>>10
I hate arguing with you, but I will restate my point. "True god is completely unknown to man" has two interpretation that I am thinking of.
Your argument is that regardless of our perceptions and expectations creating a pigeonholed opinion of the Almighty, there is but one "Almighty" (no one above that being and all acts wrought were done by its will). Any interaction not managed indirectly by a helper being - angel, if you will - is a direct representation of our perception of that supreme being acting. No matter what our pigeonholed perspective, however, that is our God one and only.
Gnosticism has both an unintended-consequence world creator god (the imperfect Ialdabaoth) and what is often describable as an unknowable godhead (no one knows anything other than that such a thing exists and that it is somehow greater than all other things). The latter is not always understood as an active existence, though its existence begat other existences, while the former intentionally performed actions and is thought, by Gnostic sects, to be our YHWH. These two interpretations can be connected by sephirotic concepts - a little of the unknowable god is still represented by the imperfect creator god - a little of the Almighty is present in all of his creation - but my question to
>>8 is no different.
"Do you mean we are looking at the wrong deity?"