Is the wisdom of man foolishness in the eyes of God, as Albert Hancock would have readers believe in his Jan. 28 letter (“Foolish in the eyes of God?”)?
Whether cyclical or man-made, if a lot of cold moisture from melting snow goes into the air, it goes somewhere to create rain and snow. In the process, cold air masses impact warm air masses and jet streams change.
When jet streams change, some people get wet, some don't; some get hot, some get cold. Currently there's a West Coast drought and the rest of country is wet and cold.
Maybe there is a God who created all, but there is no God who punishes and rewards with weather. It's humans who created a good God/bad God to make sense of things.
Ancient people thought God destroyed man with a flood, yet floods come and go. Interpret them how you will, but some are natural and some, like the Johnstown Flood, are man-made.
Mr. Hancock should be wise enough to know the Bible praises wisdom in man as well as mocks it: “The wise man will hear and increase in learning.” Proverbs 1:5; “Get wisdom.” Prov. 4:5; See also, “Whoever is wise, let him understand these things.” Hosea 14:9.
Men can debate the meaning of “wisdom.” No creator I know would consider man's attempts to understand nature and preserve God's creation foolish. Mistaken, perhaps. But foolish, no.
God expects you to get wisdom. Otherwise, he wasted his time with this creation.
The writer, a Mt. Pleasant native, holds a masters in Personality Theory & Religion.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.