Apparently you do -- and, apparently, ONLY you!
"No one knows" the reality of God, you claim; yet, somehow, YOU have such an absolute, clear picture of God's fuzziness that you're able to preach and lecture the rest of us with the resoluteness of a fundamentalist!
You're lecturing us, in effect, saying: "The only absolute about God is that there aren't any absolutes about God. And I'm absolutely right on this to the exclusion of all other perceptions of God and His ways. Only my absolute picture of God's fuzziness is dead-on. So 'absolutes' about God just don't wash...except for mine, of course. I have perfect vision about who God isn't." Signed 88keys 3:16
If you were more humble about it, you'd just leave it at "I don't know" -- instead of presuming to tell THE ENTIRE WORLD who and what they don't know about God and His ways!
When you claim "No one knows," that in and of itself is a claim to omniscience about human thoughts about God...you're claiming that you've been able to scan humandom's entire minds and have ultimately determined that "no one knows." How do you know that "no one knows?" Why are you so authoritative in such a claim? Don't you see the utter gall in making such a claim on behalf of ALL mankind?
Why are YOU the ONLY one who is absolutely right on this?
(All it takes is for one person to know God's reality and way of salvation...and poof, there goes your claim to your absolute that "Thou shalt embrace 88keys 3:16 that thou shalt not know God's nature or His way of salvation.")
Did you realize that the word agnostic is etymologically rooted in the word "ignorance?" So, if you're claim to fame is "ignorance" about God -- agnosticism, who are you to lecture others on who God is (or isn't)? Since when is "ignorance" such a fountainhead of knowledge?
Furthermore, as I have shown above, you have refuted yourself! If "no one can know," that means "you" 88keys can't know," either with any degree of certainty whether anyone can know God and His way of salvation. And if you concede that 88keys doesn't know, per your absolute standard, that also means 88keys can quietly step down from his online pulpit and quit pontificating about God's supposed fuzziness!
No human can really define God, no human can know the true path to salvation, although many people and religious preachers think they can...it's a matter of personal faith and trust.
The word "Gospel" literally means "Good News." News. You don't wake up and either read a newspaper or online news content, and then say, "Well, nobody can know anything about that news," do you? Is the "news" we read a 100% mystery about reality and events and the like?
You don't claim that ALL intake of news is only accessible by "personal faith and trust," do you? If you're a juror in a local trial, is all testimony accepted only upon your "faith and trust" standard? Or can facts be determined based upon the evidence of eyewitness testimony?
My point here is that the resurrection of Jesus was a news event. He appeared to about 500 people post-death. That's 500 eye-witnesses. He didn't just resurrect himself spiritually -- as Jehovah's Witnesses claim -- and then have his disciples say, "Well, you'll just have to believe a religious document called the Bible if you want to believe Jesus was resurrected."
The resurrection of Jesus is rooted in history -- and Jesus' eyewitness testimony needs to be sifted thru as any juror would sift thru similar testimony in a court trial. What jurors do is hardly a "religious act of faith."
I've noticed that many potential jurors really complain badly about the large amount of EVIDENCE being shown in these threads.
"I don't read Cut & Pastes", they announce; and then go on to render a verdict!
That's a stretch too far, my FRiend. I was of course including myself in the group of "everyone" who does not actually know these things, or more accurately to the original post, in the group of "no one" who actually knows these things. I would go so far as to say, YOU are the one who seems to be saying you DO know these mysteries, and you are "lecturing" and criticizing ME because I don't agree with your view?
That's a pointless and unprovable argument, so shall we just call a "truce", please? We both believe we know what we think we know or don't know, and there is no reason for disrespect on either side!