Let’s see if we can continue to progress and establish some foundations.  I wanted to make a few remarks concerning some of the material in your last post.

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.

First of all, I’m not so sure that the importance of reason distinguishes Christianity from other religions. I think traditionally/historically, Christians have not typically relied on reason to guide their ideas, but would use reasons insofar as reason backed up their belief system. Secondly, when you state that Christian theology considers reasons to fall short, this seems ambiguous. I agree that most Christian theologies (but not all) would say something like this, but what does it really mean. I think a lot of confusion about ideas of faith and reason begin here.

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.

As you point out, allowing new information to revise older models of belief is beneficial and helpful in the search of truth. Another good point is made when you imply that truth does not need allegiance or defense as it will stand on its own. If one believes something to be true, there should be no fear of opposition, because ultimately how can one knock down what is clearly true. Secondly, if a belief is shown to be false, the believer should simply modify, change, and alter his views. The problem comes into the mix when people identify themselves with a particular tradition or belief and find their own identity by defending and representing a particular viewpoint.

I also recognize 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.

This depends on how you are using the word knowledge. Do we know that Caesar crossed the Rubicon? By modern standards, we usually use the word “know” in this context, but do we know with 100% accuracy? Do we have absolute certainty? No, but what do we know with absolute certainty? It seems that we have a high degree of certainty that he crossed the Rubicon as we do with many historical events. I would place the resurrection of Jesus in this same category. The resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for the empty tomb. This being said, we should speak in terms of probabilities rather than certainties to be realistic and honest with the evidence.

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 can sympathize with your point here. Christians, for the most part, are the most unreasonable people when it comes to logic and reasoned discussion. I think you nailed it on the head when you refer to this emotional attachment that stems from an experience with God that they have had or are having. Once this has occurred, arguments lose their force. It’s like trying to prove to them that their parents don’t exist or do not have an active roll in their life; a big waste of time. Secondly, Christians adhere to logic only when it helps their position. When the law of non-contradiction is applied to their ideas about God (Trinity), Jesus (dual-nature theory), and Bible (dual authorship) etc… they escape contradiction by appealing to mystery, or say something to the extent that their ideas are “above reason”, not “against reason.” The problem with doing this is that anyone can say that their ideas are mysteries, or above reason. This is a flat denial of the problem, not an answer to it.

Christianity is a hellenised religion, either because Jesus was a hellenised Jew, or, more likely, because many of its early popularisors were Greek.

I agree with this entirely. Traditional Christianity is a mixture of pagan/Greek ideas and Jewish/Hebrew theology. The concept of the immortality of the soul is one example. This idea can be found in Platonic philosophy, but nowhere in the Hebrew Bible.

Skeptic, I have enjoyed our discussion and I look forward to hearing back.