I could give you a list of things to read if you really want, but I don't think it would suffice.
Now, I have enough (read and to-be-read) books on my shelf already. When I come to a discussion board I want to talk to the people there about
their ideas.
But thanks for the offer.
I believe that all the reading in the world will still fail to properly communicate the essence of any person - let alone God. Beings must be experienced, not discussed intellectually.
But, obviously, that´s not what can be done here on a discussion board, and on top that wasn´t the topic of your thread.
I wasn't trying to shift any goalposts. "Fathom" is a synonym of "understand". But we'll use whatever word you prefer, so "fathom" it is.
Well, we all know that two words may have some congruent content, but they are never really synonyms. They always have subtle differences in their meanings and connotations. That said, I am not a native English speaker, so chances are that I am completely wrong about the subtle connotations of "fathom", as opposed to "understand".
Anyway, I was hoping that my responses to your questions were telling you something about what I felt you were asking.
If my responses aren´t going in the direction you meant to ask, you are always welcome to insist and rephrase.
Ah. I'm not a big fan of the way Greek thought crept into Christianity - Thomism and such. The idea of hypostasis is one of those cases.
Well, you asked for an example, and incidentally the example had to do with Greek thought. I didn´t mean to give an example for Greek thought, though, but for trying to put much intellectual effort in post hoc rationalizing a metaphore/myth.
If you want another (admittedly gross) example:
One of the resident three top comedians here at CF tries to explain away the disconnect with a literal understand of Genesis and facts about the age of the universe by inventing the concept "embedded age".
So, you don't like a posteriori explanations.
No. Explanations are
always a posteriori. I tried to explain what about certain "explanations" is causing my discontent. I may not have been entirely clear in this description, but simply ignoring the fact that I made the attempt, and paraphrasing my statement as though it hadn´t come with any qualifications isn´t sitting well with me.
But how would you separate that from continuing discovery?
Well, "discovery" is about facts, to begin with. An increased effort to interprete that which even hasn´t been "discovered" (but just has been claimed somewhere) doesn´t have much to do with "discovery".
Are you expecting a perfectly complete god-concept?
Well, let me say it that way:
I am expecting a god concept that is able to cover all that it is meant to cover. I am not interested in discussing a god concept that is like a small cloth which is spontaneously shifted whereever an uncovered spot is pointed out, thereby leaving numerous other spots uncovered (and vice versa, and so on).
And on another note, I am not particularly interested in discussing god concepts that start out with the attempt to make logical explanations but reliably end up with "well, it´s a mystery/it´s beyond human comprehension/it´s beyond logic/..." when they don´t succeed to logically explain what they were claimed to explain.
But this is not the thread to take god concepts apart.
You asked me at what point I am losing interest in certain ideas, and I told you what that point was. I guess I´m just not the kind of guy who buys a a sea sight apartment in the middle of the Sahara - not even if the guy selling it declares the sea sight thing to be "embedded", "hypostatic", "spiritual" or "beyond human comprehension" (or tells me that "the Sahara" and "the middle" are sweeping terms and that therefore it´s entirely possible to have sea sight in the middle of the Sahara).
