And in May, when Google shared the Joe and Jill and Kamala and Doug shirt but I will buy this shirt and I will love this top trending cocktails by state (determined by data from the previous 30 days), New York was the location with the highest COVID-19 cases in the country, whose inhabitants were largely locked down in minuscule apartments with little-to-no outdoor access. As COVID-19 swept the country, home-made cocktail preferences were varied: Wyoming was digging white Russians, Hawaii wanted lemon drop martinis (not, as one might assume, their namesake Blue Hawaiians, which were actually being searched by Montanans), and Arizona was whipping up some frozen daiquiris. To find God in all things is to me the most natural thing in the world. And at the same time we can find God in ourselves. Jesus said “the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.” But we have to be willing to look. Scientists who are also believers understand perfectly that if their god exists, God’s only first-hand message—the only one that has never been translated, never-been tainted, never been passed down orally—is in nature itself. The more one truly understands nature, the closer they are to god because they are speaking the same language. That’s what makes it so bizarre that some Christians rally against, run away from and fight against science. Science is a tool that has been used for centuries—with great success—to understand nature. Nature is the same everywhere in the universe and reality crosses all cultural boundaries, and therefore science (and math) would be the only way for god to communicate directly, first-hand—in his own language—to all of his followers worldwide clearly and concisely, across all cultures at the same time. Christians who ignore (or worse, fight) against not knowing science and others not knowing science, are actively trying to suppress the direct word of their god. It is very clear from their actions that they don’t actually worship (or even respect) their god, they worship an ancient book (ironically, a false idol) and actually are placing the book above their god’s direct message. If I were a god, this would make me so angry. You mean, I loved you so much that I placed you in a time and place where you could know me more than any other before you, through science and nature, and you are ignoring me? Instead these supposedly “god-fearing” folks defiantly give their god the middle-finger, claiming nature itself is wrong.
Joe and Jill and Kamala and Doug shirt, hoodie, tank top, sweater and long sleeve t-shirt
Meanwhile, Wisconsin embraced a 1920s cocktail—the Joe and Jill and Kamala and Doug shirt but I will buy this shirt and I will love this grasshopper. Minnesota mixed a cocktail that, admittedly, we had to look up: an Oliveto (roughly: lemon juice, simple syrup, olive oil, vanilla, gin). But New Yorkers? As the city shuttered, they wanted something that evoked a sense of solidarity—and was stiff. Now that we think about it, that latter part was probably the main factor. Is your home office desk more of a “home office desk that’s really just half of my coffee table, or, sorry, my couch”? Well, hate to break it to you: a good portion of us aren’t going back to the office anytime soon. So it might be time to invest in a dedicated, spruced up workspace. Your back will thank you. The question invites people to accept that a Fallacy of the False Dichotomy is a legitimate and reasonable proposition. Thus, the inquiry presumes that a Christian Faith has its basis in “blind faith” and that a scientific approach to researches of natural phenomena is predicated upon “proof” whereas Christianity has no basis in a logical proof. Such a presumption offers false premises that a rationalist can abandon with ease. First, Christianity is not based upon “blind faith”. Second, the inquiry invites the reading public, to presume that truth criterion regarding natural phenomena are appropriate for supernatural phenomena. That is a massive oversight. Of course, if a person questioning the foundations of Christianity, makes no effort to offer objective articulation of their own premises, they operate in a certain convenience. That convenience assumes that credibility can be ceded to a skeptic, without having any objective data to substantiate the premises upon which the skepticism is based. The skeptic can even expect, absent rational justification, that the reading public will conclude that Christian has only a “blind faith” for a premise. This kind of fallacious “bubble” can even persist, so long as the skeptic does nothing but publish interrogatives published about Christianity. That of itself is not specified, a rational approach to knowledge, nor is it a factual approach to knowledg a rational approach to knowledge, nor is it a factual approach to knowledge. I would like to answer the question from my personal view, as there are already some remarkable answers in more general terms. Your main misconception lies in the nature of Christian faith. When I became Christian I knew only a little about the faith. I honestly had very little to have ‘blind faith’ in.But what is the best home office desk for you? Small space dwellers, opt for a vertical and versatile desk that can sneak into any corner of your bedroom, living room, or studio. (Crate and Barrel’s Helsing desk is one option that will do the trick, which this writer actually owned, then sold on Craigslist pre-pandemic because she was like “honestly, I never use it,” and now is crippled with regret!) If you’re thinking about finally writing that novel, perhaps a gilded writing desk from One Kings Lane will inspire you—or, at the very least, just be nice to look at. Now, if you’re asking yourself—Hundreds of dollars for a desk?