fuzzy feeling that ‘there must be something out there’, I was never a regular church-goer. But what I have discovered, on my voyage through the science of faith, has astonished me.
For a growing yet largely unnoticed body of scientific work, amassed over the past 30 years, shows religious belief is medically, socially and psychologically beneficial.
In 2006, the American Society of Hypertension established that church-goers have lower blood pressure than the non-faithful.
Likewise, in 2004, scholars at the University of California, Los Angeles, suggested that college students involved in religious activities are more likely to have better mental and emotional health than those who do not.
Meanwhile, in 2006, population researchers at the University of Texas discovered that the more often you go to church, the longer you live.
Attack: Christopher Hitchens made a public derision of Tony Blair's decision to becoming a Roman Catholic
As they put it:‘Religious attendance is associated with adult mortality in a graded fashion: there is a seven-year difference in life expectancy between those who never attend church and those who attend weekly.’
Exactly the same outcome was recently reported in the American Journal of Public Health, which studied nearly 2,000 older Californians for five years. Those who attended religious services were 36 per cent less likely to die during this half-decade than those who didn’t.
Even those who attended a place of worship irregularly — implying a less than ardent faith — did better than those who never attended.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#108428 Jul 18, 2013
Pretty impressive. But there’s more; so much more that it’s positively surreal.
In 1990,the American Journal of Psychiatry discovered believers with broken hips were less depressed, had shorter hospital stays and could even walk further when they were discharged compared to their similarly broken-hipped and hospitalised, but comparatively hThe tantalising proof that belief in God makes you happier and healthier
By Tom Knox
God has had a tough time over the past few years. On TV, in newspapers and on the internet, the debate as to whether faith has any relevance in a sceptical modern world has been as ubiquitous as it has been vigorous.
And it has been pretty clear which side is the most splenetic.
From Richard Dawkins’ powerful atheist polemics to Christopher Hitchens’ public derision of the Roman Catholic Tony Blair and Stephen Hawking’s proclamation that the universe ‘has no need for God’, it seems that unbelievers have had the dwindling faithful on the run.
Or have they?
Proof? Research has found that religious believers have a healthy and happier life, but what is the secret and how does religion work its magic?
As research for my latest novel, Bible Of The Dead, I have spent months investigating the science of faith versus atheism, and discovered startling and unexpected evidence. It might just change the way you think about the whole debate, as it has changed my view.
I am not a religious zealot. On the contrary, I was a teenage atheist. And although in adulthood I have had a vague and fuzzy feeling that ‘there must be something out there’, I was never a regular church-goer. But what I have discovered, on my voyage through the science of faith, has astonished me.
For a growing yet largely unnoticed body of scientific work, amassed over the past 30 years, shows religious belief is medically, socially and psychologically beneficial.
In 2006, the American Society of Hypertension established that church-goers have lower blood pressure than the non-faithful.
Likewise, in 2004, scholars at the University of California, Los Angeles, suggested that college students involved in religious activities are more likely to have better mental and emotional health than those who do not.
Meanwhile, in 2006, population researchers at the University of Texas discovered that the more often you go to church, the longer you live.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#108429 Jul 18, 2013
Christopher Hitchens made a public derision of Tony Blair's decision to becoming a Roman Catholic
As they put it:‘Religious attendance is associated with adult mortality in a graded fashion: there is a seven-year difference in life expectancy between those who never attend church and those who attend weekly.’
Exactly the same outcome was recently reported in the American Journal of Public Health, which studied nearly 2,000 older Californians for five years. Those who attended religious services were 36 per cent less likely to die during this half-decade than those who didn’t.
Even those who attended a place of worship irregularly — implying a less than ardent faith — did better than those who never attended.
eathen peers.
It’s not just hips. Scientists have revealed that believers recover from breast cancer quicker than non-believers; have better outcomes from coronary disease and rheumatoid arthritis; and are less likely to have children with meningitis.
Intriguing research in 2002 showed that believers have more success with IVF than non-believers.
A 1999 study found that going to a religious service or saying a few prayers actively strengthened your immune system.
These medical benefits accrue even if you adjust for the fact that believers are less likely to smoke, drink or take drugs.
And faith doesn’t just heal the body; it salves the mind, too. In 1998, the American Journal of Public Health found that depressed patients with a strong ‘intrinsic faith’(a deep personal belief, not just a social inclination to go to a place of worship) recovered 70 per cent faster than those who did not have strong faith.
Another study, in 2002, showed that prayer reduced ‘adverse outcomes in heart patients’.
But perhaps this is just an American thing? After all, those Bible-bashing Yanks are a bit credulous compared to us more sceptical Europeans, aren’t they?
Proclamation: Professor Stephen Hawking has said that the 'universe has no need for God'
Not so. In 2008, Professor Andrew Clark of the Paris School of Economics and Doctor Orsolya Lelkes of the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research conducted a vast survey of Europeans. They found that religious believers, compared to non-believers, record less stress, are better able to cope with losing jobs and divorce, are less prone to suicide, report higher levels of self-esteem, enjoy greater ‘life purpose’ and report being more happy overall.
What is stunning about this research is that the team didn’t go looking for this effect — it came to them unexpectedly.‘We originally started the research to work out why some European countries had more generous unemployment benefits than others,’ says Professor Clark.
But as they went on, the pattern of beneficial faith presented itself.‘Our analysis suggested religious people suffered less psychological harm from unemployment than the non-religious. Believers had higher levels of life satisfaction.’
curious

Ocoee, FL

#108430 Jul 18, 2013
So what’s going on? How does religion work this apparent magic?
One of the latest surveys to suggest that religious people are happier than the non-religious was conducted by Professors Chaeyoon Lim and Robert Putnam, from Harvard, and published last year.
They discovered that many of the health benefits of religion materialise only if you go to church regularly and have good friends there. In other words, it’s the ‘organised’ part of organised religion that does a lot of the good stuff.
Going to a friendly church, temple or mosque gives you a strong social network and a ready-made support group, which in turn gives you a more positive outlook on life — and offers vital help in times of need. The Harvard scientists were so startled by their findings that they considered altering their own religious behaviour.
As Professor Lim said:‘I am not a religious person, but ... I personally began to think about whether I should go to church. It would make my mum happy.’
But if the ‘congregation’ effect is one explanation for the good health of churchgoers, it’s not the only one. Other surveys have found that intrinsic faith is also important.
For instance, a study of nearly 4,000 older adults for the U.S. Journal of Gerontology revealed that atheists had a notably increased chance of dying over a six-year period than the faithful.
Crucially, religious people lived longer than atheists even if they didn’t go regularly to a place of worship. This study clearly suggests there is a benefit in pure faith alone — perhaps this religiousness works by affording a greater sense of inner purpose and solace in grief.
This begs the question: Given all this vast evidence that religion is good for you, how come the atheists seem so set against it?
They pride themselves on their rationality, yet so much of the empirical evidence indicates that God is good for you. Surely, then, it is the atheists, not the devout, who are acting irrationally?
All this will come as no surprise to many students of genetics and evolution, who have long speculated that religious faith might be hard- wired into the human mind.
For instance, twin studies (research on identical siblings who are separated at birth) show that religion is a heritable characteristic: if one twin is religious, the other is likely to be a believer as well, even when raised by different parents.
Prayer: Studys have found that even those with a small connection to religion can feel the benefits of it
Neurologists are making exciting progress in locating the areas of the brain, primarily the frontal cortex,‘responsible’ for religious belief — parts of the brain that seem designed to accommodate faith. This research even has its own name: neurotheology.
Why might we be hard-wired to be religious? Precisely because religion makes us happier and healthier, and thus makes us have more children.
In the purest of Darwinian terms, God isn’t just good for you, He’s good for your genes, too.
All of which means that, contrary to expectation, it is the atheists who are eccentric, flawed and maladaptive, and it’s the devout who are healthy, well-adjusted and normal.
Certainly, in purely evolutionary terms, atheism is a blind alley. Across the world, religious people have more children than non-religious (go forth and multiply!), while atheist societies are the ones with the lowest birth rates.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#108431 Jul 18, 2013
The Czech Republic is a classic example. It proclaims itself the most atheist country in Europe, if not the world; it also has a puny birthrate of 1.28 per woman, one of the lowest on the planet (so soon there won’t be any godless Czechs to proclaim their atheism).
The existence of atheism is therefore something of an anomaly. But then again, anomalies are not unknown in evolution.
Think of the dodo or the flightless parrot, doomed to extinction. Are atheists similarly blighted? Are Richard Dawkins and his type destined to vanish off the face of the Earth — the victims of their own intellectual arrogance?
That’s not for me to say; it’s for you to ponder. All I do know is that reassessing the research has changed the way I think about faith. These days I go to church quite a lot, especially when I am travelling and researching my books.
For instance, the other day I found myself in Cambridge — the home of Stephen Hawking — and took the opportunity to do some sightseeing of the city’s intellectual landmarks.
I strolled by the labs where Hawking does his brilliant work, popped into the pub where they announced the discovery of DNA and admired the library where Charles Darwin studied. As I did, I was in awe at the greatness of Man’s achievements.
And then I went to Evensong at King’s College Chapel, and it was beautiful, sublime and uplifting. And I felt a very different kind of awe.
Sneer at faith all you like. Just don’t assume science is on your side.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#108433 Jul 18, 2013
Going to a friendly church, temple or mosque gives you a strong social network and a ready-made support group, which in turn gives you a more positive outlook on life — and offers vital help in times of need. The Harvard scientists were so startled by their findings that they considered altering their own religious behaviour.
As Professor Lim said:‘I am not a religious person, but ... I personally began to think about whether I should go to church. It would make my mum happy.’
But if the ‘congregation’ effect is one explanation for the good health of churchgoers, it’s not the only one. Other surveys have found that intrinsic faith is also important.
For instance, a study of nearly 4,000 older adults for the U.S. Journal of Gerontology revealed that atheists had a notably increased chance of dying over a six-year period than the faithful.
Crucially, religious people lived longer than atheists even if they didn’t go regularly to a place of worship. This study clearly suggests there is a benefit in pure faith alone — perhaps this religiousness works by affording a greater sense of inner purpose and solace in grief.
This begs the question: Given all this vast evidence that religion is good for you, how come the atheists seem so set against it?
They pride themselves on their rationality, yet so much of the empirical evidence indicates that God is good for you. Surely, then, it is the atheists, not the devout, who are acting irrationally?
All this will come as no surprise to many students of genetics and evolution, who have long speculated that religious faith might be hard- wired into the human mind.
For instance, twin studies (research on identical siblings who are separated at birth) show that religion is a heritable characteristic: if one twin is religious, the other is likely to be a believer as well, even when raised by different parents.
Prayer: Studys have found that even those with a small connection to religion can feel the benefits of it
Neurologists are making exciting progress in locating the areas of the brain, primarily the frontal cortex,‘responsible’ for religious belief — parts of the brain that seem designed to accommodate faith. This research even has its own name: neurotheology.
Why might we be hard-wired to be religious? Precisely because religion makes us happier and healthier, and thus makes us have more children.
In the purest of Darwinian terms, God isn’t just good for you, He’s good for your genes, too.
All of which means that, contrary to expectation, it is the atheists who are eccentric, flawed and maladaptive, and it’s the devout who are healthy, well-adjusted and normal.
Certainly, in purely evolutionary terms, atheism is a blind alley. Across the world, religious people have more children than non-religious (go forth and multiply!), while atheist societies are the ones with the lowest birth rates.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

#108434 Jul 18, 2013
aWitchintheWoods wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that most people's idea of "Life" is far, far too narrow.
They are saying "Life, you know, like us" when the variety of possibilities of living creatures is endless.
The more we think we know, the more there is to learn.
Yes... there is every probability that we could run into several forms of life and not be able to recognize it in the slightest...

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.

Barterville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Brad Lenox 12 hr someone 7
Mayor 13 hr Jason 8
Please help us find my son a dog!!! 23 hr Hey 12
brothel (Feb '14) Mon Username 2
Rebeccas Cut Above (Mar '11) Mon Good time 14
david thornsburg Oct 19 Really 3
john hall Oct 16 lendMeSomeSuga Ia... 4
Barterville Dating
Find my Match

Barterville Jobs

Barterville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Barterville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Barterville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]