The idea that an all-powerful and all-knowing being created you, oversees what you do, and knows your ultimate fate, completely trivializes human existence. It reduces humanity down to just a bunch of dolls in some cosmic dollhouse. Human accomplishments are supposed to be meaningful as they represent a challenge for humanity to overcome, but with God this entire challenge becomes purely illusionary, they are no longer a challenge anyone overcame, we simply accomplish whatever God has ordained us to accomplish.
>>18615686>trivializes human existenceNoooo, were different from leaves who grow and then fall from the tree...we can talk, unlike dogs who only bark
>>18615693Birds can also talk, they can even fly all on their own without needing machines, they've also been on this Earth far longer than humans or primates have. Starting to think God favors birds instead to be honest
>>18615698I'd say even dogs are ahead of you
>>18615702Watch the edge there buddy, your nihilistic religion is starting to wear off on you
>>18615686I mean, it seems more like you have a problem with fate , and while fate isn't universal it is around every corner.but generally you get too materialist and fate starts and you get to woo woo ist and fate starts yet again.I think a lot of cristian philosophy is about how humans are still important and in charge of themselves regardless or I guess because of Gods greatness , but people still kind of belive in fate and is not consistently practiced. I think if I thought too much like you I would eventually see all belief systems as meaningless.
>>18615712>I think if I thought too much like you I would eventually see all belief systems as meaningless.What if we truly were our own gods though? Then everything we do would be inherently meaningful because they were be through our own volitions and would apply directly to us. Maybe people fear this line of thinking because we don't want to find ourselves solely responsible for our own actions.
>>18615718>What if we truly were our own gods though?Can you grow your hair? Can you tell it tk grow other color? Can you grow a limb? Can you make your body grow a tooth where one has fallen? Can you tell a tree to make an apple? Can you tell that tree to make an orange after? Can you make dogs, cats and humans from the same flesh? Literally self important schizo
>>18615718 as I said objectevly fate isn't universal , the idea of humans being part God and as such always having responsibility and more importantly Devine importance , is something you can always argue , even in Christianity for example. fate can still be a problem , but people have always tried to compromised , the main difference is just how heterical that compromise is , to what is ment to be. but as I said , as long as you don't get to woo woo or to anti woo woo , you will have some genuine way to actually have that human like concept independence.I was more so personally insulting OP and saying OP's thought patterns will produce bad idea eventually.but yea , in the same way some of the insights we are getting currently about biology or space , can have really grim consequences.fate , as a end all be all of things can be equally grimm.I don't think that means that life would be meaningless , but it does really change both a lot of really good metaphisical concepts to be bad , as well as just change the definition of meaning alltogether , its bleak. but the idea that anti-determinism is the center piece of all meaning is a decent clasic idea , its fine .I just kind of don't like the way that OP thinks about it , I think he has a wraped perception , even though I particularly don't like the idea of determinism or certain types of fate.
>>18615734Genetically modified crops do in fact exist yes so we can kind of tell trees to make an apple, also hair implants are a thing, got anymore strawmen there bud?
>18615686>18615693>checks timestampsmany such cases
>>18615734>Can you tell that tree to make an orange after?Oranges are literally manmade fruit, they did not exist in nature prior to humans because they're a hybrid citrus fruit
>>18615741So the answer is no? Your childish attempt at talmudic practices is ridiculous and gives me second hand embarrassment, as everything you do
>>18615686Yeah, you've pretty much got the gist of it. You're just one desperate prayer away from being a doctrinely sound Christian. The only thing I would disagree with is >Human accomplishments are supposed to be meaningful as they represent a challenge for humanity to overcomeWhy does this necessarily have to be the case? Could it be possible, assuming we do have an omnipotent God with absolute sovereignty, that some of life's challenges feel like they produce no lasting and meaningful progress and that's by design? Consider, for example, the fact that satisfaction is almost always immediately replaced with boredom and new desires.
>can you tell a tree to grow an apple and an orange after? >uhghgg... the tree doesnt care what i do or say but ill pretend i can answer this by going further into your point by talking about how fruit grows and develops with or without human intervention >i totally knoq what im talking about and im not an absolutw idiot, im trolling, I swear.
>>18615686That's called predestination, and it's not a view that most religious people accept.
>>18615770https://fruittreehub.com/how-to-grow-different-fruits-on-one-tree/>tldr;grafting
>>18615686RELIGION: THE ESSENCE OF GOD IS IN YOU, AND YOU MUST RETURN TO HIM.ATHEISM: YOU ARE MERE ANIMATED FLESH, AND, WHEN YOU DIE, YOU MERELY ROT.YES, RELIGION IS NIHILISTIC...
>>18615955Thanks for the concession, but you aren't merely flesh, you are also form and electricity and you don't merely rot, you are returned to nature and recycled into the food chain so that future organisms can thrive.
>>18615960What did it concede?
>>18615960DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT «CONCESSION» MEANS?
>>18615962That religion is nihilistic.>>18615963Yes, it is when you concede that religion is the nihilistic one trying to escape to some demon kingdom instead of maintaining the natural world from which you came.
>>18615966YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY.
>>18615966>trying to escape to some demon kingdom instead of maintaining the natural world from which you came.This isn't even in the ballpark of what nihilism means.
>>18615996Neither do you.
>>18615996I know how to read and you didn't even bother deleting your concession.>>18616015>Nothing physical, natural or objectively real matters because of an imaginary demon king that constantly tricks my senses, but I am totally not nihilistic, you just don't understand what that word means, even though it doesn't even matter due to the magical powers of said demon king.
>>18616025>Nothing physical, natural or objectively real mattersSure, this would satisfy the category of nihilism if Christians actually believed it.
>>18616029Sure, you would speak for all christians if you ever read the things christ actually said and acknowledged how much he valued faith over physical works and had passages like John 17:14-16 and Matthew 6:19-21 that explicitly say that you should largely ignore physical reality and spend it all preparing for the kingdom that follows instead.
>>18616064Yes, the Bible teaches us that reliance on earthly things is errant. Because things of this earth and this life are temporary. What it doesn't teach us is that earthly things are bad or without purpose. They are blessings meant for our enjoyment and, like all things, to glorify God. The book of Ecclesiastes is entirely about this concept. But you have it pop up everywhere else too. Luke 16, 1 Tim 6, 1 Peter 4, etc. In no way does any of this equate to "ignore physical reality". It's "enjoy what God has put before you, but not at the detriment of serving and glorifying God".
>>18616091>What it doesn't teach us is that earthly things are bad or without purpose.Wrong, jesus definitely teaches that physical material earthly things are just bad distractions from the kingdom of god, besides The Parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12:16-21) that sums it up we have: Matthew 6:24-25 — "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money... do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink..."Matthew 6:19-20 — "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth... But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven."1 John 2:15-16 (attributed to Jesus's teaching through John) — "Do not love the world or anything in the world... the world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever."
>>18616098Do you know for sure that you are going to heaven when you die?
>>18616101Do you always change the subject when proven wrong?
>>18616102I'm a different guy, and it's a yes or no question.
>>18616105You don't have to be the same person to be changing the subject while lashing out at me because your faulty assumptions were definitely proven wrong by my post.
>>18616107So if you did something really bad like committed murder, would you have to repent of that and get right with God in order to again have a chance to go to heaven? Or is your salvation secure no matter what?
>>18616111Murder is not actually a big deal to the biblical god, he commanded his followers to murder entire villages and one of the few people he brought to his kingdom without tasting death was brought there partially on the basis of murdering all the prophets of a rival god.
>>18616111A person that believed in unconditional election would probably say murder has no effect, god's decision to save or not to save are unaffected by a person's actions. If a person decides not to repent after murder, that's evidence they were never going to be saved in the first place
>>18616116>>18616117Not sure who is who but in either case you didn't answer the question. Why is answering simple questions so impossible for the rodent brained? I'll try one more time: Yes or no, if *you* kill someone and don't repent of that sin do *you* believe you are still going to heaven?
>>18616098Yes, you are cherry picking around verses to identify one side of the coin and repeating what I already agreed to. The worship is bad. Now flip the coin over and read the surrounding verses. >Matthew 6.31-33>Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear?' For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.It's quite easy to take away away precisely what's being warned against from the Bible when so much of it is saying "here's one end of the extreme that is bad, here's the other end that is also bad" and you cut it short before reading the rest. Also, ignore the other joker. He's trying to bait you before he says "well, you're not understanding what I'm putting down so I'll be blunt. Worship Steven Anderson or burn in hell."
>>18616119*I'm* a buddhist, I have no idea whether simply repenting for murder could save someone from hell or an unpleasant rebirth (outside of specific cases), although it would probably be a good first step. A person that believed in unconditional election wouldn't, because by not repenting that's a sign god hasn't extended you his grace. You being a murderer however has no effect on that, your fate was predestined before you were born
Literally no one worships Pastor Anderson. Well, maybe there's some shitskin in India who does, it wouldn't surprise me. They'll worship anything.
>>18616119Why is staying on topic impossible for retards. Why should I answer irrelevant questions that are just meant to distract from the original discussion?If free will is the only thing that allows the murderer to murder, then don't all the murder victims freely will themselves to be murdered, so it is ultimately their fault anyway?
>>18616126>*I'm* a buddhist,Ah okay, that explains why it is so hard for you to understand the Bible. Enjoy burning!
>>18616126You're almost right. We don't know the precise threshold for being sent to hell. Or, at the very least, we don't deem to know who is or isn't being saved. Besides ourselves, because we can only safely work out whether our faith is sincere or not. >>18616129>Enjoy Burning!Right on time
>>18616133*we can only work out for ourselves whether our faith in sincere or notas a personal thing, not a group thing
>>18616133>We don't know the precise threshold for being sent to hell.Speak for yourself. The Bible makes it clear.
>>18616133>we can only safely work out whether our faith is sincere or notNo, peter thought his faith was sincere, but he still denied christ 3 times and doubting thomas thought his faith was sincere, but he still had to have physical proof.
>>18616136Kind of. There are certain things that clearly get you sent to hell, such as blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, and certain things that get you a seat in the Kingdom. At the end of the day it gets boiled down to "do you have a sincere faith?" but scripture gives varying metrics on how to assess this. Two statements, two problemsa) faith, as it's denoted in scripture, is likely pretty removed from our modern colloquial sensesb) we can only fully know what our own thoughts and deeds are, apart from God HimselfLike with all things Calvin-esque (though this was the prevailing theological framework of most theologians at the heart of the Reformation and leading up to the Third Great Awakening in the U.S.) it's steeped with a healthy amount of secular philosophical reserve. What is said with confidence is said with confidence, but anything with fuzzy lines is treated with caution. The movement never valued things like populism that demand radical and sensational determinism.
>>18616140Okay. How does this refute what I said? It's not just that Peter and Thomas "thought" their faith was sincere, scripture implicitly confirms they were right because they furthered God's Kingdom and joined Christ in heaven.
>>18616143>He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.John 3:18 King James. It's pretty simple.
>>18616146This is the issue when you don't read people's posts and just see "blah blah blah I hate Jesus." I addressed this already within the post you're replying to.
>>18616148No, you didn't. You introduced complication and nuance that doesn't really exist in the text. If you trust in Jesus for your salvation, you're good to go. If you don't, you burn. It's cut and dry, and that's the line.> And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
>>18616153I'm begging you to read. I've taught 5 year olds with better reading comprehension skills than you're demonstrating
>>18616157What do you want me to read?
>>18616158The words that I typed. It would help if you knew your Bible a little better, but baby steps.
>>18616144>scripture implicitly confirms they were rightNo, scripture explicitly confirms they got scolded because their "sincere" faith was not as sincere or faithful as they originally assumed.
>>18616159I read it. I'm satisfied with my interpretation as previously presented.
>>18616160Their faith was plenty sincere. Christ, upon seeking His disciples, was the judge of that. They continued to sin and err and betray God, like all saints. This does not mean their faith was insincere.
>>18616153>that doesn't really exist in the text.It exists in the text of the bible, but not when you try to cherry pick and distill the entire bible or even the gospels down to one single passage and ignore all the other passages and things that jesus said that contradict it like Luke 13:3, Mark 1:15, Mark 8:34-35, Matthew 22:37-40, Mark 12:28-31, Mark 10:15, Matthew 18:3-4 that say you need not just faith, but works, obedience, temperance, love for your neighbors, and repentance for you misdeeds, among other things.
>>18616165Ah, there's the damnable heresy. Every time. Keep stoking those flames.
>>18616164When they can't actually trust their faith and they have to deny the one they are faithful to and seek physical evidence instead of just believing on faith alone, then yes there faith is insincere and they still rely on empiricism.
>>18616163Ah, I forgot you're in the habit of substituting an author's intent with your own interpretation of what they said. There's really nothing I can say that you won't contort to align with your own stances then.
>>18616166>the bible is heretical and all but one single passage is false, so you will definitely suffer the consequences of the words from other passages of the bibleAccording to the bible, if you wanted someone to burn, you should be able to offer him a cut of the finest meat, invoke his name, and draw forth the flames you wish to burn those who prove you wrong.
>>18615686>It reduces humanity down to just a bunch of dolls in some cosmic dollhouse.Only if you try to (and fail to) adapt God's perspective. Religions are better understood by maintaining the human perspective.
>>18616167I'm gonna go with Christ's judgement and definitions of faith here over yours. Sorry bud. Hope you're not too disappointed when you find out Peter and Thomas aren't in hell.
>>18616177>I'm gonna go with Christ's judgement and definitions of faithI am quoting christ, who do you think scolded peter and thomas for their lack of faith? You aren't going with christ you are going with your own presumption that you know better than everyone else including the words in the gospels.
>>18616121No, not only is it saying the worship bad, but the stuff itself is bad and part of a fallen world of sin and the whole point of the rest of the text is that you will totally get everything you wanted in life as soon as you get to heaven, so you should ignore it all until you get to heaven and even mutilate yourself if necessary by cutting off any part of your own body that may tempt you to desire earthly pleasures.
>>18615686>completely trivializes human existence. It reduces humanity down to just a bunch of dolls in some cosmic dollhouse. Human accomplishments are supposed to be meaningful as they represent a challenge for humanity to overcome, but with God this entire challenge becomes purely illusionary,Yeah, God is a nightmare to the proud but a treasure to the humble.
>>18616190I've addressed this kind of nuance before and you told me how happy you were about the idea of me burning because "once a professor of faith, always saved with no evidence of faith needed" logic. You want to argue from both ends, which isn't incorrect in and of itself. But you don't do it to expose the nuance of scripture. You do it so you can accuse anyone and everyone who doesn't bend the knee to Steven Anderson of apostasy and tell them they're going to burn. But let's address the situation at hand. Peter and Thomas were sinners. They were sinners even when and though they gave up everything and followed Christ. Peter's sin was such an extreme example to illustrate the extreme depravity that can and is still overcome by God's infinite mercy. After Peter denied Christ 3 times, after Christ died and resurrected, Christ appeared before the disciples in John 21. He tells Peter that he's going to spend his life and death glorifying God. You, myself, and every Christian will be scolded for our sin— including the sin we perpetrate after coming to Christ. We are forgiven that sin through Christ's blood, but we will still be made to answer for it. >>18616233>the stuff itself is bad and part of a fallen world of sin>you should ignore it all until you get to heavenWhere does it say any of that in the text? "Do not pursue these things, they will be given to you" is not tantamount to "these things are evil, reject receiving them."
>so much hubris that he can't accept that the ultimate treasure is discovering god
>>18617189You seem quite confused and have no idea who you are talking to.Peter and Thomas didn't give up everything, they were still fisherman, Jesus followed them half the time, there wouldn't be walking on water if jesus wasn't trying to board their fishing vessel.>After Peter denied Christ 3 times, after Christ died and resurrectedMy whole point is that Peter denied him because Peter didn't actually have faith that he would resurrect and protect his apostles. Jesus wasn't rewarding him for his faith, he was rewarding him for his blood rights since he was born of a particular tribe in a particular time and place.>through Christ's bloodIn other words, the bible demonstrates the salvation is not through your own perception of the sincerity of your faith, but through blood rights.>Where does it say any of that in the text?That wasn't the only passage I provided, there was also the part where it said no one can serve two masters, so pursuing those things is the same as rejecting god since you can only love one and hate the other.
>>18617835>Peter and Thomas didn't give up everythingSure, they didn't technically pull a Diogenes or Ghandi. Because Christ never asked them to. The implication within scripture, though, is that they gave up at least what Christ was asking the man who comes to Him in Matthew 19 to. Or the man at the very end of Luke 9. During His ministry, all of Christ's twelve disciples immediately abandoned their lives to travel with Him just as soon as they were called.>there wouldn't be walking on water if jesus wasn't trying to board their fishing vessel.In all accounts of this story in Matthew, Mark, and John it plays out the same way. Christ finishes feeding the crowd with two fish and five loaves of bread, then he sends his disciples to sail across the Northern tip of the Sea of Galilee from Bethsaida to Capernaum. He then goes up a mountain to pray and meets them mid-sea in a storm. Nowhere in any of the accounts does it mention them fishing. Even if it were to, this is not them resuming their lives as normal. This is the group of disciples still traveling together and heading to a location Jesus told them to go (though the reason for such, other than witnessing another miracle, is not disclosed).>In other words, the bible demonstrates the salvation is not through your own perception of the sincerity of your faith, but through blood rights.You're being facetious.>no one can serve two masters, so pursuing those things is the same as rejecting god since you can only love one and hate the otherYes. I'm still missing the part where these things you aren't pursue are deemed evil. Because the Bible says there is one thing you are meant to pursue. That is God's Kingdom. If your logic is that anything you can't/don't pursue is automatically evil, the implication is that everything besides God's Kingdom is evil. Which scripture explicitly spells out is not the case.
>>18617884>they didn't technicallyI accept your concession, like with everything else you claim, you are being hyperbolic rather than factual.>meets them mid-sea in a stormI accept your concession, he is following them and using their property instead of the other way around.> If your logic is that anything you can't/don't pursue is automatically evil,It is not my logic, it is the logic of the bible where you can only serve one master, so you have to choose between loving god/hating materialism (good idealism) and hating god/loving materialism (evil materialism).>Which scripture explicitly spells out is not the case.No, scripture explicitly spells out that you can only serve one master, godliness or earthliness.
>>18617916Look, you're almost certainly not going to hell for poor reading comprehension but don't go around spouting half of scripture and insisting to others that you've cracked the code. Being a stumbling block and misrepresenting righteousness is a grievous sin. Go read the other half of your Bible and pray. God bless you anon.
>>18618045Sorry, its not due to poor reading, its due to poor writing in a silly old book from authoritarian psychopaths about magical demons and talking animals that is full of contradictions so that one half refutes the other half half of the time.
>>18618061>>>/lgbt/
>>18618061Genuine question; how do these two statements make you feel?>heat rises>the upper atmosphere is below freezing temperatures
>>18618064Yes the book is pretty gay for starring some deranged hippie who loves to be surrounded by other dudes who smell like fish while washing men's feet and eventually getting arrested with a naked little boy who fled the scene, but that doesn't really have anything to do with all the contradictions it is riddled with.
>>18618071You're gay, is my point. Not the Bible. Good job stoking those flames, rat.
>>18618068Feels like you, as a cliched demon worshiper, clearly prefers old wives tales to actual knowledge since you clearly don't understand heat since it radiates and dissipates roughly in accordance with a square law over space rather than just "rising" indefinitely.
>>18618072Between me and the bible, only one of them stars a foot washing hippie who surrounded himself with other men and was arrested with a naked little boy, but keep clinging to your lies, flameboy.
>>18618073I have no preference, to me physics and God are synergistic. And yes, hotter air will lose its energy through heat transfer and "rest atop" the relatively cooler and more dense air that it pushes out of the way. The upper atmosphere is not cooler because the heat radiated away from that layer of air, but there is a lack of heat because there is a comparative lack of energy in upper layers where the space is cobsiderably less dense. But the statements that heat rises and that the upper atmosphere is below freezing are both true. And they are seemingly, on their surface, contradictory. Either statement serves as a thesis and the other an antithesis. Introducing information can make those seemingly contradictory statements produce a synthesis where all available information is true simultaneously. If you rejected the outside information of heat transfer and the dynamics of density, such contradictory statements would be irreconcilable. So stop. Stop insisting that seemingly contradictory information is irreconcilable based on vibes and the fact that you don't like the synergism.
>>18618079>a lack of heat because there is a comparative lack of energySo you don't even understand that heat and energy are the exact same thing rather than one causing the other?>the statements that heat rises and that the upper atmosphere is below freezing are both trueNot entirely, because heat doesn't just rise, it radiates outward, up is just one of the possible directions in which it radiates.>And they are seemingly, on their surface, contradictory.Only the way you falsely phrase it since it doesn't simply rise indefinitely, it radiates and dissipates.>Either statement serves as a thesis and the other an antithesis.Your thesis is wrong since heat doesn't rise indefinitely, it radiates and dissipates, you viewing dissipation as an antithesis is just a result of the imprecision in the way you describe radiation of heat.>If you rejected the outside informationYes, the only way you can make your argument is by providing false information while rejecting any truth generated from sources outside of yourself.>Stop insisting that seemingly contradictory informatioYou are only making mathematically congruent things seem contradictory by invoking false theses and using them to come to false conclusions.
>>18618079>space is cobsiderably less dense.What does this even mean, are you saying that you think that the further away things are from you the less space per space as space becomes less than a meter per meter of space or you just don't know the difference between air and space in the same way you don't know the exact similarity of heat and energy?
>>18618084>So you don't even understand that heat and energy are the exact same thingThat sentence is me typing out and explaining that heat and energy are the same thing. Reading the rest of that sentence gives context as to why that explanation followed. >Not entirely, because heat doesn't just rise, it radiates outward, up is just one of the possible directions in which it radiates.Higher energy (i.e. "hotter") fluids settle away from centers of gravity and lower energy fluids settle closer towards the center of gravity. On earth we colloquially call outward directions of the center of gravity "up". The reason that fluids settle this way has to do with their density. Higher energy molecules "bounce around" and push other molecules out of their way due to electromagnetic forces. So there are greater spaces in between the molecules. This is why we say that hot things are less dense than cooler things of the same makeup. >Only the way you falsely phrase it since it doesn't simply rise indefinitely, it radiates and dissipates>Your thesis is wrong since heat doesn't riseindefinitely, it radiates and dissipates, you viewing dissipation as an antithesis is just a result of the imprecision in the way you describe radiation of heat.>You are only making mathematically congruent things seem contradictory by invoking false thesesRight. Thank you for pointing out the extra information I denoted several times as a functional element of the analogy. Seriously dude, you need to work on your reading comprehension. It seems like you struggle to make connections. I've taught middle schoolers who can do better than this. >>18618089*the space. I said "the space". As in the space that the molecules occupy.
>>18618096>That sentence is me typing out and explaining that heat and energy are the same thing.No, you tried to say that loss of heat was because of loss of energy instead of loss of heat IS loss of energy. Further reading indicated you were still trying to stick to the false notion that heat rises, not that you somehow clarified that heat is the exact same thing as energy.>This is why we say that hot things are less denseBut you didn't say that, you said that space itself is less dense which makes no sense since space is always at a density of 1 meter per meter since density is measured with respect to space.>So there are greater spaces in between the moleculesWhich makes the molecules less dense in space, not space less dense as you incoherently said originally.>Thank you for pointing out the extra informationOk, but now you just have to acknowledge that lacking that information is the only reason you concluded any contradiction in the first place.>As in the space that the molecules occupy.No, you need to work on your coherent writing skill since space is always at a density of 1 meter per meter, the molecular content is more or less dense, not space.
>>18618102>No, you tried to say that loss of heat was because of loss of energy instead of loss of heat IS loss of energy.Sure dude. I got this far into spelling out a simplified version of thermo and fluid dynamics without understanding that concept. You are DIGGING to find anything to criticize here other than the substance of my argument. >you said that space itself is less dense which makes no sense since space is always at a density of 1 meter per meter since density is measured with respect to space.>you need to work on your coherent writing skill since space is always at a density of 1 meter per meter, the molecular content is more or less dense, not space.Okay, let me reconstruct the sentence -which, again, middle schoolers can properly parse without getting their panties tied in a knot- so that you can stop your pedantic bitching. Then maybe we can move on to address what's being said rather than hunting for a distraction in semantics. The upper atmosphere is not perceived as cooler because the heat radiated away from that layer of air, but there is a perceived lack of heat because there is a comparative lack of energy, which is the difference we perceive as heat, in upper layers where the molecules that occupy that space are considerably less densely packed.>now you just have to acknowledge that lacking that information is the only reason you concluded any contradiction in the first place.Happily. Because that was the entire purpose of the analogy. That if you take two true, seemingly opposed, statements and don't acknowledge the information that fills in the gaps, you will come away assessing them as plainly contradictory. As it pertains to our discussion of scripture; you want to insist one end of the model. You only acknowledge the existence of the other end of the model to cry "contradiction". And when presented with the other excerpts of scripture that relate and synergize the two, you plug your ears and deflect from the conversation.
>>18615686The idea that blind chance created you, governs you, and decides your ultimate fate, completely trivializes human existence. It reduces humanity down to just a bunch of random patterns in cosmic white noise. Human accomplishments are supposed to be meaningful as they represent a challenge for humanity to overcome, but without God, free will and purpose this entire challenge becomes purely illusionary, they are no longer a challenge anyone overcame, we simply accomplish whatever random chance has ordained us to accomplish.
