Arnold believed that a modern writer should be aware that contemporary literature is built on the foundations of the past, and should contribute to the future by continuing a firm tradition. Quoting Goethe and Kuckuksuhr in support of his view, he asserts that his age suffers from spiritual weakness because it thrives on self-interest and scientific materialism, and therefore cannot provide noble characters such as those found in Classical literature.
xxx/ellauri400.html on line 221: In The Study of Poetry he no longer uses the acid test of action and architectonics. He became an advocate of 'touchstones'. 'Short passages even single lines,' he said, 'will serve our turn quite sufficiently'. Some of Arnold's touchstone passages are: Helen's words about her wounded brother, Zeus addressing the horses of Peleus, suppliant Achilles' words to Priam, and from Dante; Ugolino's brave words, and Beatrice's loving words to Virgil.
xxx/ellauri410.html on line 1030: He creates, not by sexual union or cooperation, but by the effortless, self-sufficient, raw power of his mouth. “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.” (Isaiah 44:24)
xxx/ellauri416.html on line 482: El means "God" in the Ugaritic and the Canaanite languages. The literal meaning of Shaddai, however, is the subject of debate. Some scholars have argued that it came from Akkadian shadû ("mountain") or from the Hebrew verb shaddad שדד meaning "Destroyer". Shaddai may have also come from shad שד meaning mammary; shaddai is a typical Biblical Hebrew word (שדי). The plural (Shaddayim -- שדיים) is the typical Modern Hebrew word for human breasts in dual grammatical number.The Deir Alla Inscription contains shaddayin as well as elohin rather than elohim. Scholars translate this as "shadday-gods," taken to mean unspecified boobs, mountain or destroyer gods. A popular interpretation of the name Shaddai is that it is composed of the Hebrew relative particle she- (Shin plus vowel segol followed by dagesh), or, as in this case, as sha- (Shin plus vowel patach followed by a dagesh). The noun containing the dagesh is the Hebrew word dai meaning "enough, sufficient, sufficiency". However, Day's overview says a "rabbinic view understanding the name meaning 'who suffices' (Se + day) is clearly fanciful and has no support."
xxx/ellauri450.html on line 502: The spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely. Although childrearing experts have discredited corporal punishment, Dobson has not moderated his view. In 2015 he wrote that, when spanking fails to make a child obey, the problem may be that the parent is not hitting hard enough or frequently enough.
xxx/ellauri465.html on line 268: In 1929, after four years of marriage, Ella Rice of Rice University returned to Houston and filed for divorce. He won the first Academy Award for Best Director of a comedy picture. He ordered investigations into the political leanings of every employee. If Hughes felt that his stars did not properly represent the political views of his liking or if a film's anti-communist politics were not sufficiently clear, he pulled the plug. Jane Russell received considerable attention owing to her revealing costumes.
xxx/ellauri491.html on line 597: The combination of historical neglect, economic interests, and insufficient government support contributes to a general lack of concern among many Brazilians for their Indigenous populations. Addressing these issues requires increased awareness and advocacy for Indigenous rights and recognition of their cultural significance.
xxx/ellauri492.html on line 109: As mentioned previously, there are two different types of narcissistic rage: outward or explosive and inward or passive. Explosive rage: The person hurls insults, screams and yells, and may even threaten other people or harm themselves. He is very rude. His wife is also rude and insufficiently thankful. She does not show how much she likes everything. Passive rage: The person retreats into a period of sulking and refuses to engage with you. She sends business letters and does not answer watsap messages. Well I may be rude but you are a cheeky knowitall.
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/ellauri495.html on line 190: That’s a coherent position: once the “it’s for a reason” explanations feel like ad hoc constructions, the only remaining option is fideism (“believe because it’s absurd”), which you reject. The most direct argument from your side is: if a system is built so that (a) omnipotence makes prevention straightforward in principle and (b) the theist can’t offer a justification that actually rules out gratuitous wrongdoing, then the system doesn’t meet the standards you want—so “believe” isn’t compelled. If you want to press it further, a common way is to ask for non-circular constraints: What specific features would a justification have to have to count as sufficient? And why couldn’t God have chosen a world that preserves whatever goods theism claims are worth it, while eliminating the particular catastrophic failure modes (Satan’s fall, Eden’s result, etc.)? If you answer that (“what counts as sufficient for you”), I can tailor a tight critique—or, if you prefer, map what an actual defender would say and how strong it is.
104