Skepticism - healthy or not?

[QED]

Skepticism is a useful tool that we all employ from time to time. If anyone tells me something that sounds important I always like to know that I can verify it somehow if I wish to. The more important the issue, the stronger my urge to know that I can check-up on its validity.

However, when it comes to Christianity, it would seem that the opposite is true. The more important the message, the less concerned most people seem to be with their inability to establish its veracity. They appear to be content with letting the enormity of the message compensate for their inability to check on its truth. I would argue that this sort of suspension of regular skepticism is not good for Christianity as a whole.

Unfortunately the subject is so sensitive and people have such emotional ties to it that I fear the way to honest and open research is utterly blocked despite the fact that there is a plentiful supply of interesting research material available. Like countless others, I would like to know the real story behind Christianity but I fear that I never will because of the huge amount of inertia in the subject.

I find this frustrating and disappointing. But after 2000 years of heavy investment it appears that Christians have painted themselves into a corner and are unable to move from it despite the phenomenal wealth of written material and forensic-style investigation techniques available. This leads me to three questions:

1) Is skepticism an unreasonable approach to Christianity?
2) Would a less rigid approach to the subject make Christianity more generally acceptable?
3) Is there a concerted effort going on to establish the real story behind Christianity?

[Cephus]

Not always. As far as stubbornness goes, we can rate pretty high. In my opinion, Christians sometime believe falsehoods in faith... such as when the church believed the earth was the center of the universe, and the stars literally resided within the earth's firmament. Clearly, skepticism has its place. Time will tell what other falsehoods the church will eventually disavow... falsehoods that atheists already realize as such.

But where does it end? When does it become clear that the biggest falsehood of religion is religion itself? Skepticism indeed has it's place, even the Bible admonishes Christians to test all things, but no Christian I am aware of actually does so. They accept things that fall within their belief system on faith as unchangable and only test things that fall outside of that. That's exactly where all of the ludicrous beliefs like geocentrism and the like come from, the outright refusal to validate beliefs with reality and that's the problem.

Faith may have it's place when believing what you cannot prove, but it certainly is not a defense when what you believe goes against everything you can clearly prove. Having faith in a falsehood is believing a lie, no matter how steadfastly you believe.

[AlAyeti]

Cephus,

In all fairness this can apply to atheism and evolution and any non-religious beliefs system as well. Atheism is unprovable. Evolution is anything but fixed and certain, except for the spelling of the word. Now dino's are birds for example.

Many things are believed against evidence to the contrary.

Christians are constantly debating and debating things. Certainly the existence of myriads of different denominations testifies to the willingness of "Christians" to test all things.

But, testing all things . . .?

Many secular beliefs based squarely against observable facts, would join Christian beliefs if bigotry didn't drive the anti-Christian agenda to decide their pet dogmas and doctrines.

If it weren't for a weird and set agenda, based only on emotionalism, then things like abstinence and the clearly defined sexual norms, would not be so ridiculously opposed by non-religionists.

Faith is ubiquitous and certainly not only found in the religious point of view.

[israeltour]

Skepticism is a useful tool that we all employ from time to time. If anyone tells me something that sounds important I always like to know that I can verify it somehow if I wish to. The more important the issue, the stronger my urge to know that I can check-up on its validity.

However, when it comes to Christianity, it would seem that the opposite is true. The more important the message, the less concerned most people seem to be with their inability to establish its veracity. They appear to be content with letting the enormity of the message compensate for their inability to check on its truth. I would argue that this sort of suspension of regular skepticism is not good for Christianity as a whole.

Are not Christians the best judges of that?

Not always. As far as stubbornness goes, we can rate pretty high.

Where do you get this 'we' from?

Case in point.

A Christian does not make that sort of claim.

What if it's true? Are we to deny our sin after accepting Christ? I'd like to see that verse.

In my opinion, Christians sometime believe falsehoods in faith... such as when the church believed the earth was the center of the universe,

That is nothing to do with faith.

If we're talking about a belief that Christians would back up with scripture

Which we aren't. That is not what Christians talk about.

Oh. So what about people who talk about Genesis 1, and how it proves the world was created in 6 days. I believe you disagree, and that you discuss it, too. Are any of you Christians?

The foundation of the truth is the church.

Not true.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through HIm, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

I see no mention of the church here.

Also look at the 10 commandments... no mention of the church there either.

The church preaches the gospel, the truth of which it supports with changed behaviour.

So then what about before they've changed? Are you saying a person is not a Christian until they've changed their behavior?

They are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for them to do, a light set on a hill, the salt of the earth. Those works are their support, not the Scripture.

I do agree that you will them by their fruit. Is that what you're getting at?

There are many who have become Christians who have never even possessed a Bible, let alone read one. Anyway, Christians alone decide what is Scripture and what is not, and they alone decide how it is to be interpreted for their use.

"Christians alone"? So, divine inspiration played no part? Do you also believe the Holy Spirit bestows no gifts in this age?

Their enemies, both those who oppose them head on, and those who pose as Christians, will of course attempt to misrepresent them; particularly the latter, who have no genuine fruits of the Spirit to support them.

Are you saying that true Christians stop sinning, and therefore don't bring each other to judgement as appropriate within the church? I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

A straight forward reading of Genesis 1 could seem to support an earth-centered system to those who didn't know better.

I don't agree, as it happens. Genesis 1 is conspicuously mystical, particularly for those who read it in Hebrew. The tendency of much of mankind to read it literally is stubborn perverseness, and helps to justify the divine view that the majority of mankind is fit only for disposal. The talking snake of Genesis 2 seals their fate, anyway.

Now, you have just described people who read Genesis 1 as being stubbornly perverse. You previously said that a Christian does not make this claim about other Christians. Are you saying young earth creationists are not Christians? Wow.

So, it seems, the skeptics of the day were right.

They were right about the science

So then, wouldn't some healthy skepticism, in the form of considering the scientific evidence, have helped the church come a little closer to truth? I still don't see the problem.

That is nothing to do with faith. Divine instructions are, though, and the advice of either sceptics, or of those who claim to be Christians, that contrast with those instructions, are to be totally ignored by the faithful.

When the church believed scripture described an earth-centered universe, and took it on faith, what would you have told them do when a skeptic told them the earth was not at the center?

I would have told the 'church' to learn to read. And the sceptics, too. In Hebrew, preferably, but their vernacular versions should have sufficed.

So you wouldn't correct their tendency to dismiss science in faith?

When Paul spoke to the Greeks of Athens, the circumference of the earth had already been calculated (and very accurately, as it happens). The Greeks also then had a 'theory' of evolution, much less accurate, but the view existed. There is no indication that these matters occupied anyone's mind when Paul spoke. Cosmology is not the Christian's business. Christ is. Even those who read the Bible should be able to work out that much.

So understanding God's creation is not our business?

'For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.' (1 Cor 2:2 NIV)

Look at the context. This was part of the same thought process in which Paul wrote 1 Cor 1:17, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect." So, if Paul was saying not to engage in Cosmology, he must have been saying not to baptize either. Were you baptized? But wait, according to 1 Cor. 1:10 to 16, Paul was saying he did baptize some, but not most of them. And he stated why he was glad he hadn't baptized most of them... because they were being petty about it. He was not criticizing the practice per se, just what people were doing with it. Therefore, since Paul was talking about baptism, and not cosmology, the only conclusion we can come to is that anything is wrong if it distracts from God's Word. Certainly cosmology can distract people from God's word. However, Paul makes it clear, that things are not always a distraction, as He writes later on in the same letter:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gosple's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

The trick really is to maintain perspective... not simply to avoid the practice. Otherwise, it simply becomes a list of does and donts, hence reducing your salvation to legalism. And if that's what God wanted, well He already had a bunch of laws in place. Why send Jesus to be our sacrifice?

[Cephus]

In all fairness this can apply to atheism and evolution and any non-religious beliefs system as well. Atheism is unprovable. Evolution is anything but fixed and certain, except for the spelling of the word. Now dino's are birds for example.

Atheism isn't unprovable, atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). There's nothing to prove, it's a LACK of belief.

As for evolution, science is never fixed and certain. It grows and changes as we learn new things. Always has, always will. If you're looking for something that will hold true forever and ever without change, then you're going to be very disappointed. We can only go by what we know NOW and acknowledge that we will learn more tomorrow. Nothing in science is carved in stone and it is foolish to think it is. Doesn't mean that there aren't some things that are so well supported by a huge weight of evidence that it would take something truly amazing to change it. Evolution is one of those things.

Some of the details are in doubt. The fact that evolution happened is not.

Christians are constantly debating and debating things. Certainly the existence of myriads of different denominations testifies to the willingness of "Christians" to test all things.

No, they're not testing. If they were testing, they'd actually come to some agreement. Instead, they are believing because those beliefs appeal to them in some way. And the Bible is so fluid and flexible that it can be used to support a wide range of belief systems and you really can't prove any of them wrong working JUST from the Bible.

If it weren't for a weird and set agenda, based only on emotionalism, then things like abstinence and the clearly defined sexual norms, would not be so ridiculously opposed by non-religionists.

Funny, I'm not religious and I'm all for abstinence and it has nothing whatsoever to do with silly father figures in the sky, it's a purely rational, non-emotional argument.

Watch where you're painting with that broad brush.

[AlAyeti]

"Funny, I'm not religious and I'm all for abstinence and it has nothing whatsoever to do with silly father figures in the sky, it's a purely rational, non-emotional argument."

"Watch where you're painting with that broad brush."

///

I paint what I see. Atheism/evolutionism/secularism/sexualism . . ., looks like the common Progressive agenda spoken quite clearly by the people who embrace all four. I have never met anyone that embraces any of the four ideologies I mention, ever promoting abstinence or even believing it is a reality. Ever.

I live and work in California and have been immersed in a society that is dominated by people who are one-sided secularists, that see abstinence as a right-wing fundamentalist Christian dogma of absurdity being forced on society. C'mon that is an accurate assessment of how and what these people believe. That is not an ad hom response. It is California and liberal perspective well defined and well articulated by the people in that culture.

I will appeal to skepticism about the response and position, because I have dealt with the opposite from all of the atheists I know. And to be a Christian is to test all things and hold fast to the truth.

Passing out condoms is the closet thing to abstinence that any of the atheists/evolutionist/secular people and co-workers I dwell amongst mean when they talk about sex education and advice in the school system and the social setting.

Christians are bigtime skeptics! We never stop questioning secular motives and agenda.

Morally sound people are skeptical, and rightly so. Condoms don't work to found a morally sound society. Believing that children will be responsible in their sexual activities is anti-empirical. Presenting role models that push non-sexual contact "abstinence" and that promote virginity, not as a loser class of people but of the finest choice that a young person can make.

I am skeptical that the idea of abstinence means the same thing as a morally sound perspective of waiting until marriage (historical and common normal usage of the word "marriage") until having any kind of sexual contact. And, that abstinenece be ended only in a marriage.

If that is the definition of abstinence then great. And I'll title my next painting, "WOW!"

But I'm skeptical on empirical grounds.

[AlAyeti]

The Gospels include mentionn many people who opposed Jesus on the grounds that they were very skeptical about what He was saying and doing.

He was also very skeptical that they were honest people.

The Bible as a collection of writings about the people involved in the God of Abraham, Isaaac, Jacob and Moses, mentions time and again God's skepticism towards the people that claimed to follow Him. What prophet wasn't a skeptic?

How many religions in their "revealed writings" even mention the wrongdoings and basic low nature of the heros of their sacred teaxts?

[Tilia]

Skepticism is a useful tool that we all employ from time to time. If anyone tells me something that sounds important I always like to know that I can verify it somehow if I wish to. The more important the issue, the stronger my urge to know that I can check-up on its validity.

However, when it comes to Christianity, it would seem that the opposite is true. The more important the message, the less concerned most people seem to be with their inability to establish its veracity. They appear to be content with letting the enormity of the message compensate for their inability to check on its truth. I would argue that this sort of suspension of regular skepticism is not good for Christianity as a whole.

Are not Christians the best judges of that?

Not always. As far as stubbornness goes, we can rate pretty high.

Where do you get this 'we' from?

Case in point.

A Christian does not make that sort of claim.

What if it's true? Are we to deny our sin after accepting Christ? I'd like to see that verse.

That is not what I mean. A Christian does not make a claim to be Christian in a context where that cannot be 'proved' or attested to an agreed standard. To make the claim in those circumstances is to imply that a mere claim is sufficient, which practice gives false teachers ample opportunity.

In my opinion, Christians sometime believe falsehoods in faith... such as when the church believed the earth was the center of the universe,

That is nothing to do with faith.

If we're talking about a belief that Christians would back up with scripture

Which we aren't. That is not what Christians talk about.

Oh. So what about people who talk about Genesis 1, and how it proves the world was created in 6 days. I believe you disagree, and that you discuss it, too. Are any of you Christians?

Those who make the mode of creation into an issue are divisive and should be treated accordingly. Titus 3:10-11 applies.

The foundation of the truth is the church.

Not true.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through HIm, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

I see no mention of the church here.

'Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.' (1 Tim 3:14-15 NIV)

The church preaches the gospel, the truth of which it supports with changed behaviour.

So then what about before they've changed? Are you saying a person is not a Christian until they've changed their behavior?

Yes. That's the point.

They are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for them to do, a light set on a hill, the salt of the earth. Those works are their support, not the Scripture.

I do agree that you will them by their fruit. Is that what you're getting at?

People are known by their fruit, yes.

There are many who have become Christians who have never even possessed a Bible, let alone read one. Anyway, Christians alone decide what is Scripture and what is not, and they alone decide how it is to be interpreted for their use.

"Christians alone"? So, divine inspiration played no part? Do you also believe the Holy Spirit bestows no gifts in this age?

Of course- to Christians.

Their enemies, both those who oppose them head on, and those who pose as Christians, will of course attempt to misrepresent them; particularly the latter, who have no genuine fruits of the Spirit to support them.

Are you saying that true Christians stop sinning, and therefore don't bring each other to judgement as appropriate within the church? I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

'No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.' (1 John 3:9-10 NIV)

A straight forward reading of Genesis 1 could seem to support an earth-centered system to those who didn't know better.

I don't agree, as it happens. Genesis 1 is conspicuously mystical, particularly for those who read it in Hebrew. The tendency of much of mankind to read it literally is stubborn perverseness, and helps to justify the divine view that the majority of mankind is fit only for disposal. The talking snake of Genesis 2 seals their fate, anyway.

Now, you have just described people who read Genesis 1 as being stubbornly perverse. You previously said that a Christian does not make this claim about other Christians. Are you saying young earth creationists are not Christians? Wow.

There are some who believe in creation in six days who never mention it unless specifically and pointedly asked, though they very readily speak of Christ. They obey the command to keep what they believe about inessential matters between themselves and God.

So, it seems, the skeptics of the day were right.

They were right about the science

So then, wouldn't some healthy skepticism, in the form of considering the scientific evidence, have helped the church come a little closer to truth? I still don't see the problem.

The problem is that anyone thinks there is or was a problem. It is like trying to solve a political problem with a recipe book from the kitchen. The Bible is not a science text-book.

That is nothing to do with faith. Divine instructions are, though, and the advice of either sceptics, or of those who claim to be Christians, that contrast with those instructions, are to be totally ignored by the faithful.

When the church believed scripture described an earth-centered universe, and took it on faith, what would you have told them do when a skeptic told them the earth was not at the center?

I would have told the 'church' to learn to read. And the sceptics, too. In Hebrew, preferably, but their vernacular versions should have sufficed.

So you wouldn't correct their tendency to dismiss science in faith?

Not if they did not want to be corrected, no.

When Paul spoke to the Greeks of Athens, the circumference of the earth had already been calculated (and very accurately, as it happens). The Greeks also then had a 'theory' of evolution, much less accurate, but the view existed. There is no indication that these matters occupied anyone's mind when Paul spoke. Cosmology is not the Christian's business. Christ is. Even those who read the Bible should be able to work out that much.

So understanding God's creation is not our business?

Not specifically for the Christian. Abraham knew nothing of modern science, but was a friend of God.

'For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.' (1 Cor 2:2 NIV)

Look at the context. This was part of the same thought process in which Paul wrote 1 Cor 1:17, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect." So, if Paul was saying not to engage in Cosmology, he must have been saying not to baptize either.

So if water baptism can be a distraction, cosmology certainly can be.

[Cephus]

I paint what I see.

Then you should probably get your nose out of the Bible and open your eyes, obviously your rose-colored glasses aren't serving you well.

Atheism/evolutionism/secularism/sexualism . . ., looks like the common Progressive agenda spoken quite clearly by the people who embrace all four. I have never met anyone that embraces any of the four ideologies I mention, ever promoting abstinence or even believing it is a reality. Ever.

That only demonstrates your ignorance then. You just met one and I'm certainly not alone.

I live and work in California and have been immersed in a society that is dominated by people who are one-sided secularists, that see abstinence as a right-wing fundamentalist Christian dogma of absurdity being forced on society. C'mon that is an accurate assessment of how and what these people believe. That is not an ad hom response. It is California and liberal perspective well defined and well articulated by the people in that culture.

I think you're confusing two things: forced abstinence and abstinence by choice. Trying to force people not to have sex is doomed to failure. All the abstinence pledges in the world won't stop people who want to have sex from having sex, studies have proven that conclusively. In fact, people who have taken abstinence pledges often do WORSE than people who just have sex. They tend to wait longer, but end up having more sex partners and using less protection than people who were not abstinent. The reason a lot of people treat it as a right-wing fundamentalist Christian dogma is because that's how it's presented.

In reality, you're not going to stop people from having sex. Period. Thinking you are is a complete fantasy. However, that doesn't mean that we cannot and should not present abstinence as the ideal. You have a 0% chance of getting pregnant or getting an STD if you are abstinent. Teach this as the ideal, but recognize that only a limited number of people are going to take your advice. Then teach the rest how to be safe.

It's either that or just give up. It is a complete fantasy to think that people are going to just stop having sex because a bunch of fire-and-brimstone fundamentalists show up and tell people that they're going to hell if they have sex.

Christians are bigtime skeptics! We never stop questioning secular motives and agenda.

Yeah, you just don't question your own dogma. That's the problem. Christians are like the people who believe in Santa Claus, laughing at the people who believe in the Easter Bunny.

[QED]

I paint what I see. Atheism/evolutionism/secularism/sexualism . . ., looks like the common Progressive agenda spoken quite clearly by the people who embrace all four. I have never met anyone that embraces any of the four ideologies I mention, ever promoting abstinence or even believing it is a reality. Ever.

Hi AlAyeti. I have a question... were all these Atheists you met obese? Would they have encouraged other people to stuff as many burgers as they could down their throats as often as possible? One problem that keeps resurfacing is your total rejection of evolution. Here's the problem:

If we are evolved then you have to accept that prior to industrial farming food was a far more scarce and precious resource. In particular, sugars and fats were of vital importance to our bodies yet were hard to come by. This produced within us a great compulsion to make the most of these foods on the comparatively rare occasions when they were available. However, now that our technology provides us with easy access to these food groups, we have yet to adapt to the conditions hence the expanding waistlines visible in every fast-food outlet.

Notice that we take time to adapt to changes like this. We have gone from a subsistence existence to oversupply in a handful of generations. Now you may prefer to see this behavior as simple greed, but we are all cut from the same biological cloth and every one of your Atheist acquaintances will be subject to the same compulsion - as the crisp commercial goes "once you pop [the lid open] you can't stop". I know I'm not the only one who has experienced this scenario:

You're in your kitchen and you don't know what to have for lunch. You might not even be particularly hungry but you think you ought to eat something... so you pop the lid on the Pringles [potato crisps in a tube] and scoff a couple. In seconds you're suddenly interested in whatever's waiting in the fridge!

It's not greed. It's brain chemistry. And people who see their bodies bulging in the bedroom mirror know exactly what they have to resist to keep a lid on things.

[israeltour]

Skepticism is a useful tool that we all employ from time to time. If anyone tells me something that sounds important I always like to know that I can verify it somehow if I wish to. The more important the issue, the stronger my urge to know that I can check-up on its validity.

However, when it comes to Christianity, it would seem that the opposite is true. The more important the message, the less concerned most people seem to be with their inability to establish its veracity. They appear to be content with letting the enormity of the message compensate for their inability to check on its truth. I would argue that this sort of suspension of regular skepticism is not good for Christianity as a whole.

Are not Christians the best judges of that?

Not always. As far as stubbornness goes, we can rate pretty high.

Where do you get this 'we' from?

Case in point.

A Christian does not make that sort of claim.

What if it's true? Are we to deny our sin after accepting Christ? I'd like to see that verse.

That is not what I mean. A Christian does not make a claim to be Christian in a context where that cannot be 'proved' or attested to an agreed standard. To make the claim in those circumstances is to imply that a mere claim is sufficient, which practice gives false teachers ample opportunity.

Are you saying I should not have called myself a Christian above, because I have not demonstrated my fruit? Or that "stubborn Christian" is an oxymoron?

In my opinion, Christians sometime believe falsehoods in faith... such as when the church believed the earth was the center of the universe,

That is nothing to do with faith.

If we're talking about a belief that Christians would back up with scripture

Which we aren't. That is not what Christians talk about.

Oh. So what about people who talk about Genesis 1, and how it proves the world was created in 6 days. I believe you disagree, and that you discuss it, too. Are any of you Christians?

Those who make the mode of creation into an issue are divisive and should be treated accordingly. Titus 3:10-11 applies.

I'm not talking about divisiveness. I'm referring to (for example) Christians who teach a 6 creation to new Christians, because that's what they believe the Bible says, and the new Christians want to learn God's word. Are these teachers really not Christians, because "that is not what Christians talk about?"

The foundation of the truth is the church.

Not true.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through HIm, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

I see no mention of the church here.

'Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.' (1 Tim 3:14-15 NIV)

The way this reads to me is that God is the pillar and foundation of truth... but isn't that what you're arguing against?

The church preaches the gospel, the truth of which it supports with changed behaviour.

So then what about before they've changed? Are you saying a person is not a Christian until they've changed their behavior?

Yes. That's the point.

I disagree. Fruit has to grow. If we're vines, attached to the branch, then we have to be attached before we grow fruit. The conversion comes first... the fruit later.

There are many who have become Christians who have never even possessed a Bible, let alone read one. Anyway, Christians alone decide what is Scripture and what is not, and they alone decide how it is to be interpreted for their use.

"Christians alone"? So, divine inspiration played no part? Do you also believe the Holy Spirit bestows no gifts in this age?

Of course- to Christians.

So if the Holy Spirit inspires us, then it's not "Christians alone" determining what is scripture and how to interpret it.

Their enemies, both those who oppose them head on, and those who pose as Christians, will of course attempt to misrepresent them; particularly the latter, who have no genuine fruits of the Spirit to support them.

Are you saying that true Christians stop sinning, and therefore don't bring each other to judgement as appropriate within the church? I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

'No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.' (1 John 3:9-10 NIV)

Theologically, this is because our sins are covered over by Christ's blood and we are freed from the law, not because we suddently act without flaw. And, one of those flaws is that we can be stubborn.

A straight forward reading of Genesis 1 could seem to support an earth-centered system to those who didn't know better.

I don't agree, as it happens. Genesis 1 is conspicuously mystical, particularly for those who read it in Hebrew. The tendency of much of mankind to read it literally is stubborn perverseness, and helps to justify the divine view that the majority of mankind is fit only for disposal. The talking snake of Genesis 2 seals their fate, anyway.

Now, you have just described people who read Genesis 1 as being stubbornly perverse. You previously said that a Christian does not make this claim about other Christians. Are you saying young earth creationists are not Christians? Wow.

There are some who believe in creation in six days who never mention it unless specifically and pointedly asked, though they very readily speak of Christ. They obey the command to keep what they believe about inessential matters between themselves and God.

Where did God say that His creation of us doesn't matter? Where did He say that divisive truths should be ignored? Do you have a verse for that one?

When Paul spoke to the Greeks of Athens, the circumference of the earth had already been calculated (and very accurately, as it happens). The Greeks also then had a 'theory' of evolution, much less accurate, but the view existed. There is no indication that these matters occupied anyone's mind when Paul spoke. Cosmology is not the Christian's business. Christ is. Even those who read the Bible should be able to work out that much.

So understanding God's creation is not our business?

Not specifically for the Christian. Abraham knew nothing of modern science, but was a friend of God.

So creation wasn't Abraham's business? Where does Christ exhort us to be ignorant of non-essential truths about God?

'For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.' (1 Cor 2:2 NIV)

Look at the context. This was part of the same thought process in which Paul wrote 1 Cor 1:17, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect." So, if Paul was saying not to engage in Cosmology, he must have been saying not to baptize either.

So if water baptism can be a distraction, cosmology certainly can be.

And likewise, if water baptism can be acceptable practive, cosmology can be.