ellauri019.html on line 419: No need to be complainin', my objections overruled

ellauri063.html on line 47: Yes, Orwell was not exactly LGBTQ-friendly. He had a lot of opinions which now seem eccentric or objectionable. He had a lifelong tendency to make disparaging remarks about vegetarians, or people who wore sandals. I suspect that this came from the association in his mind of socialism with people who lived the early 20th century equivalent of an alternative lifestyle: it was very important to Orwell to show people that being socialist didn’t mean that you had to have to have a long beard, wear sandals or not eat meat, and that socialism was thoroughly British, manly and commonsensical.
ellauri088.html on line 555: Three invalids.—Sufferings of George and Harris.—A victim to one hundred and seven fatal maladies.—Useful prescriptions.—Cure for liver complaint in children.—We agree that we are overworked, and need rest.—A week on the rolling deep?—George suggests the River.—Montmorency lodges an objection.—Original motion carried by majority of three to one.
ellauri094.html on line 378: We shouldn’t miss that worldviews are at play even with the skeptic’s objection to Christianity. The worldview of the author of the Skeptic Annotated Bible actually doesn’t even allow for such a thing as the law of non-contradiction to be meaningful and intelligible. In other words for him to try to disprove the Bible by pointing out that there’s a Bible contradiction doesn’t even make sense within his own worldview. Check out our post “Skeptic Annotated Bible Author’s Self-Defeating Worldview.” Read also Stanford's bit on contradictory beliefs here. Lisää aiheesta:
ellauri096.html on line 94: In later writings, Quine evinces general reservations about the concept of knowledge. One of his pet objections is that ‘know’ is vague. If knowledge entails absolute certainty, then too little will count as known. Quine infers that we must equate knowledge with firmly held true belief. Asking just how firm the belief must be is akin to asking just how big something has to be to count as being big. There is no answer to the question because ‘big’ lacks the sort of boundary enjoyed by precise words.
ellauri096.html on line 261: The first objection is that it delivers the wrong result. The student is
ellauri097.html on line 455: People sometimes argue in favor of homosexuality by arguing that their inclination is natural, and if it’s natural, then we shouldn’t be making any moral objections about it. If that is their argument they are guilty of is-ought.
ellauri112.html on line 918: Then, we will answer such objections as are commonly offered to the biblical teaching.
ellauri115.html on line 938: He moved to Poland, where he married the daughter of a leading member of the Polish Brethren, the anti-trinitarian minority, or ecclesia minor. In 1565, it had split from the Calvinist Reformed Church in Poland. Sozzini never joined the ecclesia minor, but he was influential in reconciling several controversies among the Brethren: on conscientious objection, on prayer to Christ, and on the virgin birth. Fausto persuaded many in the Polish Brethren who were formerly Arian, such as Marcin Czechowic, to adopt his uncle Lelio's views.
ellauri150.html on line 476: The film's final onscreen writing credits created controversy when, in October 1959, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) awarded Tunberg sole screenplay credit, despite the objections of the film's director, William Wyler, who, in the film's commemorative booklet and elsewhere, claimed that Christopher Fry was more responsible than any other writer for the final screenplay. In response to Wyler's public outcries against their ruling, the WGA took out trade paper ads on November 20, 1959 in which they issued a statement reading, in part, "the unanimous decision of the three judges was that the sole screenplay credit was awarded to Karl Tunberg...The record shows the following: 1. Karl Tunberg is the only writer who has ever written a complete screenplay on Ben-Hur; 2. Karl Tunberg continued to contribute materials throughout the actual filming, and this material is incorporated in the final picture; and 3. Karl Tunberg alone did the necessary rewriting during the four months of retakes and added scenes. Mr. Christopher Fry himself was fully informed of the proceedings of the Guild. He has made it absolutely clear that he did not want to protest the decision of the Guild."
ellauri153.html on line 417: metatheory for Christianity encounters similar objections as theodicism in the Book of Job. First,
ellauri155.html on line 719: The incompatibilist maintains that if our willings and choices are themselves determined by antecedent causes then we could never choose otherwise than we do. Given the antecedent causal conditions, we must always act as we do. We cannot, therefore, be held responsible for our conduct since, on this account, we have no “genuine alternatives” or “open possibilities” available to us. Incompatibilists, as already noted, do not accept that Hume’s notion of “hypothetical liberty”, as presented in the Enquiry, can deal with this objection. It is true, of course, that hypothetical liberty leaves room for the truth of conditionals that suggest that we could have acted otherwise if we had chosen to do so. However, it still remains the case, the incompatibilist argues, that the agent could not have chosen otherwise given the actual circumstances. Responsibility, they claim, requires categorical freedom to choose otherwise in the same circumstances. Hypothetical freedom alone will not suffice. One way of expressing this point in more general terms is that the incompatibilist holds that for responsibility we need more than freedom of action, we also need freedom of will – understood as a power to choose between open alternatives. Failing this, the agent has no ultimate control over her conduct.
ellauri156.html on line 562: Now why does this messenger not wait for David to respond in anger, as Joab instructed? Why does he inform David that Uriah has been killed, before he even utters a word of criticism or protest? I believe the messenger gives the report in this way because he understands what is really going on here. I think he may know about David and Bathsheba, and perhaps even of her pregnancy. He certainly knows that Uriah was summoned to Jerusalem. I think he also figures out that David wants to get rid of Uriah, and that Joab has accomplished this by this miserable excuse for an offensive against the enemy. I think the messenger figures out that if David knows Uriah has been killed, he will not raise any objections to this needless slaughter. And so, rather than wait for David to hypocritically rant and rave about the stupidity of such a move, he just goes on and tells him first, so that he will not receive any reaction from David.
ellauri159.html on line 454: There’s no objection to divorce.
ellauri171.html on line 1022: Perhaps she had the status of gebira “queen mother”, or of “co-regent”. At any rate, there is no doubt that the biblical and later accounts distort her portrait for several reasons, among which we can list her monarchic power, deemed unfit in a woman; her reported devotion to the Baal and Asherah cult and her objection to Elijah and other prophets of God; her education and legal know-how (shown in the Naboth affair); and her foreign origin Ultimately, the same passages that disclaim Jezebel as evil, “whoring,” and immoral are witness to her power and the need to curb it.
ellauri257.html on line 389: My main beef with Peterson is not with his overall philosophy, although I don’t personally vibe with his “life is suffering” Christian stoicism at all, what I find objectionable is his complete laziness and lack of rigour in political theory.
ellauri262.html on line 482: Lewis postulates that maybe this world is not the 'best of all possible' universes but the only possible one. Haha! If so, then everything possible is necessary, and will is not free. (lähde) He acknowledges the objection that if God is good and he saw how much suffering it would produce why would he do it. Lewis doesn’t know how to answer that type of question and says that that is not his objective, but only to conceive how goodness (assured on other grounds) and suffering are without contradiction. Okay, Clive, so you just give up.
ellauri412.html on line 686: Vastaus: I get what you’re saying, Barry. Your objection is moral in nature. God ought to prevent his children from disaster, he ought to stop rapists, and it is immoral of him not to do so. And because of His moral lapse, you conclude that God’s love must be limited; He must not be omnibenevolent. It’s a modern take on Epicurus. And it’s a strong argument. Its tacit implication is that if God was really all-good, all-wise, and all-powerful, He should have created a universe without evil, suffering, or disaster. This implication suggests a presupposition that one of the highest moral values is an absence of evil and suffering. However, Christianity teaches there is an even higher moral value than an absence of evil and suffering: namely, love. You can't show how much you love if you don't first create some suffering.
xxx/ellauri103.html on line 245: In The Mandibles, I have one secondary character, Luella, who’s black. She’s married to a more central character, Douglas, the Mandible family’s 97-year-old patriarch. I reasoned that Douglas, a liberal New Yorker, would credibly have left his wife for a beautiful, stately African American because arm candy of color would reflect well on him in his circle, and keep his progressive kids’ objections to a minimum. But in the end the joke is on Douglas, because Luella suffers from early onset dementia, while his ex-wife, staunchly of sound mind, ends up running a charity for dementia research. As the novel reaches its climax and the family is reduced to the street, they’re obliged to put the addled, disoriented Luella on a leash, to keep her from wandering off. LOL! What a laugh, ain't it? Get it, the guy thought he was getting arm candy, but instead he got a goat!
xxx/ellauri114.html on line 667: Right and left play an important role in Jacob's final blessing to his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. 48: 12–20), whom Joseph places at the left and right sides of Jacob, respectively (verse 13), expecting his father to place his right hand on Manasseh (the firstborn) and his left on Ephraim, and then bless them. But Jacob crosses his hands, placing his right hand on Ephraim (verse 14) and his left on Manasseh, despite Joseph's objections (verse 18). Jacob explains his actions by stating that Ephraim will be greater than Manasseh (verse 19).
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 785: The musulmans may try two wimpy objections. One possible objection would be to deny that the Quran uses the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as a historically reliable source. Rather, the Quran transcends the historical incongruities and limitations of the book and includes a story that is absolutely authoritative and without error. The historicity of Infancy Gospel would be a moot point.
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 787: The issues with this objection are triune: a) how the story is presented within the narrative, b) what the Quran says about itself, and c) what the objection implies about Allah.
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 792: c) The objection might also imply something about the character of Allah and his ability to use inaccuracies or falsities within his revealed truth. What makes matters worse for the objector is the pivotal role the Quran plays within Muslim thought concerning inspiration. Islamic scholar Stefan Wild asserts
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 797: nature. For it to contain any sort of error would impugn the nature of an errorless God (39:1-2; 55:1-2). A further question would be whether or not something that never happened in the passing of time can be viewed by definition “historical?”How about "epic?" This could be an example of a pseudo-book. Responses and others similar to them make the objection implausible.
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 799: Another possible objection would be to argue that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is in fact historically reliable and that early Christians erred when they left it out of their canon.
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 801: Muslim apologists would then be making the claim that “Christians made a mistake by not seeing the text’s truthfulness and historical validity.” The problem with this objection is triune: a) the criteria for canonicity, b) the history of the books, and c) the theology of the gospel itself.
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 805: b) Furthermore, this objection ignores the history behind the Infancy Gospels themselves and the intentions behind their creation. The Christians penning the gospels knew they were creating stories that were not meant to be read as truth or contain actual, correct historiography. How do we know? Because of 1)-5). And above all, because 6) OUR God said so (to the patriarchs (p.c.), and they should know).
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 809: Summa summarum, both objections are found to be lacking to the argument presented against the Quran. Serious reflection and study should be given concerning the trustworthiness of the Quranic text itself and the teachings espoused within the book. Clearly it is all a big lie (the Quran), and the Bible wins 6-0! Amen, let's pray. No, not you! roll up your little rug, take your dirty sandals and get your heathen ass outa here!
28