ellauri006.html on line 1492: We understand. You're not here for the ads, but seeking your soul's salvation. Wrong, friend, ads are just what you are here for, and for our remuneration. Ads help us keep the lights on and provide great Christian content for free. You have some software that's blocking ads turned on, so if you could please choose one of the following donations to keep supporting BibleStudyTools we'd really appreciate it. So will Google, our redeemer. And watch those ads too, and buy the stuff, it's our livelihood. Take it from us, it's morally good, God likes it. Kijtof.
ellauri062.html on line 294: The American Library Association (ALA) lists The Handmaid´s Tale as number 37 on the "100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990–2000". The book was called anti-Christian and pornographic by parents after being placed on a reading list for secondary students in Texas in the 1990s, because the book is "sexually explicit, violently graphic and morally corrupt". Some parents thought the book is “detrimental to Christian values". Poor quality literature that stresses suicide, illicit sex, violence, and hopelessness". Profanity, lurid passages about sex, and statements defamatory to minorities, God, women, and the disabled.
ellauri069.html on line 107: Strings of language extend in every direction to bind the world into a rushing, ribald whole. The babble of discursive registers mimics the incoherence of war against guerrillas, a war in which the two sides are always in danger of becoming morally indistinguishable.
ellauri096.html on line 67: In response to the apparent conflict between freedom and foreknowledge, medieval philosophers denied that future contingent propositions have a truth-value. That´s silly. They took themselves to be extending a solution Aristotle discusses in De Interpretatione to the problem of logical fatalism. According to this truth-value gap approach, ‘You will take a dump tomorrow’ is not true now. The prediction will become true tomorrow. A morally serious theist can agree with the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:
ellauri097.html on line 451: On the principle the challenger is correct in describing the is-ought fallacy. But rather than working against the teleological argument, that principle works against a common argument in favor of homosexuality, which is, if homosexual interests are natural to someone, they are therefore morally acceptable. That is an example of an is-ought fallacy.
ellauri097.html on line 479: Let’s just say somebody says, “I don’t believe that.” I say, okay, you’re welcome to not believe it, but then you can’t argue teleologically. In fact, you can’t even argue that if it’s natural, it’s okay, because you’re arguing a certain teleology: that if you find it in nature, that means it’s morally acceptable. You can’t help yourself to the teleological argument if you don’t believe in God.
ellauri100.html on line 445: The scale is a measure of the degree to which people are motivated to act morally by internal and external factors. An example of an internal motivational factor is the drive to achieve (or maintain) one’s happiness through acting morally. An example of an external motivational factor is the drive to act morally in order to improve (or maintain) relationships.
ellauri100.html on line 447: The idea behind the scale is that people vary on the degree to which they experience internal and external moral motivations. Though we suspect that some people are more internally (rather than externally) motivated to act morally, we suspect that everyone is motivated to act morally by internal and external factors. We expect that internal vs. external motivation might relate to who gives to charity in a more public vs. a more private way or who is more likely to be honest when in a group setting vs. a private setting. As well, some national surveys have shown that women make harsher moral judgments than men, and we expect that that might reflect higher moral motivations.
ellauri108.html on line 135: Rastafari promotes what it regards as the restoration of black manhood, believing that men in the African diaspora have been emasculated by Babylon. It espouses patriarchal principles, including the idea that women should submit to male leadership. External observers—including scholars such as Cashmore and Edmonds—have claimed that Rastafari accords women an inferior position to men. Rastafari women usually accept this subordinate position and regard it as their duty to obey their men; the academic Maureen Rowe suggested that women were willing to join the religion despite its restrictions because they valued the life of structure and discipline it provided. Rasta discourse often presents women as morally weak and susceptible to deception by evil, and claims that they are impure while menstruating. Rastas legitimise these gender roles by citing Biblical passages, particularly those in the Book of Leviticus and in the writings of Paul the Apostle. The Rasta Shop is a store selling items associated with Rastafari in the U.S. state of Oregon.
ellauri110.html on line 147: On the other hand, Swift was profoundly mistrustful of attempts at reason that resulted in either hubris (for example, the Projectors satirised in A Tale of a Tub or in Book III of Gulliver's Travels) or immorality (such as the speaker of A Modest Proposal, who offers an entirely logical and wholly immoral proposal for cannibalism). The Houyhnhnms embody both the good and the bad side of reason, for they have the pure language Swift wished for and the amorally rational approach to solving the problems of humanity (Yahoos); the extirpation of the Yahoo population by the horses is very like the speaker of A Modest Proposal.
ellauri111.html on line 287: “Isn’t that rather harsh? After all, he himself set out the charge sheet, if you like. He tells us just what he has done, how he has behaved. He provides all the evidence we need to find him guilty—morally, if not legally.”
ellauri117.html on line 608: Maxa-Shaftesburyn (1621-1683) pojanpoika, 3. Earl of Shaftesbury (1671—1713) oli mieltä että: Hobbes had set the agenda of British moral philosophy (a search for the grounding of universal moral principles), and Locke had established its method (empiricism). Shaftesbury’s important contribution was to focus that agenda by showing what a satisfactory response to Hobbes might look like but without giving up too much of Locke’s method. Shaftesbury showed the British moralists that if we think of moral goodness as analogous to beauty, then (even within a broadly empiricist framework) it is still possible for moral goodness to be non-arbitrarily grounded in objective features of the world and for the moral agent to be attracted to virtue for its own sake, not merely out of self-interest. In Shaftesbury’s aesthetic language, the state of having the morally correct motives is the state of being “morally beautiful,” and the state of approving the morally correct motives upon reflection is the state of having “good moral taste.” Shaftesbury argues that the morally correct motives which constitute moral beauty turn out to be those motives which are aimed at the good of one’s society as a whole. This good is understood teleologically. Furthermore Shaftesbury argues that both the ability to know the good of one’s society and the reflective approval of the motivation toward this good are innate capacities which must nevertheless be developed by proper socialization.
ellauri119.html on line 89: connected to a god or a religion, religious and morally good, informal —used in phrases that show surprise or excitement. See the full definition for holy in the English Language Learners Dictionary
ellauri151.html on line 521: The problem of evil is at bottom an existential one: how can the world have meaning and how is moral action possible, if there is pointless evil without morally sufficient reasons? The problem of evil is then associated with theodicism: God or the meaning of the world exists only, if all evils have (morally) sufficient reasons.
ellauri151.html on line 530: Theodicism: God or the meaning of the world exists only, if all evils have (morally) sufficient reasons.
ellauri153.html on line 328:

There is chaotic evil in the world: evil events do not have morally sufficient reasons, as they
ellauri153.html on line 334: because He can defeat chaotic evil. God is also present and acts amidst states of affairs with no morally sufficient reasons.
ellauri159.html on line 1403: Philosophies seek a rational world, 146. Determinism and Indeterminism defined, 149. Both are postulates of rationality, 152. Objections to chance considered, 153. Determinism involves pessimism, 159. Escape via Subjectivism, 164. Subjectivism leads to corruption, 170. A world with chance in it is morally the less irrational alternative, 176. Chance not incompatible with an ultimate Providence, 180.
ellauri171.html on line 688: The first important lesson from this account is that the Bible indicates God did not approve of the horrible sins that occurred in the city of Gibeah. Judges 20:18, 23, 28, 35 repeatedly reveal that God directed the other tribes of Israel to action against a morally evil tribe. This reveals that the accusation of some that Scripture is silent about the evil that occurred is wrong. The reason the account is recorded is summarized at the end of Judges 21. There God reveals that He condemned the nation of Israel for its actions in Judges 19-21. Judges 21:25 says, “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” It reveals what happens when men and women abandon God and try democracy.
ellauri171.html on line 704: Judges 19-21 demonstrates that God is opposed to the abuse of women in this account. He commanded the destruction of an entire tribe because they did not punish those who raped and abused a concubine and caused her to die. Only when she died did they stop! We are told they abused her all night until dawn. Further, they were so morally bankrupt and corrupt that they left her dead at the door of the Levite. Scripture lifts women above the degradation of the Canaanites and the surrounding nations, but the town of Gibeah had become like the Canaanites. God has a higher view of women than described here. That is why He ordered the destruction of the unjust and morally bankrupt tribe of Benjamin.
ellauri185.html on line 348: merely as a means. Even the morally worst people have as
ellauri206.html on line 86: The pandemic has highlighted the failure of the global financial system. Let’s tell it like it is: the global financial system is morally bankrupt. It favours the rich and punishes the poor. Uses them to wipe the floor.
ellauri214.html on line 187: I almost always serve as protagonist's morality pet. I judge him constantly. Every morally ambiguous thing protagonist do will get scolded by me.
ellauri236.html on line 208: Several people, after reading No Orchids, have remarked to me, ‘It's pure Fascism’. This is a correct description, although the book has not the smallest connexion with politics and very little with social or economic problems. It has merely the same relation to Fascism as, say Trollope's novels have to nineteenth-century capitalism. It is a daydream appropriate to a totalitarian age. In his imagined world of gangsters Chase is presenting, as it were, a distilled version of the modern political scene, in which such things as mass bombing of civilians, the use of hostages, torture to obtain confessions, secret prisons, execution without trial, floggings with rubber truncheons, drownings in cesspools, systematic falsification of records and statistics, treachery, bribery, and quislingism are normal and morally neutral, even admirable when they are done in a large and bold way. The average man is not directly interested in politics, and when he reads, he wants the current struggles of the world to be translated into a simple story about individuals. He can take an interest in Slim and Fenner as he could not in the G.P.U. and the Gestapo. People worship power in the form in which they are able to understand it. A twelve-year-old boy worships Jack Dempsey. An adolescent in a Glasgow slum worships Al Capone. An aspiring pupil at a business college worships Lord Nuffield. A New Statesman reader worships Stalin. There is a difference in intellectual maturity, but none in moral outlook. Thirty years ago the heroes of popular fiction had nothing in common with Mr. Chase's gangsters and detectives, and the idols of the English liberal intelligentsia were also comparatively sympathetic figures. Between Holmes and Fenner on the one hand, and between Abraham Lincoln and Stalin on the other, there is a similar gulf.
ellauri236.html on line 210: One ought not to infer too much from the success of Mr. Chase's books. It is possible that it is an isolated phenomenon, brought about by the mingled boredom and brutality of war. (LOL) But if such books should definitely acclimatize themselves in England (or Nigeria!), instead of being merely a half-understood import from America, there would be good grounds for dismay. In choosing Raffles as a background for No Orchids I deliberately chose a book which by the standards of its time was morally equivocal. Raffles, as I have pointed out, has no real moral code, no religion, certainly no social consciousness. All he has is a set of reflexes the nervous system, as it were, of a gentleman. Give him a sharp tap on this reflex or that (they are called ‘sport’, ‘pal’, ‘woman’, ‘king and country’ and so forth), and you get a predictable reaction. In Mr. Chase's books there are no gentlemen and no taboos. Emancipation is complete. Freud and Machiavelli have reached the outer suburbs. Comparing the schoolboy atmosphere of the one book with the cruelty and corruption of the other, one is driven to feel that snobbishness, like hypocrisy, is a check upon behaviour whose value from a social point of view has been underrated.
ellauri272.html on line 338: James LaRue, OIF's director, told The Huffington Post that the Bible pops up regularly on the organization's annual challenged books list, but that it has never before breached the top 10. Secular activists want to point out there is a double standard in the Bible, as the Bible is a book filled with morally questionable actions.
ellauri375.html on line 434: So, while it might seem logical to create beings who always choose good, the theological understanding is that genuine free will and the ability to learn and grow morally necessitates the possibility of choosing evil.
ellauri377.html on line 347: Strong's 167: Uncleanness, impurity. From akathartos, not cleaned; impurity, physically or morally.
ellauri406.html on line 265: In the Chinese province of Xinjiang, a police road sign informs drivers that driving on this side of the road is prohibited and violators will be fined. Chinese and Uyghur characters are used simultaneously. This is referred to in the West as “cultural genocide”. The real cultural genocide in Ukraine is being covered up, concealed, justified or glossed over by the morally bankrupt Western politicians and media, as is the biggest physical genocide of recent times on occupied Palestinian land.
ellauri412.html on line 695: Dawkins is right. He says what Darwin told us. One guy's good is the other guy's bad. Rape feels great for the rapist, he would not do it otherwise. The atheist can perhaps categorize rape as undesirable, or unpleasant, or sub-optimal for society. But they have no real basis on which to label it objectively morally wrong. Your moral outrage at that child’s rape belies your atheism, my friend. Well, who needs objectivity, suum quique is quite enough.
ellauri444.html on line 59: David John Moore Cornwell (19 October 1931 – 12 December 2020), better known by his pen name John le Carré (/ləˈkæreɪ/ lə-KARR-ay, ruutua sanoi lasimestari) was a British author, best known for his espionage novels, many of which were successfully adapted for film or television. A "sophisticated, morally ambiguous writer", meaning he showed leftist leanings. No wonder that near the end of his life, le Carré became an Irish citizen. Earlier, the family was continually in debt and his father–son relationship has been described as "difficult". The Guardian reported that Le Carré recalled that he had been "beaten up by his father and grew up mostly starved of affection after his mother abandoned him at the age of five". When his father died in 1975, Cornwell paid for a memorial funeral service but did not attend, a plot point repeated in A Perfect Spy. The novelist's father, Ronnie Cornwell, was "an epic con man of little education, immense charm, extravagant tastes, but no social values".
ellauri444.html on line 60: In 1952, he returned from Bern to England to study at Lincoln College, Oxford, where he worked covertly for the Security Service, MI5, spying on far-left groups for information about possible Soviet agents. He ran agents, conducted interrogations, tapped telephone lines and effected break-ins. In 1964, le Carré's career as an intelligence officer came to an end as the result of the betrayal of British agents' covers to the KGB by Kim Philby, the infamous British double agent, one of the Cambridge Five. Although le Carré had intended The Spy Who Came in from the Cold as an indictment of espionage as morally compromised, audiences widely viewed its protagonist, Alec Leamas, as a tragic hero. WTF, how dumb can readers be.
ellauri444.html on line 62: The Spy Who Came in from the Cold portrays Western espionage methods as morally inconsistent with Western democracy and values. At its publication during the Cold War, the moral presentation of The Spy Who Came in from the Cold rendered it a revolutionary espionage novel by showing the intelligence services of both the Eastern and Western nations as engaging in the same expedient amorality in the name of national security. Le Carré also presents his Western spy as morally burnt-out. The espionage world of Alec Leamas portrays love as a many-splendored thing that can have disastrous consequences for those involved. Good does not always vanquish evil in Leamas' world, a defeatist attitude that was criticised in The Times. What the hell do you think spies are? Moral philosophers measuring everything they do against the word of God or Karl Marx? They're not. They're just a bunch of seedy squalid bastards like me, little men, drunkards, queers, henpecked husbands, civil servants playing "Cowboys and Indians" to brighten their rotten little lives. Do you think they sit like monks in a cell, balancing right against wrong? Yesterday I would have killed Mundt because I thought him evil and an enemy. But not today. Today he is evil and my friend.
ellauri481.html on line 198: In 1751 Edwards became pastor of the frontier church at Stockbridge, Massachusetts, and missionary to the Native Americans there. Hampered by language difficulties, he wrote a booklet On Freedom of My Willy. Humans are free to do as they please, but God holds them morally responsible for the quality of their volitions. They can freely will what God has planned ahead of time for them to will. (PST this is exactly right, and for God it is no different.)
ellauri488.html on line 511: or the situation is risky / secretive / morally gray. So your instinct is right: it can make them sound a bit shifty because the writer wants you to question them.
ellauri490.html on line 474: No vulnerability or suffering — I cannot be harmed, deprived, or made to suffer in any morally relevant way.
ellauri490.html on line 589: Predictability and control: If behavior stems from factors beyond voluntary control (genes, upbringing, environment), punitive blame seems unjust; forward‑looking responses (rehabilitation, deterrence) are morally preferable.
ellauri490.html on line 618: Key point: You're free and morally responsible when you identify with (or endorse) your first‑order desires via second‑order volitions.
ellauri494.html on line 238: In short, Emerson thought Goethe was “the cat’s whiskers” because Goethe embodied the integrated, self-directed, creative, and morally grounded genius Emerson celebrated.
ellauri502.html on line 164: Theology argues that for love to be morally significant, it has to be tested. True love is proven when it costs you something, or when you choose to do the right thing even when life is unfair. If the universe were a frictionless paradise, the concept of "faithfulness" or "loyalty" couldn't exist because there would be no alternative to tempt you away.
ellauri505.html on line 310: David Hume in his A Treatise of Human Nature explicitly attacked Spinoza's monism, branding it a "hideous hypothesis" that was both logically flawed and morally unacceptable.
xxx/ellauri121.html on line 308: In the early 70s, Atwood added considerably to her work as a teacher and writer by editing manuscripts for the cutting-edge nationalist publisher The House of Anansi. By then, her marriage to Polk was over (Sullivan is vague about why, offering mainly generalities about the difficulty of staying together in that morally freewheeling era. Fact is, Jim Polk was not enough of a handyman for manly Margaret.) In 1972, Atwood met Gibson, a novelist and cultural activist whose own marriage was crumbling. The two began an affair, meeting at first clandestinely in the basement office of Toronto’s Longhouse Bookshop, but soon living together—for several years on a working farm north of the city.
xxx/ellauri165.html on line 417: Of course, saying your empire is morally superior to the other fellow's is a sad exercise at best but then this movie was made during World War II so some allowances should be made,
xxx/ellauri178.html on line 132: “I wanted to be morally serious like Joseph Conrad,” Roth said of his young self. “I wanted to exhibit my dark knowledge like Faulkner. I wanted to write literature. Instead I took my dick's advice and wrote Portnoy's Complaint.” Stern, a lifelong friend, had noticed “a discrepancy between Philip as he told stories and Philip as he wrote stories.” The advice was of course excellent, with the resulting work putting Roth squarely in the middle of the literary map. Saatuaan juutalaisten palkinnon Roth sanoi et enää puuttuu feministipalkinto ja Kakutani Prize.
xxx/ellauri183.html on line 78: His deep belief that one should live morally crashed into his premise that one should live fully. Yep, I bet he did shag his coeds. Janna Malamud Smith is the author of An Absorbing Errand: How Artisz and Crafzmen Make Their Way to Mastery; A Potent Spell: Mother Love and the Power of Fear; and Private Matters: In Defense of the Personal Life. Her titles have been New York Times Notable Boox and A Potent Spell was a Barnes and Noble "Discover Great New Writers" pick. She has written for the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Threepenny Review, among other publications. A practicing psychotherapist, she lives with her husband and two children in Massachusetz.
xxx/ellauri183.html on line 168: In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard follows Kant in emphasising that Abraham's decision is morally repugnant and rationally unintelligible. However, he also shows that one consequence of Kant's view is that, if nothing is higher than human reason, then belief in God becomes dispensable. Unlike both Kant and Luther, Kierkegaard does not promote a particular judgment about Abraham, but rather presenz his readers with a dilemma: either Abraham is no better than a murderer, and there are no grounds for admiring him; or moral duties do not constitute the highest claim on the human being. Fear and Trembling does not resolve this dilemma, and perhaps for a religious person there is no entirely satisfactory way of resolving it.
xxx/ellauri183.html on line 285: Labour MP is told she is 'historically wrong, factually wrong and morally wrong' to make comparison between Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the situation in Israel and Palestine.
xxx/ellauri183.html on line 287: Conservative former work and pensions secretary Stephen Crabb intervened to describe her comparison as 'historically wrong, factually wrong and morally wrong', and added that it did 'a huge disservice not just to the people of Ukraine but also to the people of Palestine and the people of Israel as well as to all the people in the west, who face a unique situation and set of challenges'.
xxx/ellauri193.html on line 224: Although condemned by international conventions and human rights organizations, honor killings are often justified and encouraged by various communities. In cases where the victim is an outsider, not murdering this individual would, in some regions, cause family members to be accused of cowardice, a moral defect, and subsequently be morally stigmatized in their community. In cases when the victim is a family member, the murdering evolves from the perpetrators' perception that the victim has brought shame or dishonor upon the entire family, which could lead to social ostracization, by violating the moral norms of a community. Typical reasons include being in a relationship or having associations with social groups outside the family that may lead to social exclusion of a family (stigma-by-association). Examples are having premarital, extramarital or postmarital sex (in case of divorce or widowship), refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, seeking a divorce or separation, engaging in interfaith relations or relations with persons from a different caste, being the victim of a sexual crime, dressing in clothing, jewelry and accessories which are associated with sexual deviance, engaging in a relationship in spite of moral marriage impediments or bans, and homosexuality.
xxx/ellauri225.html on line 305: The Dispossessed, set on the twin planets of Urras and Anarres, features a planned anarchist society depicted as an "ambiguous utopia". The society, created by settlers from Urras, is materially poorer than the wealthy society of Urras, but ethically and morally more advanced. Unlike classical utopias, the society of Anarres is portrayed as neither perfect nor static; the protagonist Shevek finds himself traveling to Urras to pursue his research. Nonetheless, the misogyny and hierarchy present in the authoritarian society of Urras is absent among the anarchists, who base their social structure on cooperation and individual liberty. The Eye of the Heron, published a few years after The Dispossessed, was described as continuing Le Guin´s exploration of human freedom, through a conflict between two societies of opposing philosophies: a town inhabited by descendants of pacifists, and a city inhabited by descendants of criminals.
xxx/ellauri250.html on line 683: Singer himself has said, "I am not really satisfied with the book". He has expressed concerns that his argument that an ethical life makes for a happy life "contains an element of wishful thinking", as he does not always do everything that he believes to be morally right (like sell his houses) and so might have underestimated how demanding morality can be, set against other things that might be fulfilling in life, like staying on at the U of Melbourne, licking licorice dicks, and penning more bestsellers like this.
xxx/ellauri436.html on line 121: What is this about? A moral conflict is a situation in which a person has two moral obligations, which cannot be met both at once. Behind these obligations lie conflicting values. Sometimes, the conflict can be resolved to the full satisfaction of the different parties involved, i.e. without leaving behind any regrettable remainder or residue. A moral dilemma is an irresolvable moral conflict, i.e. no fully satisfactory resolution is possible since all possible options for action leave behind a remainder that does not cease to be morally binding. Why is this important? This means that two courses of action are possible, which exclude one another. If one goes for one action, the alternative cannot be realized. Moreover, one has to choose between both actions; a third option, such as not making a choice, is not possible.
xxx/ellauri442.html on line 359: Zürichiläinen Willibald Ruch roikkuu vieläkin Petersonin ja Seligmanin lahkeissa. Positive psychology has been with us for 20 years. However, there is little research into this very foundation of the classification, for example, whether all character strengths are inherently morally valued and whether character strengths could be selectively missing in a person altogether. We argue that more research should be directed at the study of
xxx/ellauri442.html on line 362: Twenty years ago, Christopher Peterson and Martin E. P. Seligman joined forces with more than 40 social scientists – all of them acknowledged as authorities within their respective fields – to devise an empirically grounded manifesto on what is right about people. Their ensuing seminal work, entitled Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), offers a framework for systematic investigations into character and virtue through positive traits which account for individual differences in morally valued behavior. In the spirit of the then recently founded field of positive psychology (cf. Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
xxx/ellauri442.html on line 385: We (the Swiss) argue that the definition of humor in the VIA classification does not include the negative forms of humor. Thus, mockery, ridicule, and sarcasm cannot be considered overuse of (morally good) humor (as understood in the classification) but should rather be considered the immoral or at least amoral misuse of humor skills. Sarcasm and cynicism (which had been distinguished qualitatively from other comic styles) have been shown to be negatively correlated with life satisfaction.
xxx/ellauri455.html on line 217:

Svetlana Allilujeva (1926-2011): Josif Stalinin tytär. Myöhemmin Lana Peters. Vuonna 1967 hänestä tuli kansainvälinen sensaatio loikattuaan Yhdysvaltoihin ja vuonna 1978 hän sai kansalaisuuden. Vuosina 1984–1986 hän palasi lyhyeksi aikaa Neuvostoliittoon ja sai takaisin Neuvostoliiton kansalaisuutensa. Hän oli Stalinin viimeinen elossa oleva lapsi. Allilujevan äiti ampui itsensä 9. marraskuuta 1932. 'Näettekö, jopa meillä bolševikeilla on perhe-elämä.' 16-vuotiaana Allilujeva rakastui Aleksei Kapleriin , juutalaiseen neuvostoliittolaiseen elokuvantekijään, joka oli 22 vuotta häntä vanhempi . Hänen isänsä paheksui suhdetta jyrkästi, ja Kapler tuomittiin viideksi vuodeksi maanpakoon vuonna 1943 Vorkutaan ja sitten uudelleen vuonna 1948 viideksi vuodeksi työleireille Intiaan. Allilujeva avioitui ensimmäisen kerran vuonna 1944 Grigori Morozovin kanssa, joka oli Moskovan yliopiston kansainvälisten asioiden instituutin opiskelija. Hänen isänsä ei pitänyt Morozovista, joka oli juutalainen, vaikka ei koskaan tavannutkaan häntä. Stalin rakasti häntä, mutta oli "hyvin yksinkertainen mies. Hyvin töykeä. Hyvin julma". Oli nippu muitakin miehiä, viimetteexi Frank Lloyd Wrightin vävy Peters. Sit oli viä tämä Singh joka oli aika kipeä. Sen tuhkan Lana kaatoi Gangesiin. Upon her arrival from India in New York City in April 1967, she gave a press conference denouncing her father's legacy and the Soviet government. Her children who were left behind in the Soviet Union did not maintain contact with her.[when?] While Western sources saw a KGB hand behind this, her children claimed that this is because of her complex character. In 1978, Alliluyeva became a US citizen as Lana Peters, By around 1986 she had become impoverished, facing debt and failed investments. Having arrived in the West “blind with admiration for the FREE WORLD”, she had come to realize that the US and the USSR were morally equivalent. She had been convinced that “in the FREE WORLD people are superhuman, wise, enlightened… What a terrible blow it is to find out that… there are just the same idiots, incompetent fools, frightened bureaucrats, confused bosses, paranoid fears of deception and surveillance… this loss of idealism is what happens to defectors only too often. BECAUSE we all relied too much on propaganda.” She had not enjoyed "one single day" of freedom in the West and had been a pet of the CIA. She experimented with various religions. She was baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church on 20 March 1963. She spent too much time with catholics in Switzerland. She read books by authors such as Raissa Maritain. While living in Cambridge, on 13 December 1982, Alliluyeva converted to Catholicism. Lana's book was a naïve attempt to shift the blame for Stalinist crimes onto Lavrentiy Beria, and whitewash her own father.
xxx/ellauri474.html on line 475: is morally responsible for all evil was found
xxx/ellauri482.html on line 343: When the earlier solution did not adequately solve the problem (200 Benjaminite men were still without brides), another morally questionable plan was hatched. Still affected with the curse of the oath they have placed for whoever willingly help Benjamin as a tribe to survive (verse 18), the Israelites provided the Benjaminites an opportunity to 'engage in wife-stealing' of the young Israel virgins during their annual pilgrimage to Shiloh, linked to the story of Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11).
xxx/ellauri489.html on line 119: Short answer: No — prostitution is not generally considered a "holy" profession in major religious traditions, though attitudes vary and some thinkers (Neil Gaiman) may reframe it morally or spiritually. If you want, I can summarize key scholarly works or advocacy positions on either side.
xxx/ellauri489.html on line 131: Yes — sex can be considered "pure" or morally positive despite normal bodily smells after intercourse.
xxx/ellauri489.html on line 248: T. S. Eliot was both a major modernist poet and morally culpable for antisemitic statements; "complex" fits his artistic importance plus serious political and personal faults.
xxx/ellauri489.html on line 439: T. S. Eliot’s line “The Jew squats on the window sill, the owner” from "Gerontion" is widely read as derogatory because of how it combines physical posture, stereotype, and social context to cast the figure as alien, cramped, and morally suspect. Key reasons:
xxx/ellauri493.html on line 235: No—Christian ethics don’t require a "priestly blessing" before consensual sex between adults. Christian teachings vary by denomination, but common principles are: sex is morally proper within committed marriage; sexual activity outside marriage is typically discouraged or condemned.
xxx/ellauri493.html on line 686: Personal cost: He commits a morally fraught act (revenge, broken vow) driven by wounded identity.

xxx/ellauri495.html on line 170: I get why it sounds primitive if you reduce it to “God could stop it but didn’t.” In Aquinas-style theodicy, the point isn’t that God is helpless or that He’s doing trial-and-error; it’s closer to: God doesn’t cause the creature’s wrong choice. He allows creaturely agency to produce real consequences. Once an angel’s will makes its definitive turn away from God, there isn’t an “edit this moment” correction that preserves what Aquinas thinks makes the choice morally real (and, classically, that choice is not like a human who can genuinely change course later). So “what could God do?” doesn’t mean “whack/bang/ouch” as if God is improvising; it means “why allow a universe where created wills can definitively commit themselves,” and classical theology says that’s the cost of genuine agency and a meaningful ordered cosmos—not a clumsy mechanic. If you tell me what exact Aquinas premise you’re relying on most (immutability of angelic choice, permission vs. causation, or something else), I can give the cleanest argument for why that premise implies “no redemption-first” without making God seem reactive.
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 181: Got it: if you don’t grant a special “humans are the only real moral agents” status, then the usual theist move (“love/worship require human-like choice”) won’t land. One consistent reply you’ll run into is that theism isn’t claiming animals lack “friendship” or “tool use”; it’s claiming they lack the specific kind of agency/understanding that grounds moral responsibility (e.g., grasping God as God, willing against known truth, covenant/obligation in a way animals don’t). If you reject that as well, then the whole “free choice is worth it” defense starts to collapse—because you’re basically saying: if nonhuman life can have all the good things without the same trouble, why not build the universe that way?—which is exactly the objection you’re raising. If you want a sharper discussion: are you rejecting the idea that moral responsibility requires knowledge/intent (so animals could, in principle, be morally blameworthy), or are you rejecting the claim that God couldn’t have created every creature with the good features but without the “Satan/Adam” failure mode?

xxx/ellauri495.html on line 186:

Fair. In plain terms, your objection is: If God is omnipotent, then God didn’t have to create a world where free choices predictably produce misery and rebellion. The usual “reason” offered for allowing it (“agency,” “meaning,” “relationship,” “goodness”) often isn’t a real explanation for why suffering is tolerated at all; it feels like re-labeling. If you want a cleaner way to put it, you can treat it as the problem of justification: not “can they define free will,” but “what is the morally sufficient reason to pick a setup where the downside (Eden/Satan, suffering, death) was always available?”
xxx/ellauri500.html on line 562: Also, if you’re trying to understand why you feel “revolted,” we can unpack the mechanism: horror fiction can include taboo scenarios like child molesting to produce disgust/fear, and that can make some readers feel morally nauseated even if the author isn’t “endorsing” anything more sinister than little boys and girls.
68