The crowd was still agitated from the announcement of the December POM, when they were astounded to see a second announcement being hung up.
With great joy and adulation they voiced their approval, as Asteriktos was announced as the POM winner for January!
Before I begin, some reading that you might enjoy: The Paradoxes of Christianity.
Do you recognize the paradoxes in the description of your God?
Yes, both unsolvable paradoxes made of contradictory claims, and also paradoxes that can be explored (but usually not fully resolved) to some extent.
Can he possibly be the Omni-everything as described?
Possibly. Probably. Maybe certainly. As for how that works or happens, I don't know. For that matter, I don't know or understand how he could be any one of them, let alone all of them together. This seems to be a revelation, a matter of faith, a matter of belief. To the extent that it can be explored I think it should be, but if it cannot be understood, or if not much progress can be made, then that doesn't confront me any. If anything I would fully expect that outcome, as frustrating as it can be.
I find it interesting that God is described as unknowable, unfathomable and one who we cannot possibly understand with our lack of intelligence. He also works in mysterious ways.
Does it sound to you like the bibles authors went a bit overboard in their description of a God whom they say cannot be known or fathomed?
If they could not fathom anything of God, why do you think you can?
When you do describe your un-describable God, --- based purely on hearsay and book-says, --- as a Christian, --- do you see that unknowable information that you think you know to be true even though the bible itself says it cannot be, --- as lying?
If not, how do you know you speak the truth?
They weren't scientists marking down measurements, they were all sorts of people passing on (with it later being written down) that which they were inspired to. Not everything is meant to be a fact in a precise and verifiable sense. When the psalmist cries that he is a sinner he is making a psychological statement; he may have done some bad stuff recently, or he may just be speaking generally, but either way he is expressing his view that he has gone astray. Likewise, when someone says that God is unknowable they are not necessarily meaning that he is actually unknowable. They are simply making a statement that expresses what they are thinking: that God is so different, unique, mysterious, etc., that no one can truly think they understand him. No one can "know" him. At best we simply look at the information, evidence, revelation, relationships, world, etc., and do the best we can as to discerning what that means. God is unknowable; God is good. Am I contradicting myself? Only if I mean to speak both as some sort of verifiable, fully-authenticated objective facts. But there's no such thing as a fully certain and infallible understanding, and there is no such thing as verifying in the full sense whatever it is that we think about God. Thus why experience and faith and reason work together with each other in understanding life and living it, rather than simply being progressive stages.
Faith is not a replacement of reason or experience, but helps fill out a context for the understanding of that which we discover through reason and experience. It sustains, strengthens and promotes understanding of the natural and supernatural. It helps give us direction in life when moving forward, and especially when we find ourselves a bit lost. It is our touchstone that, hopefully, we can trust even when we doubt our experience and our reason. It is about trust, not blind, but rather (usually) starting as a small seed and growing.
Reason is not a replacement for faith or experience, but a way of making sense intellectually of that which we discern, think, sense, feel, etc. While reason cannot fully understand God, nonetheless reason often plays an important part in our contemplation of God and life. Reason is used to analyze and grapple with information that we gain through experience and live out through faith, not as the full extent or final criterion of understanding or knowledge, but certainly as a consistently helpful and creative faculty. Reason also plays an important factor in communicating with others, especially information, but also expressions of love, hope, joy, and so forth.
Experience is the gathering of information, purposely or not, such that with the other two mentioned above we begin to understand the world around us, and to some extent God. We make progress not only in worldly knowledge, but also in spiritual knowledge, through experience. It is also taught that there are certain ways of making this a more potent and productive process, especially by taking advantage of certain things like the virtues (humility, sincerity, etc.), pious acts (almsgiving, prayer, etc.), participation in those acts (Eucharist, confession, etc.) that God has given to us, and so forth. Experience and reason often work together, but there is not a complete and total dependency on one another; so, for example, when an infant is baptized or receives communion, their inability to intellectually understand what is happening does not make the experience useless.
All three of these (reason, faith, experience) serve as checks and balances for the other two. And it could be said--though it's grossly oversimplifying things--that, when it comes to information and ideas and sensations and such, experience is for acquisition, reason is for processing, and faith is for discerning how to live our lives (especially as it relates to God and godly things) with all that we have learned in mind.