ellauri070.html on line 342: Their four "concentric" terms are derived from Ezekiel's vision (1:4), "And I looked and behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it..." The "Three Impure Qlippot" (completely Tamei "impure") are read in the first three terms, the intermediate "Shining Qlippah" (Nogah "brightness") is read in the fourth term, mediating as the first covering directly surrounding holiness, and capable of sublimation. In medieval Kabbalah, the Shekhinah is separated in Creation from the Sefirot by man´s sin, while in Lurianic Kabbalah Divinity is exiled in the qlippot from prior initial Catastrophe in Creation. This causes "Sparks of Holiness" to be exiled in the qlippot, Jewish Observance with physical objects redeeming mundane Nogah, while the Three Impure Qlippot are elevated indirectly through Negative prohibitions. Repentance out of love retrospectively turns sin into virtue, darkness into light. When all the sparks are freed from the qlippot, depriving them of their vitality, the Messianic era begins. In Hasidic philosophy, the kabbalistic scheme of qlippot is internalised in psychological experience as self-focus, opposite to holy devekut self-nullification, underlying its Panentheistic Monistic view of qlippot as the illusionary self-awareness of Creation.
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. . .
ellauri197.html on line 522: For example, in Baker v Bolton (1808) 1 Camp 493, a man was permitted to recover for his loss of consortium from the carriage driver while his wife languished after a carriage accident. However, once she died from her injuries, his right to recover for lost consortium ended. (After the enactment of Lord Campbell's Act (9 and 10 Vic. c. 93) the English common law continued to prohibit recovery for loss of consortium after the death of a victim). In the 1619 case Guy v. Livesey, it is clear that precedent had been established by that time that a husband's exclusive access to the sexual services of his wife was considered to fall within the concept of 'consortium', and that an adulterer might therefore be sued for depriving a cuckold of exclusive access to the sexual services of his wife. Since adultery could not otherwise be prosecuted in secular courts for most of the period after the twelfth century, loss of consortium became an important basis for prosecution for adultery in English law.
xxx/ellauri127.html on line 634: Near the end of Nabakov's Lolita, an older but humbler Humbert Humbert, miserably remorseful for "depriving Lolita of her childhood", all the while fucking her like a mini size silicone doll, quotes a (fictitious) "old poet":
xxx/ellauri440.html on line 215: Is Jesus Christ Superstar a parody? Answer and Explanation: Jesus Christ Superstar is not satire. The plot follows the baptism, ministry, and death of Jesus of Nazareth. From a religious standpoint, the purpose of the creation was neither to promote Christianity nor to satirize the belief system. Monty Python's Life of Brian is a parody of the messianic fervour in Judæa during the time of Jesus. It's considered very funny. When Norway vetoed its release there, it was marketed in Sweden as 'The film so funny it was banned in Norway'. The film's themes of religious satire were controversial at the time of its release, drawing accusations of blasphemy and protests from some religious groups. About the nearest the film gets to blasphemy is one scene in which a man complains that Jesus had healed him of leprosy without so much as by your leave., thus depriving him of his livelihood. "Spare a penny for an ex-leper" does not carry much conviction.
5