2. Can you explain this contradiction in the Bible?
Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. Genesis 7:21 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Numbers 13:33 33 We saw the Nephilim there. We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them. So basically, there were Nephilim before the Flood. All creatures were wiped out save Noah and his family, but there were Nephilim after the Flood. Can you explain this Bible contradiction?
What term do you use to describe people that are socially conservative, but economically progressive?
That depends on what you mean by “socially conservative” and “economically progressive”. Both of these are Buzz words that tell me nothing programmatically.Lets say you mean people who are traditional in their views of marriage, the family, religion etc. but socialist in their economic views. Well, this was the majority of the Old Left up until the 1960s.If the commitment to tradition outweighs the economic values, there are numerous conservative groups that come close to this description. The Left wing of Italian Christian Democracy or the Israeli ultra-orthodox sephardi Shas party would be in line with this.There is no one appropriate descriptor for a viewpoint such as this and a lot would depend on whether the social conservatism or economic “progressivism” (a term which can have contradictory meanings) was the primary focus.
Sustainable development is a contradiction in terms. Do people think this is true?
Sustainable development is not a contradiction in terms. It literally means development that does as well as it can to balance economic, social and environmental well-being. It doesn’t have to be perfect, it simply has to be the best possible outcome for all three areas.You can think of it as a sliding scale, some sustainable development may be more or less sustainable than others. As long as it makes some attempt to balance economic, environmental and social issues in a way that is better than previous development then it is a step in the right direction.Most people agree that the only way this is really achievable is to stop obsessing about economic growth in terms of GDP. There is no evidence that an increase in GDP in already developed countries leads to an improvement in well-being, so that is why some environmentalist will argue for zero-growth or even negative growth.The present model is difficult to achieve while economic well-being is almost exclusively assessed in terms of GDP and growth.A good example of a sustainable development project would be the construction of a solar farm. It’s good for the environment, produces jobs in the local area and could lead to reduced energy costs for locals. Of course there may be downsides, perhaps the loss of land that could be turned into forests. However forests wouldn’t provide an economic bonus, so sustainable development can be worse in some areas than some more environmentally, economically or socially friendly ideas. The idea is simply to achieve a better balance than has been done before.
What term best describes Donald Trump's regularly contradicting himself?
business as usual….he does not have a good mind for numbers, facts, dates, or history, which is not a sin. however, i think he believes he does, which suggests he doesn’t review information with a good eye for detail because he doesn’t think this is necessary.also, i think his memory is driven by emotion, so he remembers the emotion from a situation more than the facts of a situation…. therefore, i am sure in his mind it is perfectly acceptable to deny something done a day before because his brain records emotions and data is filtered out (for example, he remembers how he felt when wrote a tweet, but doesn’t remember what he said in the tweet).i do not believe anything has changed for him in this regard once he became president. my guess is that he has been this way his entire life, but his anger and bullying techniques were used to cover that up. unfortunately, now we are mired in it 24/7 and the frequent exposure to the media with his own tweets, speeches and interviews are just more situations to reveal this problem.either that, or he is a pathological liar that refuses to acknowledge any situation that might make him look bad. only his hair stylist knows for sure…..
What do you call a person that contradicts himself?
A hypocrite.Cambridge[1] dictionary defines ‘hypocrite’ as, “someone who says that they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in a way that shows these are not sincere”An example[2] of a hypocrite is a person who says they care about the environment, but are constantly littering.Footnotes[1] hypocrite Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary[2] Hypocrite dictionary definition | hypocrite defined
Using the excerpts from the Republic to illustrate, describe in your own words what is the Socratic Method.?
Using the excerpts from the Republic to illustrate, describe in your own words what is the Socratic Method. Describe an instance when you have caught someone contradicting themselves. How did you go about showing them that they had affirmed a contradiction?
9. Can you explain this Bible contradiction?
Genesis 50:12-13 12 So Jacob's sons did as he had commanded them: 13 They carried him to the land of Canaan and buried him in the cave in the field of Machpelah, near Mamre, which Abraham had bought as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite, along with the field. Acts 7:15-16 15Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our fathers died. 16Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum of money. (The contradiction in this one is sort of self explanatory. Jacob's burial was in two distinctly different places) Can you explain this Bible contradiction?
What is the meaning of walking contradiction?
I agree with Rebecca Percoski, but I’ll try to give an answer in simpler English for anybody who’s interested.A contradiction happens when two thingsdon’t make sense togetherdon’t fit together, orare totally opposite to one another…but are still together.This comic is an example of self-contradiction - Calvin says he didn’t throw the snowball at the kid, and then says he missed… but you can’t miss hitting someone with a snowball if you didn’t throw a snowball in the first place - so he’s contradicting himself.It’s important to see that a contradiction isn’t a real thing that you can touch or see or feel - it’s abstract.“A walking ____” or “ a walking, talking ____” is a phrase used to describe a person or animal who totally embodies some abstract quality - it’s like, if this abstract concept was a real live thing, this person would be it. This person is like the definition of that quality, because he or she has so much of that quality in so many ways. This phrase is supposed to be funny, because abstract qualities don’t have legs.A walking contradiction is a person or thing that is so contradictory so often in so many ways that “contradiction” is the best way to describe them. This is a funny way of emphasizing contradiction as someone’s main quality.Let me know if that was clear! If not, I’m happy to answer any more questions.
Is a holy war a contradiction?
How can the words "holy" and "war" go together? It would seem that putting these two words together is a contradiction. Holy means sanctity, something that is good and produces good fruits. A holy man is someone who is a good person and does good things for society. War on the other hand means a violent conflict with people killing each other. How can a war be holy?
Jehovah’s Witnesses – How do you explain these contradictions in What Does the Bible Really Teach?
I am going through this book weekly with Jehovah’s Witnesses in my home. If there is a reasonable explanation for these apparent contradictions, I would be open to hearing it before bringing this up during my study. On page 73, para. 20, it begins, “Does this mean that every human who ever lived will be resurrected? No.” It goes on to explain about Gehenna being a place where dead bodies were thrown when Jews deemed them to be unworthy of burial (it continues, “and resurrection,” although I didn’t think men were supposed to judge such a thing). The paragraph ends, “He will NEVER RESURRECT those whom he judges to be wicked and unwilling to change.” But on page 215, after talking about the billions who will be resurrected on “Judgment Day,” the book says, “However, not all will be willing to conform to God’s will.” According to this, apparently there are some that all-knowing God (Ps 139:4) will resurrect who are unwilling to change. Back on page 74, after explaining the benefits of the kingdom in regards to death, the book says, “Yes, Jehovah really will defeat our enemy death, and it will be gone forever!” But, back to page 215, after saying that some “will be resurrected who will not be willing to conform to God’s will,” it says, “These wicked ones will be put to death permanently during Judgment Day.” How is it possible that death is defeated and “gone forever” when God’s kingdom comes if Jehovah will be putting wicked ones who are unwilling to change to death permanently over this 1000-year period? I believe this idea that God will resurrect those whom He knows will not be willing to change only to turn around and put them to death permanently paints a picture of God that is very unloving. This teaching dishonors God. If you feel otherwise, please explain.