What does your religion or faith give you…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an atheist so have that as a baseline, but my faith in my belief that God does not exist is a belief in myself and there are scientific reasons that we as people are here on this particular planet.

My husband is Hindu. He argues with me that God / Faith to him is the explanation that we do not know why and how we are here.

I still think there is an answer, we just do not know that reason yet.

Do you think that humans will ever know the reasons we're here? And if so, how do you think we'll find out?

You have presupposed that there are "reasons". Or, at a minimum, you should define "reasons".

Please change “reasons” to “why” and respond. Thanks.

You have presupposed that there is a "why".

In other words, you are not going to answer the question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an atheist so have that as a baseline, but my faith in my belief that God does not exist is a belief in myself and there are scientific reasons that we as people are here on this particular planet.

My husband is Hindu. He argues with me that God / Faith to him is the explanation that we do not know why and how we are here.

I still think there is an answer, we just do not know that reason yet.

Do you think that humans will ever know the reasons we're here? And if so, how do you think we'll find out?

You have presupposed that there are "reasons". Or, at a minimum, you should define "reasons".

Please change “reasons” to “why” and respond. Thanks.

You have presupposed that there is a "why".

In other words, you are not going to answer the question

It's a flawed, nonsense question based on a premise you have presumed with no evidence.

This is how logic works. Try it.

But if you must have something I'll put it this way: "Maybe there are no reasons. Maybe there is no why". Until you can prove the premise it's like asking which kind of cheese the moon is made of.

[Anonymous]

Buddhism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, thank you all for the responses so far. It's interesting to me that they're so varied.

FYI, I will identify myself as OP in my posts, as I don't want anyone to think I'm challenging their answers. I really do ask in a spirit of openness and curiosity to whatever you have to offer. I think it feels like true faith has always been a huge thing that has been happening nearby -- I can almost reach out and touch it -- but it's on the other side of a curtain or something, so it's still opaque.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

In 1 Corinthians 13, St. Paul says that "now we see through a glass darkly [or "in a mirror dimly"] but then [after death] we shall see face to face." So you are in good company when you experience faith in this way. Christian theologians often describe Christian faith as a reasonable faith. That is, it is not faith that requires you to suspend reason. Instead, it is faith that is consistent with reason. But it is nevertheless faith because we know things only in part--the remainder is withheld from our direct observation and knowledge. And for those things we have faith. Faith itself is a gift of God, not of oneself (Ephesians 2:8-9). With St. Thomas we can say "I believe, help my unbelief!"

As to whether it is important that our faith is in something true: yes, it is absolutely essential, the sina qua non. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the resurrection of the body is a false promise then we are "above all men to be most pitied" and our faith is in vain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thank you all for the responses so far. It's interesting to me that they're so varied.

FYI, I will identify myself as OP in my posts, as I don't want anyone to think I'm challenging their answers. I really do ask in a spirit of openness and curiosity to whatever you have to offer. I think it feels like true faith has always been a huge thing that has been happening nearby -- I can almost reach out and touch it -- but it's on the other side of a curtain or something, so it's still opaque.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

In 1 Corinthians 13, St. Paul says that "now we see through a glass darkly [or "in a mirror dimly"] but then [after death] we shall see face to face." So you are in good company when you experience faith in this way. Christian theologians often describe Christian faith as a reasonable faith. That is, it is not faith that requires you to suspend reason. Instead, it is faith that is consistent with reason. But it is nevertheless faith because we know things only in part--the remainder is withheld from our direct observation and knowledge. And for those things we have faith. Faith itself is a gift of God, not of oneself (Ephesians 2:8-9). With St. Thomas we can say "I believe, help my unbelief!"

As to whether it is important that our faith is in something true: yes, it is absolutely essential, the sina qua non. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the resurrection of the body is a false promise then we are "above all men to be most pitied" and our faith is in vain.

Christian theologians describe the christian faith as a reasonable faith... That's equivalent to Commanders fans saying they are the best team in the NFL.

There is nothing reasonable about the holy trinity, virgin birth, converting water into wine, miraculously healing lepers, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thank you all for the responses so far. It's interesting to me that they're so varied.

FYI, I will identify myself as OP in my posts, as I don't want anyone to think I'm challenging their answers. I really do ask in a spirit of openness and curiosity to whatever you have to offer. I think it feels like true faith has always been a huge thing that has been happening nearby -- I can almost reach out and touch it -- but it's on the other side of a curtain or something, so it's still opaque.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

In 1 Corinthians 13, St. Paul says that "now we see through a glass darkly [or "in a mirror dimly"] but then [after death] we shall see face to face." So you are in good company when you experience faith in this way. Christian theologians often describe Christian faith as a reasonable faith. That is, it is not faith that requires you to suspend reason. Instead, it is faith that is consistent with reason. But it is nevertheless faith because we know things only in part--the remainder is withheld from our direct observation and knowledge. And for those things we have faith. Faith itself is a gift of God, not of oneself (Ephesians 2:8-9). With St. Thomas we can say "I believe, help my unbelief!"

As to whether it is important that our faith is in something true: yes, it is absolutely essential, the sina qua non. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the resurrection of the body is a false promise then we are "above all men to be most pitied" and our faith is in vain.

Christian theologians describe the christian faith as a reasonable faith... That's equivalent to Commanders fans saying they are the best team in the NFL.

There is nothing reasonable about the holy trinity, virgin birth, converting water into wine, miraculously healing lepers, etc.

You are missing the point of miracles. Miracles are a sign to attract reasonable people. The only reasonable explanation for miracles is divine power that can alter what we see as the ordinary course of events. The fact that charlatans and fake miracles exist does not bear on whether true miracles have occurred. In fact, it is more indicative that they have occurred and are rare. For example, counterfeit currency actually indicates that real currency exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thank you all for the responses so far. It's interesting to me that they're so varied.

FYI, I will identify myself as OP in my posts, as I don't want anyone to think I'm challenging their answers. I really do ask in a spirit of openness and curiosity to whatever you have to offer. I think it feels like true faith has always been a huge thing that has been happening nearby -- I can almost reach out and touch it -- but it's on the other side of a curtain or something, so it's still opaque.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

In 1 Corinthians 13, St. Paul says that "now we see through a glass darkly [or "in a mirror dimly"] but then [after death] we shall see face to face." So you are in good company when you experience faith in this way. Christian theologians often describe Christian faith as a reasonable faith. That is, it is not faith that requires you to suspend reason. Instead, it is faith that is consistent with reason. But it is nevertheless faith because we know things only in part--the remainder is withheld from our direct observation and knowledge. And for those things we have faith. Faith itself is a gift of God, not of oneself (Ephesians 2:8-9). With St. Thomas we can say "I believe, help my unbelief!"

As to whether it is important that our faith is in something true: yes, it is absolutely essential, the sina qua non. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the resurrection of the body is a false promise then we are "above all men to be most pitied" and our faith is in vain.

Christian theologians describe the christian faith as a reasonable faith... That's equivalent to Commanders fans saying they are the best team in the NFL.

There is nothing reasonable about the holy trinity, virgin birth, converting water into wine, miraculously healing lepers, etc.

You are missing the point of miracles. Miracles are a sign to attract reasonable people. The only reasonable explanation for miracles is divine power that can alter what we see as the ordinary course of events. The fact that charlatans and fake miracles exist does not bear on whether true miracles have occurred. In fact, it is more indicative that they have occurred and are rare. For example, counterfeit currency actually indicates that real currency exists.

What kind of logic is this? Please explain how all the miracles that have been disproved are indicative that others actually have? That is the OPPOSITE of the logical conclusion.

Counterfeit currency in NO WAY indicates that real currency exists. "Counterfeit" means copy of a real thing, so it can't be counterfeit until there is a known real thing. If I give you currency from the country of lower slobovia, or a six-dollar bill with Warren Harding's picture on it, does that indicate real ones of those exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thank you all for the responses so far. It's interesting to me that they're so varied.

FYI, I will identify myself as OP in my posts, as I don't want anyone to think I'm challenging their answers. I really do ask in a spirit of openness and curiosity to whatever you have to offer. I think it feels like true faith has always been a huge thing that has been happening nearby -- I can almost reach out and touch it -- but it's on the other side of a curtain or something, so it's still opaque.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

In 1 Corinthians 13, St. Paul says that "now we see through a glass darkly [or "in a mirror dimly"] but then [after death] we shall see face to face." So you are in good company when you experience faith in this way. Christian theologians often describe Christian faith as a reasonable faith. That is, it is not faith that requires you to suspend reason. Instead, it is faith that is consistent with reason. But it is nevertheless faith because we know things only in part--the remainder is withheld from our direct observation and knowledge. And for those things we have faith. Faith itself is a gift of God, not of oneself (Ephesians 2:8-9). With St. Thomas we can say "I believe, help my unbelief!"

As to whether it is important that our faith is in something true: yes, it is absolutely essential, the sina qua non. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the resurrection of the body is a false promise then we are "above all men to be most pitied" and our faith is in vain.

Christian theologians describe the christian faith as a reasonable faith... That's equivalent to Commanders fans saying they are the best team in the NFL.

There is nothing reasonable about the holy trinity, virgin birth, converting water into wine, miraculously healing lepers, etc.

You are missing the point of miracles. Miracles are a sign to attract reasonable people. The only reasonable explanation for miracles is divine power that can alter what we see as the ordinary course of events. The fact that charlatans and fake miracles exist does not bear on whether true miracles have occurred. In fact, it is more indicative that they have occurred and are rare. For example, counterfeit currency actually indicates that real currency exists.

What kind of logic is this? Please explain how all the miracles that have been disproved are indicative that others actually have? That is the OPPOSITE of the logical conclusion.

Counterfeit currency in NO WAY indicates that real currency exists. "Counterfeit" means copy of a real thing, so it can't be counterfeit until there is a known real thing. If I give you currency from the country of lower slobovia, or a six-dollar bill with Warren Harding's picture on it, does that indicate real ones of those exist?

It would certainly indicate that real currency exists.
Your whole line of argument relies on the presupposition that there is no such thing as a miracle. I held that same position for years, but it crumbles in the face of any serious inquiry. One can start with the very existence of the universe: why should there be anything at all, how can we go from nothing to something, what about a first cause, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thank you all for the responses so far. It's interesting to me that they're so varied.

FYI, I will identify myself as OP in my posts, as I don't want anyone to think I'm challenging their answers. I really do ask in a spirit of openness and curiosity to whatever you have to offer. I think it feels like true faith has always been a huge thing that has been happening nearby -- I can almost reach out and touch it -- but it's on the other side of a curtain or something, so it's still opaque.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

In 1 Corinthians 13, St. Paul says that "now we see through a glass darkly [or "in a mirror dimly"] but then [after death] we shall see face to face." So you are in good company when you experience faith in this way. Christian theologians often describe Christian faith as a reasonable faith. That is, it is not faith that requires you to suspend reason. Instead, it is faith that is consistent with reason. But it is nevertheless faith because we know things only in part--the remainder is withheld from our direct observation and knowledge. And for those things we have faith. Faith itself is a gift of God, not of oneself (Ephesians 2:8-9). With St. Thomas we can say "I believe, help my unbelief!"

As to whether it is important that our faith is in something true: yes, it is absolutely essential, the sina qua non. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the resurrection of the body is a false promise then we are "above all men to be most pitied" and our faith is in vain.

Christian theologians describe the christian faith as a reasonable faith... That's equivalent to Commanders fans saying they are the best team in the NFL.

There is nothing reasonable about the holy trinity, virgin birth, converting water into wine, miraculously healing lepers, etc.

You are missing the point of miracles. Miracles are a sign to attract reasonable people. The only reasonable explanation for miracles is divine power that can alter what we see as the ordinary course of events. The fact that charlatans and fake miracles exist does not bear on whether true miracles have occurred. In fact, it is more indicative that they have occurred and are rare. For example, counterfeit currency actually indicates that real currency exists.

What kind of logic is this? Please explain how all the miracles that have been disproved are indicative that others actually have? That is the OPPOSITE of the logical conclusion.

Counterfeit currency in NO WAY indicates that real currency exists. "Counterfeit" means copy of a real thing, so it can't be counterfeit until there is a known real thing. If I give you currency from the country of lower slobovia, or a six-dollar bill with Warren Harding's picture on it, does that indicate real ones of those exist?

It would certainly indicate that real currency exists.
Your whole line of argument relies on the presupposition that there is no such thing as a miracle. I held that same position for years, but it crumbles in the face of any serious inquiry. One can start with the very existence of the universe: why should there be anything at all, how can we go from nothing to something, what about a first cause, etc.?

Wrong on both counts:

It would certainly indicate that real currency exists.

But we know currency exists, and have evidence of it. If I give you fake flabookies, does that mean there are real flabookies?

This is a really silly point man, you have to do better.

Your whole line of argument relies on the presupposition that there is no such thing as a miracle.

My line of argument starts with a presupposition, but not the one you assert. The presupposition is that the skeptic does not believe in a thing until there is good reason to believe in it.

I held that same position for years, but it crumbles in the face of any serious inquiry. One can start with the very existence of the universe: why should there be anything at all, how can we go from nothing to something, what about a first cause, etc.?

The good ol' cosmological argument. I will point out, as many others have, that even if your premise is accepted, it contains exactly zero evidence for a god.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thank you all for the responses so far. It's interesting to me that they're so varied.

FYI, I will identify myself as OP in my posts, as I don't want anyone to think I'm challenging their answers. I really do ask in a spirit of openness and curiosity to whatever you have to offer. I think it feels like true faith has always been a huge thing that has been happening nearby -- I can almost reach out and touch it -- but it's on the other side of a curtain or something, so it's still opaque.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

In 1 Corinthians 13, St. Paul says that "now we see through a glass darkly [or "in a mirror dimly"] but then [after death] we shall see face to face." So you are in good company when you experience faith in this way. Christian theologians often describe Christian faith as a reasonable faith. That is, it is not faith that requires you to suspend reason. Instead, it is faith that is consistent with reason. But it is nevertheless faith because we know things only in part--the remainder is withheld from our direct observation and knowledge. And for those things we have faith. Faith itself is a gift of God, not of oneself (Ephesians 2:8-9). With St. Thomas we can say "I believe, help my unbelief!"

As to whether it is important that our faith is in something true: yes, it is absolutely essential, the sina qua non. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the resurrection of the body is a false promise then we are "above all men to be most pitied" and our faith is in vain.

Christian theologians describe the christian faith as a reasonable faith... That's equivalent to Commanders fans saying they are the best team in the NFL.

There is nothing reasonable about the holy trinity, virgin birth, converting water into wine, miraculously healing lepers, etc.

You are missing the point of miracles. Miracles are a sign to attract reasonable people. The only reasonable explanation for miracles is divine power that can alter what we see as the ordinary course of events. The fact that charlatans and fake miracles exist does not bear on whether true miracles have occurred. In fact, it is more indicative that they have occurred and are rare. For example, counterfeit currency actually indicates that real currency exists.

What kind of logic is this? Please explain how all the miracles that have been disproved are indicative that others actually have? That is the OPPOSITE of the logical conclusion.

Counterfeit currency in NO WAY indicates that real currency exists. "Counterfeit" means copy of a real thing, so it can't be counterfeit until there is a known real thing. If I give you currency from the country of lower slobovia, or a six-dollar bill with Warren Harding's picture on it, does that indicate real ones of those exist?

It would certainly indicate that real currency exists.
Your whole line of argument relies on the presupposition that there is no such thing as a miracle. I held that same position for years, but it crumbles in the face of any serious inquiry. One can start with the very existence of the universe: why should there be anything at all, how can we go from nothing to something, what about a first cause, etc.?

Seriously you can't be serious. Serious inquiry indicates that miracles are not real. There are things that happen that may have low statistical odds, but can happen nevertheless. That does not make it evidence of a miracle.

Secondly, explain how the trinity is reasonable? What about virgin birth?

Your question about the existence of the universe is a universal question, but your christian beliefs are not the answer. Science may not have a definitive answer, nor is there ever likely going to be one, but there are lots of ideas being discussed. And, as we gain more insight into quantum mechanics as we develop larger particle accelerators, we are slowly cracking open new insights into the nature of the universe. Knowledge builds on knowledge. Miracles? Not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thank you all for the responses so far. It's interesting to me that they're so varied.

FYI, I will identify myself as OP in my posts, as I don't want anyone to think I'm challenging their answers. I really do ask in a spirit of openness and curiosity to whatever you have to offer. I think it feels like true faith has always been a huge thing that has been happening nearby -- I can almost reach out and touch it -- but it's on the other side of a curtain or something, so it's still opaque.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

In 1 Corinthians 13, St. Paul says that "now we see through a glass darkly [or "in a mirror dimly"] but then [after death] we shall see face to face." So you are in good company when you experience faith in this way. Christian theologians often describe Christian faith as a reasonable faith. That is, it is not faith that requires you to suspend reason. Instead, it is faith that is consistent with reason. But it is nevertheless faith because we know things only in part--the remainder is withheld from our direct observation and knowledge. And for those things we have faith. Faith itself is a gift of God, not of oneself (Ephesians 2:8-9). With St. Thomas we can say "I believe, help my unbelief!"

As to whether it is important that our faith is in something true: yes, it is absolutely essential, the sina qua non. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the resurrection of the body is a false promise then we are "above all men to be most pitied" and our faith is in vain.

Christian theologians describe the christian faith as a reasonable faith... That's equivalent to Commanders fans saying they are the best team in the NFL.

There is nothing reasonable about the holy trinity, virgin birth, converting water into wine, miraculously healing lepers, etc.

Is that all Christians or just the progressives, specifically Episcopalians? They have the concept of the "three legged stool: Scripture, Tradition, Reason."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thank you all for the responses so far. It's interesting to me that they're so varied.

FYI, I will identify myself as OP in my posts, as I don't want anyone to think I'm challenging their answers. I really do ask in a spirit of openness and curiosity to whatever you have to offer. I think it feels like true faith has always been a huge thing that has been happening nearby -- I can almost reach out and touch it -- but it's on the other side of a curtain or something, so it's still opaque.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

In 1 Corinthians 13, St. Paul says that "now we see through a glass darkly [or "in a mirror dimly"] but then [after death] we shall see face to face." So you are in good company when you experience faith in this way. Christian theologians often describe Christian faith as a reasonable faith. That is, it is not faith that requires you to suspend reason. Instead, it is faith that is consistent with reason. But it is nevertheless faith because we know things only in part--the remainder is withheld from our direct observation and knowledge. And for those things we have faith. Faith itself is a gift of God, not of oneself (Ephesians 2:8-9). With St. Thomas we can say "I believe, help my unbelief!"

As to whether it is important that our faith is in something true: yes, it is absolutely essential, the sina qua non. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the resurrection of the body is a false promise then we are "above all men to be most pitied" and our faith is in vain.

Christian theologians describe the christian faith as a reasonable faith... That's equivalent to Commanders fans saying they are the best team in the NFL.

There is nothing reasonable about the holy trinity, virgin birth, converting water into wine, miraculously healing lepers, etc.

Is that all Christians or just the progressives, specifically Episcopalians? They have the concept of the "three legged stool: Scripture, Tradition, Reason."

That is a good representation of historical Christianity. A vast majority of Christian theologians would affirm this, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. You'll find outliers in any group, naturally. But it is not a "progressive" concept (in the cultural meaning of that word).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thank you all for the responses so far. It's interesting to me that they're so varied.

FYI, I will identify myself as OP in my posts, as I don't want anyone to think I'm challenging their answers. I really do ask in a spirit of openness and curiosity to whatever you have to offer. I think it feels like true faith has always been a huge thing that has been happening nearby -- I can almost reach out and touch it -- but it's on the other side of a curtain or something, so it's still opaque.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

In 1 Corinthians 13, St. Paul says that "now we see through a glass darkly [or "in a mirror dimly"] but then [after death] we shall see face to face." So you are in good company when you experience faith in this way. Christian theologians often describe Christian faith as a reasonable faith. That is, it is not faith that requires you to suspend reason. Instead, it is faith that is consistent with reason. But it is nevertheless faith because we know things only in part--the remainder is withheld from our direct observation and knowledge. And for those things we have faith. Faith itself is a gift of God, not of oneself (Ephesians 2:8-9). With St. Thomas we can say "I believe, help my unbelief!"

As to whether it is important that our faith is in something true: yes, it is absolutely essential, the sina qua non. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the resurrection of the body is a false promise then we are "above all men to be most pitied" and our faith is in vain.

Christian theologians describe the christian faith as a reasonable faith... That's equivalent to Commanders fans saying they are the best team in the NFL.

There is nothing reasonable about the holy trinity, virgin birth, converting water into wine, miraculously healing lepers, etc.

Is that all Christians or just the progressives, specifically Episcopalians? They have the concept of the "three legged stool: Scripture, Tradition, Reason."

That is a good representation of historical Christianity. A vast majority of Christian theologians would affirm this, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. You'll find outliers in any group, naturally. But it is not a "progressive" concept (in the cultural meaning of that word).

OK, but Google says the concept is Episcopalian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thank you all for the responses so far. It's interesting to me that they're so varied.

FYI, I will identify myself as OP in my posts, as I don't want anyone to think I'm challenging their answers. I really do ask in a spirit of openness and curiosity to whatever you have to offer. I think it feels like true faith has always been a huge thing that has been happening nearby -- I can almost reach out and touch it -- but it's on the other side of a curtain or something, so it's still opaque.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

In 1 Corinthians 13, St. Paul says that "now we see through a glass darkly [or "in a mirror dimly"] but then [after death] we shall see face to face." So you are in good company when you experience faith in this way. Christian theologians often describe Christian faith as a reasonable faith. That is, it is not faith that requires you to suspend reason. Instead, it is faith that is consistent with reason. But it is nevertheless faith because we know things only in part--the remainder is withheld from our direct observation and knowledge. And for those things we have faith. Faith itself is a gift of God, not of oneself (Ephesians 2:8-9). With St. Thomas we can say "I believe, help my unbelief!"

As to whether it is important that our faith is in something true: yes, it is absolutely essential, the sina qua non. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the resurrection of the body is a false promise then we are "above all men to be most pitied" and our faith is in vain.

Christian theologians describe the christian faith as a reasonable faith... That's equivalent to Commanders fans saying they are the best team in the NFL.

There is nothing reasonable about the holy trinity, virgin birth, converting water into wine, miraculously healing lepers, etc.

Is that all Christians or just the progressives, specifically Episcopalians? They have the concept of the "three legged stool: Scripture, Tradition, Reason."

That is a good representation of historical Christianity. A vast majority of Christian theologians would affirm this, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. You'll find outliers in any group, naturally. But it is not a "progressive" concept (in the cultural meaning of that word).

OK, but Google says the concept is Episcopalian.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Google scholar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thank you all for the responses so far. It's interesting to me that they're so varied.

FYI, I will identify myself as OP in my posts, as I don't want anyone to think I'm challenging their answers. I really do ask in a spirit of openness and curiosity to whatever you have to offer. I think it feels like true faith has always been a huge thing that has been happening nearby -- I can almost reach out and touch it -- but it's on the other side of a curtain or something, so it's still opaque.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

In 1 Corinthians 13, St. Paul says that "now we see through a glass darkly [or "in a mirror dimly"] but then [after death] we shall see face to face." So you are in good company when you experience faith in this way. Christian theologians often describe Christian faith as a reasonable faith. That is, it is not faith that requires you to suspend reason. Instead, it is faith that is consistent with reason. But it is nevertheless faith because we know things only in part--the remainder is withheld from our direct observation and knowledge. And for those things we have faith. Faith itself is a gift of God, not of oneself (Ephesians 2:8-9). With St. Thomas we can say "I believe, help my unbelief!"

As to whether it is important that our faith is in something true: yes, it is absolutely essential, the sina qua non. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the resurrection of the body is a false promise then we are "above all men to be most pitied" and our faith is in vain.

Christian theologians describe the christian faith as a reasonable faith... That's equivalent to Commanders fans saying they are the best team in the NFL.

There is nothing reasonable about the holy trinity, virgin birth, converting water into wine, miraculously healing lepers, etc.

Is that all Christians or just the progressives, specifically Episcopalians? They have the concept of the "three legged stool: Scripture, Tradition, Reason."

That is a good representation of historical Christianity. A vast majority of Christian theologians would affirm this, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. You'll find outliers in any group, naturally. But it is not a "progressive" concept (in the cultural meaning of that word).

OK, but Google says the concept is Episcopalian.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Google scholar.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the DCUM scholar. Who you gonna believe?