ellauri014.html on line 687: Jenkkirebellit oli siitä into piukeena. Must Benedict Arnold oli fixumpi kuin Nathan Hale. Sääli et Patrick Henry ei toteuttanut sen vaihtoehto beetä eli exitusta. Brexitus olis hyvä ratkaisu Boris Johnsonillekin.
ellauri025.html on line 557: det hela, och dumma kepsar, Nathan är till råga på allt helt klen.
ellauri025.html on line 567: Mammorna skrattade visserligen åt lilla Nathan, men det hjälper knappast här.
ellauri025.html on line 625: Kukas se neljäs bylsijä sit oli? Nathan, Gusten, Cosmo, kuka sit on Anne? Nehän on kuin viisikko, Sascha Timin roolissa. Paizi Sascha oli ainoa joka EI takonut maata hännällä. Ei nyt meni väärin, Cosmo kurkki vaan ikkunasta. Tästä puuttuu 2 ukkoa, joista ei ees kerrota.
ellauri025.html on line 707: Joko se oli liian pieni tai liian homo. Nyt se haluu kostaa Nathanille (joka pani sille rankasti hudaan kaxikon viime(isen) homoilun perään) tekemällä filmin koko jutusta. Että osaa olla ajankohtasta. Monikalla on sormi suoraan ajan hermolla, se surffaa komeasti trendiaallon mukana. Julkisuus, julkisuus, julkisuus. Vittu et alkaa vituttaa tää vitun julkisuus. Se on nettiaikana ihan liian helppoa. Se oli ennen penkkiurheilua ja juoruamista, nyt laahus osallistuu siihen kotisohvalta.
ellauri025.html on line 710: Mix niitä edes tarvitaan, ex ois riittäny että Nathan ja vetelä Gusten veti Saschaa wiixeen kahdestaan? No ehkä ei, Nathan on kääpiö (varmaan hobitti, koska sillä on isommat jalat kuin Gustenilla) ja Gustenista ei
ellauri025.html on line 733: Gusten ei saa yhtä hyvää kuvaa lehteen kuin Nathan porukoineen, näkyy vaan hämärästi kuvan alareunassa, vaikka oli raiskaamassa mukana. Se tuntee vähän - hm, mitä? - kateutta. Voi helevetti näitä linssiluteita. Linssiluteita ja kumikauloja.
ellauri025.html on line 743: Gayn Hand on selkeesti Ayn Rand, sukupuolenvaihdoxella. Gustenin äiti on vuosikertasukua, hienostelija, Annelise koulukodista, rahvasta. Oj härrigu hu banaalt! Nathanin upporikas pappa Abbe on varsinainen mulkero. Silläkin on oma panopuu Birgitta, Joan Crawford vanhana, nuorena. (Kukahan se Joan sitten on? Joku vanha haahka, filmitähti nähtävästi). Annelise on iäkkäämpi kalkkuna kuin Birgitta, hampaat kuin hevosella, päällä Gudrunin Sjödenin telttoja.
ellauri025.html on line 758: Lyhyt kertaus. Helmikuussa 2008 (12 v sitten siis) Gusten väkisinmakaa koulutoverinsa Sascha Ankarin, 18, juhlissa Nathan Häggertin vanhempien talossa Kylmäkoskella. Muut olivat Axel Axelsson, John C (ei kai!) ja Nathan Häggert ize. Gusten ei ize nouse pukille ennenkuin loppupeleissä. Lieventävä asianhaara. Niinhän tekee sorsamieskin, kun sorsajengi on joukkobylsinyt sen puolison. Kyl nää moraalijutut on sentään jänniä. Säännöt on kuin lassipallossa. On eri asia, jos puuhun koskee ennenkuin on kiertänyt krokettiportin eikä ole tiikeri.
ellauri025.html on line 764: Monika suhtautuu aika happamesti svenskatalande bättre folkin värdeerinkeihin. Se on kuin Angelika, välittää vaan henkisistä arvoista. Annelise on vaan en katta från Gravellska, kun Abbe setämies lyö nyrkin pöytään. Mera efterrätt? Gusten? Ällö Abbe mulkero runttaa poikaansa Nathania, kai se tulee liikaa äitiinsä, lyö sitä päähän hövelillä Gustenilla. Mix mulle tulee niistä mieleen Linkku ja mä? Ei mitään syytä, mutta silti tulee vaan.
ellauri025.html on line 795: Huohhuohhuoh. Emmy-Frippe-kidults teema kaikuu kuulokkeista uudestaan, yhtä falskina. Cosmo homppeli menee kihloihin Saschan kaa, mut pettyy kun Sascha osoittautuu flaataxi (siis lepakox). Sai kai kikkeleistä tarpeexeen. Frippe on nincompoop, Emmy-kaniini on huumoriton maalaistomppeli. Saga-Lillin mä nään sielun silmillä Monikan pendangixi ulkonäön puolesta. Ei tää ole mikään epilogi, tää on kertaus. No selvii sentään vielä tarkalleen miten Annelise koppas Abben Angelalta, ja kekä on tän Frippe bastardin pannut alulle (yx dirigentti vaan). Luulikohan Abbe et se oli kengittänyt alkuun Gustenin? Varmaan, kun niillä oli sama kengännumerokin. Nathania sievempi. Nathanilla oli varmaan äidin kavio.
ellauri025.html on line 797: Ei se Cosmo sit filmannukkaan sitä raiskausleffaa, vaan jonkun tylsän Lovecraft-pläjäyxen Abben rahoilla. Nathan mukana, ne on nyt Schweizissä. Gusten on Emmyn ja Saga-Lillin kanssa kotona. Bambi näyttäytyy vaan Abben perintötaulussa. Sikäli kun tiedetään, se on vielä hengissä.
ellauri025.html on line 815: Varmaan kopsii poikaskenet suoraan Westöltä. Tai Knasulta. Nathanin porukat on ökyrikkaita, ihan yx yhteen Ivana Trumpin kaveripiiristä. Sen äiti, se talousprofeetta, on Milton Friedmanin ent. oppilas. Se kertoo massoja.
ellauri025.html on line 816: Kääpiömäinen Nathan on tän remmin varsinainen piru, Gusten on vaan sekopää. Otti sairaslomaa funnyfarmilla. Se onkin au-lapsi, ja köyhempi. Niinkuin sanon toisaalla, apinat on just niin paskoja kuin niillä on varaa olla. Kapassiteettia.
ellauri034.html on line 411: Sigismund Freudin 1856-1939 nimi oli onnen enne, ja se syntyikin onnenlakki päässä. Schöner götterfunken, vaikka olikin Amelia Nathanssohnin sohn eikä tochter. Töchtereitä niille tuli sittemmin iso liuta, nuorin oli poika taas. Usein nuorin onkin poika, siihen sopii lopettaa. (Kikka jaxoi tehtailla lisää halkiohaaroja.)
ellauri098.html on line 502: Aristophanes, Simone de Beauvoir, Osama Bin Laden, Niels Bohr, Geoffrey Chaucer, Noam Chomsky, Alice Cooper, Leonard Cohen, Dante Alighieri, Fedor Dostojevski, Mahatma Gandhi, George Harrison, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Adolf Hitler, Carl Jung, M.L. King (taas), Marilyn Manson, Robert Mugabe, Plato, J.K. Rowling, Arthur Schopenhauer, Alexandr Solchenitsyn, Baruch Spinoza, Shirley Temple, Leo Tolstoi, Leon Trotsky, Garry Trudeau (Doonesbury), Ludi Wittgenstein, Mary Wollstonecraft
ellauri102.html on line 108: After almost a century of moving upward, David has eventually gone down. Yankelovich is survived by his daughter, Nicole Mordecai, and her husband David; granddaughter Rachel Mordecai; sister Libby Schenkman and her children Fay and Max. In 1959, he married Hassmieg Kaboolian; that marriage ended in divorce. She was Armenian. He later married Mary Komarnicki, now deceased, and then Barbara Lee. More recently, he lived in La Jolla with his companion, Laura Nathanson. Laura got nothing, being just a companion. Neither did Kaboolian nor Komarnicki, nor Barbara Lee, for being utter failures, having wrong opinions, or wrong religion.
ellauri106.html on line 90: The rudeness is not only a source of stylistic energy, but also a fundamental moral position, an attack on the state of inhumanity disguised as niceness, as Nathan Zuckerman puts it in The Anatomy Lesson. Roth is thus directed against the social forces of obedience, prohibition and oppression, essential components of mature adulthood, which is why Posnock recognizes an “art of immaturity” in which Roth disregards cultural barriers and abandons himself completely to aesthetic pleasure, in the style of a Cervantes 'or Nabokovs .
ellauri106.html on line 120: Phillu-Rothin nimikirjoituxessa on vanhemmiten äxä lopussa, kun sen kynä palaa vetämään tee-viivan tee-kirjaimen päälle. Miehen muotokuva-kirjassa se kertoo kuinka sen kenkäkauppias Al Bundy-tyylinen isä höyhentää sitä izetehostavasta nimikirjoituxesta ja ongenkoukun kanssa tunaroinnista. No ei sen isä ollut oikeasti kenkäkauppias vaan vakuutusmyyjä. Phillu-Roth ei varmaan paljon perustanut isäpapasta, tai sitten liikaakin. Äiti ainakin oli rakas. Iskä antoi sille narsismioppitunteja ja sen omistava äiskä ryömi öykkäröivän isän hännän alla. Sekin kävi misogyniakoulutuxesta. Nathanin ja sen perheen välit näyttää olleen ällöttävät, vuoronperään kylmää vittuilua ja ylitunteilua.
ellauri106.html on line 190: Phillussa oli ylimielisyyden henkeä joka ei lähtenyt edes Dale Carnegien kirjalla. Phillu tosiaan teki kandin kuten Nathan farmiliigassa, tosin Bucknellissa, ent Lewisburgin opistossa Pennissä, ei Vermontissa. Äiskänkieltä ja kirjallisuutta sekin luki ja oli niin olevinaan nero. Tässä vaiheessa Phillu sai tartunnan Thomas Wolfesta. Tokko sukua lihavalle yxityisezivälle Nero Wolfelle. Phillussa oli kyllä sen apumiestä Archieta ulkonäön puolesta. Tom Wolfen iskä oli hautakivien toimitusmies.
ellauri106.html on line 207: "Kai mun pitäsi oppia tulemaan toimeen ihmisten kanssa paremmin", mietti Nathan. "Mixi sinun sellaista pitäisi oppia?" kysyi sen narsismikurssin opettajaneiti. Se oppi meni Phillulle perille. Narsistitädin opettamat sanat oli tyyten ällösanoja: ironia, arvot, kohtalo, tahto, näky, autenttisuus, ja tietenkin inhimillinen, jota Phillu tädin mielestä käytti liikaakin kuin pansuolaa.
ellauri106.html on line 209: Phillu tykkäsi sotapoliisikoulussa pistinharjoituxista, sai huutaa "KILL! KILL!" ja työntää kovaa pehmeään. "Sillä lailla tarrataan vinosilmää kitusista, sillä lailla kommaripaskoilta ruuvataan kulli irti!" Vähän myöhemmin sen sotahuuto olisi "FUCK! FUCK!", aseena taas kova teräskalu, kohteena vaimot ja tyttöystävät. Totta puhuen, Phillu oli poikasena hizin väpelö ja itkupilli. Itki puhelimeen Dragsvikistä Sharonille. Sharon oli Al "Zipper" Shatzkyn 17-vuotias tytär. Nathan oli kirahvi ja Sharon pantteri. Kerää koko sarja, saat ikioman eläintarhan. Nathan opettaa Sharonille sanan "kyrpä" käytön ja neuvoo miten sitä pitää imuttaa. Mutta välimerkkien käyttöä ei vittu Sharon opi, ei kirveelläkään. Phillu on jo graduoitunut Tom Wolfesta Henry Jamesiin ja sen yhtä vittumaiseen kirjaan The Ambassadors. Kirkkovene Sharonilla on kyllä soutukunnossa.
ellauri106.html on line 287: Arthur Dimmesdale is a fictional character in the 1850 romance The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. A Puritan minister, he has fathered an illegitimate child, Pearl, with Hester Prynne and considers himself unable to reveal his sin.
ellauri106.html on line 336: In 1860, he visited Boston and met with writers James T. Fields, James Russell Lowell, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry David Thoreau, and Ralph Waldo Emerson. He became a personal friend to many of them, including Henry Adams, William James, Henry James, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
ellauri106.html on line 529: Without the sure theoretical footing that orthodox Marxism provided those of Benjamin’s generation, Roth, like many who used to kinda identify themselves with the late-20th century left, has been set adrift amid the wreckage of multinational capital, techno-militarism, and the information and cultural revolutions. In his trilogy, Roth offers a complex and beautifully-rendered document of the final decades of the “American Century,” but it is one that, like its narrator, Nathan Zuckerman, ultimately throws up its hands in despair, surrendering the complexities of life and the possibility of positive change en lieu of aesthetic and ascetic remove.
ellauri106.html on line 649: Nathan-Roth kaipaa Chicagon aikoja, jolloin se luki yeshiva-kopissa suuria mestareita Mannia, Tolstoita, Gogolia ja Proustia samalla lailla nyökytellen kuin Shtizelin ortodoxit ohimokäkkäräiset kipapäiset partapozot. Se on niin jutku että tekee päästä kamalaa.
ellauri107.html on line 165: Oliskohan sattumaa, että Pepun alter egon Zuckermannin etunimi on Nathan ja Pepun isän etunimi Herman? Niinko Nathaniel Hawthorne ja sen pyllynnuolija Herman Melville? Tämmönen sateenkaarenvärinen diatriibi löytyi tästä Hawthorne-Melville imbgrogliosta:
ellauri107.html on line 169: Nathaniel Hawthorne (July 4, 1804 – May 19, 1864) was an American novelist, dark romantic, and short story writer. His works often focus on history, morality, and religion.
ellauri107.html on line 171: He was born in 1804 in Salem, Massachusetts, to Nathaniel Hathorne and the former Elizabeth Clarke Manning. His ancestors include John Hathorne, the only judge from the Salem witch trials who never repented his involvement in the witch hunt. He entered Bowdoin College in 1821, was elected to Phi Beta Kappa in 1824, and graduated in 1825. He published his first work in 1828, the novel Fanshawe; he later tried to suppress it, feeling that it was not equal to the standard of his later work.[2] He published several short stories in periodicals, which he collected in 1837 as Twice-Told Tales. The next year, he became engaged to Sophia Peabody. He worked at the Boston Custom House and joined Brook Farm, a transcendentalist community, before marrying Peabody in 1842. The couple moved to The Old Manse in Concord, Massachusetts, later moving to Salem, the Berkshires, then to The Wayside in Concord. The Scarlet Letter was published in 1850, followed by a succession of other novels. A political appointment as consul took Hawthorne and family to Europe before their return to Concord in 1860. Hawthorne died on May 19, 1864, and was survived by his wife and their three children.
ellauri107.html on line 179: The zenith of [Hawthorne and Melville’s] relationship was reached . . . when Moby-Dick was published in middle November of 1851 and was dedicated to Hawthorne [“To Nathaniel Hawthorne: In token of my admiration for his genius”]. Hawthorne’s letter to Melville [at the time], like most of those to his friend, has not been preserved, but Melville’s answer on November 17 . . . speaks of the effect Hawthorne’s letter had upon him, in terms characteristic of his impassioned utterances:
ellauri107.html on line 218: The major occurrence in Melville’s life . . . during the writing of Moby-Dick was the growing friendship with Nathaniel Hawthorne . . . . We are reminded that throughout the fall and winter of 1850, and summer of 1851, Hawthorne and Melville were visiting and writing to each other. . Hawthorne encapsulating their conversation [of August 1, 1851] by writing in his journal: “Melville and I had a talk about time and eternity, things of this world and of the next, and books, and publishers, and all possible and impossible matters, that lasted pretty deep into the night . . . .”
ellauri107.html on line 220: [A Tanglewood Tale] dramatizes the developing friendship of Nathaniel Hawthorne and Herman Melville during the 1850-1851 period when both authors resided in Berkshire County, Massachusetts. In spite of their strong attraction to each other, they become estranged by fundamental differences. Puritan-in-spite-of himself Hawthorne is pressed too far when worldly former whaler Melville becomes explicit about shipboard liaisons with fellow sailors. Though the play suggests Hawthorne is curious about same sex relations, the reserved New Englander flees Melville and the Berkshires rather than pursue the subject.
ellauri107.html on line 244: Claggart’s repressed, closeted attraction to Billy finds parallels with some interpretations of Hawthorne’s evident spurning of Melville’s too intimate attentions and Hawthorne’s character in The Blithedale Romance Coverdale’s similar rejection of the invitation from Holingsworth to be his “friend of friends, forever.” For Melville, Hawthorne’s Arthur Dimmesdale’s agonizing acknowledgement of adultery must have seemed a stunning parallel with what later generations would term “coming out of the closet.” Whether Hawthorne himself were a closeted gay man, it is clear that Melville was relatively open in his affections for the senior author and that those affections were somehow turned away and seem to have left a wound that never fully healed. The evils of the closet constitute a subtext in Billy Budd that may well have brought to its author’s mind the sad sundering of his closeness with Nathaniel Hawthorne.
ellauri107.html on line 353: Kun Coleman lakkaa puhumasta reviiristä se alkaa puheen nartuista. Vitun apinat. Juutalaiset raivaavat tiensä hämmästyttävästi ghetosta huipulle. Tässä on vähän tällästä homosteluakin mukana. Molemmat äijät, Coleman ja Nathan on Philip Roth erivärisissä vaippahousuissa.
ellauri119.html on line 762: In 1964, I met both Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand at a conference in a Washington DC hotel. About 75 people attended. Both Branden and Rand spoke. Ayn answered a few questions written on 3 X 5 cards submitted by audience members.
ellauri119.html on line 764: Nathaniel wore carrot-top hair styled like Elvis; he was average height and spoke English with a German accent. His skin was porcelain white and unblemished.
ellauri133.html on line 90: Hölmö Nathaniel Torni sanoo että seuraavista aiheista ei julkaista kirjoja. Paskan marjat, näistähän on vaikka kuinka paljon julkaistu! Se tarkottaa vaan ettei se ize jaxa lukea näitä aiheita. Natu on nähtävästi jonkinlainen kustantajan esilukija. Selluloosakustantamon varmasti.
ellauri145.html on line 1003: L´épouse de Nathaniel. Natanaelin puoliso.
ellauri152.html on line 693: Reb Nathan Zuckerman adds that prior to messianic era the power of evil is so intense that we lack the power to overcome it. Therefore, explains Reb Nathan, it is imperative to enlist the aid of the spiritual giants of past generations through Rabbeinu Tam's Tefillin. Rabbeinu Tam's Tefillin expand the intelligence, enabling us to break evil at its source and stand up against the forces of evil. "In the turbulent era prior to the coming of the messiah, for anyone who is serious about wanting to find the dog, wearing Rabbeinu Tam's Tefillin is very important." (Lekutey Halachoth: Orach Chaim: Hilchoth Tefillin 5:27-29)
ellauri152.html on line 702: Reb Nathan explains that there is no contradiction. Contrary to popular opinion, true humility does not mean yielding in every situation and acting "like a doormat.' True humility is found in the ability to respond appropriately to each situation. There are situations where the proper response is to be bold, courageous, and unyielding. And there are other situations where the proper response is to be yielding, gentle, and meek. Depending on what your chances of winning are.
ellauri156.html on line 68: Many tragic incidents occur as the unexpected outcome of a sequence of events. Certainly that is the case with King David. A little vacation from war leads to a day spent in bed, followed by a stroll along the roof of his palace as night begins to fall on Jerusalem. By chance, David sees a woman bathing herself, a sight which David fixes upon, his pecker coming instantly to attention, and then follows up on with an investigation as to her identity. The woman is shortly summoned to the palace and then to his bedroom, where David sleeps with her (well no, actually he spends time with her very much awake; what is meant by this euphemism is that he fucks the lady crazy.) Even though he has discovered she is the wife of Uriah, a warrior who is fighting for the army of Israel. Never mind. The woman becomes pregnant, and so David calls Uriah home, hoping it will be thought that he has gotten his wife pregnant. When this does not work, David gives orders to Joab, the commander of the army, which arranges for Uriah's death in battle. It looks like the perfect crime, but David's sin is discovered and dealt with by Nathan, the prophet of God. Nathan is Philip Roth's alter ego's name, Nathan Zuckerman! Can this be an accident? Jehova knows, it's too late to ask Phil.
ellauri156.html on line 70: This sequence of events and its accompanying tragedies is the subject of chapters 11 and 12 of 2 Samuel. I have chosen to expound these chapters in three lessons. This first lesson will deal with “David and Bathsheba,” as described in 11:1-4. In the following lesson, we will address the subject of “David and Uriah,” as told by our author in 11:5-27. The third lesson will focus on “David and Nathan,” as this confrontation is put forth in chapter 12. Our text has much to say about the sins of adultery and murder, but rest assured that it addresses much more sins than this. It is a text we all need to hear and to heed, for if a “man after God's own heart” can fall so quickly and so far, surely we are capable of similar or even bigger failures. May the Spirit of God take this portion of the Word of God and illuminate it to each of us in full color, as we come to this study.
ellauri156.html on line 86: So you see, the Ammonites were not subjected to Israel in chapter 10, but they were deprived of Syrian assistance. Now they are on their own. The Israelites make the most of this. They ravage the land of the Ammonites and then besiege the capital (royal) city of Rabbah (11:1; see 1 Chronicles 20:1). This city of Rabbah, incidentally, is now the city of Amman, Jordan. It is not until after David's sin is rebuked by Nathan that the Israelites actually take the city (2 Samuel 12:26-31).
ellauri156.html on line 301: It is clear from the words of our text that David sinned. It is clear from the actions of David which follow that he sinned. It is clear from the words of God through Nathan that David sinned in a grievous manner. The problem is that many wish to view the text in a way that forces Bathsheba to share David's guilt by assuming that she somehow seduced him. I would like to pursue this matter, because I believe there is absolutely no evidence to support such a conclusion. (Wow! That's a refreshing point of view! Like Ballsack's novel Comment la belle Fille de Portillon quinaulda son iuge.)
ellauri156.html on line 303: The inference is often drawn that Bathsheba should not have been exposing herself as she did, and that it was her indiscretion which started this whole sequence of events. Some think her actions may have been deliberate (She knew David was there and could see. . . .), while others would be more gracious and assume it was simply poor judgment. Let me point out several things from the text. First and foremost, when Nathan pronounces divine judgment upon David for his sin, Bathsheba and Uriah are depicted as the victims, not the villains. When Adam and Eve sinned, God specifically indicted Adam, Eve, and the serpent, and each received their just curse. This is simply not the case with Bathsheba. Nowhere in the Bible is she indicted for this sin. It may be that the author did not choose to focus upon Bathsheba, but even in this case, the Law would clearly require us to consider her innocent until proven guilty. (Which law? Not biblical law for sure, take for instance Susan's case, where Daniel had to called upon to prove her innocence.)
ellauri156.html on line 305: It is very clear in Samuel that the tragedies which take place in David's household are the consequence of his sin, just as Nathan indicates (12:10-12). Thus, when Amnon rapes Tamar, the sister of Absalom, it is a case of the “chickens coming home to roost.” Or is it a case of "Rooster coming into the chicks?" Note that it is at David's command or summons that Tamar is called to the palace, and then to Amnon's bedside. There is not so much as a hint that when Tamar is raped, it is all of Amnon's doing. Should this not strongly indicate that the same is true in Bathsheba's case, of which this second incident is a kind of mirror image? (Fucking crooky noses, raping and ravaging their kinky haired ladies right and left.)
ellauri156.html on line 417: King David was the second king of Israel and this film is based on the second book of Samuel from the Bible. When the second Ark of the Covenant is brought to Jerusalem, a soldier reaches out to steady it and is struck dead. While the prophet Nathan declares this the will of God, a skeptical David pronounces it the result of a combination of an electrical shock and too much wine. This blasphemy starts David on the path of sin.
ellauri156.html on line 421: Frustrated, David orders Uriah to be placed on the battle's front and for the troops to withdraw leaving him to die. Uriah is reported dead and David sends a dispatch to tell Bathsheba so they can plan their marriage. Nathan Zuckermann the prophet advises David the people are dissatisfied with his leadership and desire his sons to rule. Nathan tells David he has forgotten that he is a servant of the Lord. David tries in vain to cheer up the old retard. David marries Bathsheba.
ellauri156.html on line 423: As a result, a drought hits Israel. David's and Bathsheba's baby dies. Nathan returns to tell David that God is displeased with his sin. Dog wants to see better ones, with more pizzazz. Or else he will not die as the law demands, but he will be punished through misfortune in his family. David takes responsibility but insists Bathsheba is blameless. But the people want Bathsheba killed. The crowd shouts: No, we want Barabbas! David makes plans to save Bathsheba, but she tells David she is not blameless. She has continued seeing Uriah on the side. (The reports of his demise were premature.) They are both at fault. David is reminded of the Lord and quotes Psalm 23 as he plays his harp. (A nice musical interlude in an otherwise numbing show whose spoiler is long since spoiled.)
ellauri156.html on line 427: While Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. owned the rights to the 1057 BC book written by Dog with a little help from Egad and Nathan, the film is not based on that book. Dog also owned the rights to a 1947 Broadway play called "Bathsheba".
ellauri156.html on line 447: The musical score was by Alfred Newman (the funny looking kid on the cover of Mad magazine), who, for the bucolic scene with the shepherd boy, used a solo oboe in the Lydian mode, drawing on long established conventions linking the solo oboe with pastoral scenes and the shepherd's pipe. To underscore David's guilt-ridden turmoil in the Mount Gilboa scene, Newman resorted to a vibraphone, which Miklós Rózsa used in scoring Peck's popular 1945 Spellbound, in which he played a no less disturbed patient suffering from amnesia, viz. prophet Nathan Zuckerman.
ellauri156.html on line 481: And explain he does; Uriah's words to his commander-in-chief are as stinging a rebuke as David receives from Nathan in the next chapter. Uriah clearly understands that what David once encouraged him to do (i.e. go to be with his wife) he is now strongly urging -- even commanding -- him to do. Uriah humbly but steadfastly refuses to do this:
ellauri156.html on line 623: 11. David and God (a.k.a. Nathan) (2 Samuel 12)
ellauri156.html on line 629: Now this little fellow was one lamb among a great many. Nevertheless, he enjoyed the distinction of being regarded as a “pet lamb.” (I am coming to te most narcissistic part of my sermon, going to introduce you to the good shepherd in a moment.) In the story which Nathan tells David, it is not quite the same. Nathan tells David of a “pet lamb” who is the only sheep of a poor farmer. This lamb does not live in a pen outside the house; it lives inside the house, often in the loving hairy arms of its master, and eats the same food he eats. This is the story Nathan tells David, which God uses to expose the wretchedness of David's sin. It is our text for this message, and once again, it has much to teach us, as well as David. Let us give careful heed to the inspired words of Nathan, and learn from a lamb. (I bet the lamb had much more to learn from the "boys".)
ellauri156.html on line 647: Nathan has a response to the death of Uriah too, which is taken up in the first part of chapter 12. But let us save that until after drawing your attention to something which has been going on in David's life that we have not seen from our text, and which the author of Samuel has not recorded. But David himself discloses this to us in one of his psalms, written in reflection of this incident in our text.
ellauri156.html on line 658: Psalm 32 is one of two psalms (the other is Psalm 51) in which David himself reflects on his sin, his repentance, and his recovery. Verses 3 and 4 of Psalm 32 are the focus of my attention at this point in time. These verses fit between chapters 11 and 12 of 2 Samuel. The confrontation of David by Nathan Zuckermann the prophet, described in 2 Samuel 12, results in David's repentance and confession. But this repentance is not just the fruit of Nathan's rebuke; it is also David's response to the work God has been doing in David's heart before he confesses, while he is still attempting to conceal his sin.
ellauri156.html on line 660: In these verses, David makes it clear that God is at work even when it does not appear to be so. During the time David tries to cover up his sin, God is at work exposing it in his heart. These are not times of pleasure and joy, as Satan would like us to conclude; they are days of misery. David is plagued with guilt. He cannot sleep, and it seems he cannot eat. Worst of all, he cannot fuck. He is not sleeping nights, and he is losing weight. Whether or not David recognizes it as God who is at work in him, he does know he is miserable. It is this misery which tenderizes David, preparing him for the rebuke Nathan Zuckermann is to bring, preparing him for repentance. David's repentance is not the result of David's assessment of his situation; it is the result of divine intervention. Hey wait? If that is the case, where is the much-advertised free will? He has gone so far in sin that he cannot think straight. God is at work in David's life to break him, so that he will once again cast himself upon God for grace. He has good experience in casting himself upon folk, from Saul thru Jonathan to Bathsheba.
ellauri156.html on line 662: Nathan Tells a Shepherd a Sheep Story (12:1-6)
ellauri156.html on line 675: There are several important things to note about this meeting between Nathan and King David. First, note that Nathan is sent to David. Nathan is, of course, a prophet. However it comes about, he knows what David has done. If you will pardon the pun, David cannot pull the wool over his eyes. His words are, in the final analysis, the very word of God (see 12:11). If Nathan is a prophet, he is also a man who seems to be a friend to David. One of David's sons is named Nathan (2 Samuel 5:14). David informs Nathan of his desire to build a temple (chapter 7). Nathan will later christen (sorry, name) Bathsheba's and David's second son (12:25). He will remain loyal to the king and to Solomon when Adonijah seeks to usurp the throne (1 Kings 2). Nathan does not come to David only as God's spokesman, he comes to David as his friend.
ellauri156.html on line 679: Second, note that Nathan is sent to David. Twelve times in the last chapter the word “sent” is employed by the author. A number of these instances refer to David “sending” someone or “sending” for someone. David is a man of power and authority, and so he can “send out” for whatever he wants, including the death of Uriah. Now, it is God who does the “sending.” Herra se on herrallakin. Is David impressed with his power and authority? Has he gotten used to “sending” people to do his work for him (like sending Joab and all Israel to fight the Ammonites)? Let David take note that God is sending Nathan. He is a godsend to Dave.
ellauri156.html on line 681: Third, Nathan comes to David with a story. In the New American Standard Bible, this is not just a story, but a kind of poetic story. In my copy of the NASB, the words of the story are formatted in such a way as to look like one of the Psalms.43 It took me a while to take note of this, but if this is so, it means that Nathan comes to David prepared. Under divine inspiration, I am sure God could inspire a prophet to utter poetry without working at it in advance, but this does not seem to be the norm. Nathan comes to David well prepared. He is not just “spinning a yarn;” Nathan is telling a story, a very important story with a very important message for David. A message for you sir. Nih Nih.
ellauri156.html on line 683: Fourth, Nathan's story is a “sheep story,” one that a shepherd can easily grasp and with which he can readily identify. David was a shepherd boy in his younger days, as we know from the Book(s) of Samuel (see 1 Samuel 16:11; 17:15, 28). I wonder if in those lonely days and nights David does not make a “petlamb” of one or more of his sheep? You bet. Some comfort for his lonely nights. Did this sheep eat of his food and drink from his cup? Did this sheep give him a blowjob? Possibly so.
ellauri156.html on line 685: Fifth, the story Nathan tells David does not “walk on all fours” -- that is, there is no “one to one correspondence” with the story of David's sin with Bathsheba and Uriah. The sheep (which we would liken to Bathsheba) is put to death, not the owner (whom we would liken to Uriah). I think it is important to take note of this fact, lest we press the story beyond its intent.
ellauri156.html on line 687: Why a story? Why not just let David have it head-on, with both barrels, like David did with Bathsheba? Many will point out that this is a skillfully employed tactic, which gets David to pronounce judgment on the crime before he realizes that he is the criminal. I think this is true. David is angry at this “rich man's” lack of compassion. If he could, he would have this fellow put to death (!). But as it is, justice requires a four-fold restitution. But having already committed himself in principle, Nathan can now apply the principle to David, in particular.
ellauri156.html on line 701: That is part of the reason Nathan told David this story. It was never meant to be a makeover of David's sin; it is meant to expose David's sin in principle, in a way that cannot be denied. Having done this very well, Nathan then presses on to deal with David's sin specifically.
ellauri156.html on line 703: The story Nathan tells David is very simple. Two men lived in the same city; one was very rich and the other was very poor. The rich man had flocks and herds.44 The rich man did not just have a large flock and a large herd; he had many flocks and many herds. We would say this man was “filthy rich.” The poor man had but one ewe lamb; this was his “pet lamb.” He purchased it and then raised it in his own home. The lamb spent much time in the man's lap and being carried about. It lived inside the house, not outside, being hand fed with food from the table and even drinking from its master's cup.
ellauri156.html on line 711: David does not see what is coming. The story Nathan tells makes David furious. The David who was once ready to do in Nabal and all the male members of his household (1 Samuel 25) is now angry enough to do in the villain of Nathan's story. Doing in folks was one of his pet lambs. In some ways, David's response is a bit overdone. He reminds me a bit of Judah in Genesis 38, when he learns that Tamar, his daughter-in-law is pregnant out of wedlock. Not realizing that he is the father of the child in her womb, Judah is ready to have Tamar burned to death. How ironic that those who are guilty of a particular sin are intolerant of this sin in the life of others. Well said, Bob! Christians are really hard on people who have no charity.
ellauri156.html on line 724: Nathan's Indictment (12:7-12)
ellauri156.html on line 726: Nathanin rapsut Davidille oli suhteellisen leppeät, vaan ei-toivotun lapsen kuolema. Ei mitään vakavaa, mutta eihän syntikään ollut kuolemanvakava. Mixi naisten naurattamisesta pitäsi tulla itkua ja hampaiden kiristelyä? Jaa olihan siinä se Urian valitettava tapaus, mutta mitä oli niin typerä. Tyhmst päästä kärsii koko ruumis.
ellauri156.html on line 728: David has just sprung the trap on himself, and Nathan is about to let him know about it. The first thing Nathan does is to dramatically indict David as the culprit: “You are the man!” In stunned silence, David now listens to the charges against him. David thinks only in terms of the evils the rich man committed against his neighbor, stealing a man's sheep and depriving him of his companion. Put another way, David thinks only in terms of crime and socially unacceptable behavior, not in terms of sin. In verses 7-12, Nathan draws David's attention to his sin against God and the consequences God has pronounced for his sin. Note the repetition of the pronoun “I” in verses 7 and 8: “It was I who. . .
ellauri156.html on line 738: I fear some of us tend to miss the point here. We read Nathan's story and we hear Nathan's rebuke as though David's sin is all about sex. David does commit a sexual sin when he takes Bathsheba and sleeps with her, knowing she is a married woman. But this sexual sin is symptomatic, according to Nathan, and thus according to God. God is not just saying, “Shame on you, David. Look at all the wives and concubines you had to sleep with. And if none of these women pleased you, I could have given you another woman, just one that was not already married.” Wow, this is the same 'gotcha' as with Adam earlier: I give you about anything as long as you keep your fingers off my property.
ellauri156.html on line 740: Nathan tells David the story of a rich man and a poor man. God tells David through Nathan that all that he possesses (his riches) it is he, the boss, who has given them to him. God is like the rich man, and David the poor one with just the one. David's problem is that his possessions have come to own him. He is so stingy he won't even give his petlamb to Mr. Rich. He is so “possessed” with his lamb that he is unwilling to spend it when his boss has a party. He wants “more” and “more,” and so he begins to take what isn’t his to take, rather than to ask the divine Giver for all he has and more.
ellauri156.html on line 744: First and foremost, David's sin is against God. He has ceased to humbly acknowledge God as the Giver of all he possesses. He has ceased to look to God to provide him with all his needs -- and his desires. David has not only ceased to ask God to supply his needs, he has disobeyed God's commands by committing adultery and murder. David's sin against God manifests itself by the evils he commits against others. Nathan outlines these, employing a repetitive “you:”
ellauri156.html on line 755: Nathan now proclaims the irreversible consequences to come upon David and his family due to his sin: Therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Us and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife. With an equally repetitive "I will":
ellauri156.html on line 770: The story goes on as you well know, but we shall stop here, having focused on Nathan's divinely directed rebuke of David. In our next lesson we will give thought to David's repentance and to the immediate consequences of his sin. But let us close this message by considering some very important take-home lessons for us to learn from David's sin and Nathan's rebuke.
ellauri156.html on line 772: (1) Nathan is a propellerhead, but he is also an example of a faithful friend. Proverbs puts it this way.
ellauri156.html on line 774: I do not know how many people I have known who refused to rebuke or even caution someone close to them, thinking that they are being a friend by being non-condemning. A good friend does not let us continue on the path to our own destruction. Nathan was acting as a prophet, but he was also acting like a friend. Would that we had more professor friends. Would that we were a prophylactic friend to one on the path of destruction. Deliver in a timely manner those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back (Proverbs 24:11).
ellauri156.html on line 812: That is precisely what the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ does for us. We were dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1-3). We were blinded to the immensity of our sins (2 Corinthians 4:4). The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, His perfect life, His innocent and sacrificial death, His literal and physical resurrection are all historical events. But the gospel is also a story, a true story. When we read the New Testament Gospels, we read a story that is even more dramatic, more amazing, more disturbing than the story Nathan told David. When we see the way unbelieving men treated our Lord, we should be shocked, horrified, and angered. We should cry out, “They deserve to die!” And that they do. But the Gospel is not written only to show us their sins -- those who actually heard Jesus and cried, “Crucify Him, Crucify Him” -- it is written so that the Spirit of God can cry out in our hearts, “Thou art the man! Yo mon!” When we see the way men treated Jesus, we see the way we would treat him, if he were here. We see how we treat him today. With laughter and ridicule. And that, my friend, reveals the immensity of our sin, and the immensity of our need for repentance and forgiveness. Words, words, words. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
ellauri156.html on line 816: He bore ours sins on the cross! And by trusting in His death, burial, and resurrection, we die to sin (or sin to die, pick your choice, like David from Nathan's deck of bottom cards) and are raised to novelty products of eternal life, in Christ. The Gospel must first bring us to a recognition of the magnitude of our sin, and of our guilt, and then it takes us to the magnitude of God's grace in Jesus Christ, by which our sins can be forgiven. Have you come to see how great your sins are before a holy God? Then I urge you to experience how great a salvation is yours, brought about by this same God, through the death, burial, and resurrection of Lord Jesus Christ. What a Relief! Plop plop fizz fizz, oh what a relief it is.
ellauri159.html on line 956: INFJs have an inner world filled with ideas, symbols, and possibilities. They are passionate, idealistic, and have a deep concern for others. INFJ writers include Plato, Mary Wollstonecraft, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Dante Alighieri, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Agatha Christie, Charlotte Brontë, J.K. Rowling, Carl Jung, and Leo Tolstoy. Learn more about how INFJs write here.
ellauri160.html on line 649: In a Kabbalistic treatise by Nathan Spira (died in 1662), it is explained that Mahlat was daughter to Ishmael and his wife, who was herself daughter of Egyptian sorcerer Kasdiel. Mother and daughter were exiled to the desert, where the demon Igrathiel mated with Mahlat and engendered Agrat or Igrat. Mahlat later became Esau's wife.
ellauri184.html on line 76: Barbary Shore (1951) was not well received by the critics. It was a surreal parable of Cold War leftist politics set in a Brooklyn rooming-house, and Mailer's most autobiographical novel. His 1955 novel, The Deer Park drew on his experiences working as a screenwriter in Hollywood from 1949 to 1950. It was initially rejected by seven publishers due to its purportedly sexual content before being published by Putnam's. It was not a critical success, but it made the best-seller list, sold over 50,000 copies its first year, and is considered by some critics to be the best Hollywood novel since Nathanael West's The Day of the Locust.
ellauri185.html on line 66: According to Jewish tradition, the book was written by Samuel, with additions by the prophets Gad and Nathan, who together are three prophets who had appeared within 1 Chronicles during the account of David's reign. Modern scholarly thinking posits that the entire Deuteronomistic history was composed circa 630–540 BCE by combining a number of independent texts of various ages.
ellauri185.html on line 131: David captures Jerusalem and brings the Ark there. David wishes to build a temple, but Nathan tells him that one of his sons will be the one to build the temple. David defeats the enemies of Israel, slaughtering Philistines, Moabites, Edomites, Syrians, and Arameans.
ellauri185.html on line 135: David commits adultery with Bathsheba, who becomes pregnant. When her husband Uriah the Hittite returns from battle, David encourages him to go home and see his wife (to cover his own tracks) but Uriah declines in case David might need him. David then deliberately sends Uriah on a suicide mission, and for this, Yahweh sends disasters against David's house. Nathan tells David that the sword shall never depart from his house.
ellauri185.html on line 147: The chronological narrative of succession resumes in the first Book of Kings, which relates how, as David lies dying, Bathsheba and Nathan ensure Solomon's elevation to the throne.
ellauri188.html on line 392: 31-vuotiaana Melville tapasi Pittsfieldissä kesällä 1850 46-vuotiaan Nathaniel Hawthornen, jonka kanssa "ystävystyi". Kirjailijat viettivät paljon aikaa keskustellen komeista intellektuelleista ja filosofisista asioista. Hawthorne myös vaikutti Melvillen seuraavan romaanin Moby Dick sisältöön, sillä hän kannusti Melvilleä tekemään siitäkin allegorisen tarinan suoran valaanpyyntikertomuksen sijaan. Ai siis mitä? kysyi Hermanni. No kikkeli, kikkeli, tietysti, selvitti Nat kärsimättömästi. Vaikka kirja on nykyään todella tunnettu, omana aikanaan se oli paha pettymys. Sitä myytiin koko Melvillen elinaikana vain 3 000 kappaletta. Hänen seuraava romaaninsa Pierre oli vieläkin suurempi floppi.
ellauri219.html on line 746: Patanjali is often stated as having claimed there was a hostility between the orthodox Brahminic (Astika) groups and the heterodox, swAstika groups (Buddhism, Jainism, and atheists), like that between a mongoose and a snake. Nathan McGovern argues Patanjali never used this mongoose-snake analogy. But who IS McGovern? Joku juippi quelconque: Nathan McGovern, Credentials:Associate Professor,
ellauri283.html on line 108: Äußerlich scheint die Familie noch völlig intakt zu sein, aber seit sein älterer Bruder vor einigen Jahren verschwunden ist, sind die Eltern des zwölfjährigen Oliver (Nathan Gamble) völlig auf den verlorenen Sohn fixiert. Seine Mutter Joan (Dendrie Taylor) verfiel in Depressionen und sein Vater Gus (Corbin Bernsen) war nur noch am arbeiten. Jetzt zweifelt Oliver an dem Sinn seines Lebens. Die Frage, ob der Glaube an Gott oder der Glaube an die Wissenschaft richtig ist, oder beide, oder keiner von den beiden, beschäftigt ihn. Da seine Eltern ihm auf seine Fragen keine Antwort geben können, sucht er Rat bei seinem Biologie-Lehrer, in Fachbüchern und in der Kirche. Doch niemand scheint ihm seine ersehnte Erkenntnis liefern zu können. Als Oliver schon die Hoffnung aufgeben will, naht eine unerwartete Erlösung. Als auch ihr zweiter Sohn verschwindet, verstehen seine Eltern endlich, was ihn beschäftigt: ein schwarzer Engel, der auf einer Rakete reitet.
ellauri290.html on line 661: | 10. Nathanya | 342 | 5,070 | 5,070 |
ellauri290.html on line 770: Nathanya (J)
ellauri302.html on line 746: Jag har hört talas om en jiddischsk skådespelare i Moskva som lurade i sina kolleger att han hade en tunna sill. Det var under revolutionen när man inte kunde få en sillbit för vare sig kärlek eller pengar. Så snart folk fick höra att han hade sill började dom ställa sig in hos honom. Till och med ryssarna behandlade honom på ett nytt sätt: Nathan Davidovich, du ska få en huvudroll. Du blir berömd. Jag dör av längtan efter en bit sill. Summan ar kardemumman blev att han måste packa och fly till Kiev när kontrarevolutionärerna började slåss mot bolsjevikerna. Han fastnade i nån by och det var där Makhnos banditer gjorde slut på honom."
ellauri308.html on line 598: Ashkenazi-vihaajat ovat eksistentiaalinen vaara Israelin valtiolle", sanoo Nathan Zehavi , Maarivin verkkosivusto (hepreaksi).
ellauri313.html on line 569: Sanotaan, että kun Mendelssohn tapasi Lessingin ensimmäistä kertaa, he pelasivat shakkia. Lessingin näytelmässä Nathan the Wise Nathan ja hahmo Saladin tapaavat ensimmäisen kerran shakkipelin aikana. Lessing oli äskettäin tuottanut draaman Die Juden, jonka moraali oli, että juutalainen voi olla luonteeltaan jalo. Tämä käsitys oli Frederick Suuren nykypäivän Berliinissä yleensä pilkattu valheeksi.
ellauri313.html on line 591: Mendelssohnilla oli kuusi lasta, joista vain hänen toiseksi vanhin tyttärensä Recha ja hänen vanhin poikansa Joseph säilyttivät juutalaisen uskon. Hänen poikansa olivat: Joseph (Mendelssohnin pankkitalon perustaja ja Alexander von Humboldtin ystävä ja hyväntekijä), Abraham (joka meni naimisiin Lea Salomonin kanssa ja oli Fanny ja Felix Mendelssohnin isä) ja Nathan (koneinsinööri huomattava maine). Hänen tyttärensä olivat Brendel (myöhemmin Dorothea; Simon Veitin vaimo ja Philipp Veitin äiti , myöhemmin hänen rakastajatar ja sitten vaimoFriedrich von Schlegel), Recha ja Henriette, kaikki lahjakkaita naisia. Rechan ainoa pojanpoika (säveltäjä Giacomo Meyerbeerin veljen Heinrich Beerin poika) syntyi ja sai koulutuksensa juutalaisena, mutta kuoli hyvin nuorena yhdessä vanhempiensa kanssa ilmeisesti epidemiaan. [ lainaus tarvitaan ] Joseph Mendelssohnin poika Alexander (k. 1871) oli viimeinen Moses Mendelssohnin miespuolinen jälkeläinen, joka harjoitti juutalaisuutta. Se siitä tuli Mooses, uskonpuhdistuxesta! Usko säilyy paremmin hieman likaisena.
ellauri313.html on line 612: Hebrew Melodies on Lord Byronin 30 runon kokoelma. Byron loi ne suurelta osin säestämään Isaac Nathanin säveltämää musiikkia, joka soitti virsimelodioita, joiden hän väitti (virheellisesti) olevan peräisin Jerusalemin temppelin palveluksesta. Esim. Nathanin "My Soul is Dark" perustuu oikeasti saksalaiseen lieder-tyyliin. 1 niistä on nimeltään She walks in beauty. "She Walks in Beauty" sopii hyvin synagogahymniin Adon Olam, josta taitaa olla jo joku paasaus.
ellauri332.html on line 425: Tämä raina poikkeaa liian kauas kaappihinuri Nathanial Hawthornen vuonna 1850 julkaistusta romaanista vuoden 1660 puritaanisesta siirtokunnasta. Vuoden 1995 elokuva näyttää tietämättömältä. Sitä tervehdittiin pelätyllä elokuvakritiikillä, "tahattomasti hauska". Tänä aikana Demi Mooren nimi teltassa oli kuin jinx. Lyhyesti sanottuna hänen esityksensä Hester Prynnestä osoittautui vahingossa humoristiseksi.
ellauri332.html on line 447: "Freely adapted from the novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne," the credits say cautiously. I'll say.
ellauri332.html on line 475: Nathaniel Hawthornes (1850) Bestseller wurde immer wieder verfilmt, so 1934 von Robert G. Vignola und 1926 von Victor Sjöström. Trotzdem nahm sich auch Wim Wenders mit dem von ihm mit gegründeten Filmverlag der Autoren 1973 dem Sujet an. Während Hawthorne die Probleme von Einwanderern der zweiten Generation in den Mittelpunkt stellte, setzte der Regisseur seinen Focus auf den persönlichen Konflikt der Figuren. Senta Berger war 1973 ein international bekannter Filmstar. Sie legt als
ellauri334.html on line 103: Vaijeritemppumainen päähenkilö Nathan Drake (kuvittele Nathan Fillion esittämässä… noh, Nathan Fillionia) on matkannut neljässä eri pelissä ympäri maailmaa etsien kadonneita aarteita ja surmaten satapäin vihollisia matkan varrella, kun tapahtumat ovat vieneet niin El Doradon, Iranin, Irakin kuin muiden maineikkaiden ryöstösaaliiden jäljille. Playstationin pelisarjan leffasovitus jatkaa pitkälti samalla linjalla – ilman satoja kuolemia valitettavasti.
ellauri334.html on line 107: Nathan Drakena nähtävä Tom Holland esittää ikänsä puolesta nuorempaa versiota ikonisesta aarteenmetsästäjästä tai näkökulmasta riippuen varkaasta. Jenkkilänkkärit mielipuuhassa approprioimassa kamaa mutakuonoilta. Heidän onnekseen Sophia Alin esittämä Chloe Frazer on pippurinen ja viihdyttävä kolmas pyörä näiden keskuudessa, vaikka onkin tyttö. Tyttö on kuin paprikaa se polttaa kiihdyttää.
ellauri341.html on line 222: Suomalainen yleisradioyhtiö Yle julkaisi MOT-sarjan alla ohjelman MISAsta ja Gregorian Bivolarusta. Ohjelmassa haastateltiin entisiä Nathan jäseniä. Nathan kerrotaan juurtuneen romanialaiseen MISA-liikkeeseen. Haastateltavat kuvailivat kiistanalaisia toimia, kuten oksentamista, puhdistautumiskeinona. Myös seksuaalisia taipumuksia, kuten pornografiaa ja seksuaalisia suhteita opettajien ja oppilaiden kanssa raportoitiin. Suomalaisen Nathan edustaja kommentoi, että seksi on aina -- no, melkein aina, kahden ihmisen välinen asia. Voi siinä joskus olla vain yksikin tai paljon useampia.
ellauri365.html on line 867: Vid tiden läste Fröding Leibniz, Nietzsches filosofi och översatte dikter av bland andra Goethe. Även Tolstoj, Spinoza, Blavatsky, Platon och Buddha bidrog till hans nya världsbild. Fröding uttryckte allt mer tankar kring altruism och kärlek till allt levande. Han jordfästes i Klara kyrka, förrättad av Nathan Söderblom och kortegen genom Stockholm kantades av 200 000 sörjande.
ellauri367.html on line 64: Nathaniel Mayer Victor Rothschild, 3. Baron Rothschild (31. lokakuuta 1910 - 20. maaliskuuta 1990) - Rothschildien perheen edustaja, biologi ja kriketinpelaaja, MI5- agentti (1935-1938), brittiläisen vastatiedustelupalvelun MI-1:n apulaisjohtaja (159038). Englannin keskustapolitiikan pääsuunnittelija, Britannian kumikanapääministerin Margaret Thatcherin ensimmäinen neuvonantaja (1979-1990), Lontoon Royal Pain in The Arse Societyn varajärjestäjä (1953). Juutalaista alkuperää oleva Victor Rothschild piti itseään ateistina. Vittu super paskiainen se oli, Haju Pisilääkin rivompi oikeistopaska kusitolppa.
ellauri367.html on line 79: 2. He perustivat vaurautensa petoksella. Nathan Mayer Rothschild perusti Rothschild-perheen upean rikkauden Napoleonin sotien aikana. Vuonna 1815 kaikki odottivat uutisia Waterloon taistelusta hengitystä pidätellen. Rothschildeilla oli kuitenkin paremmin vakiintunut tiedusteluverkosto ja he olivat askeleen edellä, justiinsa kuin Lars GW Persson.
ellauri367.html on line 89: Lopuksi Nathaniel Mayer Rothschildit lainasivat valtiolle tarpeeksi maksaakseen nämä velat pois, jotta maa voisi selviytyä. Fiuuh!
ellauri367.html on line 132: Auf diese Erzählung geht wohl auch die bis heute umlaufende Geschichte zurück, die Familie Rothschild habe ihren Reichtum durch eine Spekulation auf den Ausgang der Schlacht bei Waterloo erworben. Danach habe Nathan Rothschild dank eines effizienten Informationsdienstes bereits vor der britischen Regierung vom siegreichen Ausgang der Schlacht erfahren und daraufhin seine Aktien verkauft, um andere Anleger glauben zu machen, er sei im Besitz von Information über eine britische Niederlage. Es sei danach zu Panikverkäufen und starken Kursverlusten gekommen, die Nathan dazu genutzt habe, die Wertpapiere billig aufzukaufen. Nach dem Eintreffen der Siegesnachricht habe er dann von einem enormen Kursanstieg profitiert. Georges Dairnvaell brachte diese unwahre Geschichte 1846 in seinem Pamphlet Die erbauliche und kuriose Geschichte von Rothschild I., König der Juden erneut in Umlauf.[a 3] Später, zur Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, wurde sie durch den unverhüllt antisemitischen deutschen Propaganda-Film Die Rothschilds verbreitet. Zudem war bereits im 19. Jahrhundert das Gerücht aufgekommen, Nathan Mayer Rothschild habe einen französischen General bestochen, um den britischen Sieg sicherzustellen.
ellauri367.html on line 148: George Burns (syntynyt Nathan Birnbaum ; 20. tammikuuta 1896 – 9. maaliskuuta 1996) oli yhdysvaltalainen koomikko, näyttelijä, kirjailija ja laulaja ja yksi harvoista viihdyttäjistä, jonka ura ulottui menestyksekkäästi vaudevilleen , radioon, elokuvaan ja televisioon. Hänen kaarevat kulmakarvat ja sikarin savun välimerkit tulivat tutuiksi tavaramerkeiksi yli kolme neljäsosaa vuosisadaksi. Hän ja hänen vaimonsa Gracie Allen esiintyivät radiossa, televisiossa ja elokuvissa komediaduona Burns ja Allen.
ellauri367.html on line 226: Rakovsky viedään mukavaan huoneeseen, jossa on erilaisia ruokia, ja Duval kuulustelee sitä sen jälkeen, kun Landowsky sujauttaa juomaansa korkealaatuista huumetta. Rakovsky aloittaa väittämällä, että jos Karl Marx tiesi kapitalismin ristiriidat, se johtuu siitä, että hän tunsi ne, jotka tuottivat ne siinä. Sitten hän teoristi liiton kansainvälisen rahoituksen (jota hän kutsuu "kansainväliseksi kapitalismiksi" tai "kapinterniksi") ja kommunistisen internationaalin (Comintern) välillä. Hän lisää, että Marx jätti kirjoituksissaan selvästi huomaamatta taloudellisen ilmiön, joka kuitenkin kiehtoi hänen aikansa ihmisiä: Rothschildin perheen viiden veljeksen valtavan pääoman keräämisen. Se täsmentää, että niitä on 5, aivan kuten Neuvostoliiton punaisen tähden 5 haaraa. Tuskin sattumaa! (Amschel Mayer Rothschild, Salomon Mayer Rothschild, Nathan Mayer Rothschild, Carl Mayer von Rothschild, James de Rothschild). Rakovskylle näiden kahden entiteetin yhteinen vihollinen, toinen, joka kannattaa kosmopolitismia (koska pääomalla ei ole rajoja) ja toinen kansainvälisyyttä (koska proletariaatilla ei ole rajoja), on kansallisvaltio ja sen tavoitteena on sen tuhoaminen.
ellauri367.html on line 301: Päätellen, että kansainvälisen rahoituksen tavoitteena on natsismin hyökätä stalinismia vastaan sotilaallisesti, hän pyrkii edistämään liittoa Puolan jakamisen ympärillä (Saksan ja Neuvostoliiton välisen sopimuksen esikuvana). Gabriel kysyy sitten yhteyshenkilön nimeä, joka voisi varmuudella sanoa olevansa kansainvälisen korkean rahoituksen alalla. Rakovsky sanoo, että Lionel Walter Rothschild oli yksi heistä (kuoli 1937), Kuhn, Loeb & Co -pankki Schiffin, Warburgin, Loebin ja Kuhnin perheen, Bernard Baruchin, Felix Frankfurterin, Frank Altschulin, Benjamin Victor Cohenin, Nathan Straus Jr:n kanssa., Laurence Steinhardt, Léon Blum, Samuel Irving Rosenman, Walter Lippmann, Herbert H. Lehman, Dreifus, Thomas W. Lamont, Georges Mandel, Henry Morgenthau, Mordecai Ezekiel, Jesse L. Lasky, mutta neuvoo häntä lopulta puhumaan Yhdysvaltain Neuvostoliiton suurlähettiläs Joseph E. Daviexelle.
ellauri368.html on line 318: Hasidism was inspired by Israel ben Eliezer, who was eventually dubbed the Ba'al Shem Tov after he was "revealed" as a wonder-working leader in about 1736. He lived in the Ukraine, where there was a high density of provincial Jewish communities. Two generations after the death of this charismatic leader, his followers printed BeShT (In Praise of the Ba'al Shem Tov, 1815, a Hebrew work consisting primarily of hagiographie tales about wonders of the rebbe, as passed on and eaborated by his disciples. In the same year, stories by Nahman of Bratislav - a great-grandson of the Ba'al Shem Tov - were published by his scribe Nathan Sternharz. Accompanied by Yiddish versions, the Hebrew tales were intended to reach the broadest possible audience.
ellauri378.html on line 106: Vuoden 1936 Moskovan oikeudenkäynnin aikana monet syytetyt olivat juutalaisia. Yhdestä 16 korkean profiilin kommunistien ryhmästä näyttelyoikeudenkäynnissä, Kamenevin ja Zinovjevin lisäksi, juutalaisina esiintyvät nimet kuten Jefim Dreitzer, Isak Reingold, Moissei ja Nathan Lurye sekä Konon Berman-Yurin. Kierretyllä ironialla jotkut näistä bolshevikeista, joilla oli ollut merkittävä rooli muiden teloittamisessa, kuten NKVD:n johtaja Genrikh Yagoda, teloitettiin itse. V sadu jagoda, jagoda, jagoda moja. Solženitsyn arvioi, että johtavissa asemissa olevien juutalaisten osuus tippui joillakin aloilla 50 prosentista 6 prosenttiin.
xxx/ellauri044.html on line 1061: Joku Nathanson määrittelee häpeän pettymyxexi. Kuulostaa narsistiselta. Kissan häpeää, noloutta, harmia kiinni jäämisestä, sellasta Stubbin ja muiden politiikan narsistien anteexipyyntöä. Olen pettynyt ja pahoillani että paloin, lupaan ensi kerralla olla ovelampi.
xxx/ellauri086.html on line 662: The Scarlet Letter: A Romance is a work of historical fiction by American author Nathaniel Hawthorne, published in 1850. Set in Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony during the years 1642 to 1649, the novel tells the story of Hester Prynne, who conceives a daughter through an affair and then struggles to create a new life of repentance and dignity. Containing a number of religious and historic allusions, the book explores themes of legalism, sin, and guilt.
xxx/ellauri086.html on line 697: Nathaniel">Nathaniel Hawthorne (July 4, 1804 – May 19, 1864) was an American novelist, dark romantic, and short story writer. His works often focus on history, morality, and religion.
xxx/ellauri086.html on line 698: He was born in 1804 in Salem, Massachusetts, to Nathaniel Hathorne and the former Elizabeth Clarke Manning. His ancestors include John Hathorne, the only judge from the Salem witch trials who never repented his involvement. Paskiaisten sukua kuten Pynchonkin.
xxx/ellauri086.html on line 728: Poe kirjoitti yleensä myönteisesti, mutta osa arvosteluista oli ilkeitä ja toi hänelle vihamiehiä. Kirjallisuusarvostelijana Poe arvioi myönteisesti esimerkiksi nuoren Charles Dickensin teoksia sekä haastatteli Dickensiä tämän käydessä Yhdysvalloissa. Myös Nathaniel Hawthornen tuotannosta hän kirjoitti lehteen myönteisiä arvosteluja.
xxx/ellauri127.html on line 500: 9. Late in the novel, Nathan discovers that Faunia had kept a diary and that “the illiteracy had been an act, something she decided her situation demanded” [p. 297]. Why did Faunia feign illiteracy? Was there any reason why she chose this flaw in lieu of others? What are the implications of her secret?
xxx/ellauri127.html on line 504: 13. Nathan interprets Coleman’s choosing to reject his past and create a new identity for himself as “the drama that underlies America’s story, the high drama that is upping and leaving—and the energy and cruelty that rapturous drive demands,” whereas Walter thinks of his brother as a “calculating liar,” a “heartless son,” and a “traitor to his race” [p. 342]. Which of these views seems closer to the truth? Are they both legitimate? What is Ernestine’s position?
xxx/ellauri129.html on line 812: Nathaniel_Hawthorne" title="Nathaniel Hawthorne">Nathaniel Hawthorne
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 391: Seuraavat juutalaiset kirjailijat mainitaan tiheimmin kun keskustellaan kafkalaisuudesta amerikkalaisessa romaanissa ja novellissa: Nathanael West, Isaac Rosenfeld, Delmore Schwartz, Paul Doodman, Saul Bellow, Norman Mailer, J. D. Salinger, Bernard Malamud, Philip Roth, Joseph Heller, Meyer Liben ja Susan Sontag. Sietää muistaa tutkijoiden varaus. Kafkan vaikutus on useimmiten ollut epäsuora ja kietoutunut Freudin ohella muidenkin idealähteiden kanssa: Dostojevski, Kierkegaard, Buber, Reich, Trotski, Sartre... Harvoin se näkyy niin voimallisen tarttuvana kuin Isaac Rosenfeldin (1918-1956) lyhyissä paraabeleissa.
xxx/ellauri215.html on line 125: Nathan vai Natty vai Nat
xxx/ellauri215.html on line 143: In 1961 Roth visited Bernard Malamud in Oregon. Roth was still in his twenties and had just published his first book of stories, Goodbye, Columbus. Malamud was almost 50 and one of the most famous writers in America. This meeting was immortalised in one of Roth’s greatest books, The Ghost Writer. In this 1979 work, a young writer, Nathan Zuckerman, visits EI Lonoff, a first-generation immigrant modelled on Malamud, who found a new voice for Jewish-American literature. He had found a voice but, more importantly, he had a subject: “life-hunger, life-bargains, and life-terror”—a Jewish experience rooted in the traumas of east Europe and Russia.
xxx/ellauri215.html on line 147: Nathan, you don't have to defend yourself. Why shouldn't you enjoy your first bit of recognition? Who deserves it more than a gifted young man like yourself? Think of all the worthless people held in esteem every day: moviestars, politicians, athletes. Because you happen to be a writer doesn't mean you have to deny yourself the ordinary human pleasure of being praised and applauded.
xxx/ellauri287.html on line 622: Artikla: Dion ensimmäinen tarsolaispuhe ja sen barbaariset poseeraajat. Nathanael Andrade. Jos haluat lukea tämän tutkimuksen koko tekstin, voit pyytää kopion suoraan kirjoittajalta.
xxx/ellauri289.html on line 116: 
NathanHomerKnorr-WTPres.png" height="200px" />
xxx/ellauri289.html on line 146: Pussikeitoistaan ehkä kuuluisampi Nathan Knorr nimitettiin Vartiotornin Raamattu- ja Traktaattiseuran kolmanneksi presidentiksi vuonna 1942. Knorr tilasi uuden Raamatun käännöksen, Pyhän Raamatun Uuden maailman käännöksen, jonka täysi versio julkaistiin vuonna 1961. Hän järjesti laajoja kansainvälisiä teinikonventteja, perusti uusia koulutusohjelmia jäsenille ja laajensi lähetystyötä ja haaratoimistoja kaikkialla maailmassa. Knorrin johtokuntaa leimasi myös se, että lisääntyvässä määrin käytettiin selkeitä ohjeita, jotka ohjasivat todistajia heidän elämäntyylissään ja käytöksessään, sekä seurakuntien oikeudellisten menettelyjen lisääntynyt käyttö tiukan moraalisäännöstön noudattamiseksi.
xxx/ellauri298.html on line 588: Vuonna 1999, 1000-sivuisen magnum opuksensa, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality ja sen esittämän tietoisuuden ja kehityksen mallin menestyksen jälkeen, Wilber perusti Integral Instituten, ajatushautomon ja akateemisen instituutin, joka loi perustan Wilberin ideoiden levittämiselle maailmalle. Maailmankuulut johtajat ja ajattelijat, kuten Al Gore, Tony Robbins, Nathaniel Branden, Alex Grey, David Deida ja Tony Schwartz, antoivat soivia suosituksia. Seminaareja ja verkkosivustoja luotiin, konferensseja kutsuttiin koolle. Näytti siltä, että laillinen henkisesti täytetty älyllinen liike oli muotoutumassa ja oli pian kitkemässä juurineen perinteiset "ei-integroidut" ajattelumuodot tieteessä, akateemisessa maailmassa, politiikassa ja yhteiskunnassa yleensä.
128