And religion is a poor choice of word there anyway. Religion implies the way man gets to God by pleasing Him. Christianity (and Old Testament Judaism) says man can't possibly please God because He requires perfection because He is Holy. So God had to do it FOR man, had to come to man, and save man apart from works. The RESULT is good works because the heart desires are changed.
The Koran says Allah is real.
The Koran says that if you have to get up in the night to use the bathroom, to then blow your nose 3 times and speak the name of Allah because otherwise the devil will take up residence in your left nostril. The Koran says that if you take a woman captive in war, after having killed her husband and male offspring mind you, you can now use her sexually or sell her or do whatever you like. The Koran says a lot. It doesn't make it a worthwhile or trustworthy book.
BUT, when the state of Alabama thinks they can prosecute people who leave their state, they make it other states' buisness.
It had never occurred to me that a religious text could be untrustworthy.
Amen brother, we’re number one!
Until it’s born, then call it a day and a job well done.
you just claimed a Religion was causing hunger, and you are also supporting government promoting hunger due to abortion and social programs.
If you're a single mother with three kids, how much work are you going to be able to do??????????
Oh the trickle down effect,but instead of Reagan, it's Religion. Well they both start with R....
Let's take those one at a time...
Until it's born and then... Are you kidding me? Conservatives and Christians are the number one demographic of people adopting and fostering kids, and that's by a LOT.
And it's Conservatives and Christians who run the pregnancy crisis centers who ACTUALLY act in charity, not doing abortions (the pregnancy centers doing abortions are making a killing - pun intended - doing them), who provide postnatal care and baby supplies and adoption services and all kinds of other care for the mother and the child.
So you acknowledge DNA. DNA studies on the maternal DNA point to a common female descendant, about 100,000 years ago. (note: 100,000 is older than 6,000 to 10,000)
Actually none of the above is true, nor does the geological history show it to be even remotely close to reality.
Um, under the tectonic plates ( often termed the crust) is a layer of molten material ( volcano's come from working up through pressure and cracks), called the mantle. Under this layer is the core, which rotates, and is why we have magnetic fields, which the only reason we can use the internet ( and every other electronic devide ever made....)
But but but up until the 15th Century the earth was the centre of the universe....what changed?
We find imprints in the surrounding rock of what the soft tissue looked like, there is absolutely no Dino skin (or feathers) in existence.
I am doing nothing of the kind. I am saying all the financial waste because the government is LEAST qualified to deal with it is CAUSING it by not letting people keep their resources. And the idea that women having children is the reason for a growing hunger issue... That's false on its face.
If you are a single mother of 3, you can still make pb&j sandwiches, there are food banks, even ones that deliver, all over the place (mostly run by Christians and churches, by the way), and we still go back to it's the individual and church responsibility to reach out and care for them when they are in need, not the government.
lol nice try, keep baking!!
Well next time you're working at the food bank, ask a single mother who was raped and forced to carry a Fetus to term by the government if she agree's.
For a lot of these challenges, I will point you to some resources that answer the question better than I can. And since the questions will keep coming, I will point out that you can search the sites on most of these topics
See the above links.
See above links.
Oddly enough, the Bible describes a heliocentric universe where the sun itself has its own circuit it runs. We didn't even KNOW about the sun's rotation until recently. The Catholic Church, because it was rooted in paganism, not Christianity, was the power that ignored what the Bible said about it. Thus the persecution of those who said otherwise. People changed, the Bible didn't.
No. We have actually found soft tissue in bone marrow.
Ask the women who were convinced into or had an abortion who now deal with the guilt of that murder every time they see a child whether they disagree. Ask the countless abortionists who have left that very lucrative field in disgust with themselves, who know exactly what abortion is and does if they disagree.
Show me a citation from the bible (pre 1500) where that is stated.
No we have not, and I dare you to find a citation proving that
I don't need to be "directed" to scientists... The world if full of physical examples that disprove what you're trying to sell....
IKYABWAI......the great defence of the weak mind.
What were the statistics of Reaganomics?
)Yah I'm done with that fault of his as well.
https://www.literotica.com/faq/forum/forum-rulesWhat were the statistics of Reaganomics?
Total federal outlays averaged of 21.8% of GDP from 1981–88, versus the 1974–1980 average of 20.1% of GDP. This was the highest of any President from Carter through Obama. Total federal revenues averaged 17.7% of GDP from 1981–88, versus the 1974–80 average of 17.6% of GDP.
What were the positive and negative effects of Reaganomics?
The success of Reagan's policies is heavily debated. The US experienced mixed consequences. On the one hand, the real GDP improved by 26% (above 1980 figures), from 13.5%, inflation was brought down to 4.1%, and unemployment dropped from 7.6% to 5.5%. But, on the opposite spectrum, the rich became richer.
(I find that one funny because they admit it was better for everyone, but say, "but the rich got richer", as though things getting better for the wealth creators along with everyone else is a bad thing.
How did Reaganomics help people?
After the 1982 downturn, the reduced inflation rate (under 5% for the remainder of the administration), lowering interest rates, and added discretionary income from tax cuts sparked record economic growth, and produced one of the lowest unemployment rates in modern U.S. history (unemployment hit a 14 year low.)
Joint Economic Committee Republicans
November 1995
The Reagan Prosperity
The Reagan expansion years marked a period of economic progress for middle class
Americans. Middle class income increased 11 percent after adjustment for inflation, while nearly
20 million new jobs were created. Nonetheless, there are those, such as Secretary Reich, who
have attempted to portray the 1980s as a period of economic hardship and decline for most
Americans.
This paper will rely on data from the Census Bureau to analyze the income growth of the
1980s. The evidence shows that the percentage of households in the low income category
declined during the 1980s, while the proportion of high income households increased.
Furthermore, while the middle class shrank as a share of all households, the reason for this is
upward, not downward, mobility.
Middle Class "Shrinking" Upward
The graph below shows the percentage of all households in low, middle, and high income
categories. During economic decline, household income tends to fall, while during economic
progress, household incomes tend to increase. The 1982-89 expansion conforms to the expected
pattern of income growth during an economic upturn.
The percentage of households in the low income category dropped during the 1980s. This
group comprised 27.5 percent of all households in 1980, 28.5 percent in 1982, and only 25.3
percent by 1989. As a share of all households, the proportion of those with low incomes became
less prominent by the end of the 1980s.
Meanwhile, the percentage of households with incomes over $50,000 jumped from 17.6
percent in 1980 and 1982, to 23.5 percent in 1989. This remarkable increase in the proportion of
high income households is another sign of solid income growth.
Notice how the strong upward mobility has affected the middle category. This group
comprised 55 percent of all households in 1980, 53.8 percent in 1982, and 51.1 percent by 1989.
In this one sense, the middle class did indeed shrink during the 1980s. Is this good or bad?
If the middle class shrinkage had resulted from massive income losses resulting in expansion
of the low income group, it would clearly signal that something was seriously wrong. However, a
review of the data shows that the reverse was happening. Income gains were pushing a greater
proportion of middle class households into the high income category. Of the 4 percentage point
reduction in the middle class percentage between 1980 and 1989, all of it is accounted for by net
upward movement into the high income category.
Conclusion
Liberal critics of the 1980s who argue that the middle class withered are half right for the
wrong reasons. The proportion of middle class Americans did indeed decline, but this reflected
an upward movement of households into the high income category. Meanwhile, the proportion of
low income households declined, as more became middle class. The income growth of the
Reagan years boosted the fortunes of Americans at all income levels.
Christopher Frenze
Chief Economist to the Vice Chairman
lol, you're a fucking idiot. I'm sure you make a great cult member for your church.
Psalm 19:4–6 (KJV): 4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, 5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. 6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
https://palaeo-electronica.org/cont... soft tissues that,of collagen in bone matrix.
Hmmm... I have responded to you and your crowd. You have spammed every post I make, and every thread, and have flooded the zone. I have simply responded to your positions with my own, citing backing information. So, 1, where is the violation and, 2, how am I guilty of ANYTHING you have not done at length?
