I have an honest question for Christians?

I don't really know Christians that make those comments in the way you are phrasing them. We absolutely one day will understand God, if we make choices that continue to show we want to understand. However, in our limited state right now, we can't quite comprehend it.

I think you are getting it a little wrong (or the ones saying it are getting it wrong). We don't always have the big picture so we don't sometimes understand why things happen the way they are happening, but if we love God, we trust that he knows the bigger picture and knows what will bring us ultimately the most joy and spiritual progression to become like him and eventually be one with him and know all he knows. We don't always look at things with an eternal perspective like God does.

As for science, I really don't know any Christians that have any issues with science. I think with science, people need to remember, also, the big picture and the fact that we just don't know as much as we like to think we know and everything we think we know in science could be proven wrong with new discoveries. Science and religion aren't in competition. They have no reason to be.

Everybody says shorthand for what they mean all the time.

I think it makes good sense to suggest that we cannot understand God, since we are created by God, and it makes sense that the pot cannot comprehend the potter. But I would not say we cannot ever understand God; that's going too far, saying too much. We don't know. As things are today, yes, I cannot reasonably expect that I will ever understand God, but after I die, will I know better? I do not know, but that is a possibility.

So it's claiming too much knowledge to say we cannot EVER understand god.

I do not know that Christians have cried wolf with science. A few, perhaps, but in general, we think science is a great way to appreciate the universe that God has made. I see no problem with science. Do some scientists claim that science disproves God? I'm not aware of anyone who says that; if they did, it would be silly, since science does no such thing, and actually cannot. Science can only evaluate what it can measure, and God can't be measured. The only thing science has done with relation to God is that it has confirmed that it cannot state that it has observed God, heaven, miracles, etc. Well, science had not observed the Coelocanth, and taught that this fish was extinct for millions of years -- then, someone found that they'd forgotten to tell the fishmen of Madagascar about this, and these folks had been catching Coelocanths for years.

Science has not observed God; that hardly constitutes evidence that there is no God.

Think extreme complexity. God knows the names of all

the stars etc, knows the # of...hairs!! on our heads.

Do you know chess? Bobby Fisher one time played

Six...6...people at chess, won!

He's expert, God is beyond that.

Science is limited and often wrong, I like science,

like to keep up. But often it...seems...so.

We are invited to learn what we can. Even in our

sphere, some girls...usually blonds!..can't do math.

Often unattractive Pele are good at it. Those girls

couldn't do it, and they fried.

God is vast.

You seem to be needing to place science and faith in juxtaposition. They need not be so aligned, as to be considered opposites.

Consider instead the number of very well respected scientists and mathematicians and philosophers, who have not had that problem. A good example would be John Lennox, a triple doctorate, who has a strong faith in Jesus. Once when Dawkins (singular doctorate) and Lennox debated, Dawkins suggested that Lennox should be embarrassed to call himself a scientist, but it looks to me like Lennox hangs a lot more paper on his wall that Dawkins does.

I think many hold to the worldview that suits them best, long before they look at the science involved, or the effect of their worldview. In that way, they excuse their worldview based in what one group of scientists have said, but do not include the opposing argument, not because it couldn't be right, but because they don't want it to be right.

In North America, you have the unique standard that suggests God must be excluded to perform good science.... or for that matter, good media, good entertainment, or sexual preference, or promiscuity. Take God out of the way, and you can do anything.

Then to be candid, I suspect that God is not part of the common man's considerations, not because He is not there, but because men don't want Him to be. Why? Because if there (as I believe), He demands purity, holiness, righteousness, and generally good behavior, and sin is more fun, at least in the short run.

As soon as you add philosophy to science, you no longer have pure science. C. S. Lewis taught his students to "follow the evidence where it leads," which is what Lewis, Antony Flew, and Frank Collins did.

Lewis became a Christian, as did Frank Collins, and also Antony Flew, (who, after having been a textbook reading requirement in support of the humanist dogma, in his latter years, wrote a book called "There is a God.")

See, science is just science, and it has proven to be a useful tool against many of the woes of men, including disease, and famine, and various other troubles. However, suggesting then that science simply disproves God is short sighted, and an error in judgment.

Science is attacked by those who fail to understand it. You should talk to more Catholics. You would probably understand and appreciate the conversation better.

This does come from the expression to fear the lord thy God instead of seeing God with AWE a bit different way of looking at the Father of us all. And Mother also in this too.Amen.

The mystereis of God can be understood as and wehn you have tyhe keys to understanding and there are sevn keys as such. This has always been kept from joe average as such. It will always be so until we all evolve more and enter yet again into the freshness of the mystery schools as of old, renewed as of now.Amen.

To put it briefly, we are FINITE and God is INFINITE.

As for science being "exact" and "understandable," just ask a physicist to explain Dark Matter to you!

Hate evil, love good, And establish justice in the gate! (Amos 5:15)

MARANATHA! Come, Lord Jesus, COME!

If science is so effective and has a self correcting mechanism, they why does it start out with exclusionary presuppositions? If science is to be a legitimate arbiter of truth then it must allow the evidence to lead anywhere not just in the limited directions allowed by unpoven presuppositions it adopts as a priori. The notion of an 'ideal answer' is not scientific it is philosophical Kurt Godel has demonstrated mathematically that we can never understand the unverse completely... (the same argument you make about God in your question) so should we stop trying (as you suggest we do with God)? Your positon is self defeating!

God can't possibly be understood is the GO-TO answer for every question that they have no answer for. My best friend was raised extreme Catholic. He left Catholicism and joined a Christian church as an adult. After about a year or so, he was asked not to come back to that church because he asked to many questions. He is now living his life as a happy deist.

God wants us to seek Him and seek to understand Him. He sent His Word to us. (John 1:1, 14 KJV)

Deuteronomy 4:29 KJV But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. 30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; 31 (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Isaiah 45:19 KJV I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

Hosea 6:6 KJV For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Luke 8:21 KJV And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

Science is our discovery of God's creation. Science does not contradict God's Word.

Three earth ages Bible studies:

http://www.kjvbible.org/katabole.html

http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/threew...

http://levendwater.org/companion/append146.html

"was" or "became"?

(Genesis 1:2)

Gen 1:2 And the earth became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

"Some scholars also argue against translating hayah "became" instead of "was" in Genesis 1:2 because they assume this interpretation came about only recently, after geology revealed the strata of the earth to be very old. Thus they consider this explanation a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with modern geology. The explanation that there existed an indefinite period between the initial beautiful creation described in Genesis 1:1 and the earth becoming waste and void in verse 2 has been called, sometimes disparagingly, "the gap theory." The idea was attributed to Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century and to Cyrus Scofield in the 20th.

Yet the interpretation that the earth "became" waste and void has been discussed for close to 2,000 years:

• The earliest known recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century. The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic versions of the Old Testament, translated Genesis 1:2 as "and the earth was laid waste." The original language led them to understand that something had occurred that had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.

• The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917,

p. 342).

• In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2: "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering . . . of it was taken in hand?'" (De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, Book 1, Part I, Chapter VI). Other medieval scholars, such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

• According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon Epíscopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology discovered evidence for the ancient origin of earth.

These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin-that it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology-is groundless.

Perhaps the best treatment on both sides of this question is given by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2. Dr. Custance states, "To me, this issue is important, and after studying the problem for some thirty years and after reading everything I could lay my hands on pro and con and after accumulating in my own library some 300 commentaries on Genesis, the earliest being dated 1670, I am persuaded that there is, on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen. 1:2 as 'But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation, etc.' than there is for any of the conventional translations in our modern versions" (1970, p. 7)."