Why does Edwards claim that nonbelievers are akin to spiders in "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"?

English

1 answer:

SCORPION-xisa [38]3 years ago

3 0

Answer:

II. Spiders are powerless should a rock fall on them.

Edwards uses this comparison of non-believers to a spider to show that should God decide to send someone to hell, he or she does not have the power to stop it. Even if the non-believer felt assured and arrogant about it, he would still not have the ability to keep himself out of Hell. Option I is incorrect because Puritans, like Edwards, did not believe that any of God's creations were a mistake. Option III is also incorrect because the purpose is not to show the expendable nature of the spider, but rather the almighty power of God.

Explanation:

You might be interested in

"parents of children who vandalise schools and other public property must pay heavy fines to the government for their children's

Andrews [41]

Use Jenni Ai, quillbot, and summarize generator to write your essays, it’s so much more efficient.

4 0

1 year ago

How does the author of “The Journey to Acceptance” show a favorable bias toward Mendel’s research and an unfavorable bias toward

scZoUnD [109]

The author shows a favorable bias towards Mendel's research and an unfavorable bias towards the opinions of Mendel's scientific peers, by using specific diction such as “deep impact” when referring to Mendel's work and “very little understanding” when expressing the beliefs of scientists, as shown in option C.

We can arrive at this answer because:

Diction is very important for an author to be able to express their thoughts within a text.
In "The Journey to Acceptance," we can see the efficient use of diction when the author states that Mendel's research had a "profound impact" on the scientific community.
With this, the author shows a favorable bias to Mendel's research, stating that it is important and its impact was essential.
On the other hand, the author states that Mendel's peer opinions are not as relevant as they are of “very small understanding.”
With that, he shows a negative bias, claiming that the opinions of Mendel's peers are not as relevant.