Enjoy Life--please

Written by Terry Dashner


Pastor Terry Dashner

Enjoy Life

The big conflict betweenrepparttar theory of evolution andrepparttar 126511 Genesis creation account is this: The Biblical account speaks of a Creator who created man in His image and likeness. The theory of evolution requires no creator only a “big bang” and lots of time. Of courserepparttar 126512 theory of evolution bothers most believers because it attempts to explain how everything came to be over time without God. The Biblical account says that God, fromrepparttar 126513 very beginning, has been working along side His sixth-day creation—man.

Humanity is unique to God. Man isrepparttar 126514 only one of creation that has a spirit and soul. With his spirit, he becomes God conscience. With his soul, he becomes self-conscience. These unique dynamics of man give him meaning and purpose in living. Life is physical. Life is spiritual. Life is emotional. Life is for man.

Let me illustrate, please.

Without proper punctuation, words can be meaningless. Take these fourteen words as an example: That that is is that that is not is not that it it is. Now punctuate them, and they read: That that is, is that that is not. Is not that it? It is. The significance ofrepparttar 126515 fourteen unpunctuated words is not what they say, but what they don’t say. They say nothing because they are not punctuated. Life is that way. Unpunctuated, it is monotonous and meaningless. It takesrepparttar 126516 exclamation points, questions marks, periods, andrepparttar 126517 dashes to make life rich and relevant. Life without punctuation is like a piano with only one note, a phone book with only one number, a thermostat with only one degree, or a highway with only one sign. The question marks of life might perplex us. The commas might try our patience, andrepparttar 126518 periods might stop us against our desires. But withoutrepparttar 126519 punctuation marks, life for man would be nothing more than a monotonous succession of unbroken days.

A Common Sense Approach to Religious Freedom

Written by Terry Mitchell


Down throughrepparttar centuries and all overrepparttar 126510 world,repparttar 126511 battle for religious freedom has been a bitter one. The United States has been no exception. Although most of those who founded this country came here seeking religious freedom, it has been a source of contention fromrepparttar 126512 beginning and remains so today. There are fanatics on both sides of this issue. On one side, we have those who think their religious freedom is being violated if they are not allowed to force their religion down everyone else's throat. Onerepparttar 126513 other side, we have those who believe it's their inalienable right to never be exposed to any element of religious life. Both extremes are wrong. Government should be neither hostile to any religion nor an enforcer of it. Instead, those who possess common sense should be capable of assenting to a happy medium. Contrary to popular belief,repparttar 126514 phrase, "separation of church and state", cannot be found inrepparttar 126515 U.S. Constitution. That phrase is misleading anyway as many people interpret it as "protection ofrepparttar 126516 state fromrepparttar 126517 church." Most of our Founding Fathers frequently, and often publicly, expressed their faith in a Creator, so it should be obvious to anyone that they never intended to banish expressions of religious faith fromrepparttar 126518 public square. Any separation of church and state that they had in mind was to serve only four major functions: (1) allow people to freely practicerepparttar 126519 religion of their choice (or no religion at all) without interference fromrepparttar 126520 state, (2) forbid any religion or denomination from being set up asrepparttar 126521 "state church", (3) preventrepparttar 126522 state from havingrepparttar 126523 church do its bidding, and (4) protectrepparttar 126524 church from being regulated and having its practices dictated to it byrepparttar 126525 state. From these principles, I think we can derive a common sense approach to religious freedom. Our common sense approach should allow for verbal religious expression and forrepparttar 126526 display of religious symbols and materials in public and government venues. Although all religions should have equal access and rights regarding those expressions and displays,repparttar 126527 majority religion would obviously have a major advantage here. But so be it. No one would be hurt or forced to practice any religion against his or her will. If anyone is offended, that's their problem. No one has a right to not be offended, although many people think they have this right. Being offended once in a while isrepparttar 126528 price one has to pay for living in a free and open society. If someone has a major problem with that, they are free to leave this country any time they wish. Our common sense approach should also allow for limited amounts of prayer and religious teaching in public schools. It should not berepparttar 126529 focus of any public school, but it should be permitted and based onrepparttar 126530 religion favored byrepparttar 126531 majority ofrepparttar 126532 parents in a given school district. The majority of parents could opt for no prayer or religious teaching at all in a given school district, if they so desired. All parents would haverepparttar 126533 option of not having their child (children) participate in or be present forrepparttar 126534 prayer and religious teaching. Althoughrepparttar 126535 teaching of evolution would still be mandatory, creationism could be taught as part of any religious curriculum.

Cont'd on page 2 ==>
 
ImproveHomeLife.com © 2005
Terms of Use