Most popular posts in '101: A Life of Worship' category.
Archive for the '101: A Life of Worship' Category
LWL 101: Living a Life of Worship
Published by Jeff, on January 30th, 2005 in 101: A Life of Worship, Core Values, Downloads, Front Page, Spiritual Health.
Downloads:
-
MS Word format | Student Edition PDF | Teacher’s Edition PDF
(note: MS Word documents contain macros that do not need to be enabled)
Explanation:
According to Jesus, the greatest command in all the Bible is this:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength” (Mark 12:30).
In other words, the most important thing for people to work on in their lives is to cultivate a deep love for God that permeates every aspect of their lives. This kind of love is a love that puts God first above everything else. Ultimately, that’s the foundation point of the spiritual life. It’s a life that acknowledges God’s supremacy over everything.
That’s what we mean by “worship.”
Here’s a sample page from the teacher’s edition of the curriculum:

Recommended Reading:
Popularity: 13% [?]


"Our biochemistry is about 97% the same as a mouse.
Our biochemistry is about 50% the same as a banana.
Human Cytochrom 'C' is closest to that of a sunflower.
Human eyes are closest to the eyes of an octopus.
Human skin is closest to that of a pig."
Explain to me, how this fits in with primates??? With all due respect, i think his aim with "god set it up that way" was meant to be an insult of some kind. He sounds very passionate about this subject and with passion comes biases. While i'm not researched in anyway on this specific argument, generally speaking i'm convinced these people only look at their "evidence" with one prospective; 1st proves evolution or doesn't.. They don't even consider any other possibility of what it could mean..Taken at face value because i don't know anything about the human gnome and could be missing key things due to pure ignorance. Start of video; You had plenty of time to research and form a "theory" on something then proceed to drop this well researched project on someone and expect them to refute you on the drop of dime?? I dont think you need a PHD to say; you should allow someone to try refute your findings within a respectable time frame. That seems like the most objective thing to do. Although i think this would show insecurity on "Ken's" part. (To have holes punched in something your just presenting would be kind embarrassing. or was it arrogance?) Rest of video: Sounds like its not an exact match, "within 15 bases", and something about Telomeres not belonging? The choice of "correspond with" instead of something like is "exactly like", implicates some differences as well?.. But i could be completely wrong.. "no reason, no rhyme" sounds like he is insulting the bible as well. Would be very interested in hearing a completely objective view on these findings..