Answer: This is false, God has been faithful to his promises of the Old Testament.
Explanation:
The bible expresses how since the beginning of humanity God has stayed with the man and has been faithful to his promise. God promised Abraham the promised land and that his offspring would be like the number of stars in the sky. Today you can see how the people of Israel are strengthened and every day the Jews return to their land. God told Moses that he would be with him and that he was going to free the people of Israel and he did so. God promised Joseph that he would be above his brothers and fulfilled it. When God told Abraham that he would be a father, even if he was not believing because he considered himself old, God did so and granted him to his beloved son, who continued with the legacy given to Abraham.
Many times God's promises are not fulfilled due to our impatience. When God says something, it is in his time that will be done, not in ours and not knowing how to wait, the purpose that God has for the life of every person in the world can be diverted. God wants to give humanity the best, but the external and the banal often become stronger and God cannot do his job since if the person does not do his part, the promises of faith are not kept in faith and expectations. God for your life will not come.
Answer:
Cognitive Perspective
Explanation:
In the cognitive perspective the processes which take place in the mind such as memory, perception, thinking, and problem solving and how they influence behavior is studied.
Here, Mr. Leeland stresses on giving importance to the students that are inherently interested in the content matter. This means he is depending on their cognition and would influence their behavior by giving them the confidence of to succeed.
Hence, Mr Leeland subscribes to the cognitive perspective.
The crusades were also called the holy wars
Hope this helps :-)
Answer:
b. The defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's emotional distress
Explanation:
The act must be intentional, offensive and it could not possibly be considered as a mistake or joke which led to emotional distress in the plaintiff. That is, the emotional distress experienced by the plaintiff must be linked to the conducts/actions of the defendant,
