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?

[Cathar1950]

He responded that they didn't correspond to what he already beleived, therefore they must be wrong.

It might be they have a view of religion, truth, and God that is like the idea of love. There is just one woman on this planet and I will find her or God will find her for me. Once you have found her, why look any where else? There couldn't be another, plus you found one you like and want. The grass is greener on the other side isn't always true. I think it is usually greener around the septic tank. Of course I would wonder if having a wife\lover is a good approach to God, Religion, and faith. Maybe it is easy and it does have some precedent in some thought and feelings of ascetic monks.

[israeltour]

The early church fathers

Or the 1st and 2nd century followers after them?

.
We don't know anything the Apostles wrote except self professed Paul.
Paul(or who ever wrote or copied admits he will do any thing and be anything including lie for the Gospel. Only 7 of the letters are his. They have been tampered with for hundreds of years including Romans and Colossians. This is just from the records and copies of copies we have and their words as we have them today.

Which verse did Paul say he would lie? I want to look it up.

[Cathar1950]

I think anything for the kingdom would cover that.
Who knows what else he would do. If he wrote that. It is quite possible that some early church zealous scribe added it in order to justify some act.
Being a Jew to a Jew and a Gentile to a gentile kind of covers it too.
Unless faking it isn't a lie.
Now you might say He was just respecting their traditions or feeling or
something like that. But do you think he would have a problem when these conflicted?
It seems that it did. He was suppose to take a Nazarite vow, which would be admitting he had done something questionable. If he didn't then he would have been lying by not saying he was innocent or by going alone with it.
Forture favored him they tried to kill him but he used the Roman card to save his skin.
Looking for a verse are we?
Like a wealthy miser spinning straw to make gold.

[Cephus]

It might be they have a view of religion, truth, and God that is like the idea of love. There is just one woman on this planet and I will find her or God will find her for me. Once you have found her, why look any where else? There couldn't be another, plus you found one you like and want. The grass is greener on the other side isn't always true. I think it is usually greener around the septic tank. Of course I would wonder if having a wife\lover is a good approach to God, Religion, and faith. Maybe it is easy and it does have some precedent in some thought and feelings of ascetic monks.

Because that's a silly idea. There isn't just 'one woman on this planet', there are thousands, perhaps millions that will be just fine in a relationship, you only have to find one of them. Going with your claim, you just have to hope your 'one woman' doesn't happen to live on a mountain in Nepal or something.

Then again, it's funny how you find women who get abused, beaten and raped, yet refuse to leave their man because he 'loves them'. Why look elsewhere indeed?

[israeltour]

I question, I doubt, and I only accept after thinking. Those are the three things you say the faithful do not do and I share some of your criticism of those you describe. But, by lumping me in with them, you either have not realized that faith can be different, or you are not open to it.

What logically-applied objective criteria do you use to examine your religious beliefs?

My experiences combined with my observations.

How do you determine whether your already-held beliefs are correct in light of new information?

I ask God to show me how His truth is manifesting itself through what others claim are contradictory data. I meditate on it, read scripture, read opposing thoughts writings, and pray for enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.

I also watch to see if God continues to bless me in my current path, and continues to answer my prayers. So far, so good.

Do you continually challenge your ideas or do you simply evaluate new things in light of what you already believe?

Both. For day-to-day decisions, I simply evaluate in light of my beliefs. After all, I do believe them. Later on, I'll come back to them. There are probably some things I would never compromise on given God's clear presence in my life, but I have softened on the possibility of God using evolution, and the idea that man's fallibility must be considered when interpreting scripture.

I debated someone on Usenet once who claimed to be completely objective in his religion. I asked him how he came to the conclusion that other religions were wrong. He responded that they didn't correspond to what he already beleived, therefore they must be wrong.

That's not objective, that's ridiculous.

In some respect, that response is true for me as well. I will explain my reasoning. If you still consider my faith to be arbitrary and exclusivistic, then fine.

Firsto of all, if my religion is correct, then the others are wrong by definition, but I didn't conclude they were wrong simply because they were different than the one I wanted to go by. Basically, assuming God exists, then I consider all human attempts at religion to be flawed to some extent, including mine.

Some of the questions I tried to answer include what I thought God was going for and what each religion's answer said about the others. I wasn't exhaustive, sticking only mainstream religions. I had already concluded that going to Heaven (or nirvana, or wherever the next life would be) wasn't merit based because there seemed to be gradations of goodness, and any dividing line seemed abitrary to me. I also didn't think that everyone went to the same place, because of the huge difference between the most evil and the most good people in the world. I concluded that it was redemption based, i.e., forgiveness based. When I compared all the mainstream religions, I found that all of them (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism) were works based, exactly the system I didn't think worked. Only one was forgiveness based... Christianity (please note that two of the first churches I went to seemed works based even though they said "forgiveness", so I didn't realize that I was more in line with the mainstream than my first churches were... I wasn't at them long). And the existence of opposing mainstream Christian groups actually helped me discern the common thread in them all, and it was exactly what I concluded must be true. Did I know for sure? In a purely logical sense, no, because I had to assume God existed and that is physically unprovable... but since I could tell He was there spiritually, I proceeded accordingly, putting faith in what I knew but could not prove to others... which again matches Christianity. The other religions require faith as well, but don't admit it, whereas Christianity makes faith and forgiveness its centerpieces.

What it comes down to is whether I really perceive God, or whether it's reasonable to think I do. He has a great track record in my life, so I consider it reasonable. If He doesn't exist, it would just leave too much unexplained... too many coincidences to be a coincidence, too perceptive of His presence to call it nothing, stuff like that. The fact that others don't have that doesn't remove those things from my life, but does show that there is yet more for me to understand... and I am trying to.

[israeltour]

I would wonder if having a wife\lover is a good approach to God, Religion, and faith. Maybe it is easy and it does have some precedent in some thought and feelings of ascetic monks.

Paul wrote in Ephesians, "Men love your wives as Christ loves the church." I never appreciated that until I found my wife. Through the love I have for my wife, I can now understand to some extent the love God has for me.

[Cathar1950]

I think he also told women to be silent in church.
Then told men act like they were not married.
I don't think he is much of a model husband and if you want to stay married I would pick wisely from his teachings.
If you followed his ideas you would need God as a referee just so you could eat dinner together.

[Cephus]

My experiences combined with my observations.

I ask again: What logically-applied objective criteria do you use. Otherwise, this is no better than the guy who gauges everything by his pre-existing beliefs.

I ask God to show me how His truth is manifesting itself through what others claim are contradictory data. I meditate on it, read scripture, read opposing thoughts writings, and pray for enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.

Come on, you're just being ridiculous now. I asked how you test your current beliefs and you're telling us that you're NOT testing them, you're assuming a priori that they are correct because the only thing you're doing is assuming your God exists so he can show you the truth.

Let's try this again. Are you, or are you not testing your beliefs?

Firsto of all, if my religion is correct, then the others are wrong by definition, but I didn't conclude they were wrong simply because they were different than the one I wanted to go by. Basically, assuming God exists, then I consider all human attempts at religion to be flawed to some extent, including mine.

But if, also by definition, theirs is correct, yours is wrong. Or you could all be wrong. What you're saying is no different than the guy who believes that we're all living on the back of a giant turtle and he's going to evaluate *EVERYTHING* in light of that belief. Absolutely everything he comes up with is going to be wrong because his starting point is utterly absurd.

So now we have to take a step back and find out if God exists. There's no assumption here, it's either true or it's not. Any evaluation made on a false assumption is also going to be false. If you can't start with a valid foundation, how can you ever expect to find truth?

[QED]

I also watch to see if God continues to bless me in my current path, and continues to answer my prayers. So far, so good.

I hate to have to be the one to point this out, but one day the inevitable will happen. Will it be because you've strayed from the path? You will probably have enough on your plate without having to worry about this question.

I had already concluded that going to Heaven (or nirvana, or wherever the next life would be) wasn't merit based because there seemed to be gradations of goodness, and any dividing line seemed abitrary to me.

And this I'm afraid is the necessary fantasy that keeps the rest afloat. That we might 'go to heaven' is a pervasive concept that goes without question. And little wonder. If it were in question nothing else in religion would make sense.

[Cathar1950]

israeltour wrote:

I also watch to see if God continues to bless me in my current path, and continues to answer my prayers. So far, so good.

If he quits blessing you does that mean your on the wrong path?
It sounds rather Calvinistic. Job was written to point out that was not always true. It seems to be a very American thing(USA) these days.
Like Jesus was talking about was it the people that the wall fell on and killed due to their sins or their parents.
It is easy to say God is blessing you if your on top.
You hardly ever here some one say "and I would like to thank God for losing the Game tonight. The other team could not have done it with out Him."