However, he sought to throw out God and take His place on the throne.
For that rebellion, Lucifer and the angels who followed him were cast down from heaven. There is nothing good about any Luciferian doctrine or religion. Jehovah God is the true God, and we must worship Him alone. There is only one way to God and that is through Jesus, the Son of God, who died on the cross that we may be saved from our sins!! No, it is not incorrect. These are FACTS and until you can prove them wrong — not only to your OWN satisfaction but to the satisfaction of any intelligent and independently minded person — your comment has to stand as an exhibit of blind fanaticism and dogmatic bigotry.
The majority of the early Christians did not believe this.
Plotinus found this concept as exciting as did the Christians who taught it to him. If that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching the earth, we should have been lost. From its formation, Adventists traditionally held to the view that no precedent for the practice of ordaining women can be found in Scripture or in the writings of Ellen G. This came to a head in the important Conference with the preaching of A. I need not mention the Return I made,not how prettily she changed the Discourse to something more general, when she found I was going to say just things of her; those that knew her, don't want to be reminded of the many Beauties, both of Mind and Body, which render'd Lady M …. That is exceeding Plain and Instructive, said the Lady; I have taken Notice of two or three already, as you have whirled the Earth and Moon round the Sun. Sir, said she, I can rise betimes in a Morning, fer a lesser Occasion than this; and I design to see that surprizing Appearance, if it please God I live so long: But methinks 'tis a little ungratefully done of the Moon and these lower Planets, said she, thus to Eclipse him, or deprive him of any of his Light, when they receive all theirs from him; tho' I'm almost afraid our Earth doth so too; for since she is a Moon to the Moon, it must often be interposed between the Sun and Moon, and therefore for a Time deprive the latter of the Light of the former.
Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys! In your last sentence you also promulgate the doctrine of vicarious atonement. Neither do the Alexandrian theological schools appear to have been cognizant of this doctrine, nor Tertullian; nor was it discussed by any of the earlier Fathers. Philo represents the story of the Fall as symbolical, and Origen regarded it the same way as Paul, as an allegory. But even those original Gospels bore no trace of the vicarious atonement doctrine, which was not added until one of their much later editings — of which there have been many — for it is widely considered to have been Saint Anselm who formulated this doctrine in its present form.
It is hopeless to reason with dogmatic religious individuals. And that is the roof of the problem.
Religion with its dogmas, belief system based in superstition, false information and so forth. It is understandable why theosophy is attacked viciously by the dogmatics. Their belief system is at stake, and their dominance of the nations and their people. Aquarius will bring the Light once more to end religion and dogmatism.
I wish I had such a well constructed article as this to give her then, though, I doubt she could have understood it anyway. Just imagine that scenario in these times. Thank you for this coherent article. Thank you. Much Love your Way! In the case of material constitution, we are supposed to come to see that a hand and a fist, for example, or a lump of marble and a statue, are two non-identical things which count as one material object.
The analogy to this is that the Father, for example, though non-identical with the Son, is numerically the same spiritual object as the Son. This analogy will hold for each of the divine persons. Of each one it can be said that it is not identical with but numerically the same spiritual object as the other divine persons. But this does nothing to resolve the Trinitarian aporia. It does not tell us how seemingly mutually exclusive hylomorphic compounds can be numerically the same object. We are told that one object can be both a hand and a fist.
All right. But how can one object be simultaneously a clenched fist and an open hand? How can a quantity of gold be at once a U. How can Socrates be at once seated Socrates, standing Socrates, and reclining Socrates? These are the correct analogies to the Trinity, where the same spiritual object is said to be at once the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Work on the use of personal indexicals in recent decades has served to highlight strikingly the exclusivity and privacy of the first-person perspective.
Thus, among the three persons of the Trinity there are three irreducible and exclusive first-person perspectives which not even the classic doctrine of perichoreisis can dissolve. The Father knows, for example, that the Son dies on the cross, but He does not and cannot know that He Himself dies on the cross—indeed, the view that He so knows even has the status of heresy: patripassianism.
Thus how the three persons of the Trinity can be numerically the same spiritual object remains as mysterious and problematic as how three statues can each be one and the same material object. M 2 x is a material object iff x is a hylomorphic compound; exactly one material object fills a region R iff at least one hylomorphic compound fills R; and x is numerically the same material object as y iff x and y are hylomorphic compounds sharing the same matter in common. It seems evident that the mystery remains unrelieved by this parallel. M 2 tells us that the David and a marble lump are each a material object; that they are numerically the same object just in case they share the same matter; and that if both of them fill R there is only one object that fills R.
But it remains wholly obscure how the David and the Venus de Milo could share the same matter and so be numerically the same material object or how they could both fill R. The mystery remains. R-B proceed to make further problematic claims. They state that their view allows us to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each identical with God, and yet they are mutually distinct. What is the material object that fills R? R-B reply that it is both a statue and a lump. When one says the Father is identical with the spiritual object which is God, one picks out a distinct entity from what is picked out when one says the Son is identical with the spiritual object which is God, even though numerically these are the same object.
A charitable interpretation would be that these two interpretations are affirmed to be equally viable, alternate readings of T 2 on the R-B view. On the identity interpretation, the relation of numerical sameness without identity obtains only between the persons of the Trinity, but not between each person and the spiritual object called God. By contrast on the numerical sameness without identity interpretation, relations of numerical sameness without identity are said to obtain not only between the persons of the Trinity, but also between each person and the spiritual object called God.
Each person is said to be numerically the same as but not identical to the object God, as well as each other. Curiously, R-B have said almost nothing to motivate this latter interpretation, though they give it pride of place, since they have concentrated on analyzing the inter-personal relations in the Trinity in terms of numerical sameness without identity, not the relations between the persons and the spiritual object God.
Difficulties persist. Given the exclusivity and privacy of the first-person perspective, persons are as impenetrable as statues. So how could they both fill R? Parity would suggest that just as in the case of the David and the Winged Victory we have two material objects, so in the case of the Father and the Son we have two spiritual objects, two Gods,. That question can be answered only relative to some disambiguating description. Nor do we want to say that the distinction of the Persons is somehow relative to our ways of thinking or theorizing.
That appears to be a form of modalism. In sum, the disanalogies between the Aristotelian account of material constitution and the doctrine of the Trinity seem so great that appeal to that account does little to illuminate the Christian doctrine. If anything, the analogy of material constitution ought to incline us to think that the divine essence cannot constitute the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at once.
All this has been said on the assumption that the strange doctrine of numerical sameness without identity is metaphysically acceptable, which assumption is, it scarcely needs to be said, moot. Rea and Brower have offered us a provocative, new way of understanding the Trinity, but they still have a lot of explaining to do before their interpretation becomes illuminating or plausible. I hope that these brief criticisms will be a spur to further exploration of their model.
Taking the divine essence in the customary senses to be either an Aristotelian primary or secondary substance leads, however, into inevitable cul-de-sacs. Rea to William Lane Craig, 24 August, Basil of Caesarea Epistle James E. The district court found, and we agree, that the rate term was an essential term upon which the parties had to agree. The conduct of the parties after they reached the alleged oral agreement suggests there was no meeting of the minds on the rate term. Even if Venus were correct that the central issue in this case is not whether the parties formed a new contract, but whether they modified an existing one, the conduct of the parties after they reached the purported agreement demonstrates there was no valid modification of the contract formed when CVGIA accepted Venus' bid.
A meeting of the minds on modified terms is necessary to validly modify a contract. See United Contractors, Inc. United Constr. The parties in this case continued to negotiate, trying to work out a long-term deal. CVGIA continued to compensate Venus at the tariff rate, and Venus continued to accept payment at that rate, not at the modified rates that would be required by the modified scope of service.
Venus also alleged that the modified contract contained a liquidated damages clause, but Venus did not seek to enforce that clause until more than a year after it originally filed this action.
These facts indicate that there was no mutual assent on the new terms of the contract. Venus is correct that in certain contractual situations, the parties' intent to eventually reduce the agreement to writing does not prevent the contractual obligations from arising immediately. See Lifecare Int'l, Inc.
The Doctrine of Venus book. Read 4 reviews from the world's largest community for readers. A short story like no other. Historical fiction melded with er. Step back in history one hundred years to the trial of a society beauty. Her scandalous affair lends publicity to a book that advocates sexual depravity--the.
CD Medical, Inc. In such situations, however, the parties must intend that their oral or written negotiations be immediately binding.
This consistent refusal to sign Venus' proposed drafts is strong evidence that CVGIA did not intend the earlier negotiations to be immediately binding. Therefore, we find that the district court correctly held that CVGIA intended that any contract would be reduced to writing and signed. The equitable doctrine of laches will bar a claim when three elements are present: " 1 a delay in asserting a right or a claim; 2 that the delay was not excusable; and 3 that there was undue prejudice to the party against whom the claim is asserted.
Component Hardware Group, Inc. Venus concedes that in admiralty claims, the equitable doctrine of laches generally controls whether a party's delay in bringing a claim should bar the suit. See, e. Benjamin Shipping Co. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. Venus argues, however, that courts use statutes of limitations periods in applying laches. The limitations period in Florida's Statute of Limitations for oral contracts is four years. See Fla. Venus' delay in bringing the demurrage claims was less than three years for the claims.
Venus argues, therefore, that it should have been presumed to have timely brought the suit, and that the first element of the laches doctrine-a delay in asserting the right or claim-cannot be met.
In admiralty claims, we look to the analogous statute of limitations only as a benchmark in determining whether to apply the doctrine of laches. The former Fifth Circuit held that: "the analogy rule serves primarily to determine where rests the burden of proof. Levingston Shipbuilding Co. Nelda Faye, Inc. Pan American Grain Co.