As we know, Titus Mede's prestige fall down with the Great War and the capitulations for Elves. And he is not dragonborn too. On the other side, Amaund Motierre wants to replace the ruler. I think potential Emperor might be one of Andorak's descendance. Also if you ask to Amaund Motierre that why you want to kill the Emperor, he shall say this is similar situation with Pelagius' death. When Pelagius is dead, Tiber's direct descendance was finished. And rule handover to Kintyra, daughter of Tiber's brother. And I think potential Emperor might be Dragonborn. As we have seen all Septim rulers was the dragonborn, and their children too. Then why not Andorak's descendance?
I am waiting your opinions on this subject.
Because after the Septim Dynasty be have very little information on the events between Oblivion and Skyrim on the Meade dynasty. We have a good idea on the events that transpired though. Please enlighten me thanks
So in TES V: Skyrim the Dark Brotherhood gets the contract to kill the emperor and are paid 20000 gold and the amulet which you give to Delvin Mallory for a letter of credit worth 15000 gold of goods or services. Based on other in games prices and lore, is 35000 a reasonable price for the assassination of the emperor one of the most powerful and well protected (with the Penitus Oculatus) people in all of Tamriel?
Yes Dawn of war and Space Marine got me started on 40k lore. But after reading up, i find Titus a great example of an effective UM. He does follow the codex-unless it's simply stupid to do so (like in the beginning, doing a jump out landing while under fire from orks, whilst the other members of his chapter protested) That shows he follows the codex, making him a great UM-but also realizing that Guillliman could never cover every possible scenario, and so he knew in himself that disobeying the Codex was paramount to success at that junction. (He would make Guilleman PROUD, as, since his return, he himself has said the Codex is not the Alpha and Omega)
At the time guilleman had yet to return, and so he knew instinctively or morally to disregard the Codex at that point.
(I'm theory-crafting it was in his gene-seed) to be the most effective, Codex be damned at very critical certain moments, i mean.
Too bad we never got the sequel, they had a LOT planned for it (non-canon-yes, who cares) and i'm guessing this, along with the fact they got their own game is ONE of the reasons they are/were so disliked as a chapter before Guillimans return (too vanilla, to hung up on the codex) but I see now they have a resurgence in popularity after the return. And let's think about it-if every chapter has it's own flair, then actually trying to always follow the Codex IS a unique flair. I don't think that could be argued with. (as an aside, i also believe the blood ravens were also heavily disliked because they were not canon when dawn of war came out, and people felt another certain chapter should have gotten the part)
When it comes to his direct dealings with chaos, in YOUR opinion-was it simply Titus being stupid/gullible-or that he had such strong convictions to risk everything to destroy it? (this is disregarding the information on the sequel where he would break free off, and go against the inquisition and any chapter against him, including the UM to make things right in his moral compass, the sequel would even have a corrupt meter)
TL;DR: was Titus a good UM and AMAZING SM, or a damn fool, and is he like or disliked here? (i wish he was canon)
Also: Are UM basically perfect gene-seed wise, therefore vanilla and boring? if so in your opinion, how different are the UM viewed now as opposed to before Guillimans return?
i find them awesome because they seem to have the most respect for normal human life and morals. And also will fight against harder odds agains
... keep reading on reddit β‘I do understand that the subject matter and usage of the Greek language differs in the Pastoral Epistles from Paul's 'undisputed' Epistles (i.e. 1 Thes, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Rom, Phil, Phlm).
What I do not understand is:
(A) Why a reasonable scholar would feel comfortable presuming that a shift in subject matter, even if dramatic, would necessitate differing authorship. Generally speaking, Paul's letters seem highly specialized to his audience and their present troubles and concerns. Paul also demonstrates skill at jumping from topic to topic, yet still producing a coherent overall message. What is so anomalous within the Pastoral content that gives critical scholars unabashed certainty in non-Pauline authorship? (And is there a risk of overconfidence here among such scholars?)
(B) Also, isn't it pretty widely accepted that Paul sometimes employed scribes to compose the bodies of his letters? Why couldn't the use of unfamiliar Greek be the consequence of a new scribe or series of scribes? Additionally, couldn't an evolution in Paul's personal theological focuses, over time, lead to his using new vocabulary for clearer expression/emphasis?
I apologize if I'm not asking the right questions here. If I'm asking the wrong questions, then please feel free to ignore them and address the more relevant issues instead! Lastly, I'm not at all trying to be hostile or combative -- only trying to make sense of the apparent boldness of modern critical scholarship on this subject, which eludes me.
I sincerely appreciate everyone's time and thought! God bless you.
In TES V there is a mission ("Hail Sithis!") in which you can assassinate the Emperor himself. I've always been curious about this mission, particularly that it doesn't seem to matter whether you complete it or not. Surely if something like this occured in Skyrim's heated political climate, the civil war would be taken to a whole new level. What do you guys think about this? Is this assassination canon? How would the Imperials and Stormcloaks react to something like this? Why isn't it a bigger deal in the game? All opinions and discussions are greatly appreciated.
>Titus 2:2-8, 2Β Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3Β Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4Β and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5Β to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. 6Β Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. 7Β Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8Β and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.
There is a battle that has been waged for a VERY long time within the church (and within the culture in general), and that is the battle between the young and the old. Generations against generations. One generation thinks the other is outdated and irrelevant, and one generation thinks the other is too young, immature, and ignorant.
"Church growth" strategies often elevate the "reaching of young families" (the generations in the middle) as the highest calling for a church while seemingly neglecting the ones on either end of the spectrum (those closer to birth and those closer to death).
Paul makes it clear to Titus, though, that a healthy church is one where all generations are teaching one another. We see this all throughout scripture. And yet...church growth "experts" want to tell us that we need to do more to reach young families.
And while I agree, young families are an extremely important part of the church body, I would argue that they are but one part of the body...and a church body that intentionally targets one generation over another in an attempt to "grow" their church body is doing more harm than good, and is effectively not a whole church.
I recently saw an article out of Minnesota where a small church there had a church growth expert effectively tell the older people that they were not welcome there unless they were 100% in support of the changes they were going to make to attract younger families. And...that if they weren't on board, that they could find another church to attend for a couple years, and then would be considered to rejoin later down the road. (Article HERE).
Sure,
... keep reading on reddit β‘
Round one: they starts in the relatively flat field 50 meters from each other.
Round two: they starts in the tropics of Catachan.
Titus considers the Dad a hostile monster, and the Dad considers Titus a rival. If it's too hard for Titus, replace him with with a couple of Ezekyle Abaddon and Garviel Loken straight outta the Great Crusade.
His twitter says it but i dont know if its serious or not
Just saw it a couple of days ago but can't find it anymore :'(
need to feel the ment
>Titus 2:2-8, 2Β Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3Β Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4Β and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5Β to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. 6Β Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. 7Β Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8Β and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.
There is a battle that has been waged for a VERY long time within the church (and within the culture in general), and that is the battle between the young and the old. Generations against generations. One generation thinks the other is outdated and irrelevant, and one generation thinks the other is too young, immature, and ignorant.
"Church growth" strategies often elevate the "reaching of young families" (the generations in the middle) as the highest calling for a church while seemingly neglecting the ones on either end of the spectrum (those closer to birth and those closer to death).
Paul makes it clear to Titus, though, that a healthy church is one where all generations are teaching one another. We see this all throughout scripture. And yet...church growth "experts" want to tell us that we need to do more to reach young families.
And while I agree, young families are an extremely important part of the church body, I would argue that they are but one part of the body...and a church body that intentionally targets one generation over another in an attempt to "grow" their church body is doing more harm than good, and is effectively not a whole church.
I recently saw an article out of Minnesota where a small church there had a church growth expert effectively tell the older people that they were not welcome there unless they were 100% in support of the changes they were going to make to attract younger families. And...that if they weren't on board, that they could find another church to attend for a couple years, and then would be considered to rejoin later down the road. (Article HERE).
Sure,
... keep reading on reddit β‘