How may one contend that the Heavy Metal band Stryper is the most rebellious band that ever existed?
They were definitely rebellious when you consider:The thematic nature of most heavy-metal music (sex, drugs, rock and roll, Hell, the devil, etc.). Stryper mentioned the devil and Hell, but were sneaky about how and why. ;)How they went about being a Christian rock band. Most Christian musicians of the time mentioned God and/or Jesus in their music. A lot. Stryper took a different approach...trying to mainstream their message without beating people over the head with it. In fact, it came as a surprise to most people in my high school that Stryper was a Christian rock band, and by then, that was fine because we'd all already seen them on MTV and heard the singles.Technically, they should have avoided Motley Crue like the plague, but didn't. Even though Motley Crue's musical message was arguably 180 degrees different from their own, Stryper didn't shy away from associating themselves. I think this is really intriguing, and does more to position them as smart businessmen, and true Christians who could accept and embrace all others, than it would have if Stryper had been like, "No, they don't live by our philosophy, and that's sinful, so screw them."I disagree with Kevin Kieninger that rebellion has to automatically connote destructiveness or negativity. These guys tried to shake up the definitions of heavy metal and Christan music, the themes used in heavy metal, the use of MTV in Christian music, and stereotypes about all these things. While I can't claim myself as an avid Stryper fan or someone who would describe them as "the most rebellious band that ever existed," I have to respect them for trying to shake things up and change stereotypes. That takes courage to do, in any situation.
Would you contend that the KJV Bible translator, Richard Thomson?
who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]
What does 'contending loyalties' mean?
It means that you have loyalties to two different entities who are not on the same side of the issue. Some Examples: Suppose you really like two different people; they are both your really good friends, but they hate each other. Further, one of them, tells you in confidence, that she is about to do something really bad to the other. Not illegal, or immoral, just something bad. Your loyalty to one says that you should divulge the information so she can protect herself. On the other hand, your loyalty to the other says that you shouldn't violate the confidence of a friend. Suppose you are a life-long Democrat, but you think that Obama is out of his mind. Your loyalty to the Democratic Party competes or contends with you loyalty to your principles. Your Mother and Father divorce, and hate each other, but you love them both dearly. They are really mean to each other and are constantly fighting and creating havoc for the other. You loyalty to one will always compete or contend with your loyalty to the other.
Will someone please help me with my latin?
Question 1 Match the term with the appropriate definition cessation current agility emissions proscription regent imposition induction inception competitor 1. We're fortunate in Florida not to have to contend with the auto __________ that are sent out into the air and cause such pollution as in Los Angeles. 2. The ________ of shelling meant the troops were retreating. 3. The ________ with which the gymnast moves and bends is awesome! 4. The ________ ceremony led the members into the organization. 5. That was such a terrible ________ to put on you! 6. Since the ________ of after-school care, parents have been able to take full-time jobs. 7. The ________ list included Cicero's name as it was written down for assassinations. 8. If I were a ________, I would try to rule wisely. 9. The ________ sought to beat last year's winner 10. The river's ________ ran away with his hat. Question 2 (10 points)Save Now is the time for you to create TEN original sentences using derivatives from this module. Do not use the ones in the exercise above. Make sure that your sentences include both a DERIVATIVE from this module and the MEANING of its Latin root. Put the DERIVATIVE and the MEANING of its Latin root in all capital letters. Type or copy your ten sentences below.
Why do some ex-Mormons continue to contend with the church?
Why does anyone contend with anyone?I’ll say this much, in an analogy most people understand in this day and age. That on a certain level, a certain few former Latter-day Saints hold on to a bit of acrimony like a divorced spouse; embarrassed and resentful. They see the former relationship as a hole in their life that needs to be filled. Most just let it go and fill the holes with new ambitions in life, remembering but savoring it as part of the whole by intelligently taking what was good and moving on, maybe even finding a new spouse.But others feel the need to make known to everyone else that the old spouse was not good for them and therefore not for anyone. And yet, while this spewing of criticism is happening by the ex-spouse, the resented spouse learns from their mistakes and moves on to make another marriage happier than the first. The former ex-spouse hates this even more and the criticism escalates.The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, despite its truth claims is not exempt at times from the similar follies of an uncompromising and argumentative marriage relationship. The local church membership are like extended family in a dysfunctional marriage, some will take sides with a disaffected member but most won’t and stay neutral. Though it behooves all parties to find peace, the standards of the LDS Church generally don’t change. The tragedy or success In The relationship is how the local membership react by either an increase in Love and understanding, or awkward indifference. The disaffected member can choose to take offense and fight back, or forgive and let live and leave at peace or find solace by returning to the relationship.Like a marriage, religious affiliations can be complex and emotional. But that’s why the teachings of Christ are so applicable in all our human interactions. If all parties involved, those that offend and take offense, actually practice the tenets of the Gospel, then the marriage would mend. Or in the case of a divorce, it could just end amicably.The marriage usually falls out of love if, in the long run, only one spouse continues to practice forgiveness and the other one does not.Godspeed, my friend!
Can someone explain to me what it means to be a jew?
I can become a catholic, muslim, a protestant but I can't become a Jew. I can attend their religious services, but I can't become one of them. I can marry a Jew and my children will become half jewish. Many people contend that a Jew is associated with religion, I contend that its associated with more than that.
I contend that bad intentions do not exist and we cannot be motivated by evil. Can you give me an example which shows I am wrong?
I think the more rigorous version of your intuition here is what philosophers call moral internalism, where the belief that an action is good necessarily compels that action.Moral MotivationI think this is fairly plausible, as theories go. Common counterexamples to this might be examples of moral atrocities in history, eg. the Holocaust, slavery etc. However, I think it is at least plausible that the Holocaust wasn’t committed because the perpetrators believed that they were doing evil (and didn’t care), but that they had the (warped, mistaken) belief that they were actually doing good.A better counterexample to your suggestion (or at least what your theory would presumably have trouble explaining) is people who deviate heavily from conceptions of “good” in very closeknit societies. Eg, people who commit rape, murder etc. in very religious communities. Maybe you can posit that those people secretly disagree with the morals of those communities? But there are at least some cases where this seems untrue, and such individuals are genuinely repentant. Perhaps repentance suggests that they used to be mistaken about what is right, and have since updated their belief? Again, I feel like this at least seems implausible, as theories go.
What kind of government do not have to contend ( more details down there) !?
Absolute monarchies, totalitarian dictatorships, some sultanates, etc. But efficiency aside, they do have some downsides.