> > the fundamental problem with the theodical question is that it presumes a situation
> > in which man can judge God - or, even more basically, a situation in which God can be
> > defined by (and therefore restricted by) human terms and ideas. God is, as theologians are
> > wont to say, "wholly other." Man does not and *cannot* understand God.
>
> That sounds like an argument against organised religion to me.
>
> If God is wholly other and we *cannot* understand him, what are we to make of all these people in funny hats who claim to know what God is like?
>
> Paul

Two things. One: Funny hats? I'm not even sure which religion you're referring to there... Two: For Christians (at least my kind), we don't claim to understand God, and we don't try to understand God. What we do is take his word (The Bible) and follow its teachings. The idea there is that the scriptures in the Bible are divinely inspired, and so they contain things that we can understand. Even if we don't understand God himself, we do understand some things about him, things that he has presented to us in a form we can understand. This, then, is the basis for our faith.

Don "Trying to keep it short so he doesn't accidentally say something he doesn't mean" Monkey