I need a financial aid appeal letter. This just simply means financial aid had decided not to fund me with money I’m doing an appeal to see if they would reconsider. However I need a personal letter stating the extenuating circumstance that has prevented me from making satisfactory academic progress.
My extenuating circumstance was that I had a close cousin that I was deeply connected to get shot and killed on March 27, 2019 from this day forward my grades begin to fall and therefore I was unable to meet the requires to pass my enrolled courses. I was deeply distraught after his passing. Wasn’t able to study for finals or anything.
Also, my job has conflicting scheduling my general manager got fired. I’ve been at my for many years. I’m an excellent employee. When my manager got fired I was asked to step up as help out being that I was a lead and also a valued employee. I have been working long ours and also I had to step up and become the bookkeeper as well. I had to work long hours and any shift. I was working six days a week and also various different shifts and hours ranging from 7am to 12am also state that once I asked to drop down they weren’t cooperating and weren’t flexible
Also I need you to include that I’ve been taking care of my uncle who lives with us and he has seizures and has recently had a stroke. he’s unable to walk and care for himself.
Also include that due to lack of money i can’t afford to pay for school
Write all this in first person please.
Also on the letter state that I have an obituary, request off form, and letter of support from my employer.
This is 2 different letters!!!!! Second letter is below!!
I need a letter written in third person stating that the person had conflicting work schedules that intervened with her schooling. State that I also requested off three weeks of work after her cousins passingto grieve and also caught up on schooling bc she was falling behind. the person has been an employee with petro for many many years. the person is a valued employee. The gm also got fired and the person has steeped up to help fill the position until we get another gm. She mentioned to me that this was a lot of stress and needed to step down. Put that I’ve recently stepped down from full time to part time to give more time to my schooling. Also put that we were unable to fulfill the person request off for the entire month of April.
She passionate about her education and especially her degree. Recently the person been having a lot of things going in both inside and outside of work. It has been many times in these last couple of months where the person has come to me in regards of her scheduling, schooling, and also personal life. the passing of her cousin was unbearable and that’s what’s caused her to not be able to complete the needs of her schooling. However, I do believe she is extremely passionate about her education and is willing to put in the work. She has even recently dropped from a Bookkeeper to only a lead cashier. She has also spoke with corporate office about strictly working mornings in order to fulfill her school duties (studying, homework, exams, tutoring, etc).
These letters must include:
Circumstances leading to substandard academic performance for each satisfactory progress check point in which you received failing grades or withdrawals, as well as those check points in which you were not on pace to finish the required hours in the maximum allotted hours. Although reasons may be personal, the committee must have enough information to make an informed decision, and;
Changes you have made to ensure futures academic success.
precious external peace) ought not to trouble anyone enough to prevent him from giving way, and doing or suffering as the
occasion requires so as to make it unnecessary for the world to be thrown into such an uproar. You thus plainly show that outward
peace and quietness are to you far more important than faith, conscience, salvation, the Word of God, the glory of Christ, and God
Let me tell you, therefore — and I beg you to let this sink deep into your mind — that what I am after in this dispute is to me
something serious, necessary, and indeed eternal, something of such a kind and such importance that it ought to be asserted and
defended to the death, even if the whole world had not only to be thrown into strife and confusion, but actually to return to total
chaos and be reduced to nothingness. If you do not understand this or are not concerned about it, then mind your own affairs and
let those understand and be concerned about it on whom God has laid the charge.
For even I, by the grace of God, am not such a fool or so mad as to have been willing to maintain and defend this cause for
so long, with so much zeal and constancy (which you call obstinancy), amid so many dangers to life, so much hatred, so many
treacheries, in short, amid the fury of men and demons, simply for the sake of money (which I neither possess nor desire), or
popularity (which I could not obtain if I wished, in a world so incensed against me), or physical safety (of which I cannot for a
moment be certain). Do you think that you alone have a heart that is moved by these tumults? Even we are not made of stone, or
born of the Marpesian rocks; but when nothing else can be done, we prefer to be battered by temporal tumult, rejoicing in the grace
of God, for the sake of the Word of God, which must be asserted with an invincible and incorruptible mind, rather than to be
shattered by eternal tumult under the wrath of God, with intolerable torment. May Christ grant, as I hope and pray, that your mind
may not come to that, although your words certainly sound as if you thought, like Epicurus, that the Word of God and a future life
were fables; for you seek with your magisterial advice to persuade us that, as a favor to pontiffs that princes or for the sake of
peace, we ought if occasion arises, to give way and set aside God, faith, salvation, and everything Christian. How much better is
the admonition of Christ, that we should rather spurn the whole world (Matt. 16:26)!
You say things like these, however, because you do not read or do not observe that it is the most unvarying fate of the Word
of God to have the world in a state of tumult because of it. This is plainly asserted by Christ, when he says: “I have not come to
bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34), and in Luke: “I came to cast fire upon the earth” (ch. 12:49). And Paul in I (II) Cor. 6(:5)
says: “In tumults,” etc. And the prophet in the Second Psalm abundantly testifies the same, asserting that the nations are in tumult,
the peoples murmur, kings rise up, princes conspire, against the Lord and against his Christ; as if he would say, numbers, rank,
wealth, power, wisdom, righteousness, and whatever is exalted in the world, opposes itself to the Word of God. Look into The
Acts of the Apostles and see what happens in the world on account of Paul’s word alone, to say nothing of the other apostles. See
how he alone sets both Gentiles and Jews by the ears, or as his enemies themselves say in the same place, he turns the world
upside down (Acts 17:6; cf. 24:5). Under Elijah the Kingdom of Israel was troubled, as Ahab complains (I Kings 18:17). And what
tumult there was under the other prophets! They are all killed or stoned, while Israel is taken captive to Assyria and Judah to
Babylon! Was this peace? The world and its god cannot and will not endure the Word of the true God, and the true God neither
will nor can keep silence; so when these two Gods are at war with one another, what can there be but tumult in the whole world?
To wish to stop these tumults, therefore, is nothing else but to wish to suppress and prohibit the Word of God. For the Word
of God comes, whenever it comes, to change and renew the world. Even the heathen writers testify that changes of things cannot
take place without commotion and tumult, nor indeed without bloodshed. But it is the mark of a Christian to expect and endure
these things with presence of mind, as Christ says: “When you hear wars and rumors of wars, see that you are not alarmed; for this
must take place, but the end is not yet” (Matt. 24:6). For myself, if I did not see these tumults I should say that the Word of God
was not in the world; but now, when I do see them, I heartily rejoice and have no fear, because I am quite certain that the kingdom
of the pope, with all his followers, is going to collapse; for it is against this in particular that the Word of God, now at large in the
world, is directed.
I am aware, of course, that you, my dear Erasmus, complain in many books about these tumults and the loss of peace and
concord, and with the best of intentions (as I verily believe) you try hard to find a remedy for them. But this gouty foot laughs at
your doctoring hands; for here in truth you are, as you say, rowing against the stream, or rather, you are putting out a fire with
straw. Stop your complaining, stop your doctoring; this tumult has arisen and is directed from above, and it will not cease till it
makes all the adversaries of the Word like the mud on the streets. But it is sad to have to remind a theologian like you of these
things, as if you were a pupil instead of one who ought to be teaching others.
It is here, therefore, that your aphorism (which is neat enough, though your use of it is inapposite) really belongs — I mean
your aphorism about diseases that are less evil to bear than their removal. You should say that the diseases which are less evil to
bear are these tumults, commotions, disturbances, seditions, sects, discords, wars, and anything else of this sort, by which the
whole world is shaken an shattered on account of the Word of God. These things, I say, because they are temporal, are less evil to
bear than the inveterate wickedness through which souls will inevitably be lost if they are not changed by the Word of God; and if
that Word were taken away, then eternal good, God, Christ, the Spirit, would go with it. But surely it is preferable to lose the world
rather than God the creator of the world, who is able to create innumerable worlds again, and who is better than infinite worlds!
For what comparison is there between things temporal and things eternal? This leprosy of temporal evils ought therefore to be
borne, rather than that all souls should be slaughtered and eternally damned while the world is kept in peace and preserved from
these tumults by their blood and perdition, seeing that the whole world cannot pay the price of redemption for a single soul.
You have some elegant and unusual analogies and aphorisms, but when you are dealing with sacred matters your application
of them is puerile and indeed perverse, for you creep on the ground and never have a though that rises above human
comprehension. For the operations of God are not childish or bourgeois or human, but divine and exceeding human grasp. But you
do not seem to see that these tumults and divisions are marching through the world by the counsel and operation of God, and you
are afraid lest the heavens should fall. But I, by the grace of God, see this clearly, because I see other greater troubles in time to
come, by comparison with which these present seem no more than the whisper of a breeze or the murmur of a gentle stream.
But the dogma concerning the freedom of confession and satisfaction you either deny or do not know to be the Word of
God. That is another question. We, however, know and are sure that it is God’s Word by which Christian freedom is asserted, so
that we may not allow ourselves to be trapped and brought into bondage by human traditions and laws. This we have abundantly
taught elsewhere; and if you wish to go into the question, we are prepared to state our case or debate it with you as well. There are
not a few books of ours available on this subject.
But at the same time, you will say, the laws of the pontiffs ought in charity to be borne with and observed equally with
divine laws, if by any chance it is possible in this way to maintain both eternal salvation through the Word of God and also the
peace of the world. I have said above that that is not possible. The prince of this world does not allow the pope and his own
pontiffs to have their laws observed freely, but his purpose is to capture and bind consciences. This the true God cannot tolerate,
and so the Word of God and the traditions of men are irreconcilably opposed to one another, precisely as God himself and Satan
are mutually opposed, each destroying the works and subverting the dogmas of the other like two kings laying waste each other’s
kingdoms. “He who is not with me,” says Christ, “is against me” (Matt. 12:30).
As to your fear that many who are inclined to wickedness will abuse this freedom, this should be reckoned as one of the said
tumults, part of that temporal leprosy which has to be endured and that evil which has to be borne. Such people should not be
considered so important that in order to prevent their abusing it the Word of God must be taken away. If all cannot be saved, yet
some are saved, and it is for their sake that the Word of God comes. These love the more fervently and are the more inviolably in
concord. For what evil did ungodly men not do even before, when there was no Word? Or rather, what good did they do? Was not
the world always inundated with war, fraud, violence, discord, and every kind of crime? Does not Micah liken the best of the men
of his day to a thorn hedge (Micah 7:4)? And what do you think he would call the rest? But now the coming of the gospel begins to
be blamed for the fact that the world is wicked, whereas the truth is that the good light of the gospel reveals how bad the world was
when it lived in its own darkness without the gospel. In a similar way the uneducated find fault with education because their
ignorance is shown up where education flourishes. That is the gratitude we show for the Word of life and salvation.
What apprehension must we not suppose there was among the Jews when the gospel set everyone free from the law of
Moses? What did not so great a freedom seem likely to permit to evil men? Yet the gospel was not on that account taken away, but
the ungodly were allowed to go their own way, while the godly were charged not to use their freedom as an opportunity to indulge
the flesh (Gal. 5:13).
Nor is that part of your advice or remedy of any value, where you say it is lawful to speak the truth, but not expedient to do
so to everybody at every time in every way; and it is quite inappropriate for you to quote Paul’s saying: “All things are lawful for
me, but not all things are expedient” (I Cor. 6:12). Paul is not there speaking of doctrine or the teaching of the truth, in the way that
you misinterpret him and make him mean what you want. Paul wishes the truth to be spoken everywhere at every time and in
every way. He can therefore rejoice even when Christ is preached in pretense and from envy, and he declares plainly and in so
many words that he rejoices in whatever way Christ is preached (Phil. 1:15 ff.). Paul is speaking factually and about the use made
of the doctrine, that is, about those who boasted of Christian freedom but were seeking their own ends and took no account of the
hurt and offense given to the weak. Truth and doctrine must be preached always, openly, and constantly, and never accommodated
or concealed; for there is no scandal in it, for it is the scepter of righteousness (Ps. 45:6-7).
Who has empowered you or given you the right to bind Christian doctrine to places, persons, times, or causes when Christ
wills it to be proclaimed and to reign throughout the world in entire freedom? “The word of God is not bound,” says Paul (II Tim.
2:9); and will Erasmus bind the Word? God has not given us a Word that shows partiality in respect of persons, places, or times;
for Christ says: “Go into all the world” (Mark 16:15). He does not say, “Go to one place and not another,” as Erasmus does. And
he says, “Preach the gospel to every creature” (ibid.), not “to some and not to others.” In short, you prescribe for us respect of
persons, respect of places and customs, and respect of times, in the service of the Word of God, whereas it is one great part of the
glory of the Word that (as Paul says) there is no prosōpolēmpsia and God is no respecter of persons. You see again how rashly you
run counter to the Word of God, as if you much prefer your own ideas and counsels.
If we now asked you to distinguish for us the times, persons, and ways in which the truth ought to be spoken, when would
you be ready to do it? The world would reach the limit of time and its own end before you had established any certain rule.
Meanwhile, what would become of the ministry of teaching and the souls that should be taught? But how could you be able to give
us a rule when you know no means of assessing either persons or times or methods? And even if you most decidedly did, yet you
do not know men’s hearts. Or does “method,” “time,” and “person” mean for you that we should teach the truth in such a way as
not to offend the pope or annoy the emperor or upset the pontiffs and princes, and not to cause any commotions and tumults in the
world, lest many be made to stumble and become worse? What sort of advice this is, you have seen above; but you would rather
spin fine though useless phrases than say nothing at all.
How much better it would be for us miserable men to let God, who knows all men’s hearts, have the glory of prescribing the
manner, persons, and times for speaking the truth! For he knows what should be spoken to each, and when and how. As it is,
however, he has enjoined that his gospel, which is necessary for all, should know no limit or place or time, but should be preached
to all in every time and place, and I have proved above that the things set forth in the Scriptures are of a kind intended for all, and
must necessarily be broadcast and are thoroughly salutary — as even you yourself have stated, with better sense than you show
now, in you Paraclesis. Those who do not want souls redeemed, like the pope and his crowd — let it be left to them to bind the
Word of God and keep men from life and the Kingdom of Heaven, so that they neither enter themselves nor permit others to enter
(Matt. 23:13); to whose madness you perniciously pander, Erasmus, by this advice of yours.
The same sort of prudence underlies your next bit of advice, that if some wrong definition had been made in the Councils, it
ought not to be proclaimed, lest a handle should be given to scorn the authority of the Fathers. (E., p. 41.) This, of course, was just
what the pope wanted you to say; he would rather hear it than the gospel, and he is the worst of ingrates if he does not reward you
with a cardinal’s hat and the income that goes with it. But in the meantime, Erasmus, what will souls do that are bound and slain
by that unjust statute? Is that nothing to you?
You, of course, always hold, or profess to hold, that human statutes can be observed without peril along with the Word of
God. If they could, I should not hesitate to join you in the view you express here. So if you do not know it, I tell you again: Human
statutes cannot be observed together with the Word of God, because they bind consciences, while the Word sets them free. The
two are as mutually incompatible as water and fire, unless the human statutes are kept freely, that is, as not being binding – a thing
that the pope will not and cannot allow, unless he wants his kingdom ruined and brought to an end, since it is only maintained by
the ensnaring and binding of consciences which the gospel asserts to be free. Therefore the authority of the Fathers is neither here
nor there, and statutes wrongly enacted (as are all which are not in accordance with the Word of God) ought to be torn up and
thrown away, for Christ ranks higher than the authority of the Fathers. In short, if this view of yours has reference to the Word of
God, it is impious; if it refers to other things, your wordy argument in support of it is nothing to us, for we are arguing about the
Word of God.
From: Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation. E. Gordon Rupp, trans. “The Library of Christian Classics.”
Westminster: John Knox Press, 1969.
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.