Activate the storyteller in you. Activate the stand-up comedian. Activate the internal musician, the conductor and the improviser excited to jam. Activate the nurturer, the caring gardener who celebrates the miracle of growth and wants the seeds to flourish. Activate yourself as a space, rather than a star. Activate yourself as a creature of multiple sensibilities, over and above your intellect. Activate yourself as a trust-builder. Be honestly you yourself, be authentic, be vulnerable, and be true to shared humanity. Use positive examples with the rate of at least 4-to-1.
xxx/ellauri091.html on line 299: Hauptmann's early dramas reflect the influence of Henrik Ibsen, but the production of Die Weber, a dramatization of the Silesian weavers' revolt of 1844, brought him fame as the leading playwright of his generation. Hauptmann did not only want to give realistic details, but he paid a great deal of attention to historical accuracy, and studied various dialects. His weavers are "flat-chested, coughing creatures of the looms, whose knees are bent with much sitting." The women's clothes are ragged, but some of the young girls are not without charm � they have "delicate figures, large protruding melancholy eyes." Structurally the play, which was at first banned, was innovative � there is no single, individual hero in the cast of more than 70 characters. (Didn't exceed the 80 character limit of first generation mainframe computers.)
xxx/ellauri103.html on line 226: Of course he’s exploiting her. It’s his book, and he made her up. He owns her, she is her property. He is free to fuck her, rape her, do whatever he wants. The character is his creature, to be exploited up a storm. Yet the reviewer chides that “special care should be taken with a story that’s not implicitly yours to tell” and worries that “Cleave pushes his own boundaries maybe further than they were meant to go.”
xxx/ellauri122.html on line 786: 'Frankentein' tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a doctor who brings a creature to life, only to recoil at how hideous it is.
xxx/ellauri122.html on line 787: Left tormented and in isolation, the innocent creature turns on his creator in this eloquent Gothic thriller, which touches the hearts of readers with its messages of the dangers of science and human judgment. This helps appreciate pro life ideas: do not meddle with what belongs to Mighty Mouse territory.
xxx/ellauri127.html on line 709: Endymion tarkottanee puolisukeltajaa. Kuuhullu astronomi tai sit paimen vaan. Astronomi mainitaan merenneitopätkässsä. Octopussy's garden in the waves. The 4th century Babylonian god of the sea was known as Oannes who was portrayed as a man with a fish tail in place of legs. Oannes would appear out of the ocean every day as a fish-human creature to share his wisdom with the people along the Persian Gulf, then return to the sea at night. There was also Atargatis, a Syrian moon and sea goddess, her story tells us that after causing the death of her mortal lover she fled to the sea and took the form of a woman above the waist and a fish below, for this reason she became known as a mermaid goddess. During medieval times mermaids were considered as matter-of-factly alongside other aquatic animals, such as whales and dolphins. The goddess Venus is sometimes depicted as a mermaid, being born from a giant clam shell.
xxx/ellauri129.html on line 445: Smarra gets two stars, both were disappointing chores to read. If you are considering taking up Smarra because you heard it was the earliest vampire story, I think you´re heading for disappointment. In a dream sequence, some undead creatures with sharpened teeth that like to drink blood are described, but nothing further. There´s no real vampire lore or any characterization of vampirism to sink one´s teeth into. I had a hard time figuring out the plot of Smarra, but I think it´s mostly about a man trying to wake up from bad dreams and finding out he can´t. The dreams are recounted vaguely, in terms of plot, but in excruciating detail, in terms of vision, none of which has its significance explained.
xxx/ellauri139.html on line 459: Ah, happy chance! the aged creature came, Ai kyllä kävi pulla! Iäkäs lehmä saapui,
xxx/ellauri183.html on line 260: Can a decent civilization be made from these creatures? Cohn believes that "if this small community behaved, developed, endured, it might someday—if some chimpy Father Abraham got himself born—produce its own Covenant with God." But such visions of a peaceful society are doomed, of course: envy, hatred, and violence inevitably ensue—and Cohn's mating with Mary Madelyn ("I have kept my virginity for you ever since you expwained the word to me when you first read me Rome and Juwiet") will eventually lead to murder and revolution.
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 41: To a hen, "You're a beautiful creature."
xxx/ellauri187.html on line 145: If the adolescent Rilke broke up with his adolescent girlfriend, Valerie von David-Rhônfeld, he was a treacherous seducer. Freedman quotes copiously from David-Rhônfeld's embittered memoirs--published shortly after Rilke's death--to posit a pattern in Rilke's personality. "I came to love that poor unfortunate creature," David-Rhônfeld recalls about her teenage sweetheart, "whom everyone avoided like a mangy dog." For Freedman, this vindictive picture of Rilke provides the "clue" to Rilke's "isolation."
xxx/ellauri199.html on line 89: When Poseidon desired to marry her, Amphitrite, wanting to protect "her virginity", fled to the Atlas mountains. Poseidon sent many creatures to find her. A dolphin came across Amphitrite and convinced her to marry Poseidon. As a reward for the dolphin´s help, Poseidon created the Delphinus (öresvin) constellation.
xxx/ellauri229.html on line 120: (1.) Formality. – We are such weak creatures that any regularly returning duty is apt to degenerate into a lifeless form. The tendency of reading the Word by a fixed rule may, in some minds, be to create this skeleton religion. This is to be the peculiar sin of the last days – “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” Guard against this. Let the calendar perish rather than this rust eat up your souls.
xxx/ellauri234.html on line 467: I was under the impression that almost all living creatures had at least the capacity for joie de vivre, and I assumed that it would be so for my child, as well.
xxx/ellauri235.html on line 483: Finnish author Tove Jansson was the woman behind the phenomenally successful children’s books and comics on the fictional white hippo-like creatures she called Moomins.
xxx/ellauri235.html on line 764: "Sweet creature!" said the spider, "you're witty and you're wise. Suloinen otus, sanoi hämähäkki, olet nokkela ja fixu.
xxx/ellauri239.html on line 379: Tuotantokausia oli kokonaista 11 vuosina 2010-2022. The Walking Dead takes place after the onset of a worldwide zombie apocalypse. The zombies, referred to as "walkers", shamble towards living humans and other creatures to eat them, saying "brains... brains... " They are attracted to noise, such as gunshots, and to bad smells, such as humans. Sankari on seriffi, jonka vaimo on lori. Lori on hässinyt Shanea jonka seriffi joutuu sixi tappamaan izepuolustuxexi. Non-zombieista tulee myös kannibaaleja. Jeesus käy kauppaa Hilltop Marketissa. Seriffin porukat kuitenkin listii vapahtajat ja raadonsyöjät. Paha nainen Alfasusi tekee pahoja. Paha kuvernööri Pamela koittaa uhrata rotinkaiset. Joku Daryl lähtee ezimään seriffiä ja sen uutta panopuuta Michonnea, joka on nykerönenäinen neekerinaaras jolla on katana. Siihen sarja päättyy. Selmalla on työpöydällä arvokas (lue kallis) Michonnefiguuri.
xxx/ellauri268.html on line 235: The names of the Hogwarts Houses were created on the back of an aeroplane sick bag. Yes, it was empty to start with. The increasingly dark tone of the series was inspired by Rowling’s life experiences. The Dementors, among the most frightening creatures in the franchise (sic), were inspired by the Great Depression following the gay 20´s. Or was it the Great Recession following the gay 2000's?
xxx/ellauri268.html on line 348: Many argue that the pervasive nature of antisemitic tropes means the Gringotts goblins and their ilk do no harm. Most children watching the “Harry Potter” films wouldn’t have picked up on the reference. The British charity Campaign Against Antisemitism, for example, tweeted a statement arguing that there are “centuries of association of Jews with grotesque and malevolent creatures in folklore” and that “those who continue to use such representations are often not thinking of Jews at all” but are innocently thinking “of how readers or viewers will imagine goblins to look.”
xxx/ellauri287.html on line 332: It may surprise you to know that the Bibble describes angels nothing at all like they are typically depicted in paintings. (You know, those cute little chubby babies with wings?) A passage in Ezekiel 1:1-28 gives a brilliant description of angels as four-winged creatures. In Ezekiel 10:20, we are told these angels are called cherubim. The 6-winged model is called seraphim.
xxx/ellauri287.html on line 339: Angels are mentioned 273 times in the Bibble. Although we won't look at every instance, this study will offer a comprehensive look at what the Bibble says about these fascinating creatures.
xxx/ellauri385.html on line 381: Themselves except, and creatures like themselves, Paizi izensä, ja kaltaisensa elukat,
xxx/ellauri387.html on line 282: Ye blessèd creatures, I have heard the call Te siunatut luontokappaleet, kuulin jo
xxx/ellauri452.html on line 233: The main character from the wildly popular PlayStation video game "Peeb Adventures". He is a white cloud-like creature with a grapple-hook nose. Like a wobbly penis using balls as feet. Now with a Peeb Boner button!
xxx/ellauri473.html on line 212: Mitä vetoa ettei liioin 2025 remakessa näytetä tälleen Sonjan ajeltua ukrainalaista takapillua closeup shotissa, tokko edes roopeja ilman rintaliivejä. On the plus side, its environmental focus extends to animals as well as deforestation, as Sonja fights to free several from being forced to perform in the arena and argues "no one can own the creatures of the forest." That the response to Sonja´s comment is "anyone can own anything with enough power" makes the villains of this sword and sorcery tale feel all too real and contemporary.
xxx/ellauri486.html on line 358: Rypäleitä persiissä. "He shall be the desire of the Gentiles, binding His ass to the vine, washing His robe in the blood of the grape." Se saattoi vähän kirpasta, kuten Jakob ennusti kuolinvuoteella. And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than having the largest penis, in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross.
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 154: In many traditional Christian readings, the “Adam and Eve” story is treated as a human choice that brings sin into human history, while Satan is treated as a created spiritual being whose rebellion is not something God could “undo” in the "same way." A common way to reconcile your question is: Satan’s “fall” isn’t redemption-worthy in the same category. Adam and Eve (in this framework) are people who can receive mercy after failing; Satan is understood as having persisted in rebellion rather than turning back—so there’s no “repentance moment” to parallel the Eden moment. Redemption is tied to a specific plan for humans. Christianity commonly holds that God’s rescue comes through a particular act (often described as Christ’s incarnation/sacrifice) aimed at humanity—so “redeeming Satan first” isn’t portrayed as part of the plan that addresses the human condition. Even if the Eden scene was preventable, it may serve a deeper purpose. Some interpretations say God wanted to test to what creatures do with freedom (and to set up the later “promise/solution” arc), rather than simply eliminating the possibility of wrongdoing. If you tell me which tradition/view you’re coming from (e.g., Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or a particular theology), I can match the explanation to that framework more closely.
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 158: It can feel “silly,” but most theologies that defend God’s omniscience also add a distinction: God can know outcomes and still choose a path that allows real moral agency and a meaningful relationship, rather than running a universe where wrongdoing can’t happen. Common ways this gets handled: Omniscience = foreknowledge, not forced causation. God can know Adam/Eve will fall without making them fall in the moment the way a puppetmaster causes a move. “Why allow it?” becomes a free-will / character-shaping issue. Many Christians argue God isn’t mainly trying to prevent every mistake; he’s working through a story where creatures make choices and where redemption is offered afterward. It is more fun that way, for him anyway. Different “kinds” of sin. In a lot of Christian thought, Adam and Eve’s sin is treated as a human failure that can be met with mercy, while Satan’s rebellion is treated as a hardened, ongoing refusal—so “redeem him first” isn’t seen as parallel to “save humanity first.” One more point: if you assume “God could have prevented the mistake” implies “God must prevent all mistakes whenever prevention is possible,” then you’ll always land on your conclusion. Traditional theodicies reject that assumption and instead say that preventing the possibility of moral failure isn’t the goal—even for an omniscient God. If you want, tell me what you mean by “Satan made the same mistake” (did you mean initial rebellion due to pride? or the Eden temptation itself?) and I’ll tailor the answer more tightly to that exact claim.
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 166: Right—if you’re using Aquinas, angels are created with intellect and will, and they really do choose. So the key Aquinas-style moves are usually: Satan’s “fall” is not like Eden where there’s still an opening to repent. In Aquinas’s picture, once an angel’s will makes its definitive choice for/against God, that choice becomes settled (angels don’t get “another round” in the same way humans do). God isn’t “testing Satan” like an experiment. In classical theology, God allows creatures to choose, but it’s not God setting up a trap to see what happens. The moral drama comes from the creature’s will turning (or refusing to turn) toward God. Why not “redeem first”? In the Thomistic frame, the problem isn’t that God didn’t know; it’s that redemption as a “second chance” presupposes a will that will accept it. If the angel’s decision is definitive refusal, then there’s nothing for God to “straighten out” without negating the very kind of choice Aquinas says angels have. If you want, tell me whether you’re working from Aquinas’s exact claims you mean (e.g., about angelic knowledge, the definitiveness/immutability of angelic choice, or “permission vs. causation”), and I’ll map the argument in that same vocabulary.
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 170: I get why it sounds primitive if you reduce it to “God could stop it but didn’t.” In Aquinas-style theodicy, the point isn’t that God is helpless or that He’s doing trial-and-error; it’s closer to: God doesn’t cause the creature’s wrong choice. He allows creaturely agency to produce real consequences. Once an angel’s will makes its definitive turn away from God, there isn’t an “edit this moment” correction that preserves what Aquinas thinks makes the choice morally real (and, classically, that choice is not like a human who can genuinely change course later). So “what could God do?” doesn’t mean “whack/bang/ouch” as if God is improvising; it means “why allow a universe where created wills can definitively commit themselves,” and classical theology says that’s the cost of genuine agency and a meaningful ordered cosmos—not a clumsy mechanic. If you tell me what exact Aquinas premise you’re relying on most (immutability of angelic choice, permission vs. causation, or something else), I can give the cleanest argument for why that premise implies “no redemption-first” without making God seem reactive.
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 174: Your reaction is coherent: if God can do anything, then why create beings who can definitively choose against him, and why not create “happy animals” instead. In Christian philosophy (including Aquinas-adjacent lines), the standard response is essentially: God isn’t choosing between “happiness with no freedom” and “chaos,” but between kinds of goods. A common version goes like this: Freedom is a real good. Created persons can love, obey, worship, and genuinely choose. “No free choice” trades away not just the possibility of sin, but also the possibility of love and moral/covenant relationship. Omnipotence doesn’t mean “make any set of values compatible.” The classic view is that there are realities like “created agency” and “definitive choices” that can’t both be preserved while also guaranteeing that no creature ever chooses wrongly. The “circus” is not trial-and-error but a created order with intelligible consequences. God permits the misuse of freedom rather than coercing away misuse, because coercion would undermine the kind of relationship and moral order being created. That still leaves the emotional/ethical punch of your last line (“I’d rather have no freedom than sin-capable freedom”), and many people who find the metaphysics unpersuasive land there: freedom is too expensive. If you’re open to it, I can answer in the most direct way by taking your preference seriously: do you want the argument for why “no freedom” is worse than it sounds, or do you want the argument for why God’s omnipotence allows more than “could have prevented this one outcome” (i.e., a deeper take on the “why create at all” question)?
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 181: Got it: if you don’t grant a special “humans are the only real moral agents” status, then the usual theist move (“love/worship require human-like choice”) won’t land. One consistent reply you’ll run into is that theism isn’t claiming animals lack “friendship” or “tool use”; it’s claiming they lack the specific kind of agency/understanding that grounds moral responsibility (e.g., grasping God as God, willing against known truth, covenant/obligation in a way animals don’t). If you reject that as well, then the whole “free choice is worth it” defense starts to collapse—because you’re basically saying: if nonhuman life can have all the good things without the same trouble, why not build the universe that way?—which is exactly the objection you’re raising. If you want a sharper discussion: are you rejecting the idea that moral responsibility requires knowledge/intent (so animals could, in principle, be morally blameworthy), or are you rejecting the claim that God couldn’t have created every creature with the good features but without the “Satan/Adam” failure mode?
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 183: If you don’t care about praise/blame, then a lot of the classic free-will theodicy loses its main engine. A more direct way some people respond in that case is: the “point” of creation isn’t moral bookkeeping (praise/blame) but the existence of a kind of order where creatures can pursue goods, relate, and participate in meaning—and wrongdoing is part of the risk whenever you allow self-directed agency. If you reject that agency is worth the cost, then the remaining options are basically (i) God chooses a different order (no failures, but also less self-direction), or (ii) God’s reasons aren’t humanly intuitive. If you don’t mind, I’ll ask one question to aim the discussion: do you reject the value of self-directed agency itself, or do you reject God’s choice to allow suffering/failure given omnipotence?
xxx/ellauri506.html on line 226: The theme of the work deals with Cummings' growing disappointment with the squalor and inefficiency he saw in the USSR, as well as the lack of intellectual and artistic freedom he observed. In it, he described the Soviet Union as an "uncircus of noncreatures." Lenin's tomb, in which his preserved body is on display, especially revolted Cummings and inspired him to create the most dynamic writing in the book.
98