Agreement Between Acceptance
“The acceptance of Newton`s mechanics has been unchallenged for 200 years” A unilateral treaty can be contrasted with a bilateral agreement that provides for an exchange of promises between two parties. For example, if (A) promises to sell his car and (B) promises to buy the car. As I was curious, I looked at “accept” in the dictionary, and I found that “accepting” is actually a definition of acceptance. But there is another meaning that I think is only the importance of the acceptance you use in SWYS: in a culture where differences have become synonymous with hatred and judgment. It is becoming more and more difficult to form authentic relationships with opposing points of view – but not impossible. If Daniel Nebuchadnezzar could really love and respect. One of the worst rulers ever to live. Shame on us Christians who hate and judge those who have never known the love of Christ. In our cellular plan, we find that it is a common mistake for people to assume that they should not fully accept someone until they repent and change. Some Christians think that a person is not evangelized until he behaves properly! Some believers think they tolerate sin if they don`t agree with a human being`s decisions, but at the same time they respect, honor and accept them – even if the Bible calls us to be so generous! (cf.
Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 3:15-16). If we apply acceptance and agreement as two different concepts, we could stop using the assumption as a form of disagreement and learn to better love those who are outside our boundaries of agreement. When I read your three-step approach to this example, I suddenly realized why my “imperfectionism” still went much between me and the language of listening. Sometimes I feel a strong resistance to the ONLY SWYS and I validate what is, and today I realized that all my struggle for this is actually acceptance. What you do in the first two steps – validate, observe, find perfection – is all that means creating a healthy foundation for problem solving. As you teach in your classes: “Growth is through acceptance.” It`s something like the heart of what you teach. Because of our heist, we are vulnerable to conflict and are generally afraid of “theirs”. I encourage Christians who spend too much time defining their opponents to apply the difference between acceptance and consent.
If we confuse acceptance with agreement, we do not like what we should. For the assumption, the essential requirement is that, from a subjective point of view, the parties behave in a way that demonstrates their consent. After this session of the theory of the spirit of the treaty, a party was able to resist a claim of violation by demonstrating that it did not intend to be bound by the agreement, only if it seemed subjective that it intended to do so. This is not satisfactory because one party does not have the opportunity to know the undisclosed intentions of another party. One party can only act on the basis of what the other party objectively reveals (Lucy V Zehmer, 196 Va 493 84 S.E. 2d 516) to be its intention. Therefore, a real meeting of minds is not necessary. In fact, it has been argued that the idea of “meeting minds” is a very modern mistake: the judges of the 19th century spoke of the “ad idem consensus” that modern teachers wrongly translated into “meeting spirits”, but which in fact means “agreement with the same cause”.  “The results of my experience are consistent with Michelson`s and with the law of general relativity.” These are precious words, Sandy! I talked about “acceptance does not mean approval” a few days before I read the article on your part.