ellauri034.html on line 545: Achebe´s critics argue that he fails to distinguish Marlow's view from Conrad's, which results in very clumsy interpretations of the novella. Jeffrey Meyers notes that Conrad, like his back door acquaintance Roger Casement, "was one of the first men to question the Western notion of progress, a dominant idea in Europe from the Renaissance to the Great War, to attack the hypocritical justification of colonialism and to reveal... the savage degradation of the white man in Africa."
ellauri048.html on line 743: There followed the years of bohemia, when the family moved to Paris and Saul started to shrug off the influence of his 19th-century literary heroes and find his own voice in The Adventures of Augie March. When he was happy and the writing was going well, their lives would be joyous; when he struggled, the apartment was mired in gloom. Meanwhile, "Saul had women stashed all over town," writes his son. The pain of these recollections is secondary to Bellow's fury at what he calls his father's "self‑justification: that his career as an artist entitled him to let people down with impunity." As an adult, when he asked his mother about it, she said, "I'm blessed with a poor memory."
ellauri053.html on line 537: Christopher Ricks wrote of this book, "provided this gets clearing from the philosophers, we shall at last have a compact, cogent and humane justification of criticism as a rational process." Paskanmarjat Casey oli niin konservatiivi katoliikki eze diggas jopa islamia. Ja lysytti muuteskin naisia.
ellauri092.html on line 223: Many people have wondered, are baptist and methodist the same? The answer is no. However, there are some similarities. Both Baptists and Methodist are trinitarian. Both hold that the Bible is the central text in faith and practice (though groups within both the families of denominations would dispute the Bible’s authority). Both Baptists and Methodists have historically affirmed the divinity of Christ, justification by faith alone, and the reality of heaven for those who die in Christ, and eternal torment in hell for those who die unbelieving.
ellauri092.html on line 285: One of the main errors within the Keswick Movement is their unbiblical view of sanctification. Keswickians believe when a person becomes saved, they are immediately justified. This is certainly Scriptural fact (Romans 3:21-26; 5:18-19; 2 Corinthians 5:21). There is nothing I can do to justify myself before God. Only salvation provides this immediate and eternal justification as Christ’s righteousness is literally imputed to my account.
ellauri092.html on line 289: Adherents of Keswickianism would agree with the above regarding justification. However, when it comes to sanctification, they move off in a different direction. They generally do not believe the Holy Mackerel comes into the person and takes up residence at salvation, but that the Holy Mackerel simply comes upon the person to seal them with salvation. It is later, at a time they refer to variously as the “second blessing,” or “higher living,” when they say sanctification occurs. Ultimately, their view of sanctification is flat out mysticism akin to New Age’s goal of an altered state of consciousness. This is all based on a strong (and seemingly biblical), desire to emotionally “know” God. The person turns inward to meet the felt needs of self.
ellauri092.html on line 295: …the problems in the Keswick theology are severe. Because of its corrupt roots, Keswick errs seriously in its ecumenical tendencies, theological shallowness or even incomprehensibility, neglect of the role of the Word of God in sanctification, shallow views of sin and perfectionism, support of some tenants of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, improper divorce of justification and sanctification, confusion about the nature of saving repentance, denial that God’s sanctifying grace always frees Christians from bondage to sin and changes them, failure to warn strongly about the possibility of those who are professedly Christians being unregenerate, support for an unbiblical pneumatology, belief in the continuation of the sign gifts, maintenance of significant exegetical errors, distortion of the positions and critiques of opponents of the errors of Keswick, misrepresentation of the nature of faith in sanctification, support for a kind of Quietism, and denial that God actually renews the nature of the believer to make him more personally holy. Keswick theology differs in important ways from the Biblical doctrine of sanctification. It should be rejected.
ellauri096.html on line 102: Science is about what is the case rather than what ought to be case. This seems to imply that science does not tell us what we ought to believe. The traditional way to fill the normative gap is to delegate issues of justification to epistemologists. However, Quine is uncomfortable with delegating such authority to philosophers. He prefers the thesis that psychology is enough to handle the issues traditionally addressed by epistemologists (or at least the issues still worth addressing in an Age of Science). This “naturalistic epistemology” seems to imply that ‘know’ and ‘justified’ are antiquated terms – as empty as ‘phlogiston’ or ‘soul’.
ellauri096.html on line 129: A paradox is commonly defined as a set of propositions that are individually plausible but jointly inconsistent. Paradoxes pressure us to revise beliefs in a highly structured way. For instance, much epistemology orbits a riddle posed by the regress of justification, namely, which of the following is false?
ellauri096.html on line 132: There are no circular chains of justification.
ellauri096.html on line 136: Foundationalists reject (1). They take some propositions to be self-evident. Coherentists reject (2). They tolerate some forms of circular reasoning. For instance, Nelson Goodman (1965) has characterized the method of reflective equilibrium as virtuously circular. Charles Peirce (1933–35, 5.250) rejected (3), an approach later refined by Peter Klein (2007) and championed at book-length by Scott F. Aikin (2011). Infinitists believe that infinitely long chains of justification are no more impossible than infinitely long chains of causation. Finally, the epistemological anarchist rejects (4). As Paul Feyerabend refrains in Against Method, “Anything goes” (1988, vii, 5, 14, 19, 159).
ellauri096.html on line 153: The eliminativist, who thinks that ‘know’ or ‘justified’ is meaningless, will diagnose the epistemic paradoxes as questions that only appear to be well-formed. For instance, the eliminativist about justification would not accept proposition (4) in the regress paradox: ‘Some beliefs are justified’. His point is not that no beliefs meet the high standards for justification, as an anarchist might deny that any ostensible authorities meet the high standards for legitimacy. Instead, the eliminativist unromantically diagnoses ‘justified’ as a pathological term. Just as the astronomer ignores ‘Are there a zillion stars?’ on the grounds that ‘zillion’ is not a genuine numeral, the eliminativist ignores ‘Are some beliefs justified?’ on the grounds that ‘justified’ is not a genuine adjective.
ellauri097.html on line 481: What you ought to be saying if you don’t believe in God is, It’s just molecules clashing in the universe. There is no right and wrong, so you have no justification for claiming that I’m wrong. Now, that would be consistent - the relativistic view of a materialistic universe. But, of course, then they can’t complain their “rights” because rights don’t have any place in a purely naturalistic system. Rights are part of teleology, endowed with creation.
ellauri098.html on line 62: This trope often goes hand in hand with There Are No Therapists, Trauma Conga Line and dramatic Crapsack Worlds. Big, Screwed-Up Family can be a justification for this trope. When all or nearly all involved parties are insane, you have a Cast Full of Crazy. Royal families are particularly prone to this, as are cops and detectives. The Dysfunction Junction is the natural habitat of the Jerkass Woobie.
ellauri112.html on line 855: “There is no proof that the ‘wine’ at the marriage feast in Cana was fermented. The Greek word for ‘wine’ in this text is oinos, which may refer to a fermented beverage (cf. Eph. 5:18), or it may denote freshly squeezed grape juice (cf. Isa. 16:10 – LXX). Since the word for ‘wine’ is generic, the student has no right to import the concept of an alcoholic beverage into this passage without contextual justification—of which there is none.”
ellauri151.html on line 815: [25] who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
ellauri151.html on line 1134: Each pays the price – spiritual death and anal dilatation for Michel, bodily death and who knows maybe worse for Alissa. 'Whom can I persuade that this is the twin of The Immoralist?', Andy wrote in his journal, 'that the two subjects grew up together in my mind, the excess of the one finding a secret justification in the excess of the other, so that the two together form an equipoise?'
ellauri153.html on line 415: offered no rational justification for the manner in which the forces of evil are defeated in the cross
ellauri153.html on line 422: victory of God as a justification involves a crossing of pictures: if the evils can be justified, then
ellauri153.html on line 494: confusions arise out of appeals to sufficient reasons for intelligibility and for moral justification. An
ellauri153.html on line 554: Now that the problem of evil has been exposed as a conceptual confusion, the way is clear for a Jamesian science of religions and worldviews. The methods of grammatical description can be extended to the practices and ways of sense-making in different worldviews: how they give meaning to moral practices and how do they approach the intelligibility of the world? What practical responses do they have for coping with evil? For example, the grammar of seeing-as for models and metaphors can be applied to the metaphors in the Hebrew Bible for God’s activity to understand what it is to see the world as God’s creation. The grammar of virtues can be used to describe Buddhist practices and explore, how these approaches contribute to the human good. Similar approaches can be taken to secular worldviews as well. These descriptions can then be used to assess the worldviews through dialogical encounters between them. However, one thing should be clear. There is no point in devaluing the world by arguing for the meaninglessness of life or atheism on the basis of evil, or in giving justifications for evils that can stand in the way of divine or human meliorist projects of fighting for justice. To paraphrase the judgment of the Divine Judge in the Book of Job, such approaches are not even wrong. They are as meaningless as life itself.
ellauri156.html on line 526: Abner was indignant at the rebuke, and immediately opened negotiations with David, who welcomed him on the condition that his wife Michal should be restored to him. This was done, and the proceedings were ratified by a feast where Rizpah and Michal were the lights of the party. Almost immediately after, however, Joab, who had been sent away, perhaps intentionally returned and slew Abner at the gate of Hebron. The ostensible motive for the assassination was a desire to avenge Asahel, and this would be a sufficient justification for the deed according to the extremely low moral standard of the time (although Abner should have been safe from such a revenge killing in Hebron, which was a City of Refuge). The conduct of David after the event was such as to show that he had no complicity in the act, though he could not venture to punish its perpetrators.
ellauri172.html on line 260: Other writers [who?] have opted to deny the validity of the illustration. A typical [citation needed] counter-argument is that rationality as described in the paradox is so limited as to be a straw man version of the real thing. The idea that a random decision could be made is sometimes used as an attempted justification for faith. The argument is that, like the starving ass, we must make a choice to avoid being frozen in endless doubt. Other counter-arguments exist. [This paragraph was total balderdash, if I may say so.]
ellauri184.html on line 514: During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the primary justification for circumcision was to prevent masturbation (???) and intentionally reduce male sexual pleasure, which was believed to cause a wide range of medical problems. Modern proponents say that circumcision reduces the risks of a range of infections and diseases, and confers sexual benefits (???). By contrast, some opponents, particularly of routine neonatal circumcision, question its utility and effectiveness in preventing such diseases, and object to subjecting newborn males, without their consent, to a procedure they consider to have dubious and nonessential benefits, significant risks, and a potentially negative impact on general health and later sexual enjoyment, as well as violating their human rights.
ellauri189.html on line 211: There is no escape from the infinity of being that is spontaneously experienced as contingent, lacking an ultimate justification, a goal that, in order to
ellauri194.html on line 984: He has used the war as a justification for not resigning after becoming the first serving prime minister to break the law while in office.
ellauri219.html on line 973: The Rockettes were created in 1925, but the first non-white Rockette, a Japanese-born woman named Setsuko Maruhashi, was not hired until 1985. The Rockettes did not allow dark-skinned dancers into the dance line until 1987. The justification for this policy was that such women would supposedly distract from the consistent look of the dance group.The first African American Rockette was Jennifer Jones; selected in 1987, she made her debut in 1988 at the Super Bowl halftime show. The next person with a visible but different disability hired by the Rockettes (Sydney Mesher, missing a left hand) was hired in 2019. The first Rockette with hairy bollocks and a huge boner remains to be hired yet.
ellauri222.html on line 215: Saul had women stashed all over town. His self‑justification: his career as an artist entitled him to let people down with impunity. He was married five times in all and infidelity was an issue throughout. Towards the end of his life, Saul asked his son rather charmingly, "Was I a man or a jerk?". It was the right question, and an easy one to answer: A jerk.
ellauri270.html on line 397: Mrs. Dunbar already sent her son away, perhaps to spare him having to participate in murder this year, and now she herself seems to try and avoid taking part in the lottery as well. The line about the stones makes an important point—most of the external trappings of the lottery have been lost or forgotten, but the terrible act at its heart remains. There is no real religious or practical justification for the lottery anymore—it’s just a primitive murder for the sake of tradition. Now the situation would be quite different if this were a real case of adultery, about which there are clear instructions in the Old Testament!
ellauri278.html on line 216: On 6 February 1933, Litvinov made the most-significant speech of his career, in which he tried to define aggression. He stated the internal situation of a country, alleged maladministration, possible danger to foreign residents, and civil unrest in a neighbouring country were not justifications for war. This speech became the authority when war was justified. British politician Anthony Eden had said; "to try to define aggression was a trap for the innocent and protection for the guilty". In 1946, the British Government supported Litvinov’s definition of aggression by accusing the Soviet Union of not complying with Litvinov’s definition of aggression. Finland made similar criticisms against the Soviet Union in 1939.
ellauri281.html on line 215: On 6 February 1933, Litvinov made the most-significant speech of his career, in which he tried to define aggression. He stated the internal situation of a country, alleged maladministration, possible danger to foreign residents, and civil unrest in a neighbouring country were not justifications for war. This speech became the authority when war was justified. British politician Anthony Eden had said; "to try to define aggression was a trap for the innocent and protection for the guilty". In 1946, the British Government supported Litvinov’s definition of aggression by accusing the Soviet Union of not complying with Litvinov’s definition of aggression. Finland made similar criticisms against the Soviet Union in 1939.
ellauri285.html on line 242: internalistien mielestä "our" intuitions are that the subject is justified in their beliefs in spite of being systematically deceived. Eli se on vaan tyhmä muttei tuhma. Some take the new evil demon problem as a reason for rejecting externalist views of justification. Höpsistä. Kyllä tyyppi voi olla korvausvelvollimen vaikka pelkkää tyhmyyttään. Ei se muita kiinnosta mixi se on tunaroinut, ne haluu korvauxen. Hemmetti mitä vanhaa paskaa nää uudet jenkit jauhavat. Tällästä cat's cradle tyyppistä askarointia, käteenvetoa villalangat sormissa. "Entäpä jos..."
ellauri285.html on line 759: Fredrickson wrote a response in which she conceded that the mathematical aspects of the critical positivity ratio were "questionable" and that she had "neither the expertise nor the insight" to defend them, but she maintained that the empirical evidence for the existence of a critical positivity ratio was solid. Brown, Sokal, and Friedman, the rebuttal authors, published their response to Fredrickson´s "Update" the next year, maintaining that there was no evidence for a critical positivity ratio. Losada declined to respond to the criticism (indicating to the Chronicle of Higher Education that he was too busy running his consulting business).[verification needed] Hämäläinen and colleagues responded later, passing over the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal claim of failed criteria for use of differential equations in modeling, instead arguing that there were no fundamental errors in the mathematics itself, only problems related to the model´s justification and interpretation.
xxx/ellauri085.html on line 497: This, of course, is magical thinking. Yet it has served as the intellectual basis of virtually all Republican economic policies since the 1970s, and was the primary justification for the party’s most recent tax cuts for wealthy corporations and individuals.
xxx/ellauri103.html on line 264: Now I proceed to the topic "The left’s embrace of gotcha hypersensitivity inevitably invites backlash." Why, it’s largely in order to keep from losing my fictional mojo that I stay off Facebook and Twitter, which could surely install an instinctive self-censorship out of fear of attack. Ten years ago, I gave the opening address of this same festival, in which I maintained that fiction writers have a vested interest in protecting everyone’s right to offend others – because if hurting someone else’s feelings even inadvertently is sufficient justification for muzzling, there will always be someone out there who is miffed by what you say, and freedom of speech is dead. Why, freedom of speech is just about miffing! What's the use of the freedom if you are not allowed to miff! With the rise of identity politics, which privileges a subjective sense of injury as actionable basis for prosecution, that is a battle that in the decade since I last spoke in Brisbane we’ve been losing.
xxx/ellauri114.html on line 768: The story's original purpose may have been to justify the subjection of the Canaanite people to the Israelites, but in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Christians, Muslims and Jews as an explanation for black skin, as well as a justification for slavery. Similarly, the Latter Day Saint movement used the curse of Ham to prevent the ordination of black men to its priesthood.
xxx/ellauri114.html on line 774: In the subsequent passage, "of Shem... may Canaan be his servant,"[9:26] the narrator is foreshadowing Israel's conquest of the promised land. Biblical scholar Philip R. Davies explains that the author of this narrative used Noah to curse Canaan, in order to provide justification for the later Israelites driving out and enslaving the Canaanites.
xxx/ellauri166.html on line 355: "He" as a reference to Spirit has been used in theology to match the pronoun for Yahuah, yet the Hebrew word Ruch is a noun of feminine gender. Thus, referring to the Ruach Ah Qudsh as "she" has some linguistic justification.
xxx/ellauri380.html on line 290: Angry camel driver writes: The world has eventually recognized Israel as the pariah state. It has lost all moral, political and legal justifications to exist anymore. Israel was created as a colonial project by Britain & USA to have an outpost right in the heartland of Islam, by importing Jews from Europe and US. It is being blindly supported by USA to carry out genocide of people of Gaza. It is surviving due to billions of military, political and economic support from USA and other western countries. Everyone can see that it has no roots in the Middle East, rather its colonial origin and continued existence as a US colonial outpost, has become manifest to the whole world. Does a colonial outpost has any right to exist as a legitimate country in the 21st century? America, come to think of it, is another colonial outpost.
xxx/ellauri380.html on line 292: If Jews had any right to a have state of their own, then that state should have have been created in Europe, say in Ukraina. What is the legal justification of creating a Jewish state on occupied Islamic land, when these Jews were persecuted and slaughtered by the Europeans?
Israel has proven itself to be genocidal entity by imprisoning, bombing and starving 2.3 million men, women and children of Gaza. This has become the best recorded genocide in the history of the world.
40