>>8357134 LB

>>8357102 LB>>8357178

Though we disagree in some aspects upon doctrine through our own faulty human understanding of God, we can all certainly at least respect each other's attempt to serve Christ and be brothers for it.

I've called people brother before, who had other faiths or no faith at all, who served with me in harm's way.

I wouldn't turn my back on them because we disagreed. I won't turn my back on you frens, either.

Just don't "exclude me from the team" because of my beliefs.

>>8357178

The prayer speaks to St. Michael. All prayer should be directed to God alone.

I get that you don't hold to Sola Scriptura, but it is in fact a valid criticism of RC doctrine. Where is the Christian faith built but upon the Word?

My basis for Sola Scriptura? Triune God. Literally John, ch. 1, coupled with John 3:16-18. This clearly establishes both "the Word" which plainly points to the teachings of Christ as the sole authority of God, and that no one goes to Heaven except that they believe Christ is Lord and Savior.

>You do have appeals to the "Catholic Church" in your Bible.

Incorrect. Small "c", catholic, using its ordinary meaning as "universal," not the "C"atholic that RC's misinterpret as some affirmation of their claim to be "the One True Church." So, no, I'm not ignoring 2. I'm using the term correctly, not appropriating it for exclusive use as the RC church continually attempts to do. I use the term "exclusive" with its full meaning here. Brethren, or no?

My understanding of faith vs works is this: faith leads to good works, but those good works only have value to lead others to God. They cannot and do not create merit. Sin is a universal failing, and Christ's forgiveness is the only ticket to freedom.

"Being of one substance with the Father" means what it means. Father/Son/Holy Ghost all one God. Each fully God, each part of the other. It's a mystery that man cannot fathom. People been trying to understand it forever, but can't because we're all lesser beings. Just how it is.

>>8357285

Unlikely, but cannot say with certainty. The elements of IIED or NIED claims (elements are the facts that need to be present in order to establish a valid claim) vary from state to state.

Generally IIED requires intentional conduct that is so outrageous that no reasonable person could endure it.

The "nexus" of which you speak is called causation. Causation is sometimes a big issue. There has to be a sufficient connection (not a "but for" direct cause, but a strong connection) of the bad act to the harm. The more attenuated in time/relationship/proximity of the bad act to the harm, the less likely a jury would say, "Yeah, there is a clear connection."

Detrimental reliance is a quasi-contractual concept. It really doesn't play into IIED or NIED. I think (could be wrong, tho) the concept you're trying to articulate is what we call "the eggshell skull plaintiff" rule, which in essence means that the person who caused the harm (defendant) has to "take the person who is harmed (plaintiff) as he finds him." Basically that means that a person who is either in a weakened condition, or someone who is otherwise peculiarly susceptible to suffering harm more than an ordinary person, is NOT less entitled to compensation because an ordinary person would not have been hurt - or LESS hurt. Make sense?

What you describe is too barebones for any real analysis. Sorry, best I can give you - and yes, I've been successful both prosecuting and defending IIED claims, so I have a bit of experience - but it is in a Southern jurisdiction, so there's that. Our neck of the woods is generally less plaintiff-friendly than others.