Justin Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. So apparently god has foolishness and at least a weakness. Does this seem like traits of an omnipotent, perfect god? Perhaps this is talking about his botched creation were everything went to hell right out of the gate. Or maybe it's talking about his drowning nearly everything because of man's wickedness which accomplished nothing at all since man is still wicked according to the Bible after the flood? Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdog Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. So apparently god has foolishness and at least a weakness. Does this seem like traits of an omnipotent, perfect god? Perhaps this is talking about his botched creation were everything went to hell right out of the gate. Or maybe it's talking about his drowning nearly everything because of man's wickedness which accomplished nothing at all since man is still wicked according to the Bible after the flood? Thoughts? It's referring to man's opinion of god's actions, talking about the crucifixion, man calls it foolishness and weakness, but the script is saying what man deems to be foolish and weak is in fact god's wisdom and strength. the words foolishness and weakness ought to be "foolishness" "weakness" then it would be interpreted better. But that is just a bit of bible study which I suspect no one wants to remind themselves of. I like your version better. And I am right on board with everything was pretty much screwed up from the get go. Genesis is the bible study that got me thinking about the whole Adam and Eve, "sin" and the reason why we are all in this predicament in the first place. And it basically led me to other questions and I know longer believe it all. Almost coming up to a year now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PitterPatter Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Apparently this character is too foolish to even slightly show a presence and too weak to feed the starving. What a loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Looking4Answers Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 This is known as an argument to the ridiculous or Reductio ad absurdum. The author is not trying to say that god is either foolish or weak, but that if god were foolish, even that would be wiser than the wisdom of man and if god were weak then even that weakness would be stronger than the strongest strength of men. It is written in the language of the absurd and uses a very common way of making this point for the day in which it was written. Now, after saying something like this, I always feel I need to offer a disclaimer. I don't believe the Bible to be true, so I am not defending that book. However, I don't like to make the book say something it is not, either. The Bible has enough problems, errors and contradictions as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PitterPatter Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Now, after saying something like this, I always feel I need to offer a disclaimer. I don't believe the Bible to be true, so I am not defending that book. However, I don't like to make the book say something it is not, either. The Bible has enough problems, errors and contradictions as it is. I have to say...I don't think the book really says anything concrete that isn't up to interpretation. It's a heavily flawed book that can be taken however the reader wants it too...so I reserve the right to take it however I want to, just like the people who take it "literally". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PitterPatter Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Free interpretation does not change author intent. I can write "I love cheese", and most people would understand that to mean I really enjoy eating cheese; it is a favorite food of mine. Because the word "love" has many uses and definitions, someone hundreds of years from now--when usage and definitions have shifted--might choose to read my statement without regard for cultural norms of expression at the time, and spread the story that Phanta had unusually strong romantic feelings toward cheese. Perhaps she even wanted to MARRY cheese. Weirdo! They'd be pretty inaccurate in their interpretation and, were it offered with any seriousness, their overall credibility would be effected. Phanta I was just being cheeky. But luckily you're around to clarify your disturbing love of cheese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts