Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Full story: The Courier-Journal 134,399

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

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103986 May 18, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. Nor does what Hindu's believe have any affect on me. I do not subject myself to their direction.
So you do not understand why we oppose religion?
You can chose to run from our points, but we feel all religion is related. Christianity is closely related to what you follow. So ignoring what the Christian religion has done or is doing is a cop out. You promote Christianity. You promote the deity that is related to what Christians do.
You also run from what your church has done or is still doing. Your church had systematic discrimination for over a hundred years.
And now you are running from my questions about promoting birth control.
You run when it is convenient to run. You associate when it is convenient to associate.
According to your ideas here, other than 14 million people, none are following the true religion. Out of seven billion, this number looks tiny. Looks as if no holy ghost exists.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#103987 May 18, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
So far I have. Re-read my posts if you don't believe me.
I haven't been engaged in the conversation. My comment was intended as a general statement, and not one to single you out.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103988 May 18, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm the one that brought the multitude of stats to the discussion. What are you accusing me of running from?
Then when confronted with the our stats, you ran. Yes, you run. I stand by that accusation.
Care to answer the question about your church not promoting birth control or are you going to continue to prove me correct about running?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103989 May 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Yet without medical assistance, nature aborts a hundred times more than purposeful. Medical science is the only reason most human offspring are even born alive. Medical science is the only reason most of those are healthy enough to live even longer. Medical abortion is just undoing what medical science has done.
No one in my immediate family needed any medical assistance at all to get pregnant or keep their children alive until birth. So I'm not sure why you are saying this. As I have a huge family, you saying "most" should have affected my family by probability.

You are suggesting that without medical assistance, children would rarely be born. How do you explain the population of the earth up until the modern medical age? You are making some very off the wall assumptions that have thousands of years of evidence that you are wrong.
And this isn't even relevant. If a child isn't born because of natural causes, it has nothing to do with forcefully stopping a child from being born. You are making it sound like people are creating life in a Petrie dish and then pouring bleach on it when the bell rings at the end of class.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103990 May 18, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't ask the Holy Ghost for answers to questions that you want answered. He isn't a magic 8 ball. If you want particular answers from Him, you have an equal amount of access to Him as I do.
"He"? Now this ghost is a male? Not a magic 8 ball? You sure describe him as one, but when confronted with a test, you bail and run.
How convenient.
Evidently the ghost ignores seven billion people about what church is true.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#103991 May 18, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Why blame government officials for this? We can do things on our own to change this.
I'm not blaming government officials for "this." I'm blaming a faction of We the People - of which the government employees are not the whole, but certainly are a part.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103992 May 18, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
No one in my immediate family needed any medical assistance at all to get pregnant or keep their children alive until birth. So I'm not sure why you are saying this. As I have a huge family, you saying "most" should have affected my family by probability.
You are suggesting that without medical assistance, children would rarely be born. How do you explain the population of the earth up until the modern medical age? You are making some very off the wall assumptions that have thousands of years of evidence that you are wrong.
And this isn't even relevant. If a child isn't born because of natural causes, it has nothing to do with forcefully stopping a child from being born. You are making it sound like people are creating life in a Petrie dish and then pouring bleach on it when the bell rings at the end of class.
If you look at mortality birth rates before medicine, you will see the population did not grow as quickly.
But many people back then had multiple babies due to the mortality rate. Many if not most had, or tried to have several children. Most always, some died.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103993 May 18, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>You can leave the language out all you wish, but we know it is not out of the equation with you. So your refusal to address the points is just another sign you have poor answers.

We are telling you why we feel aborting a zygote is not immoral. Now you cite it being a human is why we should not do it but as we have shown, we disagree it is a full human. So your line of argument is not valid in our opinion. Potential human or human-like is not a valid reason to condemn aborting a zygote, in my opinion.
What am I not addressing?

This zygote develops characteristics of a human by 4 weeks. Therefore even by Webster's dictionary definition, it is human.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Somerset, KY

#103994 May 18, 2013
LEGIONS wrote:
Quantummist writes:Net time you speak to the Doc ask him One Question.... Doc, What Specifically Defines Life?..
two basic "ingredients" in living systems are DNA (or an equivalent nucleic acid) and protein. DNA is the molecule of heredity, and proteins are the fundamental molecules of structure and function.
this and the post above pretty much defines life.
So, according to you the Doc's complex simplest life form can be Alive if it is striped of all the addon and consists of a chain of 4 chemicals that can produce a single protein... But of course that's not true... DNA is a chain of base pair chemicals and since we only have the base pairs we see in earth bound organisms we cannot say other variations on the theme do not exist.. As for Proteins we find the complex amino acids that forms them in asteroids and free space.. They rain down on the earth daily from the metric tons of space dust landing on the planet. The same basic complex organic molecules are raining down on trillions of planets throughout the Universe.....

No the Post above does not define Life.. It defines an Aspect of Carbon Based Organic Living organisms on Earth as we know them... But man has only come to know of such aspects in less than 100 years and inserting God Did It into a yet to be filled Gap in human knowledge is a Bias that makes old Doc's assertions invalid....

In All of Science the question "What Constitutes Life" has been kicked around for decades and to date there is no Specific concept that defines Life...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20249616/ns/technol...

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#103995 May 18, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. Nor does what Hindu's believe have any affect on me. I do not subject myself to their direction.
Sorry Bub, denial is not a defense. Nutball Muslim extremists have had a huge impact on you. PACs have an impact on you. You coexist on a planet with 7 billion other humans in a country that has over 300 million other humans. You are governed by a democratic republic. "Render unto Caesar...".

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#103996 May 18, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you Webster's dictionary definition of the word. If you are smarter than them, by all means submit your own dictionary to the public.
You are so arrogant that you can't take the definition that Webster's gives. So I told you to look in the mirror for the definition. I can't help you anymore if you can't figure out the definition of a human.
As for your ridiculous comparison to other animals, show me one that aborts their babies, then this might be relevant.
I already explained how that definition is fine in a literary sense. Rejecting it as applies to this discussion is not arrogance; it is a simple matter of it being insufficient and you apparently being too stupid to get that. You cannot define things using the same word. Period. And I'm not the one with the definition of "human" that would allow animals to meet it. That's you.

FYI, some monkeys are known to abort their fetuses when a more fitting mate shows up. Not that it matters to this discussion in any way. You arbitrary rule that I can't apply your poor definition of human to beings that may fit it (simply because they don't abort) is irrelevant. Give a better definition. And then explain what "living" is for that "human".

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103997 May 18, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So you do not understand why we oppose religion?
You can chose to run from our points, but we feel all religion is related. Christianity is closely related to what you follow. So ignoring what the Christian religion has done or is doing is a cop out. You promote Christianity. You promote the deity that is related to what Christians do.
You also run from what your church has done or is still doing. Your church had systematic discrimination for over a hundred years.
And now you are running from my questions about promoting birth control.
You run when it is convenient to run. You associate when it is convenient to associate.
According to your ideas here, other than 14 million people, none are following the true religion. Out of seven billion, this number looks tiny. Looks as if no holy ghost exists.
What would "promoting" mean to you?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103998 May 18, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Then when confronted with the our stats, you ran. Yes, you run. I stand by that accusation.
Care to answer the question about your church not promoting birth control or are you going to continue to prove me correct about running?
Again, what do you consider promoting?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103999 May 18, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Then when confronted with the our stats, you ran. Yes, you run. I stand by that accusation.
Care to answer the question about your church not promoting birth control or are you going to continue to prove me correct about running?
What stats did I run from?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104000 May 18, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>"He"? Now this ghost is a male? Not a magic 8 ball? You sure describe him as one, but when confronted with a test, you bail and run.
How convenient.
Evidently the ghost ignores seven billion people about what church is true.
Yes He is a male.
What am I bailing on? I can't ask for you. If you want to know an answer from God, here are the rules (I didn't make the rules, I just follow them):

You must have faith in God the Father and Jesus Christ, His Son. You must ask in faith that you will receive an answer. You must be willing to accept the answer that you receive, with all intentions of following that answer, regardless of what the answer is. Then you must do all in your power to find that answer on your own, because God requires effort on our part, and we should not expect that everything be handed to us with no effort of our own.
You must calm your own thoughts on the subject and wait for the answer. The answer does not always come immediately, but if you continue to have faith and strive to do your part, the answer will come. Most of the time the answer comes through the Holy Ghost.

Now you know, so you can ask God yourself.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104001 May 18, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not blaming government officials for "this." I'm blaming a faction of We the People - of which the government employees are not the whole, but certainly are a part.
Sounded like you were blaming conservatives to me

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104002 May 18, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
What would "promoting" mean to you?
Try looking up the word. If your church promoted birth control, you would have no problem answering this question.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#104003 May 18, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly, yet most tea party members contradict themselves on government here. Take Q for example.
I don't believe that, Q being an exception of course.

Why looking at individual sources, rather than collectively lumping and labelduhming labeling as "it awrl duh same" by far, makes "exceedingly" much more sense lol.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104004 May 18, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounded like you were blaming conservatives to me
Oh? Did I say anything that would implicate conservatives of those actions and attitudes over other factions?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104005 May 18, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe that, Q being an exception of course.
Why looking at individual sources, rather than collectively lumping and labelduhming labeling as "it awrl duh same" by far, makes "exceedingly" much more sense lol.
If you wish to prove most tea party members are not pro life, go for it. I will lump where the lumps are. I did say "most", not all. Lumps exist and we have words that describe the lumps.

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.

Manchester Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Andrea Sizmore 28 min ashley 4
Robert and Shawn Young from smith road 1 hr s laure 2
room and board 2 hr sweetdb 1
Gray Runion Back In Jail 17 hr Brown Low 3
Mercy Clinic and the Staff (Jul '08) 21 hr law changer 13
Anyone no anyone that can fix my heat? (Jan '09) Thu Reba Reagan 16
animal abuse and abuse Thu HEART FOR ANIMALS 4
Manchester Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Manchester People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:30 am PST

NBC Sports 4:30AM
Albert Haynesworth to Ndamukong Suh: Do your research on suitors
Bleacher Report 1:09 PM
Bengals Re-Sign LB Maualuga to 3-Year Deal
NFL 1:16 PM
Cincinnati Bengals re-sign Rey Maualuga
ESPN 1:25 PM
Bengals re-sign MLB Maualuga for 3 years
ESPN 4:58 PM
49ers sign WR Simpson to two-year deal