[__ Science __ ] Bobby Foole And His Little God Of Gold.

[JAG ..]

Bobby Foole And His Little God Of Gold.
By JAG
July 1, 2021

"The fact is", said Bobby Foole, "I truly LOVE sin and evil and I hotly crave to practice
both of 'em."

"I understand", replied Harris Dookins, Foole's philosopher counselor.

"Moreover", added Foole, "I crave to be my own God because I don't want my
Creator telling Me what I can and cannot do."

"So you do know there is a God that created you?", asked Dookins.

"Of course I know that, but I am determined to suppress that knowledge and
put it out of my mind."

"So you can habitually sin and do all the evil you want to do?"

"You got it", replied Bobby Foole.

"You got a problem here with this", smiled Dookins.

"What problem?"

"Your problem", said Dookins, "is this: If you openly and transparently admit
to yourself and to the world around you that you love evil and want to be evil, then
that's eventually going to cause you to come to look bad ~~ both to yourself and in
the eyes of your friends. But not to worry, I have the perfect solution for you."

"What is that solution?", muttered Foole.

"You need a God that will tell you repeatedly, until you come to believe it, that your
evil is not really evil, but it's really the good."

"Then I can actually feel good about doing evil?"

"Exactly", replied Dookins, "you're beginning to see the Big Picture."

"Yes I am", replied Bobby Foole, "but what kind of God could it be?"

"Oh any kind of God will work just fine, as long as it's not the true God that created
the Universe and you. You can have a God made from gold and set up his little
temple in your living room and put your little God Of Gold within it. That'd get the
job done."

"He'd need a name, wouldn't he?", replied Foole.

"Yes of course he would, but that's easy. Call him Baal. That's what your historical kin
chose to do."

"I really and truly LOVE this idea", said Foole, "and I'm very glad you told me about this."

"This'll give you exactly what you want", offered Dookins. "For example, if you decide one
day that you want to commit adultery with your neighbor's wife, you'll simply have Baal
supply you with reasons why that's a good thing to do, and not an evil thing to do
because Baal is God, and God said it was good."

"Or if I decide one day that I want to sample homosexual sodomy?, added Foole.

"Yes of course," replied Dookins, "anything you want to do in the sexual areas, will be
declared good and right by your God Baal."

"Wow!", exclaimed Foole. "I get it now. All this means that I Foole, am my own God.
My God Baal is actually Me, and it is Me that decides that sin and evil is really right
amd good."

"I'd say you now understand the principle fully", smiled Dookins. "You've got it."

"Yes", replied Foole. "Foole is God. I LOVE it."

"By the way", said Dookins, "yoy don't actually have to have a literal little God Of Gold
in a little temple in your living room. You can skip all that and create your own abstract
God and set him up within your heart and mind. Besides doing it that way is more
modern 21st century sophisticated and with just a little thought, you can make your
God sound very intellectual and bestow upon him academic credibility."

"A scholarly God?", grinned Bobby Foole.

"Yes very much so", exclaimed Dookins. "You could give your God names like Rationalism
or Empiricism or Agnosticism or even Atheism."

"Wait a minute", said Bobby Foole, "I can have more that one God. I can have as many Gods
as I need in order for Them to justify my evil and sin and declare my evil and sin to really be
good and right behavior."

"Ah", smiled Dookins, "the pupil has become the teacher."

"You bet", grinned Foole, "and I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I now have four Gods and
counting and their names are Rationalism, Empiricism, Agnosticism, and Atheism and
these four Gods have a Top God over them."

"Zeus over all, is that it?", inquired Dookins.

"Yes,", said Bobby Foole, "and my Top God will give Me his blessings to do all the vile sins
and evil that My heart desires."

"What's the name of your Top God?", asked Dookins.

"Science", said Bobby Foole, "his name is Science."

[]

 

[Barbarian]

I've often suspected that some creationists really envy, and would like to worship science. But you don't often see it so blatantly discussed.

Real scientists will tell you that science cannot provide values, religion, or even comment on the supernatural.

Fortunately, scientists can do all of those things apart from science. So we can do science, and still worship God (the real one, not the science god of the creationists).

 

[Quantrill]

I've often suspected that some creationists really envy, and would like to worship science. But you don't often see it so blatantly discussed.

Real scientists will tell you that science cannot provide values, religion, or even comment on the supernatural.

Fortunately, scientists can do all of those things apart from science. So we can do science, and still worship God (the real one, not the science god of the creationists).

What do you mean, 'the science god of the creationists'?

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

What do you mean, 'the science god of the creationists'?

It's a fake idol invented by those who want to believe that scientists worship science. Almost all of us will tell you that science is not a way to get to God, or to find values or ethics. It's just a method for learning about the natural universe.
One of the most consistent misconceptions many (not all) creationists have about science.

 

[Quantrill]

It's a fake idol invented by those who want to believe that scientists worship science. Almost all of us will tell you that science is not a way to get to God, or to find values or ethics. It's just a method for learning about the natural universe.
One of the most consistent misconceptions many (not all) creationists have about science.

I see. But I think your description of 'science' is a little too simplistic. That science is all about learning and understanding the natural universe, yes. That doesn't explain the conflict science has with the Bible,or with Christians who believe the Bible.

Your own distinction between 'creationist' and 'scientist' proves that there is conflict. When you say science is "just a method for learning" you want to present science as an innocent bystander just trying to learn some things. And of course the Christian creationist becomes the problem for not believing the science when it is in conflict with the Bible.

So, at times, it does become a question of which one do you believe. Science, or God?

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

I see. But I think your description of 'science' is a little too simplistic. That science is all about learning and understanding the natural universe, yes. That doesn't explain the conflict science has with the Bible,or with Christians who believe the Bible.

Science doesn't have a conflict with the Bible. At least not with the Bible as it has been traditionally understood. A strict YE interpretation does have some problems with science. But none of it is a salvation issue, and the differences are those that we can usually ignore in daily life, and don't interfere with a Christian ethic.

Your own distinction between 'creationist' and 'scientist' proves that there is conflict.

Between creationists and science, yes. But of not for most Christians. I'm using "creationist" in the common sense of one who interprets Genesis as a literal history rather than allegory.

When you say science is "just a method for learning" you want to present science as an innocent bystander just trying to learn some things.

That's what it does. The "science, so-called" in the NT is about historical scholarship, not science as we think of it today.

So, at times, it does become a question of which one do you believe. Science, or God?

For a scientist who is a Christian, there is no difference. Science merely learns about His natural creation. Which can be a source of inspiration and worship for us:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

If any of this mattered to salvation, God would have made it clear in scripture. But it's of no consequence whatever to your eternal home.

 

[Quantrill]

Science doesn't have a conflict with the Bible. At least not with the Bible as it has been traditionally understood. A strict YE interpretation does have some problems with science. But none of it is a salvation issue, and the differences are those that we can usually ignore in daily life, and don't interfere with a Christian ethic.


Between creationists and science, yes. But of not for most Christians. I'm using "creationist" in the common sense of one who interprets Genesis as a literal history rather than allegory.



That's what it does. The "science, so-called" in the NT is about historical scholarship, not science as we think of it today.



For a scientist who is a Christian, there is no difference. Science merely learns about His natural creation. Which can be a source of inspiration and worship for us:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

If any of this mattered to salvation, God would have made it clear in scripture. But it's of no consequence whatever to your eternal home.

When you say "at least", you admit science has a problem with the Bible. You have a problem with the Bible.

You want to divide the Bible into parts. Parts which address salvation. Parts which address science. The parts which address salvation, you want to believe. The parts which address what your science disagrees with, you want to adhere to your science.

In other words, you want to toss the believer a bone. ' Here, you can gnaw on your salvation part if you like. But understand that the Bible is in error when it talks about things science disagrees with. And we who are scientist's know better.' Sure you do.

What you fail to understand is that the whole Bible is about salvation. And history and science that is addressed is 100% accurate and is about salvation. If God is lying about His history and science, why should you believe Him about His salvation? You shouldn't.

I interpret (Genesis) as a literal account. By what reason do you interpret it as allegory? Because it disagrees with your science?

So, what are you trying to say about the 'science of the New Testament'?

When you said, "For a scientist who is a Christian, there is no difference", you prove the Christians point that you have made science an idol. Science is indeed your god.

The whole Bible matters to salvation. Something you fail to see.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

When you say "at least", you admit science has a problem with the Bible.

With one particular interpretation. The traditional interpretation is completely consistent with science.

You want to divide the Bible into parts. Parts which address salvation. Parts which address science.

None of it addresses science. It's about God and man and our relationship. So, for example, if it says pi=3, that's just an approximation, not a scientific statement.

If God is lying about His history and science, why should you believe Him about His salvation? You shouldn't.

He's not lying; it's just one particular interpretation of scripture that's a problem for some people. Fortunately, He doesn't care what people think of the way He did creation. That's not how your salvation is determined.

I interpret (Genesis) as a literal account.

Which is fine. You're not going to go to hell for having a different interpretation of the creation story. So I don't have to be concerned about it.

Most Christians interpret it as figurative. Which is also fine.

When you said, "For a scientist who is a Christian, there is no difference", you prove the Christians point that you have made science an idol.

No. I'm merely pointing out that science and Genesis are nicely consistent.

The whole Bible matters to salvation.

Jesus makes it very clear what determines how He will decide who spends eternity with Him and who goes with the devil and his angels. Matthew 25 has a very specific description.

That's what matters.

 

[Quantrill]

With one particular interpretation. The traditional interpretation is completely consistent with science.


None of it addresses science. It's about God and man and our relationship. So, for example, if it says pi=3, that's just an approximation, not a scientific statement.


He's not lying; it's just one particular interpretation of scripture that's a problem for some people. Fortunately, He doesn't care what people think of the way He did creation. That's not how your salvation is determined.


Which is fine. You're not going to go to hell for having a different interpretation of the creation story. So I don't have to be concerned about it.

Most Christians interpret it as figurative. Which is also fine.



No. I'm merely pointing out that science and Genesis are nicely consistent.


Jesus makes it very clear what determines how He will decide who spends eternity with Him and who goes with the devil and his angels. Matthew 25 has a very specific description.

That's what matters.

As I said. Science and you have a problem with the Bible and God. If it makes you feel better to say 'only with ones interpretation', that doesn't matter. Your and science's interpretation are what is in question. And you and science have shown you trust science and not God.

Oh really? None of the Bible addresses science? Gee. So what is the problem? God said...and it was God who said it wasn't it?...that He spoke the creation into existence? God who created all things, has nothing to do with science? All you are trying to say is that science only is the interpreter of God. Not the Bible. Just as I said, you want to divide the Bible into parts. The parts which address salvation, you deem alright. The parts that move into the areas of science you deem false. If God said, pi = 3, then pi = 3. No problem.

Of course God is not lying. And what He has said about creation, that He spake it into existence, is no lie. Correct? What is known as the 6 days of creation, (Gen. 1:3-31), where God said and it was so, is true. Correct? And, actually God does care about how you view His act of creation. Why? Because your/science view is to take away from God and place the act of creation into 'natural' movements that are only explained by science. Just as I said before. You like to throw the believer a bone. You say you can believe in your God of the Bible, as long as science agrees with it. So, you say God doesn't care if you believe Him or not about what He has said about creation and science. But He does. And so do you.

Whether one goes to Heaven or Hell is immaterial at this point. Whether one seeks to add to or take away from what the Word of God says, is the point. You are seeking to use science as a tool to interpret the Bible. Thus you disregard what science disregards in the Bible. You are willing to accept the salvation spoken of concerning the Bible, as long as it doesn't transgress the laws of science. And you use your 'figurative' method of interpretation to do it. In other words, science knows this could not be, so it must be 'figurative'. For example (Josh. 10:12-14)

No, you are proving the Christians point that you/science have made science a god and idol. Science and Genesis are always in agreement, because God is the Creator. But scientist's knowledge is limited, and doesn't know everything. Thus scientist's are prone to be in disagreement. They just don't know. But, they like to think they do.

The whole Bible is about salvation. Not just one chapter in (Matthew). Every word in the Bible is the Word of God and is to be believed, and concerns redeemption. Your continual effort to try and divide the Bible into what can be believed and what can't, because science disagrees, is an attack upon the Word of God.

"Yea hath God said?" (Gen. 3:1)

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

The whole Bible is about salvation. Not just one chapter in (Matthew).

Matthew is just Jesus' explicit description of what one must do to be saved.

Oh really? None of the Bible addresses science?

None of it. The Author was discussing something other than the precise value of pi, and so rounded it to a whole number. Because there wasn't a convenient way in the language to give the precise number, but mostly, because it didn't matter to the point.

Whether one goes to Heaven or Hell is immaterial at this point.

Not to me. It's really the whole point of being created as a human.

No, you are proving the Christians point that you/science have made science a god and idol.

It's just a method. Nothing about God or values, or anything like that. This is why scientists warn against attempts to derive faith or morals from science. You might as well accuse a plumber of making plumbing a god and idol.

Your continual effort to try and divide the Bible into what can be believed and what can't

I'm pointing out that all if it is true. It's just that some of it is indeed allegory, parable, and other figurative language.

When Jesus used parables, He wasn't wrong or lying. It was just to make a point aside from the story itself.

 

[Quantrill]

Matthew is just Jesus' explicit description of what one must do to be saved.

None of it. The Author was discussing something other than the precise value of pi, and so rounded it to a whole number. Because there wasn't a convenient way in the language to give the precise number, but mostly, because it didn't matter to the point.


Not to me. It's really the whole point of being created as a human.


It's just a method. Nothing about God or values, or anything like that. This is why scientists warn against attempts to derive faith or morals from science. You might as well accuse a plumber of making plumbing a god and idol.


I'm pointing out that all if it is true. It's just that some of it is indeed allegory, parable, and other figurative language.

When Jesus used parables, He wasn't wrong or lying. It was just to make a point aside from the story itself.

As I said, the whole Bible is about salvation, not just (Matthew). You say none of the Bible is about science, yet now you say (Matthew) is the book of salvation. So what is the rest of it?

Concerning pi, what verses are you trying to interpret?

If none of the Bible addresses science, what is your problem? Why do you not believe the creation account in (Genesis)? Tell me about (Josh. 10:12-14). What does your science say about it?

Concerning going to Heaven or Hell, as I said that is not the point. The point is you and science are interpreting Scripture on the basis of science. If your science agrees, then all is good. If your science disagrees, then you disagree. In other words, science is your tool for interpreting the Bible. And a sad tool it is as it's knowledge is limited. Thus you are basing your interpretation on incomplete knowledge.

What is 'just a method'? Your science? I agree, that is all it is. The point is, it is the method you choose to believe when it comes to the Bible. You have chosen a method that admits it cannot know about God. Yet you/science continue to interpret the Bible. And in your/science interpretation, you reject what God has said.

No you're not. You're pointing out that the Bible cannot be believed in the areas where science disagrees. You're pointing out that when what the Bible says disagrees with science, then it must not really mean that. It must mean something else. And of course figurative, and allegorical language opens the door for anyone to say what they think it means. You use figurative and allegorical interpretation to take away and add to the Word of God. And that, I believe, is a dangerous game.

The Bible is not a parable for you to manipulate. Just because there were parables spoken of by Jesus, doesn't mean the Bible is a parable for you to abortion.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

As I said, the whole Bible is about salvation, not just (Matthew). You say none of the Bible is about science, yet now you say (Matthew) is the book of salvation.

A book of salvation. It's one place where Jesus explicitly lays out what will decide your eternal home. There are others just as James 2 and Romans 9:31 make clear.

Romans 9:31 But Israel, by following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of justice. [32] Why so? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were of works. For they stumbled at the stumblingstone.

James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

One is justified by works but only as it is done in love and faith:
1 Corinthians 13:3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

But none of this has anything to do with science or what you think of evolution. You will be judged on other things, but not your interpretation of the creation account.

Concerning pi, what verses are you trying to interpret?

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

I have no doubt that the Jews of that time realized that pi is not equal to three exactly. But the notation to show that in the Hebrew number system was clumsy and most people wouldn't be able to read it. So the Author rounded it to the nearest whole number. It's not wrong; it's just not as precise as it would be in a book of science or math.

The point is you and science are interpreting Scripture on the basis of science.

No. Science can't illuminate anything of value to your salvation. God's sacrifice of His Son for our redemption is completely outside of anything science can consider. The supernatural is beyond science, the existence of which science does not (and cannot) deny.

You're pointing out that the Bible cannot be believed in the areas where science disagrees.

No, I'm pointing out that there are no places where they disagree. Only places where people differ in their interpretations.

Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature - St. Augustine

The Bible is not a parable for you to manipulate.

But it contains many parables and allegories. And sometimes, people take them for literal accounts. Fortunately, their interpretations of these have nothing to do with one's salvation. God made that very simple and explicit for us, even if it's hard for sinful people to do.

 

[Barbarian]

And I like you too much to let this get personal. So I'm going to accept that we have a difference of opinion and let it go at that.

 

[Quantrill]

And I like you too much to let this get personal. So I'm going to accept that we have a difference of opinion and let it go at that.

Sounds good. And I appreciate you the same.

Quantrill