ellauri096.html on line 110: Unlike the believer in ‘No man is an immortal’, the skeptic has trouble asserting ‘There is no knowledge’. For assertion expresses the belief that one knows. That is why Sextus Empiricus (Outlines of Pyrrhonism, I., 3, 226) condemns the assertion ‘There is no knowledge’ as dogmatic skepticism. Sextus prefers agnosticism about knowledge rather than skepticism (considered as “atheism” about knowledge). Yet it just as inconsistent to assert ‘No one can know whether anything is known’. For that conveys the belief that one knows that no one can know whether anything is known.
ellauri143.html on line 452: If you play what all the world condemns as wrong.
ellauri164.html on line 493: The rest of the book of Exodus and the entire book of Leviticus take place while the Israelites are encamped at the foot of Sinai. God gives Moses detailed instructions for the building of the tabernacle—a traveling tent of worship that could be assembled and disassembled for easy portability—and for making the utensils for worship, the priestly garb, and the ark of the covenant, symbolic of God’s presence among His people as well as the place where the high priest would perform the annual atonement. God also gives Moses explicit instructions on how God is to be worshiped and guidelines for maintaining purity and holiness among the people. The book of Numbers sees the Israelites move from Sinai to the edge of the Promised Land, but they refuse to go in when ten out of twelve spies bring back a bad report about Israel’s ability to take over the land. God condemns this generation of Jews to die in the wilderness for their disobedience and subjects them to forty years of wandering in the wilderness. By the end of the book of Numbers, the next generation of Israelites is back on the borders of the Promised Land and poised to trust God and take it by faith.
ellauri198.html on line 633: Tophet or Topheth (Hebrew: תֹּוֹפֶת Tōp̄eṯ; Greek: Ταφέθ (taphéth); Latin: Topheth) is a location in Jerusalem in the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna), where worshipers engaged in a ritual involving "passing a child through the fire", most likely child sacrifice. Traditionally, the sacrifices have been ascribed to a god named Moloch. The Bible condemns and forbids these sacrifices, and the tophet is eventually destroyed by king Josiah, although mentions by the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah suggest that the practices associated with the tophet may have persisted.
ellauri333.html on line 151: In the ninth rock-edict he condemns many and various vulgar ("offensive" at Shahbazgarfil) and useless ceremonies which women are practising during illness, at the marriage of a son or a daughter, at the birth of a son, and when setting out on a journey and recommends in their stead the practice of morality.
xxx/ellauri173.html on line 117: The standard line is that the 'deus' is Octavian. Interpretations of the First Eclogue have now come full circle. Much significant scholarship has centered around the problems inherent in an identification of the deus with Octavian. Some critics maintain that the poem is Virgil's thank-offering to Octavian for protection from land confiscation; others, though fewer in number, are equally as insistent that the eclogue expresses the poet's disapproval of his government´s land policy. A recent attempt has been made to unite the basic arguments of both sides into a more balanced statement. According to this interpretation Octavian is regarded as "having wrought both good and evil" in the past, but Virgil succeeds in revealing him to be "a savior, a force for good, and a source of hope for the future." To the contrary, I propose that an even stronger case can, and ought, be made that, in the First Eclogue, Virgil not only condemns the government land policy, but he also adroitly queries the very structure of Octavian's political program and ethic during this period.
xxx/ellauri380.html on line 444: Lev Navrozov, a scholar who immigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972 and who now writes for The Yale Literary Magazine, which is owned by his son Andrei, went even further than Professor Pipes. Mr. Navrozov condemns the Solzhenitsyn novel as ''a new Protocols of the Elders of Zion".
7