ellauri118.html on line 850: Då hon var 17 år gammal, 1661, gifte hon sig med kusinen Filip I, hertig av Orléans, son till hennes morbror Ludvig XIII av Frankrike och ende bror till Ludvig XIV av Frankrike. Äktenskapet hade arrangerats av Ludvig XIV och hans mor Anna av Österrike direkt efter att monarkin hade återinförts i England och hennes bror bestigit tronen, vilket i ett slag gav henne politiskt betydelse; det har sagts att detta var det första självständiga politiska beslut av vikt som kungen tog, efter att han fram till kardinal Mazarins död samma år överlämnat politiken åt denne. Det ansågs också angeläget att snabbt gifta bort Filip, som var homosexuell, och Henrietta utgjorde då i egenskap av prinsessa ett snabbt alternativ till att arrangera ett rangmässigt acceptablet parti. Henrietta och Filip inledde aldrig något förhållande med varandra, och Filip föredrog män, särskilt Chevalier de Lorraine, men han accepterade att ha samlag med henne regelbundet för reproduktionens skull.
ellauri119.html on line 268: The subset of Christianity that accepts this doctrine is collectively known as Trinitarianism, while the subset that does not is referred to as Nontrinitarianism (see also Arianism). Trinitarianism contrasts with positions such as Binitarianism (one deity in two persons) and Monarchianism (no plurality of persons within God), of which Modalistic Monarchianism (one deity revealed in three modes) and Unitarianism (one deity in one person) are subsets.
ellauri119.html on line 343: In Islam, shirk (Arabic: شرك‎ širk) is the sin of idolatry or polytheism (i.e., the deification or worship of anyone or anything besides Allah). Islam teaches that God does not share His divine attributes with any partner. Associating partners with God is disallowed according to the Islamic doctrine of Tawhid (monotheism). Mušrikūn مشركون (pl. of mušrik مشرك) are those who practice shirk, which literally means "association" and refers to accepting other gods and divinities alongside God (as God´s "associates").The Qur´an considers shirk as a sin that will not be forgiven if a person dies without repenting of it.
ellauri119.html on line 444: In Buddhism, Kāma Sutra is sensuous, sexual love. It is an obstacle on the path to enlightenment, since it is selfish. Karuṇā is compassion and mercy, which reduces the suffering of others. It is complementary opposite to wisdom and is necessary for enlightenment. Adveṣa and mettā are benevolent love. This love is unconditional and requires considerable self-acceptance. This is quite different from ordinary love, which is usually about attachment and sex and which rarely occurs without self-interest. Instead, Buddhism recommends detachment and unselfish interest in others' welfare. Gandhi could sleep naked with young sweetypies without penetrating them. Did he so much as get a boner? The story does not tell. Mrs Gandhi did not approve. They screeched to one another like a pair of seagulls. Wonder what the young sweetypies thought of it. Scary and frustrating at once I bet. Being perfectly in love with God or Krishna makes one perfectly free from material contamination and this is the ultimate way of salvation or liberation. In this tradition, salvation or liberation is considered inferior to love, and just an incidental by-product. Being absorbed in Love for God is considered to be the perfection of life.
ellauri119.html on line 770: Some weeks after the seminar I received an awkward form-letter from Branden to explain that he had severed his relationship with Ayn because she was unable to accept that he was not attracted to her. Since they shared identical values, she believed it was not possible that he didn't love her.
ellauri131.html on line 361: Motivational speakers Jack Canafield and Mark Victor Hansen collaborated on the first Chicken Coop for the Soul book, compiling inspirational and true stories they had heard from their audience members. Many of the stories came from members of the audience of their inspirational talks. The book was rejected by major publishers in New York but accepted by a small, self-help publisher in Florida called HCI.
ellauri131.html on line 934: You're setting up the psychological conditions for people to accept just-in-time employment. Karl Marx 100 years ago -- if we can use his name in your publication -- did set up the idea of the reserve army of the unemployed."
ellauri132.html on line 665: Eikä, palkinto-Booker oli joku riistäjä Booker McConnell Karibialta. In 1972, winning writer John Berger, known for his Marxist worldview, protested during his acceptance speech against Booker McConnell. He blamed Booker's 130 years of sugar production in the Caribbean for the region's modern poverty.
ellauri140.html on line 58: Book IV, despite its title "The Legend of Cambell and Telamond or Of Friendship", Cambell's companion in Book IV is actually named Triamond, and the plot does not center on their friendship; the two men appear only briefly in the story. The book is largely a continuation of events begun in Book III. First, Scudamore is convinced by the hag Ate (discord) that Britomart has run off with Amoret and becomes jealous. A three-day tournament is then held by Satyrane, where Britomart beats Arthegal (both in disguise). Scudamore and Arthegal unite against Britomart, but when her helmet comes off in battle Arthegal falls in love with her. He surrenders, removes his helmet, and Britomart recognizes him as the man in the enchanted mirror. Arthegal pledges his love to her but must first leave and complete his quest. Scudamore, upon discovering Britomart's sex, realizes his mistake and asks after his lady, but by this time Britomart has lost Amoret, and she and Scudamore embark together on a search for her. The reader discovers that Amoret was abducted by a savage man and is imprisoned in his cave. One day Amoret darts out past the savage and is rescued from him by the squire Timias and Belphoebe. Arthur then appears, offering his service as a knight to the lost woman. She accepts, and after a couple of trials on the way, Arthur and Amoret finally happen across Scudamore and Britomart. The two lovers are reunited. Wrapping up a different plotline from Book III, the recently recovered Marinel discovers Florimell suffering in Proteus' dungeon. He returns home and becomes sick with love and pity. Eventually he confesses his feelings to his mother, and she pleads with Neptune to have the girl released, which the god grants.
ellauri140.html on line 88: Brit-o-mart F+, a female knight, the embodiment and champion of Chastity. She is young and beautiful, and falls in love with Artefact upon first seeing his face in her father's magic mirror. Though there is no interaction between them, she travels to find him again, dressed as a knight and accompanied by her nurse, Glauce. Britomart carries an enchanted spear that allows her to defeat every knight she encounters, until she loses to a knight who turns out to be her beloved Artefact. (Parallel figure in Ariosto: Bradamante.) Britomart is one of the most important knights in the story. She searches the world, including a pilgrimage to the shrine of Isis, and a visit with Merlin the magician. She rescues Artefact, and several other knights, from the evil slave-mistress Radigund. Furthermore, Britomart accepts Amoret at a tournament, refusing the false Florimell.
ellauri142.html on line 611: Starting either from religious belief or from science, Spencer argued, we are ultimately driven to accept certain indispensable but literally inconceivable notions. Whether we are concerned with a Creator or the substratum which underlies our experience of phenomena, we can frame no conception of it. Therefore, Spencer concluded, religion and science agree in the supreme truth that the human understanding is only capable of 'relative' knowledge. This is the case since, owing to the inherent limitations of the human mind, it is only possible to obtain knowledge of phenomena, not of the reality ('the absolute') underlying phenomena. Hence both science and religion must come to recognise as the 'most certain of all facts that the Power which the Universe manifests to us is utterly inscrutable.' He called this awareness of 'the Unknowable' and he presented worship of the Unknowable as capable of being a positive faith which could substitute for conventional religion. Indeed, he thought that the Unknowable represented the ultimate stage in the evolution of religion, the final elimination of its last anthropomorphic vestiges.
ellauri143.html on line 71: The history behind the picture of Valluvar is itself an interesting one. Painter KR Venugopal Sarma picturised him in 1950s and the painting was accepted by then chief minister CN Annadurai as the official picture of the poet.
ellauri143.html on line 86: Its author is praised for his innate nature of selecting the best virtues found in the known literature, like Juan Valdez the choicest coffee beans, and presenting them in a language that is common and acceptable to all (Tamil). The term Tirukkuṟaḷ is a compound word made of two individual terms, tiru and kuṟaḷ. The term tiru has as many as 19 different meanings but it means sacred. Kuṟaḷ means something like "short, concise, and abridged." Vizi näähän on Markku Envall-luokan aforismeja, Vaakku-Turmiola linjan törähdyxiä.
ellauri143.html on line 735: Wisdom hath use of lucid speech, words that acceptance win,

ellauri144.html on line 66: along with his body. He looks back bemusedly at the rash confidence, the ambition to get ahead, that motivated his earlier writing. And now his poetic gift itself threatens to fall away, together with other games, notably lovemaking, that require youthful energy and zest (55-57). Philosophy, as he describes it, is most centrally the art of living well from day to day; of enjoying life’s gifts while you have them, and of accepting Nature’s high impersonal laws in preparation for that final retirement which is death (213-16).
ellauri144.html on line 634: homosexuelles. Le courant libéral accepte le ministère ecclésial de personnes
ellauri144.html on line 666: homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with
ellauri145.html on line 404: Roger Tichborne, heir to the noble and filthy rich Tichborne family´s title and fortunes, was presumed to have died in a shipwreck in 1854 at age 25. His mother clung to a belief that he might have survived, and after hearing rumours that he had made his way to Australia, she advertised extensively in Australian newspapers, offering a reward for information. In 1866, a Wagga Wagga butcher known as Thomas Castro came forward claiming to be Roger Tichborne. Although his manners and bearing were unrefined, he gathered support and travelled to England. He was instantly accepted by Lady Tichborne as her son, although other family members were dismissive and sought to expose him as an impostor. During protracted enquiries before the case went to court in 1871, details emerged suggesting that the claimant might be Arthur Orton, a butcher´s son from Wapping in London, who had gone to sea as a boy and had last been heard of in Australia. After a civil court had rejected the claimant´s case, he was charged with perjury; while awaiting trial he campaigned throughout the country to gain popular support. In 1874, a criminal court jury decided that he was not Roger Tichborne and declared him to be Arthur Orton. Before passing a sentence of 14 years, the judge condemned the behaviour of the claimant´s counsel, Edward Kenealy, who was subsequently disbarred because of his conduct.
ellauri145.html on line 406: After the trial, Kenealy instigated a popular radical reform movement, the Magna Charta Association, which championed the claimant´s cause for some years. Kenealy was elected to Parliament in 1875 as a radical independent but was not an effective parliamentarian. The movement was in decline when the claimant was released in 1884, and he had no dealings with it. In 1895, he confessed to being Orton, only to recant almost immediately. He lived generally in poverty for the rest of his life and was destitute at the time of his death in 1898. Although most commentators have accepted the court´s view that the claimant was Orton, some analysts believe that an element of doubt remains as to his true identity and that, conceivably, he was Roger Tichborne. Or not.
ellauri147.html on line 203: Emily's boss Madeline prepares to make the transition from the Chicago based pharmaceutical marketing firm, the Gilbert Group, to a French based fashion firm, Savior, when she discovers that she is pregnant. She offers the job to Emily and she accepts, leaving her boyfriend back in Chicago. Emily moves to Paris despite the fact that she does not speak French. She moves into the 5th floor of an old apartment building without an elevator but with a wonderful Parisian view. Emily creates an Instagram account, @emilyinparis, and begins documenting her time in Paris. Emily starts her first day of work much to her new co-workers chagrin who reveal that she was only hired because of a business deal. She introduces the French to American social media strategies who seem very reluctant about her and her American methods. Emily accidentally tries to enter the wrong apartment and bangs her very attractive neighbor right at the door, Gabriel. As Emily accustoms to life in Paris she makes countless faux-pas and the firm nicknames her "la plouc" or "the hick". Emily meets Mindy Chen, a nanny originally from Shanghai, and they become fast friends. After Emily and her boyfriend attempt to have cybersex but the connection fails, she plugs in her vibrator and accidentally short-circuits the block's power. "Accidentally" is the top frequency word in the script.
ellauri150.html on line 606: When we return, it's Anno Domini XXVI - A.D. 26. Messala, a Roman who grew up in Judea but spent most of his life in more traditional Roman enclaves, is accepting an important position in Jerusalem under the new governor of Judea; it's a hard job, since the Jews don't want the Romans there, but he feels up to it. He is visited by his childhood friend, and our hero, Judah Ben-Hur, a very important and influential Jew. They try to pick up the friendship where it left off, but there's one big problem: they no longer have anything in common besides their shared past. They are in denial about this for a while, and Judah agrees to try to get people to accept the Romans.
ellauri150.html on line 728: I was actually thinking about writing an article about how the free sex movement came out of the 60s. The idea was to use the songs from Joni Mitchell's Blue album as the basis of the article. You know before that time sex before marriage wasn't not considered socially acceptable, because French letters were not reliable. I'm sure it still happened, but it was not done out in the open - at least not by "respectable" people.
ellauri151.html on line 113: In 1893 and 1894, Gide traveled in Northern Africa, and it was there that he came to accept his attraction to boys. (Yep, boys, he did not care for full-grown men.)
ellauri151.html on line 451: Let us assume that we invited an unknown person to a game of cards. If this person answered us, “I don’t play,” we would either interpret this to mean that he did not understand the game, or that he had an aversion to it which arose from economic, ethical, or other reasons. Let us imagine, however, that an honorable man, who was known to possess every possible skill in the game, and who was well versed in its rules and its forbidden tricks, but who could like a game and participate in it only when it was an innocent pastime, were invited into a company of clever swindlers, who were known as good players and to whom he was equal on both scores, to join them in a game. If he said, “I do not play,” we would have to join him in looking the people with whom he was talking straight in the face, and would be able to supplement his words as follows: “I don’t play, that is, with people such as you, who break the rules of the game, and rob it of its pleasure. If you offer to play a game, our mutual agreement, then, is that we recognize the capriciousness of chance as our master; and you call the science of your nimble fingers chance, and I must accept it as such, it I will, or run the risk of insulting you or choose the shame of imitating you.” … The opinion of Socrates can be summarized in these blunt words, when he said to the Sophists, the leaned men of his time, “I know nothing.” Help! TLDR!
ellauri151.html on line 593: Chalcedonian Christianity refers to the branch of Christianity that accepts and upholds theological and ecclesiological resolutions of the Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in 451. Chalcedonian Christianity accepts the Christological Definition of Chalcedon, a Christian doctrine concerning the union of two natures (divine and human) in one hypostasis of Jesus Christ, who is thus acknowledged as a single person (prosopon). Chalcedonian Christianity also accepts the Chalcedonian confirmation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, thus acknowledging the commitment of Chalcedonism to Nicene Christianity.
ellauri151.html on line 597: Chalcedonian – those that accept theological resolutions of the Council of Chalcedon;
ellauri151.html on line 599: Semi-Chalcedonian – those whose acceptance of Chalcedonian theological resolutions is partial or conditional;
ellauri151.html on line 843: [18] he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
ellauri153.html on line 397: acceptable theodicies, but God is taken to allow evils only, if they aim at a greater good. van
ellauri153.html on line 402: “God’s megaphone” to pressure human beings into accepting His salvation. Hyvä imizi. Pystyy ihan näkemään dogin mylvimässä kovaääniseen: hajaantukaa! Ei täällä ole mitään nähtävää! Law an order. Tää on taas tällästä teismiä: jumalan pyjama on tarttunut sen ize keximän koneen rattaisiin. Sorry folks, tässä nyt vaan kävi näin, lämpöverkko on epätasapainossa, eikä taulu kestä lisää sähkölaitteita, mutta voin tuoda teille lisäpattereita. Even horrendous evils
ellauri155.html on line 523: Little in the narrative tells us what we are to think of David’s actions. Perhaps the very fact that he sought security among the Philistines is enough to make his choice questionable. After all, God had shown Himself able to keep David safe within the boundaries of Israel (chs. 18–26), so David’s seeking refuge in Philistia may indicate a lapse of faith. It could be that David’s raids from Ziklag confirm this. We see how David would go out against enemies of Israel such as the Amalekites (see Ex. 17:8–16) who were in the south of Judah. After defeating them, he would bring spoil back to Achish and lie to the king, telling him that he was conducting raids on the Israelites (1 Sam. 27:8–12). We do not want to make too much of this, for some actions are acceptable in times of war that are not necessarily acceptable in times of peace (for example, industrial espionage). This was a time of war, with both Achish and the peoples David raided being actual enemies of Israel. Still, David’s successful deception put him in a quandary. Achish was so pleased with David’s work that he commissioned David to join him against Israel (28:1–2). What would he do?
ellauri155.html on line 715: The incompatibilist maintains that if our willings and choices are themselves determined by antecedent causes then we could never choose otherwise than we do. Given the antecedent causal conditions, we must always act as we do. We cannot, therefore, be held responsible for our conduct since, on this account, we have no “genuine alternatives” or “open possibilities” available to us. Incompatibilists, as already noted, do not accept that Hume’s notion of “hypothetical liberty”, as presented in the Enquiry, can deal with this objection. It is true, of course, that hypothetical liberty leaves room for the truth of conditionals that suggest that we could have acted otherwise if we had chosen to do so. However, it still remains the case, the incompatibilist argues, that the agent could not have chosen otherwise given the actual circumstances. Responsibility, they claim, requires categorical freedom to choose otherwise in the same circumstances. Hypothetical freedom alone will not suffice. One way of expressing this point in more general terms is that the incompatibilist holds that for responsibility we need more than freedom of action, we also need freedom of will – understood as a power to choose between open alternatives. Failing this, the agent has no ultimate control over her conduct.
ellauri155.html on line 754: He begins with Abraham, showing how the Lord chose this man to be His special representative out of all the people of the world. Most Christians do not struggle with accepting the truth that Abraham was chosen by God, and immediately Calvin personalizes this doctrine by using Abraham.
ellauri156.html on line 213: David is starting to become Saul-like, in that he is willing to let others go out and fight his battles for him. Among those David is willing to send in his place are Joab and Abishai. This Joab, we should recall, is a violent man. Joab was not the commander of the army of Israel by David's choice. David had distanced himself from Joab and Abishai because of the death of li'l Abner (2 Samuel 3:26-30). Joab had become the commander of Israel's armed forces because he was the first to accept David's challenge to attack Jebus (1 Chronicles 11:4-6). Suddenly, David is willing to stay at home and leave the whole of Israel's armed forces under Joab's command. I do not think David is motivated by trust in Joab as much as he is his disdain for the hardship of the campaign to take Rabbah.
ellauri156.html on line 425: David promises Bathsheba she will not die and is willing to accept God's justice for himself, knowing that he as the hero of the book is safe. Repentant, David, seeking relief from the drought and forgiveness reaches out to touch the Ark presuming that he will die of heat stroke (or was it a short?) like the soldier. A clap of thunder is heard and there are flashbacks to David's youth depicting his anointing by Samuel and his battle with Goliath. King David removes his hands from the Ark as rain falls on the dry land. Screenwriter Dunno said he "left it to the audience to decide if the blessed rain came as the result of divine intervention or simply of a low-pressure system moving in from the Mediterranean." Well it could be both, couldn't it?
ellauri156.html on line 477: The servant-spies come to David in the morning with an amazing report: “He didn't do it. He didn't even go home!” David then seeks to gently rebuke Uriah. The hypocrisy of David's actions and words are hard to accept. But accept we must, for Dave is Dog's favorite horse on whose nose he is betting his bottom dollar.
ellauri156.html on line 518: Abner is initially mentioned incidentally in Saul's history, first appearing as the son of Ner, Saul's uncle, and the commander of Saul's army. He then comes to the story again as the commander who introduced David to Saul following David's killing of Goliath. He is not mentioned in the account of the disastrous battle of Gilboa when Saul's power was crushed. Seizing the youngest but only surviving of Saul's sons, Ish-bosheth, also called Eshbaal, Abner set him up as king over Israel at Mahanaim, east of the Jordan. David, who was accepted as king by Judah alone, was meanwhile reigning at Hebron, and for some time war was carried on between the two parties.
ellauri156.html on line 613: 13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15 And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them. 32 And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; 36 and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, in foreskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated 38 (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. 39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something even better for us, to make up for the wait, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect (Hebrews 11:13-16, 32-40).
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. . .
ellauri158.html on line 688: All such opinions spring from the notion commonly entertained, that all things in nature act as men themselves act, namely, with an end in view. It is accepted as certain, that God himself directs all things to a definite goal (for it is said that God made all things for man, and man that he might worship him). I will, therefore, consider this opinion, asking first, why it obtains general credence, and why all men are naturally so prone to adopt it? secondly, I will point out its falsity; and, lastly, I will show how it has given rise to prejudices about good and bad, right and wrong, praise and blame, order and confusion, beauty and ugliness, and the like.
ellauri159.html on line 572: