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.

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.

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).

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."

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.

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.?

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.?

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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".