Good contribution, Hungertruth. I think my earlier comment may have been cryptic. Please let me elaborate..

Christianity places a unique emphasis on belief: The usual definition of a Christian is someone who adhere to a system of beliefs; and beliefs presupposes reason. Thus, when you write that Human reason seems to be essential and necessary in our knowledge of God, your point is quite valid: The importance of reasoning distinguishes Christianity from other religions, where membership is predicated on obedience, ethnicity, adherence to ritual, etc. My point is rather that in Christian theology, reason is considered to fall short: Hence the traditional reliance on faith.

In the world of daily affairs, a belief is the result of inquiry and evaluation. I might express a belief that tomorrow will bring rain. But that belief is a fluid construct: as new information comes in, I revise my outlook. My belief is not emotional: It demands neither allegiance nor defence. I also recognise that my belief falls short of knowledge, and I happily concede that my beliefs may turn out to be mistaken. These are distinguishing characteristics of beliefs based on reason.

Compared with what Christians mean by belief, there are obvious differences: Someone who professes belief in Jesus isn’t saying that, based on a careful evaluation of evidence, he concludes that Jesus is likely to be a supernatural being who can deliver an eternity in paradise through the mere act of belief. Rather, anyone who has talked with a Christian is bound to be struck by the seeming arbitrariness and strength of their emotional attachment. Perhaps this reaction comes from some direct experience of God, if so, then it remain outside the grasp of reason.

I want to examine the heritage of the two threads of the Christian outlook: reason and faith (which we can also call obedience).

Christianity is a hellenised religion, either because Jesus was a hellenised Jew, or, more likely, because many of its early popularisors were Greek. From the Greeks we have the belief that nature can be made to give up her secrets to human intellect, as well as the belief that the attempt would be worthwhile. This outlook is far from obvious. I think it developed independently only once in history. It is the basis for scientific achievement and also seems to be the origin of the Christian notion that God’s nature and intention will reveal themselves to reason.

The early Jewish outlook is quite different. Here man must wait passively for God or His messengers, and when God speaks, it is in the form of a long series of edicts, commands and taboos notably short on explanation. The point is not, as you write, that they are saying that there is more to God that we presently know as not everything there is to know about God is revealed. Rather, the implicit assumption is that God’s plan is outside man’s comprehension. Your remark Reason is not opposed to revelation misses my point as well. What I sought to point out was that reason and revelation are functional equivalents, which are substituted for each other in different religious paradigms.

Although I remain very excited about Andrew’s proposed deconstruction of the Gospels (are you still interested, Andrew?), I am also, very slowly, coming to understand that mystery, or magic, or faith, or obedience, or even fear (whichever you wish to call it) is necessary too. I only half humorously suggested that the project, while worthwhile, was ultimately infeasible. This time I’ll add that mystery/magic/faith/obedience is needed to confer piety.. to confer meaning