[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]
You are incapable of seeing very much of God, just like I am. I am no better than you. You are no better than me. Neither of us, no matter how moral, smart, dumb or wicked are enough different from each other to be good by God's standards. That's because God is infinitely better than all of our entire species combined. He sees things as they are, and sees infinitely into not just our present, past and mortal future condition, but infinitely into the great beyond. Possibly even beyond time as we know it. We see God as a germ could possibly comprehend the body of a man immune to disease. There's nothing we can do to comprehend it, but we are a part of his body, like um. . . necessary bacteria, as it were. (Being metaphorical here). This man is a brilliant scientist intelligent enough to transform us into a man from the singular cell we are. Our only requirement for venturing into the great unknown is to board his nano-machine vessels before we are eaten away by the white blood cells! ;)Hitler tried to kill God by killing many of his poor innocent bacteria, and incited a war against valiant white blood cells in a bid for bodily conquest! Fortunately God's white blood cells rid the vile Hitler of his evil menace! Sadly though, the time for a bacteria's life span is very short. The only way for us to live forever, is to enter into the nano-machines. If we don't enter into the nano-machine ships, we get thrown up! :(Thus, we end up living in the eternal hell of the sewers forever!
[/quote]

Just going out on a limb here and going to say that speaking from the perspective of a believer may not be how you win any minds and hearts here, Act. It's not about stigma, but about how you're entering this discussions. There's difference between a debate and trying to convince people. See, one has points that can be analysed and dissected to really get where the speaker is coming from. That one means you have to open yourself to having your mind changed, to be vulnerable, basically. The latter, in this context. is more just speaking about your values and other hard-set aspects to you that you have no intention of developing your perspective on. First off, that's fine you have those. I'm glad you've found things so meaningful to you you've made them a cornerstone to your identity. However, when you speak to others about topics, especially about a faith-community of a culture far disconnected from the Western world, it makes your arguments less clear. The debate becomes 'this fact because of the fact is declared' rather than 'this fact, because of evidence, because of this line of logical thinking'. To be super clear, you're talking to someone who has steeped themselves in study about Judeo-Christian iconography and scripture. I am a Universalist with a very deep passion for learning about how other faith-communities, I believe we all have personal journeys that take on many appearances and rituals, but are ultimately, [I]ours[/I]. Whether or not three people share the same religious label, how they perceive this 'unfathomable' body is rarely exactly the same. Yeshua* spoke in parables not because he was incapable of direct statements, but because the path to your answer is perhaps just as important as the conclusion (if not more). So that said, religion is extremely individual despite some being quite large. It is extremely difficult to make an argument based on your faith not because faith is not fact, but because it's so steeped in your identity and experiences that we cannot really wholly understand your thinking there -- it's yours. 

And hey, just throwing this out there, God is actually pretty understandable if you're studying cultural context and surrounding faith-communities. I spent some time with this topic while in undergrad and found it stimulating, but I also never chalked it up to unfathomable. That probably helped my resolve. I'll hider the rest of this because, while it's definitely the short version, it's still pretty long. 

[hider=ReligionIsAboutYou]First, let's just acknowledge that the Christian God and Jewish God are very different. The Jewish God was described in dozens of ways by the many nomadic Hebraic traditions kept solely through oral tradition for much of time. By the time pen hit paper, things had solidified significantly. So you have a lot of perspectives and descriptions of God, mostly based off their experiences, expectations, and needs. These all pooled together eventually. The Jewish God was a reflection of cultural principles, desires, and also analysing of other faith-communities. Judaism was never alone, and the presence of other communities had deep ramifications on the text (such as an introduction of the Haasatan, for example). Meanwhile, the Christian God was built with hindsight and extreme exposure to other cultures. Remember, Yeshua was a Jew born under Roman Occupation to a community respected, but also threatened by the empire. Others were crucified under the name 'Messiah', I mean hey, this was a title given a handful of times already in the OT for you close readers. So, Christianity came about with pressure, without the respect of their Jewish predecessors since they rejected occupation a bit more tooth-and-nail, but also after Greek philosophy had time to do its work. See, Greek thinking was exposed to the Jews way earlier, but even if something speaks against your faith, centuries of exposure works on you. Both sides change(d). Christianity's earliest texts, and this is directly visible in the Synoptic Books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John & [I Include Thomas]). Some books are distinctly written for Jewish communities long detached from their roots with terms and language built off Greek traditions instead (I believe it's Luke, perhaps, that actually has to explain some of the Jewish stories, as if they don't know, because they probably don't). Others were geared toward long-time Jews still connected. How they approached God in these contexts was, once again, a reflection for how society had developed and the thinking they were exposed to. Early theologians like Origen and even Augustine note these connections to Greek philosophy in their own understanding of God and Christianity. Just remember that Christianity has been in flux since its existence. What it is today is vastly different than how it began. Imagery and emphasis on the Christ dying was not a focus for a little over 200 years, probably because Christians suffered shifting levels of acceptance and condemnation in that time and it was more useful to focus on the good of the narrative than the death. Revelations was not written or accepted for around a century after the Christ passed, so those reading in the earlier bunch probably had a pretty different experience than those who came later. We should also consider those who appreciated the Jewish story behind the loaves and fishes that offered pretext to the NT story. The point here is that religion changes, Christianity especially, and that God with it. You're not trying to shed light on some scientific discovery here, you're trying to understand the principles of your people and how you value the world. But that's impossible, beyond you, because we have more than 6 billion human lives on this world, and if you think it's hard to understand their principles, try that for all the people have lived until now. That's what you're trying to do. Christianity disconnected itself from the culture that defined its stories and become a religion adoptable even with poor understanding of the Jewish foundation. So your job is a lot bigger now, a lot harder, because you don't have that foundational understanding. So maybe arguing from the point of faith is actually very difficult, because we could not possibly imagine your one perspective on it. [/hider]

So no, God is not unfathomable because of outstanding morality or some immeasurable greatness, but because our perspective of who God is constantly changing as we as a people do. Religion is personal. Religion is a reflection of us as we think on it, on what we have experienced, and any deities or principles we pay reverence to speaks more about our personal values than the nature of the point we choose to focus on. It's like Gat said, and more, the problem with basing things on the Bible is that it's extremely outdated, but not just because of time, but because most Christians don't know the history of their religion or where the beliefs originate from. It's not really a big religion so much as a great many personal interpretations maybe based on the text, maybe based on what you've been raised or told about over the years.