• rdri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    blame op for keeping it vague.

    I have more reasons to blame the book for being vague.

    Also why are you ignoring in your response anything about the fact that your injection was seemingly off-topic and the consequences of the misunderstanding that it seemingly caused?

    I don’t see it like that.

    • Tartas1995
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      So just that I understand:

      Do you think that op and me weren’t specifically talking about it being contradictory?

      Do you think that your question about “how it wouldn’t make sense for God to create the sun after the light cycles” is about the bible being contradictory?

      Do you think that “does it make sense?” Isn’t off-topic in a discussion about contradictions?

      Basically what do you disagree with specifically?

      • rdri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Do you think that op and me weren’t specifically talking about it being contradictory?

        I wouldn’t call it contradictory, because the original material has to many other problems. It’s like calling coal dirty. The original post is a meme and it works fine for me.

        Other questions: ok yes even though I don’t think it matters, no, with the whole premise of injecting possibility of nonsense into the discussion in order to avoid contradictions (in a boring unfunny way).

        • Tartas1995
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Then I see our disagreement.

          I think and you are welcome to disagree, even if the intent is to call coal dirty and you provide an example, you would give an actual example of it being dirty.

          If I don’t want to argue the obvious and just want to call the coal dirty. I wouldn’t provide an example because that is the whole point of “calling the coal dirty”, it doesn’t need to be explained.

          If I would choose to provide an example, I would provide an actual example.

          If we assume his intent was to call coal dirty and he choose to provided an example of the bible being contradictory, I expect the example is actually contradictory. That was what I was arguing.

          And I think his example fails, as even in a literal reading, there are interpretations that work just fine without creating contradictions, e.g. a day is ~24hr; and god needed x hrs, or y days. All of us might doubt that it is the intended meaning of the word by the author. But that is our doubts and not a contradictions.

          My nonsense was strictly to highlight my point that whether or not, we think it makes sense for someone to act a way, is irrelevant when talking about contradictions.

          I hope this helps to understand my intentions. I would be happy to hear your thoughts.