His earliest volume of verse was published in 1889, and its slow-paced and lyrical poems display debts to Edmund Spenser, Percy Bysshe Shelley, and the poets of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood.

The ultimate goal of Judaism is rule of the world by Satan, and to literally unleash hell upon the earth. 

Are you aware that Martin Luther wrote a treatise called "On the Jews and Their Lies", warning Christians in the most serious terms of the destructive influence of the jews, and advocating their banishment from European society? Luther was very knowledgeable of the religion, nature, origins, and influence of the Jews - having actually read the Talmud and written large parts of the Bible. Luther describes the Jews as an accursed, malicious, greedy, cunning, treacherous, thieving, and greatly evil people, who are descended from the very people who murdered the Messiah, who deeply hate Christianity and God's people, and are working in every possible way to undermine and destroy Western Christian civilization. Among other things, Luther rubbishes the Talmud, including its vicious hatred of Jesus and Christians, as well as relishing the many times Jews have been expelled from European nations.
ellauri063.html on line 345: Kooperatiivisessa peliteoriassa pelaajia edustavat tiimit, joista yxityiset pelaajat voivat tarvittaessa livetä. Se että johtavalla tiimillä tai sen influensserilla on jotain vastuuta, tarkottaa vaan että jos tiimi ei riittävästi palvele tiimin jäsenten mieskohtaisia etuja, ne äänestävät jaloillaan ja siirtyy toiseen tiimiin, ja johtavasta tiimistä ja sen pomokärpäsestä tulee säälittävä häviäjä. Alan papereita on kiehtovahko lukea, etenkin siltä kantilta että minkälaisiin tasapainokäsitteisiin tutkijat on päätyneet. Niissä näkyy tän apinaköörin perimmäinen izekkyys. Samoilla linjoilla mennään kuin hyvässä kirjassa: sille jolla on sille annetaan, ja siltä jolla ei ole mitään otetaan sekin tyhjä pois. Täähän ei oo muuta kuin koronkorkolaskun kaava, kasvuräjähdys. Ei siihen tarvi mitään moraalia sotkea. Puhdasta determinismiä se on.
ellauri066.html on line 320: Tietysti, näissä sanaleikeissä on tavallisesti jotain syvällistä eikä vaan älytöntä kohkausta. Tyrone Slothrop esim. Painovoiman sateenkaaressa sisältää sanan sloth, joka on avain sen luonteeseen, ja lisäxi vielä anagrammin hienosta sanasta entropia, joka on avain Slothropin epätavalliseen kohtaloon. Kun Tompan kirjoissa on yleensä satoja tälläsiä pellejä, niistä on koottu kokonaisia sanakirjoja, kuten Pynchon Character Names: A Dictionary by Patrick Hurley, ja lukemattomia lukijan oppaita, wikejä, väitöskirjoja ja fanisivustoja joissa jokainen vizi seikkaperäisesti selitetään, plus mikä niissä oli olevinaan hupaisaa.
ellauri069.html on line 133: Jenkkipersereiät lukee Nipistintä jae jakeelta kuin niiden pyhiinvaeltajaiskät ammoin pyhää kirjaa. Joka hassu nimi, joka lerppu läppä on selitetty ihan puhki. Mix? Kait tää sit on niiden uus Pyhä kirja. Ja yhteistä entiselle näyttää olevan, et tää on lähinnä setämiesten pyhää sanaa. Typyköitä tuskin paljon kiinnostaa Pynchonin seisokkien luettelointi.
ellauri069.html on line 422: Ajatusvirhe salaliittoteorioissa on se talousliberalistien peliteoreettinen oletus että jengi on jotain ovelia pelaajia. (Tätä Nipsu näyttää välillä vähän izekin epäilevän). Ei ne ole, porukat on oikeasti clueless kuin kanat, koirat tai muutkin apinat. Ei ne täällä ole pelaamassa mitään shakkipeliä, eikä sixi tarvita salaisia koalitioita eikä viestejä jotta kaikki menee kulloinkin pintaan nousevien kökkäreiden mielen mukaan. Kaikki on jo luonnostaan niiden kanssa samaa mieltä: kaikki heti tänne mulle nyt. Komma muminspelet, heitä noppaa uudestaan. Voi, tahmatassu on syönyt aarteesi, palaa muumitaloon ja ala alusta.
ellauri072.html on line 652: Liittyyköhän tää jollain lailla Humen giljotiiniin, joka on ilmeinen talousliberaali kusetus. Pelaajien preferenssit on otettava annettuna, se on peliteorian perusoletuxia. Ei pelaajia muuten huoletta voi tuomita eikä luotettavasti laskea pelin arvoa.
ellauri074.html on line 664: Paul osallistui Robinhoodina Elon Muskin joukoissa Wall Streetin rahavallan ryöstelyyn ostamalla arvottomia Gamestopin stonxeja. Osakkeita lyhyexi myyville paskiaisille jäi lyhyt tikku käteen. Kapitalistit oli haavi auki yhtä kauhuissaan kuin poliitikot aiemmin rupusakin alkaessa sekaantua netin kautta isojen poikien sulle mulle leikkeihin. Tää ei nyt tosiaankaan ollut tarkoitus. No jos tää johtaa kapitalismin ja talousliberalismin romahduxeen se on sen arvoista. Hesarin apupojat koittaa toppuutella ja selitellä asioita omistavan luokan kannalta parhain päin tavalliseen tapaansa. Yxi promille apinoista on omistavinaan leijonan osan koko maapallosta. Repikää siitä stonxia sonnit ja karhukaiset. Wall streetillä nuoret ottaa belfieitä sonnin perseestä. Pökäle pilkottaa. Toistan: pökäle pilkottaa. Niincuin Callelta Munksnäshemmetin sängyllä.
ellauri077.html on line 109: Masisten välillä Wallun opinnot edistyivät mainiosti. Se kirjoitti esseen ‘Richard Taylorin fatalismi ja fyysisen modaliteetin semantiikka' filosofian sivulavina. (Hizi tääkin tulee lähelle mun omaa sivulavia, jossa tutkin samaa modaliteettia peliteorian käsitteistön avulla. Olen varma että mun analyyssi oli parempi.) Se sai siitä Gail Kennedyn muistopalkinnon. Vuonna 2011, lavi julkaistiin nimellä ‘Kohtalo, aika ja kieli: yritelmä vapaasta tahdosta'. Tää mun kyllä pitäs lukea!
ellauri077.html on line 249: Clara on liian paha pala purtavaxi tässä joten riittäköön tää maininta. Tämän paasauxen aiheen kannalta on "jännintä" miten ennustettavaa on pedofiilisaarnaajien toiminta. Ne toimi kaikki ihan prikulleen samalla tavalla joka vedolla kuin junan vessa. Ja sitvielä jotkut jaxaa jauhaa että apina on joku peliteorian pelaaja joka voi ihan vapaasti valita minkä strategian haluaa. Mutta siinähän se nixi juuri on! Peliteoria just selittää mixi se aina valizee samalla ennustettavalla tavalla: se koittaa valita sitä mitä se kulloinkin haluaa. Ja sitä se ei voi valita mitä se kulloinkin haluaa. Tuskin se tietää sitä edes jälkeenpäin. Tästä Wallu vähän vekuttaakin Läpässä (Barret s. 377).
ellauri077.html on line 563: Six Wallun siirto on sama kuin Lordi Greystoken: paluu viidakkoon, housut pois ja takas liaanista heilumaan. Jane ota kiinni mistä saat. (Siitä tuli Tarzan huuto, vanha läppä joo.) Eli anti-ironiaa kehiin, vilpittömyyttä, aka gooey sentiment. Oireellista että Kierkegaard, toi 1800-luvun alun Nygaard, kuzuu sitä valizemisex. Se on markkinatalouden ja sitä kuvailevan peliteorian avaintermi: hmm, minkähän mä nyt näistä ottasin. Nygaardkin valikoi mitä pyllyä se nipistelisi. Todellisuus on "lahja" ja "tehtävä". Näissä sanoissa on takana toisaalta hurahtaneille rakas ilmaisexi eli anteexi saaminen ja toisaalta ilmaisesta näytteestä seuraava ylhäältäpäin käskytys, sisäistetyn herruuden velkakirja.
ellauri077.html on line 592: Ekfrasis voi tarkoittaa myös sitä, että yhden taiteen avulla selitetään tai kuvataan toista, esimerkiksi kirjallisuudessa maalausta, maalauksessa musiikkia tai musiikissa kirjallisuutta.
ellauri079.html on line 180: Alanootti 123 on pelkkää teinipoikamaista pöyhistelyä. Ei se väliarvo ole mikään keskiarvo. Sitäpaizi lähtöoletuxet on alkaa päälle älyttömiä, ei pelaajien pelisuoritusten joukko ole jatkuva, se on äärellinen joukko arvoja, jotka voi heitellä ihan vapaasti. Eli meillä ei ole mitään jatkuvaa saati derivoituvaa äffää annettuna. Tää nootti on yxinkertaisesti vaan paskaa, typerää sumutusta, sori "Wall-e". Mutta oireellista on että "Wall-e" kiskoo tässä mukaan peliteoriaa. Se on talousliberaalien mieluisin lyömäase.
ellauri080.html on line 633: Eskaton-pelin aikana Wallulla on 1 hyvä huomio (koska mä olin kexinyt sen jo 70-luvulla): peliteoria on sikäli perseestä että pelin pelaajat on muka pelin ulkopuolella kuin jotkut jumalat, niihin ei voi osua. Näinhän ei oikeasti ole, vaan pelllauta sisältää myös pelaajat jotka muuttuvat kun peli etenee. Kukaan ei oikeasti päätä yhtään mistään, shit just happens. Loordi pelinjohtajana pyörittää punaiseen pipoon kiinnitettyä propellia, joka tarkoittaa että maailmanloppu ei ole tulossa, vaan jo päällä.
ellauri080.html on line 834: Kukahan se oli? Jenkkimoraalin taustaoletus on kapitalismin kasvuräjähdys, win-win näät perustuu sellaiseen. Nollasummapeliin se ei sovi. Jos asia ei ratkea tarjouskilpailulla, se on politiikkaa sanoo paskiaiset. Vitun tarjouskilpailut. Jopa Milton Friedmanin ja sen Chicagon roistokoplan oma peliteoria todistaa että sellaisissa voittaa rikas köyhät 6-0, koska sillä on varaa hävitä tarjouskilpailussa enemmän. Nälkäinen karvakäsi Eesau häviää koko taivaosansa ja luihu Jakob hähättelee koko matkan pankkiin.
ellauri088.html on line 51: Tulokas vie apainaköörin mystiselle, ja aika ajoin pelottavalle matkalle, mutta loppuu sentään optimistisella nuotilla (eihän se muuten Hollywood-raina olisikaan). Filmin lopussa (siis sen toisessa päässä, voishan sen kelata lopusta alkuunkin), kaikki maailman proletaarlaset yhinöivät yhteen, huomattuaan että ne ja niiden seizenjalkaiset kaverit on kaikki humanisteja ja osa paljon suurempaa universumia. (Eikö ne muka tienneet sitä ennestään?) Mikä tärkeintä, apinarotu - Louisa Banx etunenässä - on ottanut naisen askeleen joka olisi ollut liian iso miehelle, se on evolvoinut pitemmälle kuin kukaan, sillä se on ratkaissut matukielen arvoituxen, ja pystyy kelaaman ajan videota eteen ja takaisin ihan vapaasti, hitaasti ja nopeasti ja vaikka pysäytyskuvalla. Se on kyllä katastrofaalinen ajatus peliteoriaan perustuvalle yritteliäisyydelle. Mitä kanzii jännätä ja pinnistää jos voi etukäteen kelata filmin The Endin kohdalle? Kamala spoileri.
ellauri088.html on line 240: Apinat ja bordercolliet osaa harhauttaa. Siihen tarvitaan kyky asettua toisen sijalle. Episteemisen logiikan mielessä kysytään iteroituja operaattoreita. Niistä lähtee liikkeelle myös peliteoria. Eikä siinä kaikki, pitää osata kuvitella miltä ize näyttää toisen silmissä.
ellauri089.html on line 369: No täähän on vaan peliteorian tuttu erottelu preferenssien ja parhaan strategian välillä. Päämäärä ja keinot. Ja seuraavaxi varmaan sitten pohditaan pyhittääkö toinen toiset. Mikä on yxi variaatio vanhasta individualismi-totalitärismi teemasta. Ollakko erakkomehiläisiä vai termiittejä. Onko 1 hyvä + 2 kaunista meikäläiselle yhtä kuin 3 pahaa tai rumaa temppua jollekulle toiselle? Ovatko eri yxilöiden tai muiden arvioinnin dimensioiden moraaliset suuntaviivat kohtisuorassa vai vähän vinossa? Jos ne ovat vinossa, saadaan hinta vaikka isoäidille.
ellauri094.html on line 231: In the Hebrew Bible, the captivity in Babylon is presented as a punishment for idolatry and disobedience to Yahweh in a similar way to the presentation of Israelite slavery in Egypt followed by deliverance. The Babylonian Captivity had a number of serious effects on Judaism and Jewish culture. For example, the current Hebrew alphabet was adopted during this period, replacing the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet.
ellauri095.html on line 119: Hopkins's initial ambition was to be a painter – he would continue to sketch throughout his life and was inspired as an adult by the work of John Ruskin and the Pre-Raphaelites.
ellauri095.html on line 248: Hopkins invites a comparison between his persona and Christina’s erstwhile lover, James Collinson, who also became a follower of the Pre-Raphaelites and convert to Catholicism and, for a while, a Jesuit. Eventually, by converting to Catholicism himself and joining the Society of Jesus, Hopkins exchanged the inferior position articulated in “A Voice from the World” for a superior one, superior at least in the sense that Christina Rossetti apparently felt that her sister Maria, who actually did cross the convent threshold and become a religious, had achieved a higher stage of religious development than she herself did.
ellauri095.html on line 394: Rossetti oli italialaisten ulkomaalaisten toinen lapsi ja vanhin poika. Hänen isänsä Gabriele Rossetti oli Dante-tutkija, joka oli karkotettu Napolista räävittömän runouden kirjoittamisesta Napolin vuoden 1819 perustuslain tukemiseksi. Rossettin äiti oli kouluttautunut kasvatusneuvottelijaksi ja valvoi lastensa varhaiskasvatusta. Harvat viktoriaaniset perheet olivat yhtä lahjakkaita kuin Rossettis: vanhin lapsi, Maria Rossetti, julkaisi A Shadow of Dante (1871) ja hänestä tuli anglikaaninen nunna; William Michael Rossetti oli yhdessä veljensä kanssa Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhoodin aktiivinen jäsen ja hänestä tuli toimittaja, kirjainten mies ja muistelija; nuorimmasta, Christina Georgina Rossetista, tuli tärkeä ja vaikutusvaltainen lyyrinen runoilija.
ellauri095.html on line 453: Christina Rossetti became for Hopkins the embodiment of the medievalism of the Pre-Raphaelites, the Oxford Movement, and Victorian religious poetry generally. In the 1860s Hopkins was profoundly influenced by her example and succeeded, unbeknownst to her and to the critics of his time, in becoming a rival far greater than any of her contemporaries.
ellauri095.html on line 455: Their rivalry began with Hopkins’s response to her poem “The Convent Threshold.” Geoffrey Hartman was clearly on the right track when he suggested in the introduction to Hopkins: A Collection of Critical Essays (1966) that “Hopkins seems to develop his lyric structures out of the Pre-Raphaelite dream vision. In his early ‘A Vision of the Mermaids’; and ‘St. Dorothea’; he may be struggling with such poems as Christina Rossetti’s ‘Convent Threshold’; and Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s ‘The Blessed Damozel,’ poems in which the poet stands at a lower level than the vision, or is irrevocably, pathetically distanced.” Such poems were the essence of medievalism in poetry according to William Morris, who felt that Keats’s “La Belle Dame Sans Merci” was the germ from which all Pre-Raphaelite poetry sprang. Standing beyond Keats, however, the primary source was Dante. Christina Rossetti clearly alludes to Beatrice’s appeal to Dante in “The Convent Threshold”:
ellauri095.html on line 533: His religious consciousness increased dramatically when he entered Oxford, the city of spires. From April of 1863, when he first arrived with some of his journals, drawings, and early Keatsian poems in hand, until June of 1867 when he graduated, Hopkins felt the charm of Oxford, “steeped in sentiment as she lies,” as Matthew Arnold had said, “spreading her gardens to the moonlight and whispering from her towers the last enchantments of the Middle Ages.” Here he became more fully aware of the religious implications of the medievalism of Ruskin, Dixon, and the Pre-Raphaelites. Inspired also by Christina Rossetti, the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of God in the Eucharist, and by the Victorian preoccupation with the fifteenth-century Italian religious reformer Girolamo Savonarola, he soon embraced Ruskin’s definition of “Medievalism” as a “confession of Christ” opposed to both “Classicalism” (“Pagan Faith”) and “Modernism” (the “denial of Christ”).
ellauri096.html on line 51: Vapaan tahdon pähkinään liittyy tää ennaltatietämisen ongelma. Ennaltatietämisen ongelma on tämmönen teologinen knoppi, johon liittyy peliteoriasta tuttu tiedon iterointi ja vuorotellen arvailu. Kehäajattelua ja omaa häntäänsä purevia todistuxia. Mise en abime-heijastuxia, Drostepurkkeja, narsisteja kazomassa izeänsä tiukasti peiliin. Logiikka ei pidä sellaisesta, kuten paradoxit osoittavat. Yhtenä vuotena kun olin vähän maaninen olin ymmärtävinäni siitä jotakin. Taisi olla taas pääsiäisen aikoja, sillä ajattelin munankuoria: finiittinen logiikka kuten BA antaa kuoren sulkeutua munaxi, infinitaarinen kuten ZF avaa kuoren auki loppumattomasti kohti taivasta.
ellauri098.html on line 212: SPOILERI: Nun /ˈnʊn/, in the Hebrew Bible, was a man from the Tribe of Ephraim, grandson of Ammihud, son of Elishama, and father of Joshua (1 Chronicles 7:26–27). Nun grew up in and may have lived his entire life in the Israelites´ Egyptian captivity, where the Egyptians "made life bitter for them with harsh labor at mortar and bricks and with all sorts of tasks in the field" (Exodus 1:14). In Aramaic, "nun" means "fish". Thus the Midrash tells: "[T]he son of him whose name was as the name of a fish would lead them [the Israelites] into the land" (Genesis Rabba 97:3).
ellauri099.html on line 211: Whatever the truth of the matter, Aristotle’s endowment allowed him to build a huge research and teaching facility and amass the largest and most important library in the world. During the time of Theophrastus, Aristotle’s successor as scholarch and clearly a very effective college president, there were as many as 2,000 pupils at the Lyceum, some of them sleeping in dormitories. The Lyceum was clearly the place to be, the educational destination of choice for the elites.
ellauri100.html on line 1322: Toisessa vaiheessa sillä on tiedollinen semiotiikka (sémiotique cognitive), missä määritellään kuka tietää ja osaa mitäkin. (Tää ois niinku peliteoriassa siirrot ja pelin informaatioa sekä niistä johdetut strategiajoukot.) Niitä varten on joku modaalinen kielioppi. Tulee mieleen vähän mun dialogipelit ja niiden perustana olleet peliteoreettiset toiminnan modaliteetit. Hizi että nekin on lähes kokonaan jo unohtuneet mielestä.
ellauri100.html on line 1324: Viimeinen vaihe tutkii miten passiot (eliskä siis pelaajien preferenssit?!) modifioi subjektien toimintaa ja käsityxiä (sémiotique de passions) ja miten niiden tieto ja uskomuxet vaikuttaa niiden suorituxiin. Tällä tavoin selitettynä ei Greimiemin akan pojan puuhastelut vaikutakaan niin pönttöpäisiltä, koska ne alkaa kuulostaa ihan mun omilta ajatuxilta... Paizi et ei mun miälestä kertomuxet ole tässä pääasia, vaan ne pelit. Niitä pelejä on kiinnostavampiakin kuin kertomuxet, jotka on yleensä aika monologisia kuvauxia niistä. Juonen kaivaminen esille kertomuxista on yleensä aika riskialtista, koska mahollisia pelin rekonstruktioita on niin monta. Tästä mulla on monia tärkeitä kirjoitelmia, vaikka julkaisemattomia.
ellauri101.html on line 615: Globally, there is evidence that the average age of pubertal onset among girls has decreased considerably compared to the twentieth century, with implications for their welfare and their future. In addition, adolescents and young adults have higher rates of allergies, higher awareness and diagnoses of mental health problems, and are more likely to be sleep-deprived. In many countries, youths are more likely to have intellectual disabilities and psychiatric disorders than older people. In some European nations, they are facing declining cognitive abilities, especially among the cognitive elites.
ellauri102.html on line 361: Tää on itkettävän säälittävää, ja raivostuttavaa. Raivostuttavimpia on tollaset talousnobelistit niinkun se suomenruozalainen Bengt Holmströmin turvelo joka kehtaa selittää et tää on vaan business as usual, tervettä liikemiesvainua. Et peliteoriakin todistaa mix vahvemmalle pitää tulla enemmän. Niihän se tekee tietysti, se on Darwinilla tiedossa.
ellauri106.html on line 130: Given long-standing feminist arguments that Roth is a misogynist—not to mention the portrait in Bloom’s memoirs—it was inevitable that any Roth biography would spark arguments about gender politics. What was surprising is that the debate would center around the biographer more than Roth. In the wake of the biography’s release, Bailey has been accused of shocking acts. Four former students from the elite New Orleans high school where he’d taught during the 1990s came forward to complain that he had groomed them as minors and sexually pursued them as adults. One of these women claimed he raped her. Another former student came forward with an allegation of attempted rape when she was an adult. Finally, Valentina Rice, a New York publishing executive, told The New York Times that Bailey raped her in 2015. Bailey strenuously denies all these allegations.
ellauri106.html on line 175: Word has come that Philip Roth died on Tuesday in New York City at the age of 85. He was widely considered the last of the Great American Novelists of the late 20th Century the peer of heavy hitters John Updike and Saul Bellow. Roth himself believed that the novel, which had ruled for a century as the supreme and exalted American literary form, is doomed to becoming a cult niche in the Age of the Internet for a diminishing educated elite, “I think always people will be reading them but it will be a small group of people. Maybe more people than now read Latin poetry, but somewhere in that range…” Ever a realist, Roth was sanguine with the prospect.
ellauri106.html on line 179: Today the lengthy obituaries are all laudatory. Tomorrow or the next day I can safely predict that the backlash will begin with harshly critical essays. Leading the way will be Feminists critics who will denounce the whole cabal of elite white men as the custodians of the literary cannon. More pointedly they will charge Roth with toxic masculinity and misogyny and will come loaded for bear with plenty of quotes from his work. They will also have the example and testimony of his two ex-wives, both of whom showed up thinly disguised in his novels—a Margaret Martinson in When She Was Good and actress Clare Bloom in I Married a Communist. Bloom penned her own bitter exposé of their 14-year-long relationship and four year marriage in he memoir Leaving the Doll’s House.
ellauri106.html on line 390: Given long-standing feminist arguments that Roth is a misogynist—not to mention the portrait in Bloom’s memoirs—it was inevitable that any Roth biography would spark arguments about gender politics. What was surprising is that the debate would center around the biographer more than Roth. In the wake of the biography’s release, Bailey has been accused of shocking acts. Four former students from the elite New Orleans high school where he’d taught during the 1990s came forward to complain that he had groomed them as minors and sexually pursued them as adults. One of these women claimed he raped her. Another former student came forward with an allegation of attempted rape when she was an adult. Finally, Valentina Rice, a New York publishing executive, told The New York Times that Bailey raped her in 2015. Bailey strenuously denies all these allegations.
ellauri108.html on line 63: Jah or Yah (Hebrew: יה‎, Yah) is a short form of Hebrew: יהוה‎ (YHWH), the four letters that form the tetragrammaton, the personal name of God: Yahweh, which the ancient Israelites used. The conventional Christian English pronunciation of Jah is /ˈdʒɑː/, even though the letter J here transliterates the palatal approximant (Hebrew י Yodh). The spelling Yah is designed to make the pronunciation /ˈjɑː/ explicit in an English-language context (see also romanization of Hebrew), especially for Christians who may not use Hebrew regularly during prayer and study.
ellauri108.html on line 110: Practitioners of Rastafari identify themselves with the ancient Israelites—God's chosen people in the Old Testament—and believe that black Africans broadly or Rastas more specifically are either the descendants or the reincarnations of this ancient people. This is similar to beliefs in Judaism, although many Rastas believe that contemporary Jews' status as the descendants of the ancient Israelites is a false claim. Rastas typically believe that black Africans are God's chosen people, meaning that they made a covenant with him and thus have a special responsibility. Rastafari espouses the view that this, the true identity of black Africans, has been lost and needs to be reclaimed.
ellauri108.html on line 115: Rastafari teaches that the black African diaspora are exiles living in "Babylon", a term which it applies to Western society. For Rastas, European colonialism and global capitalism are regarded as manifestations of Babylon, while police and soldiers are viewed as its agents. The term "Babylon" is adopted because of its Biblical associations. In the Old Testament, Babylon is the Mesopotamian city where the Israelites were held captive, exiled from their homeland, between 597 and 586 BCE; Rastas compare the exile of the Israelites in Mesopotamia to the exile of the African diaspora outside Africa. In the New Testament, "Babylon" is used as a euphemism for the Roman Empire, which was regarded as acting in a destructive manner that was akin to the way in which the ancient Babylonians acted. Rastas perceive the exile of the black African diaspora in Babylon as an experience of great suffering, with the term "suffering" having a significant place in Rasta discourse.
ellauri108.html on line 256: Rastas often claim that—rather than converting to the religion—they were actually always a Rasta and that their embrace of its beliefs was merely the realisation of this. There is no formal ritual carried out to mark an individual's entry into the Rastafari movement, although once they do join an individual often changes their name, with many including the prefix "Ras". Rastas regard themselves as an exclusive and elite community, membership of which is restricted to those who have the "insight" to recognise Haile Selassie's importance. Practitioners thus often regard themselves as the "enlightened ones" who have "seen the light". Many of them see no point in establishing good relations with non-Rastas, believing that the latter will never accept Rastafari doctrine as truth.
ellauri108.html on line 428: Through God's miraculous deliverance of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego that day, Nebuchadnezzar declared that the remaining Israelites in captivity were now protected from harm and were guaranteed freedom of worship. And Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego received a royal promotion.
ellauri108.html on line 463: Practitioners of Rastafari identify themselves with the ancient Israelites—God's chosen people in the Old Testament—and believe that black Africans broadly or Rastas more specifically are either the descendants or the reincarnations of this ancient people.[102] This is similar to beliefs in Judaism,[103] although many Rastas believe that contemporary Jews' status as the descendants of the ancient Israelites is a false claim.[104] Rastas typically believe that black Africans are God's chosen people, meaning that they made a covenant with him and thus have a special responsibility. Rastafari espouses the view that this, the true identity of black Africans, has been lost and needs to be reclaimed. Some Rasta sects reject the notion that a white European can ever be a legitimate Rasta.
ellauri108.html on line 467: Rastafari teaches that the black African diaspora are exiles living in "Babylon", a term which it applies to Western society. For Rastas, European colonialism and global capitalism are regarded as manifestations of Babylon, while police and soldiers are viewed as its agents.The term "Babylon" is adopted because of its Biblical associations. In the Old Testament, Babylon is the Mesopotamian city where the Israelites were held captive, exiled from their homeland, between 597 and 586 BCE; Rastas compare the exile of the Israelites in Mesopotamia to the exile of the African diaspora outside Africa. In the New Testament, "Babylon" is used as a euphemism for the Roman Empire, which was regarded as acting in a destructive manner that was akin to the way in which the ancient Babylonians acted. Rastas perceive the exile of the black African diaspora in Babylon as an experience of great suffering, with the term "suffering" having a significant place in Rasta discourse.
ellauri115.html on line 332: Vittu uskonnotkin on tota samaa peliteoriaa, sillä erotuxella että tit for tat tapahtuu haudan takana. Huonolla mailalla tai pelionnella pelannut surkimus saa ylituomarilta hyvitystä kärsimistään takaiskuista kuin takarivissä korista pelannut lyhyenläntä Kimmo Koskenniemi vapaaheittoja isoveljien taklausvirheistä.
ellauri115.html on line 667: Joopajoo, jos Voltaire edusti kapitalismin materialistista uskontunnustusta, tää Rousseau on sen konservatiivinen siipi. Se on ize asiassa hämmästyttävän samasta puusta veistetty puujumala kuin Haju Sipilä. No keskustakonservatiivejähän ja lessuja ne on molemmat. Hajunkin kannattaisi hommata peruukki, ja Rousseau olis vaikuttanut fixummalta silmälaseissa. Tää vapaatahtohölinä on oleellinen elementti talousliberalismin peliteoreettisessa semantiikassa, ja se oikeuttaa köyhien kyykytyxen, koska ne on tyhmiä, ja sixi tuhmia].
ellauri115.html on line 683: Kun kaikki on hyvin, ei ole sellaista kuin epäoikeudenmukaisuus. Oikeus ja hyvyys on erottamattomia; hyvyys on välttämätön seuraus supervoimista ja izerakkaudesta joka on synnynnäistä kaikissa herkissä olennoissa. [Tää kuulostaa aivan tuubalta?! Tai vähintäänkin aivan vitun narsistiselta.] Kaikkivoiva heittää kuvansa, niin sanoaxeni, kuin yliolanheittimellä luomiinsa nautoihin. Luominen ja säilöminen on powerin ikuista duunia; se ei toimi siihen mitä ei ole olemassa; Jumala ei ole kuolleiden jumala [no tää nyt ainakin on harhaoppia!]; se ei voi aiheuttaa harmia ja tuhoa vahingoittamatta izeään. Kaikkivoipa voi haluta vain hyvää. [Jalkanuotti: Muinaiset olivat oikeassa kun ne kuzuivat ylijumalaa optimixi maximixi, mutta olisi ollut vielä parempi sanoa sitä maximixi optimixi, sillä sen hyvyys johtuu sen voimista, se on good koska se on great. Tääkin kuulostaa taaas ihan peliteorialta.] Six se joka on eniten hyvä, koska se on eniten skrode, on myös ylioikeudenmukainen, muuten se puhuisi ristiin kuin liito-orava; sillä se järjestyxen rakkautta joka luo järjestystä me sanotaan hyväxi, ja sitä järjestyxen rakkautta joka pitää sitä pystyssä me sanotaan oikeudexi. Diktatuuria peliin ja poliisivoimia. Ei ihme että Russell sanoi kaimaansa protofasistixi.]]
ellauri115.html on line 1189: Narsistille elämä on peliä. Haastatellut kertovat narsistien viljelevän peliteoreettista sanastoa myös arkipuheessa. No sitäkään mä en tee, en pidä peleistä. Olenhan epäonnistunut narsisti. Kielteinen ja vahingoittava kateus kuuluu perisynteihini. En tunne kateuden positiivista muotoa joka muistuttaa ihailua ja saa kilpailemaan kovemmin.
ellauri118.html on line 548: Dialogipeliteoriassa texti on koherentti jos sen voi laajentaa hyvin pelatuxi pelixi. Tää on parempi tapa sanoa mitä Culler tarkotti, nim. että aapat konstruoivat texteistä tarinoita joilla on joku juoni jossa kaikilla pelaajilla on joku lehmä ojassa, kirves hiottavana ja kuenimaettoemiae kanoja.
ellauri141.html on line 404: The solfege system (Do, Re, Mi), which is the theme of a song by the Von Trapp children, is just a small sample of Horace's all-pervasive influence on western culture, even among people who might never have heard the name Quintus Horatius Flaccus. Horace was not just a superb literary craftsman, but a musician, songwriter and entertainer for the Roman elite, creating a new Latin idiom derived from Greek lyric song. A final chapter, "Horace, Guido and the Do-re-mi Mystery", the result of careful research and detective work, argues that Guido d'Arezzo, an eleventh-century Benedictine choirmaster, used the melody of Horace's Ode to Phyllis (alla) to invent the do-re-mi mnemonic, but applied it to an eighth-century Hymn to John the Baptist ("Ut queant laxis") by Paul the Deacon, keeping the true source secret. A musical comparison of the Horatian melody and Guido's version of "ut-re-mi" is included. Lyons' verse translation of the Odes was named a Financial Times Book of the Year (1996) and was welcomed as 'a wonderful rendering of one of the great, central poets in the European tradition.'
ellauri142.html on line 116: In 1870, The Shriners, a group of elite Freemasons, created their first rituals, emblems, and costumes based on Middle Eastern themes, when 11 Master Masons were initiated into the organization.
ellauri142.html on line 272: Nyt muistan epämääräisesti, että Humboldtilla (oliko se se?) oli opiskeluaikoina joku hämärähkö tyttöystävä, jonka se yhytti uudestaan vanhempana herrasmiehenä, ja jota se jollain lailla autteli, vaikkei välttämällä päässyt edes pukille. Tai mistäs me sen tiedämme, vaikka pääsikin. Se oli se sakemanni kieliteknologian professorin ruozalainen rouva, jolle mä siitä tiedotin, kun olin rouvan järjestämässä seminariumissa ruozin kirjallisuuden jatko-opiskelijoille. No, takaisin johdantoon.
ellauri142.html on line 493: Ärjylä sanoi: Mikä on se, oi Varshneya, joka pakottaa ihmistä, vastoin omaa tahtoansakin ja ikään kuin väkivallan pakottamana, tekemään syntiä? Siunattu sana sanoi: Se on mieliteko, halu, voima, joka johtuu himosta (rajas-guna). Opi tätä kaikkia kuluttavaa ja lakastuttavaa vihollistasi tuntemaan. Eliskä matelijanaivo kehottaa välittömään tyydytyxeen, sillä aikaa supermies näkee pitemmälle ja laskee edeenpäin: 1 kertaa 1 on 1. Joskus on matelijanaivo oikeassa, joskus supermies. Egon pää kääntyilee kuin tennismazissa.
ellauri143.html on line 992: Tää on yx mustikoiden mieliteemoista: algolagnia on hienoa.
ellauri143.html on line 1645: Buddhalaiset eivät usko (vittu onko se joku uskon asia?), että elämä olisi silkkaa vitutusta, vaan euforia (sukha) on kyllä yhtä hyväksytty osa elämää. Kaikki hyväkin on kuitenkin pysymättömänä duhkhaa. Ei niin hyvää ettei jotain pahaakin. Sanan etymologiseksi alkuperäksi selitetään usein karman pyörä, joka on huonosti kiinni. Sen takia se tärisee ja hyppelehtii ja tekee matkanteosta epämiellyttävää. (Kha tarkoittaa reikää. Duh on paha, vrt. Homer Simpson: D´oh.)
ellauri144.html on line 469: Profiilikuvasta näkee selvästi että Phillu oli beetasusi. Sen koko naama on yhtä nenää. Leuasta ei mitään havaintoa. Tukka pakenee. Sen mieliteemat oli viha, pettymys ja tunarointi. Phillu oli epäonnistunut narsisti. Läski Rabbi Warshaw joka tavutti sanoja ja haisi Pall Mallille osasi sanoa sen ihan pilluntarkasti.
ellauri145.html on line 235: elite-hardcore-xxxgram/stella-delcroix-stella-delacroix-stella-deloroix-3.jpg" height="200px" />
ellauri151.html on line 521: Höh, olis luullut et pahan ongelma olis at bottom se et eräistä olosuhteista on apinoille aivan vitusti harmia, eli ongelma on miten päästä eroon näistä pahoista asioista ja ennen kaikkea niitä ajavista pahoista häiskistä. Mutta ei, nää teologit on valmiit nielemään koko skenen nahkoineen karvoineen ja koittavat vaan kexiä selityxiä mix tää käsillä oleva maailma on paras mahdollisista maailmoista. Helpoin selitys on tietysti toi Leibnizin ja Spinozan determinismi, eli tää on paras koska tää on ainoa. Tähän mäkin kyllä oon valmis uskomaan. Mut tälläset peliteoreettisemmat heppulit haluu nähdä maailman pelilautana, jossa nimenomaan niiden jumalalla on voittava strategia, siis sellanen joka on ainaskin sen kannalta optimaalinen (entäs little us? Kuka se sanoi että laiva joka purjehtii Alexandriaan eiole välttämättä huolissaan laivarottien mukavuudesta?). Sen strategian outcomena on tää kuunalainen meisinki, tai mixei kuunpäällinenkin, come to that, jos siellä nyt on ketään joka kiinnostaa.
ellauri151.html on line 523: Oikeestaan tää Laren kielenkäyttö mätsää hyvin mun peliteoreettiseen pragmatiikkaan, missä myöskin "merkitys" oli "tarkoitus", eli se mihin dialoginpelaajat pyrkivät kun ne sanoo eli tekee jotakin. Kielitieteen kursseilla mulla oli eri merkityxen sortteja, lähtien tämmösestä syy-seuraus assosiaatiosta (savu merkkaa tulta) semanttisen "tää merkki tarkoittaa miesten vessaa" ja syntaktisen (myopis tarkoittaa hiirenkorvaa) merkityxen kautta tähän pragmaattiseen, joka näyttää olevan Larzallakinn mielessä. On huomattava, että peleissä pelaajalla pitää olla utiliteetteja, joita se maximoi, eli nyt sit tän teodikeakysymyxen takana on mitä jumala oikein ajaa takaa tässä hommassa, koska on lupa olettaa, että se seuraa aina sen optimistrategiaa. Toisaalta ongelmaa hankaloittaa se, että toisen opinkohdan mukaan sillä on käytössään kaikki strategiat koko pelilaudalla, et oikeastaan se vois ratkasta Hoblan labyrinttitehtävään vaan teleportoimalla suoraan Maxin auton vara-avaimien luo kiertämättä kassan kautta, tai hizi, vaan luomalla Maxille sormia napsauttamalla uuden avaimen. Tai uuden auton, tai mitä vaan. Tästä komplikaatiosta seuraa se, että sen utiliteettien pitää olla jotain tosi kieroa, joka oikeuttaa kaikki nää kiemurat, joissa menehtyneitä apinoita lentää reestä joka käänteessä. Eli näillä alkumietteillä aletaanpa lukea mitä Larella on sanottavaa tästä.
ellauri151.html on line 661: Tässä yhteydessä on muistettava se vanha huomio, että peliteoria pelaa sillä oletuxella että pelaajat ei ole osa peliä. Eli niiden toimintaa ei ole rajoitettu säännöillä ainakaan niin pitkälle että niillä on vaan 1 pelitapa; muuten ei koko teoriaa edes tarvita. Tää liittyy tohon Wittgensteinin kymysyxeen: miten niin jumala on koko luonto ja osa luontoa? Peliteoreettinen selitysmalli eli teologia ei skulaa ellei pelaajat eli apinat ja niiden jumalat ole joteskin luonnon ulkopuolella. Niinkun ne tietysti tuppaavat kerskumaankin, vaikka se on puppua.
ellauri152.html on line 440: Musta toi idea et jumalan piti tehdä saatana jotta apina voi treenata siihen freewilliä kuin johkin nyrkkeilysäkkiin on aivan hanurista. Siinä on kyllä pantu peliteoria ihan liian korkealle statuxelle, ja absolutisoitu just tän apinalajin utiliteetit erehdyttävästi apinannäköisen jumalan tahdoxi. Mitä saatanan pahaa se nyt on jos vaikka jellona tahtoo popsia Danielin, tai joku palestiinalainen pitää kiinni reviiristä?
ellauri153.html on line 317: Tässä paasauxessa esitellään Snellmanin Laren, Jakkoh-Hintikan nipo-nipo-nipoten peliteoreettista semantiikkaa (hyvä nimike sinänsä!) teodikeaan pirun näkökulmasta.
ellauri153.html on line 337: No kukas tässä enää todistusta tarvizee? Jumalasta on tullut jo noin väpelö ja sen motiivit on ihan sen omia, se pelaa vaan omaa peliä ja apinat tekee kazomossa aaltoja, mitäs tässä enää on nokan koputtamista. Mut kuten sanoi Anssi Kukkonen: hetkinen, kazotaan ensin tämä tilanne. Vaik etukäteen jo olen vissi, ettei tässä mitään peliteoriaa oikeasti käytetä, eli ei ezitä iteroimalla tasapainopisteitä. Dogille tää on tietty täydellisen informaation peli, sehän pääsee vilkumaan muiden kortteja, mutta onko se sitä muille osapuolille?
ellauri153.html on line 429: Vizi etmä oon väsynyt tähän peliteoriaan. Emmä ole edes koskaan tykännyt mistään peleistä, liian seurallisia. No joku matopeli ehkä, ja taskubiljardi. Enkä 5 hengen Aspektin jälkeen kuulunut mihkään yhdistyxiin. Nekin on aivan perseestä. 11 hehtaaria mezää ympärille reviirixi kiitos. Tän lassipallon hauska piirre on et siinä jumalakin saa sinkoilla vapaasti ympäriinsä kuin irtonainen kanuuna, ilman sääntöjä ja antamatta tyhjentäviä meriselityxiä, noita Schopenhauerin neljän juuren juurihoitoja. Ennustamattomasti toilaileva jumala on aika uskottava. Sehän selittäisi kaiken, ja enemmänkin.
ellauri155.html on line 440: Avimelek dog strax därefter vid staden Teves. Allt folket i staden hade befäst sig i ett torn och när Avimelek steg fram för att sätta tornets port i brand släppte en kvinna ner en kvarnsten som träffade hans huvud så att det spräcktes. Då begärde kungen av sin väpnare att denne skulle döda honom för att ingen skulle kunna säga att han dödats av en kvinna. Väpnaren gjorde så och när israeliterna såg att Avimelek var död gick alla hem.
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?
ellauri156.html on line 84: This leads to a war between the Israelites and the Ammonites. The Ammonites recruit the Syrians as their allies against David. In their first conflict, the Syrians flee, forcing the Ammonites to retreat to “the city” (10:14; which must be Rabbah -- see 12:26ff.). The Syrians are not content with their defeat and attempt a rematch, but once again they are defeated. This causes them to give up any thought of backing up the Ammonites in their war with Israel in the future.
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 98: Joab urges David not to number the Israelites, and through the prophet Egad, God rebukes David for doing so, giving him a choice of one of three chastenings. It is a grave sin with great consequences for the nation Israel. Out of this sin, God brings about blessing for Israel, because it is on the plot of ground where David offers sacrifices to God that the temple will be built. What chastenings?
ellauri156.html on line 112: The Israelites were wrong in demanding a king, but they were not too far off in expecting that their “king” would lead them in war. The judges God had raised up for them earlier were usually men like Barak or Gideon, who would lead the nation in battle against their enemies. When God designated Saul as Israel's first king, this military role was clearly indicated:
ellauri156.html on line 124: This seems consistent with David's other great sin, which also follows his decision to stay at home. When David instructs Joab to number the Israelite warriors, Joab protests. This is something David should not do. Perhaps this is because David would find too much confidence in the number of his men, rather than in God. It certainly is a far cry from Gideon's army, pared down to a meager 300 men.
ellauri156.html on line 209: A second reason may be boredom. Something you my dear remaining readers know by now. It is one thing to fight battles in which the enemy is quickly overcome. But the besieging of Rabbah is a whole different kind of war. This battle will not be won so quickly. It will take time to starve the Ammonites to the point that they surrender. It is not a very exciting kind of war to wage. And while they wait, the Israelite soldiers (which includes David) have to pitch their tents outside the city, living in the open field. This is no picnic, and David knows it. David's attitude seems reflected in the advertising slogan of a major hamburger chain, “You deserve a break today.”
ellauri156.html on line 293: Let us briefly review the place of the Hittites in Old Testament history. As early as Genesis 15:18-21, God promised Abram (Abraham) that his descendants would inherit the land of the Hittites (along with that of other peoples as well; see also Exodus 3:8, 17; 13:5; 23:23, 28, 32; 33:21; 34:11; Deuteronomy 7:1; Joshua 1:4; 3:10). Ephron, the man from whom Abraham bought a burial plot for his family, was a Hittite (see Genesis 23:10; 25:9; etc.). Jacob's brother Esau married several Hittite wives (Genesis 26:34-35; 36:2). The Israelites were commanded to utterly destroy the Hittites (Deuteronomy 20:17). The Hittites opposed Israel's entrance into the promised land (see Numbers 13:29; Joshua 9:1: 11;1-5), and the Israelites had some victories over them (Joshua 24;11). Nevertheless, they did not totally remove them and came to live among them (Judges 3:5). When David was fleeing from Saul, he learned that the king was camped nearby. He asked two of his men who would go with him to Saul's camp. One of the two, Abishai, volunteered to go with David, the other man did not. This man was Ahimelech, the Hittite (1 Samuel 26:6). (Eli siis mitä? Pitäskö tästä päätellä nyt jotakin heettien statuxesta vai? Oliko ne jotain neekereitä?)
ellauri156.html on line 295: It is obvious that Uriah had forsaken his own people and their gods to live in Israel, marry an Israelite woman, and fight in David's army. He is no pagan, to be put to death. He is a proselyte. In spite of all this, I believe David looks down upon him. David has grown accustomed to having the finest of everything. His palace is the finest around. His furnishings, his food, his help, are all the finest. Now, he looks from his penthouse and sees a woman whom he regards as “fine.” How can a woman so “fine” belong to this Hittite? She is fit for a king. And this king intends to have her.
ellauri156.html on line 325: First, the root of David's sin is not low self-esteem; it is arrogance. (Since when is low self-esteem a sin? Well I bet it is for American believers. Think of Bill James' Will to Believe.) I am getting quite weary of hearing that the root of all evils is low self-esteem. I wonder why we see nothing of this in the Bible. David's problem is just the opposite. He has become puffed up and arrogant because of his success and status as Israel's king. He has come to see himself as different/better than the rest of the Israelites. They need to go to war; he does not. They need to sleep in the open field; he needs to get his rest in his own bed, in his palace. They can have a wife; he can have whatever woman he wants.
ellauri156.html on line 398: (2) It seems unlikely that Uriah is ignorant of what David has done and of what he is trying to accomplish by calling him home to Jerusalem. Rumors must have been circulating around Jerusalem about David and Bathsheba, and could easily have reached the Israelite army which had besieged Rabbah. Uriah not only refuses to go to his house and sleep with his wife, he sleeps at the doorway of the king's house, in the midst of his servants. He has many witnesses to testify that any child borne by his wife during this time is not his child. It is clear that Uriah understands exactly what David wants him to do (to have sex with his wife), and that he refuses, even when the king virtually orders him to do so. One finds this difficult to explain if Uriah is ignorant of what happened between David and Bathsheba. At least Uriah knows what David is trying to get him to do on this stay in Jerusalem. The implications of all this we will explore later.
ellauri156.html on line 485: Uriah first points out to David that his terminology is inaccurate. David speaks of Uriah returning from a journey (verse 10). The truth is that Uriah has been called from the field of battle. He is not a traveling salesman, home from a road trip; he is a soldier, away from his post. In heart and soul, Uriah is still with his fellow-soldiers. He really wants to be back in the field of battle, and not in Jerusalem. He will return as soon as David releases him (see verse 12). Until that time, he will think and act like the soldier he is. As much as possible, he will live the way his fellow-soldiers are living on the field of battle. There, surrounding the city of Rabbah, are the Israelite soldiers, led by Joab. They, along with the ark of the Lord, are camping in tents in the open field. Uriah cannot, Uriah will not, live in luxury while they live sacrificially. He will not sleep with his wife until they can all sleep with her, not just Dave.
ellauri156.html on line 487: With all due respect, Uriah declines -- indeed Uriah refuses -- to do that which would be conduct unbefitting a soldier, let alone a war hero. I think it is important to see that there is no specific command here which Uriah refuses to disobey. To my knowledge, there is no specific law in the Law of Moses which commands a soldier to have sex with women during times of war. (This may have been true in the earlier days of Israel's history, there would not have been another generation of Israelites otherwise, since Israel was almost constantly at war with one of their neighbors.) This is the conviction of Uriah as a soldier, and he will not violate his conscience by deceiving his fellow men in tights, even when commanded to do so by the king.
ellauri156.html on line 537: Abner was the son of the witch of En-dor in Mordor, (Pirḳe R. El. xxxiii.), and the hero par excellence in the Haggadah (Yalḳ., Jer. 285; Eccl. R. on ix. 11; Ḳid. 49b). Conscious of his extraordinary strength, he exclaimed: "If I could only catch hold of the earth, I could shake it" (Yalḳ. l.c.)—a saying which parallels the famous utterance of Archimedes, "Had I a fulcrum, I could move the world." (Dote moi pa bo kai tan gan kino.) According to the Midrash (Eccl. R. l.c.) it would have been easier to move a wall six yards thick than one of the feet of Abner, who could hold the Israelitish army between his knees, and often did. Yet when his time came [date missing], Joab smote him. But even in his dying hour, Abner seized his foe's balls like a ball of thread, threatening to crush them. Then the Israelites came and pleaded for Joab's jewels, saying: "If thou crushest them his future kids shall be orphaned, and our women and all our belongings will become a prey to the Philistines." Abner answered: "What can I do? He has extinguished my light" (has wounded me fatally). The Israelites replied: "Entrust thy cause to the true judge [God]." Then Abner released his hold upon Joab's balls and fell dead to the ground (Yalḳ. l.c.).
ellauri156.html on line 541: It is characteristic of the rabbinical view of the Bible narratives that Abner, the warrior pure and simple, is styled "Lion King of the Law" (Yer. Peah, l.c.), and that even a specimen is given of a halakic discussion between him and Dog as to whether the law in Deut. xxiii. 3 excluded Ammonite and Moabite women from the Jewish community as well as men. Dog was of the opinion that David, being descended from the Moabitess Ruth, was not fit to wear the crown, nor even to be considered a true Israelite; while Abner maintained that the law affected only the male line of descent. When Dog's dialectics proved more than a match for those of Abner, the latter went to the prophet Samuel, who not only supported Abner in his view, but utterly refuted Dog's assertions (Midr. Sam. xxii.; Yeb. 76b et seq.).
ellauri156.html on line 550: Earlier in this series: David condemned Joab and put him under a curse because he shed the innocent blood of Abner. Now, this same David (well, not really the same David) now uses Joab to kill Uriah and get him out of his way. David's enemy (Joab) has become his friend, or at least his ally. David's enemies (the Ammonites) have become his allies (they fire the fatal shots which kill Uriah). And David's faithful servant Uriah has been put to death as though he were the enemy. Not only is Uriah put to death, but a number of other Israelite warriors die with him. They have to be sacrificed to conceal the murder of Uriah. Uriah's death has to be viewed as one of a group of men, rather than merely one man. Without a doubt, this is the moral and spiritual low-water mark of David's life.
ellauri156.html on line 556: The answer is quite simple, as is evident by Joab's own concerns. The entire mission is a fiasco. The Israelites have besieged the city of Rabbah. This means they surround the city, giving the people no way in or out of the city. All the Israelites have to do is wait them out and starve them out. There is no need for any attack. The mission is a suicide mission from the outset, and it does not take a genius to see it for what it is. Joab has to assemble a group of mighty men, like Uriah, and including Uriah, to wage an attack on the city. This attack is not at the enemy's weakest point, as we would expect, but at the strongest point. This attack provokes a counter-attack by the Ammonites against Uriah and those with him. When the Israelite army draws back from their own men, they leave them defenseless, and the obvious result is a slaughter. How can one possibly report this fiasco in a way that doesn’t make Joab look like a fool (at best), or a murderer (at worst)?
ellauri156.html on line 558: This the reason for Joab's careful instructions to the messenger. He is to report the attack on the city of Rabbah to David, and then tell of the Israelite losses which result. Joab knows that David will react (perhaps hypocritically) to the report of the attack and the resulting losses. It is at this point, Joab instructs the messenger, that he is to inform David of the death of Uriah. This will certainly end any protest or criticism on David's part.
ellauri156.html on line 560: And so in verses 22-25 we are given an account of the messenger's arrival, of his report to David, and of David's response. I must point out that the messenger does not do as he is told, at least the way I read the account. The messenger goes to David and tells the king how the Ammonites prevailed against them as they left the city and pursued the Israelites into the open field. The Israelites then pursued the Ammonites, pushing them back toward the city as far as the city gate. It was here that Uriah and those with him were fighting. It was here that they were within range of the archers, who shot at them and killed a number of servants. And quickly the servant adds, “and your servant Uriah the Hittite is also dead” (verse 14).
ellauri156.html on line 615: Uriah should not be criticized or looked down upon for his loyalty and submission to David. He should be highly commended. In fact, a friend suggested a new thought for my consideration: “Suppose that Uriah was added to the list of war heroes because of his loyalty and courage in this battle which cost him his life? It is a possibility to consider. Uriah is one of those Gentile converts whose faith and obedience puts many Israelites to shame. He is among many of those who have trusted and obeyed God who have not received their just rewards in this life, but who will be rewarded in the coming kingdom of God. Too many Christians today want their blessings “now” and are not willing to suffer, waiting for their reward then. Let them think carefully about the example of Uriah for their own lives. His elevator may have not gone all the way to the top floor, but by Gawd, he will reach it when Jacob lets down the ladder!
ellauri156.html on line 641: Bathsheba's response to the death of her husband is as we would expect, as we would also hope. From what the text tells us, she has absolutely no part in David's plot to deceive her husband, let alone to put him to death. Undoubtedly, she learns of Uriah's death in much the same way every war widow does, then or now. When she is officially informed of Uriah's death in battle, she mourns for her husband. We cannot be certain just how long this period of mourning is. We know, for example, that if a virgin of some distant (i.e., not Canaanite) nation was captured by an Israelite during a raid on her town, the Israelite could take her for a wife after she had mourned for her parents (who would have been killed in the raid) for a full month (Deuteronomy 21:10-13). As I will seek to show in a moment, I believe Bathsheba's mourning is genuine, and not hypocritical. I believe she mourns her husband's death because she loves him.
ellauri161.html on line 146: Nyölen ei ole teologina kovin kummoinen, eikä filosofina. Tunteet ovat arvojen heijastuxia sisukaluissa. Ei se ole peliteoreettisesti ratkaisevaa miltä tuntuu vaan se mitä ajaa takaa ja mitä väistelee.
ellauri161.html on line 511: Before Covid, former Saturday Night live head writer Adam McKay had already written his smug doomsday satire Don't Look Up based on the usual liberal tropes. Chief among them was the old progressive rant linking those on the right to a predatory elite consisting of a group who were referred to as, in the parlance of days gone by, "robber barons."
ellauri161.html on line 512: But here now it's "Big Tech" who McKay sees as the new (updated) elite embodied in the character of Peter Isherwell (Mark Rylance) billionaire CEO of the giant tech conglomerate BASH.
ellauri163.html on line 227: elitesCananeensPelesets.jpg" />
ellauri163.html on line 577: Mikähän teologinen kiista tässä lienee menossa? Jotain fin de sieclen kasvatustiedettä, mistä nähtävästi riippuu tarvitaanko motivaatiopuhujixi pappeja. Pappien selitysmalli on peliteoria, Peyotilla se on Comten positivismi ja spinozalainen deterministinen etiikka korvakarvoineen ilman esinahkoja. Mukana myös JS Mill ym liberaalibrittejä.
ellauri164.html on line 476: Ilmeisesti useimmista lukijoista Moosexen kohtelu oli vähän epistä. Sixi Jaffen käytöstä ja mahd. motiiveja pitää selitellä niin pitkästi.
ellauri164.html on line 483: Moses is one of the most prominent figures in the Old Testament. While Abraham is called the “Father of the Faithful” and the recipient of God’s unconditional covenant of grace to His people, Moses was the man chosen to bring redemption to His people. God specifically chose Moses to lead the Israelites from captivity in Egypt to salvation in the Promised Land. Moses is also recognized as the mediator of the Old Covenant and is commonly referred to as the giver of the Law. Finally, Moses is the principal author of the Pentateuch, the foundational books of the entire Bible. Moses’ role in the Old Testament is a type and shadow of the role Jesus plays in the New Testament. As such, his life is definitely worth examining.
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.
ellauri164.html on line 495: The book of Deuteronomy shows Moses giving several sermon-type speeches to the people, reminding them of God’s saving power and faithfulness. He gives the second reading of the Law (Deuteronomy 5) and prepares this generation of Israelites to receive the promises of God. Moses himself is prohibited from entering the land because of his sin at Meribah (Numbers 20:10-13). At the end of the book of Deuteronomy, Moses’ death is recorded (Deuteronomy 34). He climbed Mount Nebo and is allowed to look upon the Promised Land. Moses was 120 years old when he died, and the Bible records that his “eye was undimmed and his vigor unabated” (Deuteronomy 34:7). The Lord Himself buried Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5–6), and Joshua took over as leader of the people (Deuteronomy 34:9). Deuteronomy 34:10–12 says, " Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, who did all those signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel."
ellauri164.html on line 504: The third and final chapter in Moses’ life is the chapter that Scripture spends the most time chronicling, namely, his role in the redemption of Israel. Several lessons can be gleaned from this chapter of Moses’ life as well. First is how to be an effective leader of people. Moses essentially had responsibility over two million Hebrew refugees. When things began to wear on him, his father-in-law, Jethro Tull, suggested that he delegate responsibility to other faithful men, a lesson that many people in authority over others need to learn (Exodus 18). We also see a man who was dependent on the grace of God to help with his task. Moses was continually pleading on behalf of the people before God. If only all people in authority would petition God on behalf of those over whom they are in charge! Moses was keenly aware of the necessity of God’s presence and even requested to see God’s glory (Exodus 33). Moses knew that, apart from God, the exodus would be meaningless. It was God who made the Israelites distinct, and they needed Him most. Moses’ life also teaches us the lesson that there are certain sins that will continue to haunt us throughout our lives. The same hot temper that got Moses into trouble in Egypt also got him into trouble during the wilderness wanderings. In the aforementioned incident at Meribah, Moses struck the rock in anger in order to provide water for the people. However, he didn’t give God the glory, nor did he follow God’s precise commands. Because of this, God forbade him from entering the Promised Land. In a similar manner, we all succumb to certain besetting sins which plague us all our days, sins that require us to be on constant alert.
ellauri164.html on line 508: As mentioned earlier, we also know that Moses’ life was typological of the life of Christ. Like Christ, Moses was the mediator of a covenant. Christ too was a little recalcitrant, so he got crucified. Again, the author of Hebrews goes to great lengths to demonstrate this point (cf. Hebrews 3; 8—10). The Apostle Paul also makes the same points in 2 Corinthians 3. The difference is that the covenant that Moses mediated was temporal and conditional, whereas the covenant that Christ mediates is eternal and unconditional. Like Christ, Moses provided redemption for his people. Moses delivered the people of Israel out of slavery and bondage in Egypt and brought them to the Promised Land of Canaan. Christ delivers His people out of bondage and slavery to sin and condemnation and brings them to the Promised Land of eternal life on a renewed earth, like Azrael in the forthcoming third season of His Dark Materials. Like Christ he returns to consummate the kingdom He inaugurated at His first coming. Like Christ, Moses was a prophet to his people. Moses spoke the very words of God to the Israelites just as Christ did (John 17:8). Moses predicted that the Lord would raise up another prophet like him from among the people (Deuteronomy 18:15). Jesus and the early church taught and believed that Moses was speaking of Jesus when he wrote those words (cf. John 5:46, Acts 3:22, 7:37). In so many ways, Moses’ life is a precursor to the life of Christ. As such, we can catch a glimpse of how God was working His plan of redemption in the lives of faithful people throughout human history. This gives us hope that, just as God saved His people and gave them rest through the actions of Moses, so, too, will God save us and give us an eternal Sabbath rest in Christ, both now and in the life to come. But don't get your hopes too high, you may not be among the chosen after all.
ellauri164.html on line 593: God's punishment was harsh. “Because you did not trust in me, to show my holiness before the eyes of the Israelites, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them” (Num.20:12). Moses and Aaron, like all the people who rebelled against God’s plan earlier (Num. 14:22-23), will not be permitted to enter the Promised Land.
ellauri164.html on line 643: Moses had always done exactly as God commanded – UNTIL NOW. Moses was devastated when God pronounced his judgment (Numbers 20:12). He had obeyed God’s call to go to Egypt to free the Israelites from bondage. God had worked mighty miracles through him.
ellauri164.html on line 711: So, how does this connect back to Moses being barred from entering the Promised Land? Because the people were unfaithful and so difficult to lead, Moses’s own faith suffered. This caused him to lose confidence that God could develop the Israelites into a faithful covenant people who were meant to be a nation of priests and a means of blessing the nations.
ellauri164.html on line 717: Conclusion: Moses’s sin wasn’t striking the rock as such when he was told to speak to it; his sin was losing faith in God’s ability to use the Israelites for anything positive. This is why God could say that Moses didn’t trust in Him and is also why Moses could say God was angry with him on account of the people.
ellauri164.html on line 802: In the first month the whole Israelite community arrived at the Desert of Zin, and they stayed at Kadesh. There Miriam died and was buried. (2) Now there was no water for the community, and the people gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron. (3) They quarreled with Moses and said, "If only we had died when our brothers fell dead before the LORD! (4) Why did you bring the LORD's community into this desert, that we and our livestock should die here? (5) Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to this terrible place? It has no grain or figs, grapevines or pomegranates. And there is no water to drink!" (6) Moses and Aaron went from the assembly to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and fell facedown, and the glory of the LORD appeared to them. (7) The LORD said to Moses, (8) "Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink." (9) So Moses took the staff from the LORD's presence, just as he commanded him. (10) He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, "Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?" (11) Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank. (12) But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them." (13) These were the waters of Meribah, [1] where the Israelites quarreled with the LORD and where he showed himself holy among them.
ellauri164.html on line 871: This pattern shows itself again in the beginning of Numbers 20 after the death of Miriam. Once more Israel rebels against Moses and Aaron, this time over a lack of water in the desert of Zin. They claim that it would have been better to have died with Korah’s rebellion rather than wander without food and water, and they express regret over leaving Egypt, a land of “grain, figs, vines, and pomegranates.” This might seem a bold claim, since in our reading Korah has just died a few chapters earlier. Careful reading, however, indicates that there’s actually been a quiet time skip; Numbers 33:38 indicates that Aaron died in “the fortieth year after the sons of Israel had come from the land of Egypt, on the first day in the fifth month.” Given that Aaron’s death is recorded in Chapter 20, just a few verses after the episode at Meribah, this would indicate that the episode at Meribah occurred in year 38 of the 40 year wandering in the wilderness (remember that Israel had spent more than a year at Sinai in addition to travel time from Egypt to Sinai and from Sinai to the Promised Land before the wandering). This means that this rebellious generation of Israelites aren’t referencing a recent event, but instead wishing they had died nearly forty years earlier with Korah! Moses and Aaron have been dealing with this wicked and hard group of people for a very long time, and they are now claiming it would have been better to have died with Korah: a fate they were only spared because of Moses and Aaron’s own intercession!
ellauri164.html on line 877: The reading that makes more sense is to focus on the breaking of the pattern established to this point. Moses’ harsh words toward the Israelites reveal his emotions in this moment; he classifies Israel as “rebels” rather than the chosen people, and his rhetorical question seems to imply that he does not view Israel as worthy of God’s grace any longer. This is the real failure of Moses in this moment: he’s lost his faith in God to fulfill His promises to these people. Israel is a nation of rebels outside of grace, outside of God’s ability to make a great nation, outside of the promises that God has given. It seems nearly forty years of dealing with this people has finally broken Moses, and he is so overwhelmed in this moment that he has lost faith. From God’s perspective, Moses has lost faith in the Lord to overcome Israel’s faithlessness. Moses has not believed in God, and has not treated Yahweh as the Holy God who is able to overcome the weakness of His people. Indeed, this is exactly what Numbers 20:12 says was Moses’ sin! He (and Aaron!) did not believe God and did not treat Yahweh as holy in that moment. God did offer Moses the opportunity to intercede for the people (and thus broke the pattern) because He knew that Moses did not have faith in Him.
ellauri164.html on line 881: The second mention is in Deuteronomy 3:23-26, where after retelling the defeats of the kings Sihon and Og Moses relates that “I also pleaded with the Lord at that time, saying, ‘O Lord God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as Yours? Let me, I pray, cross over and see the fair land that is beyond the Jordan, that good hill country and Lebanon.’ But the Lord was angry with me on your account, and would not listen to me; and the Lord said to me, ‘Enough! Speak to Me no more of this matter.” Again, Moses directly links the Lord’s anger towards him with the Israelites.
ellauri164.html on line 955: Everyone knows how Romeo and Juliet ends, and yet we still cry when they die. The same is true of the first of the two Torah portions we read this week, Parashat Hukkat/Balak. In this portion, we learn that Moses will not enter the Promised Land. We have heard or read this story every year, and yet we are still upset, still angry that, on the threshold, Moses is denied admission to the Land to which he has been leading the Israelites for forty years.
ellauri164.html on line 957: Every year we plow through the many possible explanations for God’s decision to disallow Moses entry to Canaan. I would like to propose an explanation that is connected with what we already know about the Israelites and with the way the story is structured.
ellauri164.html on line 959: This story takes place during the fortieth and final year of the Israelites’ consignment to the wilderness before entering the Land of Promise. The generation of those who, by their own admission, were not prepared to enter the Land has died off, and only those men who were nineteen years old or younger at the Exodus (and the tribe of Levi) will enter. The only named survivors of the previous generation are the leaders: Miriam, Aaron, Moses, Joshua, and Caleb. Early in this parashah, Miriam dies without explanation, successor, or national mourning.
ellauri164.html on line 963: But wait. Didn’t we already learn a similar story back in Exodus? In fact, the first story of thirst came very soon after the crossing at the Sea of Reeds (Shemot 17:4). Since that was at the very beginning of the sojourn in the wilderness, before the events that led to God’s decision to delay the Israelites’ entry to the Land—and this story is at the end of the forty years—we can see the two stories as forming a kind of a framework around the whole saga of the wandering. In the first story, the Israelites were the first generation of those who left Egypt. In this story, they are the children and grandchildren of that generation. When we see this kind of framework, we look for the similarities and differences between the bracketing stories. At the same time, we understand that they suggest a theme for the stories between them.
ellauri164.html on line 971: “Listen, you rebels, shall we get water for you out of this rock?” And Moses raised his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod. Out came water, and the community and their beasts drank. But God said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm My sanctity before the eyes of the Israelites, even so you shall not bring this assembly to the Land that I have given them.” (Num. 20:10-12)
ellauri164.html on line 973: In this very short story we see a second framework: the phrase “before the eyes” emphasizes both the importance of what the Israelites witness, and the logical nature of Moses’s punishment. Why is it so important that Moses speak “before the eyes of the Israelites”? To answer that, we need to recall their past.
ellauri164.html on line 975: The Israelites had a history of trusting in God because of what they saw. The most famous example, which we repeat in the daily morning service, quotes their experience after the crossing of the Sea of Reeds: “Israel saw the wondrous power which God had wielded against the Egyptians, the people feared God; they had faith in God and in God’s servant, Moses” (Exod. 14:31). They have needed this public, indisputable evidence of their eyes ever since. God knows that what they see is what is most important. And what he wants them to see is Moses speaking—not striking the rock, as he was commanded to do on the former occasion.
ellauri164.html on line 977: God seems to be trying to wean the Israelites from one kind of perception to another: from dependence on the visible and tangible to reliance on speech in connecting with God. At Sinai, all their senses were engaged, but the revelation itself was auditory. When Moses retells and reframes the story (Deut. 4:12), he reminds the people, “The sound of words you did hear, but no image did you see except the sound.” There is a grave danger in relying on the visible. The word forimage in the verse above is temunah—the same word that is used in the Ten Commandments in the warning against idolatry (Exod. 20:4).
ellauri171.html on line 417: The Israelites flourished in Egypt:
ellauri171.html on line 426: This meant a good survival rate for their children. But too many foreign workers can pose a threat. Pharaoh certainly thought so. ‘The Egyptians came to dread the Israelites.’ (Exodus 1:12)
ellauri171.html on line 427: The problem was made worse by the fact that the Israelites occupied border territory. If there was an invasion, they might defect to the enemy. This could mean the collapse of the Egyptian Empire. Just like the Ukrainians. So off with them. Wait! Pharaoh did not want to eject them from Egypt – they were too valuable as workers. So he sought to control their numbers by forced labour and by child slaughter. Hmm. Mitähän opetuxia tästäkin tarinasta voisi ottaa?
ellauri171.html on line 430: This plan was thwarted by the Hebrew midwives, including Shiprah and Puah. So Pharaoh ordered instead that every newborn Israelite boy was to be hurled into the Nile waters and left to drown. This solution worked. Except for Moses.
ellauri171.html on line 667: Thus the tribes of Israel (minus Benjamin) invoked capital punishment on the men who raped and murdered the Levite’s concubine and the tribe. In time, a total of forty thousand Israelites died as a result of God’s punishment on the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 20:21, 25). Six hundred men of Benjamin remained alive (Judges 20:47). Judges 20:48 states that Israel destroyed the cities of the tribe of Benjamin that they could find, including the cattle. Later Judges 21:16 states all the women were killed too!
ellauri171.html on line 671: Judges 21:1-7, 13-18 tells us that the Israelites began to feel sorry of the remaining six hundred men from the tribe of Benjamin. Therefore, a plan was created to allow the Benjamite men to abduct one wife from among the virgin daughters of Shiloh of their choosing (Judges 21:20-24) at the feast of the Lord in Shiloh. So when the virgins came out and danced, the men of Benjamin were allowed to “catch his wife from among the daughters of Shiloh” (Judges 21:21).
ellauri171.html on line 711: This woman, called Jael, is praised in poetry and prose as one of the great heroines of the beleaguered Israelites.
ellauri171.html on line 720: Jael was a foil for Deborah, Bible heroine, a Supreme Judge of Israel – not a judge who passes sentence on criminals, but a leader and adviser in times of trouble. She badgered the Israelite general into joining battle with the Canaanites, even though the enemy had more soldiers and better equipment. God sent a rainstorm that made the Canaanite chariots sitting ducks for the Israelite slingmen – and Deborah was hailed as a national heroine.
ellauri171.html on line 725: Deborah was ‘just a woman’ but when war came she took up the reins of leadership – even though the Israelites were outnumbered and under-equipped.
ellauri171.html on line 729: The enemy had hundreds of iron-wheeled chariots that could crush the Israelites into the ground. But Deborah tricked them into driving these chariots onto marshy land where they were bogged down. The Israelite slingmen and archers picked them off one by one, like ducks in a pond. Sisera, the enemy general, fled from the battlefield towards the encampment of a woman called Jael the Kenite.
ellauri171.html on line 733: As he passed by her tent, Jael called the unwary Sisera into her tent. He was exhausted and desperate for a refuge. She hid him and fed him, and he fell into a deep sleep. Then she calmly took one of her tent pegs and with one blow hammered it through the side of his head. She was hailed as a national heroine by the Israelites. Sisera’s mother waited and waited for her son to return. But he was already dead by Jael’s hand.
ellauri171.html on line 742: Ehud murders Eglon at a 19th century commode - but ancient lavatory arrangements were probably similar. Ehud, an Israelite, reluctantly carried tribute to the hated Moabite king Eglon. He did not want to do it, but he knew he had to – Eglon was like a Mafia chieftain, too powerful and too violent to disobey.
ellauri171.html on line 824: Asherah, queen consort of El (Ugaritic religion), Elkunirsa (Hittite religion), Yahweh (Israelite religion), Amurru (Amorite religion), Anu (Akkadian religion) and 'Amm (Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia) Symbolized by an Asherah pole in the Hebrew Bible.
ellauri171.html on line 981: She represents a view of womanhood that is the opposite of the one extolled in characters such as Ruth the Moabite, who is also a foreigner. Ruth surrenders her identity and submerges herself in Israelite ways; she adopts the religious and social norms of the Israelites and is praised by the tentmen for her conversion to "The" God. Jezebel steadfastly remains true to her own beliefs.
ellauri171.html on line 992: The next time we hear of Jezebel is during the ploy to obtain Naboth’s vineyard for her husband, who is unable to secure the transaction. She sends letters, with the stamp of the king, to the elders in Naboth’s town, commanding them to lie against Naboth, and then stone him. The elders do so, and after Naboth’s death, the vineyard is claimed for Ahab. Few bible commentators acknowledge the bizarre betrayal of Naboth by his neighbors. If, as is suggested, Naboth’s neighbors had known him since birth and patronized him, how could they turn so quickly? Some scholars argue that this incident highlights Jezebel’s keen understanding of Israelite men. It is perhaps, also, one of the impetus for her modern connotation as manipulator-supreme.
ellauri172.html on line 53: Huismannin mielestä Baudelaire lapparoi syvemmälle sielun paskakasaan kuin kukaan muu, edes munasäkkikään, nimtuten koska se oli niin ikävystynyt. Isänperinnöllä eli. Baudelairen mieliteemoja oli Nyölenin mukaan kello, ajankulu ja vanhuus. Calle kuoli 46-vuotiaana spugena äidin käsivarsille. Mitähän äiti 73v tuumasi noista vanhuusskizoista. No se nyt kyllä lällytti isätöntä Calle-poikaa kaikin tavoin, kuten on jo selvitetty albumeissa 49 ja 145. Kai Calle on jo listattuna albumissa 34 kylmiönä mammanpoikana? Nyt on.
ellauri180.html on line 649: Det här kriget är en enmans show. Flera högt uppsatta personer inom den ryska statseliten är chockerade av Putins framfart de senaste dagarna. De varken förstår eller är nöjda med hans beslut. De förstår vilka ödesdigra konsekvenser som nu väntar inte bara Rysslands ekonomi, utan i synnerhet deras pengar.
ellauri184.html on line 250: According to the biblical chronicle, the Tribe of Manasseh was a part of a loose confederation of Israelite tribes from after the conquest of the land by Joshua until the formation of the first Kingdom of Israel in c. 1050 BC. No central government existed, and in times of crisis the people were led by ad hoc leaders known as Judges (see Book of Judges). With the growth of the threat from Palestinian (sorry) Philistine incursions, the Israelite tribes decided to form a strong centralised monarchy to meet the challenge, and the Tribe of Manasseh joined the new kingdom with Saul as the first king. After the death of Saul, all the tribes other than Judah remained loyal to the House of Saul, but after the death of Ish-bosheth, Saul's son who succeeded him to the throne of Israel, the Tribe of Manasseh joined the other northern Israelite tribes in making Judah's king David the king of a re-united Kingdom of Israel. However, on the accession of David's grandson Rehoboam, in c. 930 BC the northern tribes split from the House of David and from Saul's tribe Benjamin to reform Israel as the Northern Kingdom. Manasseh was a member of the Northern Kingdom until the kingdom was conquered by Assyria in c. 723 BC and the population deported. From that time, the Tribe of Manasseh has been counted as one of the ten lost tribes of Israel.
ellauri184.html on line 257: The Bible records that following the completion of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelite tribes, Joshua allocated the land among the twelve tribes. According to biblical scholar Kenneth Kitchen, this conquest should be dated slightly after 1200 BCE. Some modern scholars argue that the conquest of Joshua, as described in the Book of Joshua, never occurred. “Besides the rejection of the Albrightian conquest model, the general consensus among OT scholars is that the Book of Joshua has no value in the historical reconstruction. They see the book as an ideological retrojection from a later period — either as early as the reign of Josiah or as late as the Hasmonean period.” "It behooves us to ask, in spite of the fact that the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship is that Joshua is a pious fiction composed by the deuteronomistic school, how does and how has the Jewish community dealt with these foundational narratives, saturated as they are with acts of violence against others?" ”Recent decades, for example, have seen a remarkable reevaluation of evidence concerning the conquest of the land of Canaan by Joshua. As more sites have been excavated, there has been a growing consensus that the main story of Joshua, that of a speedy and complete conquest (e.g. Josh. 11.23: 'Thus Joshua conquered the whole country, just as the LORD had promised Moses') is contradicted by the archaeological record, though there are indications of some destruction at the appropriate time. No oliko sitten koko esinahkakasa satua? Ketä enää uskoa? Usko siirtää vuoria, eikö sitten esinahkakukkuloita?
ellauri185.html on line 62: The Book of Samuel (Hebrew: ספר שמואל, Sefer Shmuel) is a book in the Hebrew Bible and two books (1 Samuel and 2 Samuel) in the Christian Old Testament. The book is part of the narrative history of Ancient Israel called the Deuteronomistic history, a series of books (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) that constitute a theological history of the Israelites and that aim to explain God's law for Israel under the guidance of the prophets.
ellauri185.html on line 102: The Philistines capture the Ark of the Covenant from Shiloh and take it to the temple of their god Dagon, who recognizes the supremacy of Yahweh. The Philistines are afflicted with plagues and return the ark to the Israelites, but to the territory of the tribe of Benjamin rather than to Shiloh. The Philistines attack the Israelites gathered at Mizpah in Benjamin. Samuel appeals to Yahweh, the Philistines are decisively beaten, and the Israelites reclaim their lost territory.
ellauri185.html on line 332: Mixi-kysymyxet hakee premissejä, josta havainnot voi päätellä. Jos premissit on yleispätevämpiä, ne on tietty epävarmempia, mutta jos ne nazaavat voi niillä ennustaa tulevia havaintoja. Kyberneettinen selitys mixi-kysymyxeen ennustaa takaisin kytketyn systeemin tiloja sen tasapainotilasta. Se on deterministisen kausaaliselityxen erikoistapaus, eikä vaadi toimiaxeen mitään kopiota systeemistä missään muualla. Darwinismi on tätä tyyppiä. Peliteoreettinen selitys on kyberneettisen erikoistapaus. Pelaajat hakeutuvat kohti jotain niille optimaalista tasapainotilaa. Joskus ne jopa tajuavatkin sen, aivokuoren pienoismallilla voi jopa olla kausaalinen osuus tapahtumissa. Muttei välttämättä niin. Uskonnolliset heput kysyvät viimeximainitun tyyppisiä kysymyxiä (eli mitä etua jollekulle on jostakin) asioista, jotka selviävät paremmin ilman oletusta omaa etuaan ajavista pelaajista, varsinkaan sellaisista joista ei ole mitään muuta evidenssiä kuin pelitapa.
ellauri185.html on line 432: 41. Mixi olemme epäloogisia? Puhukaa vain izestänne. Graham Lawless kannattaa National Rifle Associationia, sen on kaikki mitä noista väärennetyistä luvuista voi päätellä. 2000-luvulla ei enää yritetäkään prosenttilaskua. Suolapitoisuus ilmoitetaan grammoina hehtogrammassa. Steven Pinkerkin oli kauhistua, mutta huh, data olikin väärennettyä. No se on siihen tottunut. Ilmastonmuutoxen kieltäjät ovat kuuroja tieteellisille faktoille. NRA:n paukkina on kuurouttanut ne. Taloustilanteiden järkiperäiseen käsittelyyn on peliteoriaa ja niin edelleen. Ei siihen mitään marxismia tarvita. Ovatko epärationaaliset uskomuxet pääsemässä niskan päälle? Kyllä selvästi! Uskoon, toivoon ja rakkauteen liittyvän sanaston käyttö on kasvanut somessa räjähdysmäisesti, ja tietoon, laskelmointiin ja tunnekylmyyteen liittyvät on pahasti tappiolla. Samoin 1. ja 2. persoonan pronominien suhteessa kolmanteen. Siitä kiitän Sinuas Herra! Seurauxena on yliluonnollisia uskomuxia, valeuutisia ja salaliittoteorioita. Näemme sen mitä haluamme nähdä. Will to believe. Usko on luja luottamus siihen mitä ei näe. Absurdimpi parempi.
ellauri185.html on line 599: Tolstoilla on se optimistinen usko, että kaikki konnat, rikolliset ja väkivallan tekijät joko häviävät tai muuttuvat hyviksi, rauhallisiksi ja kunniallisiksi ihmisiksi, kun ei enää mikään väkivalta ole heitä estämässä antamasta pahoille haluilleen ja vieteilleen vapaata tyydytystä. Millä perusteella hän tätä uskoo ja odottaa, sitä hän ei oikeastaan meille ilmaise. Luultavasti hän ei itsekään tiennyt sitä. Tolstoin vika oli että se ei ollut lukenut hyvän kirjan ekaa osaa, missä selitetään ja laajasti havainnollistetaan perisyntiä. Apina on paha, se on koodattu sen genomiin. Apinoiden pitää taistella laumana joka banaanista, ei muuten selviä kenellä on eniten fitnessiä.
ellauri185.html on line 781: In this scene from the biblical book of Exodus, Moses and Aaron (upper right) visit the pharaoh, who is mourning his son. The Egyptian ruler’s son had died from one of the plagues sent by God to secure the Israelites’ release from Egypt. The gloom of the painting reflects the father’s intense grief.
ellauri185.html on line 783: Finally, the tenth and most horrific plague came, the killing for the first born child by the angel of death. To protect their first-born children, the Israelites marked their doors with lamb’s blood so the angel of death would pass over them. Thus the name Passover, which is “pesach” in Hebrew.
ellauri185.html on line 809: In II Sam. 24:15, God sends a pestilence that kills 70,000 Israelites because of David’s ill-conceived census. Jesus says in Luke 21:11 that there will be plagues. Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah speak of God sending plagues, for example, in Ezek.
ellauri188.html on line 445:

Pelle-Hermannin peliteoriaa