So theology need not make any rational sense whatsoever? It is more an affirmation/fiction/opinion that represents the authors’ own intuitions about divine matters, or perhaps proceeds from a survey/study of previous hierology/sacred texts? Is an experience of personal revelation therefore necessary to study the subject? You believe a man must believe in a (presumably exclusively Christian?) God, as defined in canonical scriptures, as interpreted by the Catholic church, to study or rationalise about theology? Augustine defined ‘theologia’ as: "…reasoning or discussion concerning the Deity..." - but he got the ‘rationem’ bit wrong? Aristotle must also have been a misguided old fuddy-duddy when he stated that there were three aspects of theoretical philosophy: mathematics, physics and theology - or rather he didn’t mean theology as you define it, but instead something more akin to metaphysics? Thomas Aquinas defines theology as: ‘…what is taught by God, teaches of God and leads to God’ - this seems much closer to what you suggest? A person must first believe, and then an understanding, or more knowledge, of the nature of a god, that you already believe in, will more likely accrue to the initiate after appropriate study, but only given that prior belief? Would you agree with Thomas Paine: “The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.” …or Protagoras: "Concerning the gods I cannot know either that they exist or that they do not exist, or what form they might have, for there is much to prevent one's knowing: the obscurity of the subject and the shortness of man's life." …understand that might be a bit heavy duty/tough ask for a HN comment - but I am genuinely interested if you can point me to useful passages/sources/help me understand Aquinas’/your ideas better…