Hi Hermes and Bella,
You are indeed entitled to your opinion and I didn't think I was saying you weren't.
I'm a former agnostic myself and therefore have no problem with your opinion other than I believe it to be wrong, just as you believe mine is.
I am quite content to have people tell me
my faith is mistaken or wrong.
I am less content when my beliefs or their basis are less than accurately described.
In this thread have been several assertions, either directly or by implication, which are not accurate and some of which seem kind of demeaning.
First, Iraneus did not create Christian orthodoxy. He (and many others) over the years were defending the faith against Manicheism, Mithraism and all manner of other gnostic heresies. It is agreed by the large majority of biblical scholars that the gospels and epistles had all been written before the turn of the first century. Since Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate the record of what he said and did by those who either knew Him or knew those who knew Him is the basis of Christian orthodoxy. Those heresies which deviated from that record, and there were many, were quite correctly labeled as such. It is a modern myth that Christian orthodoxy was arrived at by a group of men sitting around the table at Nicea hundreds of years later. Now there certainly is and always has been debate within Christianity over what many peripheral doctrines should be, but there is almost no debate over the basic and essential doctrines.
There may be classes in how to pray in a special way available only to that church, I don't know. I've never heard of one but I would be quite surprised if an orthodox Christian church had one. We are taught how to pray in the bible itself and it is expressly open to all believers, so the implication that there is some relationship to the occult in prayer is not only demeaning it is contrary to Christian doctrine. In fact the type of special prayer described is exactly the kind of special knowledge that gnosticism promoted and which Christianity fought and still fights.
I personally would like to know the answers to some of them, but until we can find *any* evidence and facts to support answers to our questions, they will remain unknowns.
It is perfectly fine to say one isn't convinced by the evidence or finds the evidence a joke or that it has been corrupted. I don't believe the record bears any of those out, but a person can reasonbly hold those positions. However to imply that people of faith don't have "any" evidence behind their faith seems a little demeaning, for want of a better word.
Honestly, I can't understand how people can latch on so tightly onto a unsubstantiated belief just because it feels good.
I, and most others I know, don't believe in God because it feels good. The things that my faith require of me very often don't 'feel good' at all. Not proven beyond any doubt and unsubstantiated are two very different positions. Many people find faith unsubstantiated and without reason and yet will trust the latest science as fact. Most astronomers and physicists believed for many years that the universe existed perpetually in a 'steady state'. When Hubble and others demonstrated it was expanding, the big bang (which accords quite nicely with Genesis I might add) was suddenly the new 'orthodoxy'. Nothing has surfaced in 2000 years to dislodge Christianity, so which faith is unsubstantiated?
I do tend to become very "ticked" by those who are in possession of the "TRUTH", and think everyone else is some kind of heathen.
But that leaves unanswered the question of whether the "TRUTH" does exist. If one is truly agnostic and not atheistic why would one become ticked by those in possession of truth? Isn't agnostic open mindedness open to the possibility of truth? When I was agnostic I recognized that I did not know whether there was a God or whether absolute truth existed. I didn't assume those questions were by definition unanswerable only that I didn't know the answers.
I just wish to state my own stance,
If you had only stated your stance I would agree, but by implication you (and Bella) were also stating my stance on heresy, orthodoxy, open mindedness, "TRUTH" etc.
Neither am I a fool. To you faith may be more reasonable than agnosticism. Maybe I just think the opposite, to which I am ENTIRELY entitled.
I didn't say you were a fool. I was referring to Pascal's wager, which I found pretty challenging as an agnostic.
You
are entirely entitled to your opinion. I'd just like characterizations of mine to be a little more accurate.
It isn't demeaning or insulting to be told one is wrong. It is to charactrize others positions as not only wrong but close minded, without evidence and only held because we are under stress or because it makes us feel good. Nobody here characterized agnosticism in such a manner so why characterize others' faith that way?
mud
