StandFirm: I know about and try to practice critical thinking.
Yes, we all "know about and try to practice critical thinking"... to some degree. Bear in mind, I'm not questioning your intelligence. I thought I knew what it was when I was a devout witness as well. I didn't really.
Critical thinking is a developed skillset, is self-refining, and a cousin to the scientific method. Science thrives on skepticism. Faith and religion do not.
I find many religious folk seem to be confident in their critical thinking skills without ever picking up a book to find out what the subject really entails. Yet if all of these religious people were staunch critical thinkers, there would at least be fewer religions. Instead, most of those who are religious simply adopt their parents views and then subconsciously shield their beliefs from skepticism and scrutiny.
If you're being honest about testing yourself, go buy a good book on CT and do some reading on cognitive biases, then apply what you've read to your cherished beliefs. That will be a much more effective test than milling around in an "apostate" forum while bias and prejudice protect your beliefs.
As for the Bible, I don't want to go into tons of detail on this introductory thread, but, the way I see it, since I believe there is a God based on the evidence of the natural world, etc.,then I believe that Christianity makes far more sense than any other religion, that it is the best way of approach to God.
Do you see the long chain of presuppositions that are being accepted as axioms here? Why limit yourself to the assumption that some religion must have a grasp on reality? I can understand why you might think "there must've been a designer" but why assume that it has interacted or is still interacting with man? You're still starting with a presupposition that the Bible is of divine origin.
True Christianity demands that the Bible be true.
And true Islam demands the the Koran be true. Both can't be right. So which group needs to apply critical thinking skills to their own beliefs? Why not both (or all)?
Also, it makes sense that a God who created humans with that spiritual need and the quality of love would not unlovingly leave them in the lurch spiritually.
It makes sense, yes, if that's what you've been taught your whole life. Albert Einstein supposedly said that common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of 18. So of course it makes sense.
The Bible gives more evidence than any other book of being that communication from God.
Why would a creator capable of engineering the complex laws of the universe communicate an uber-important message through a book, penned by ancient man, in languages that are unique to an era and particular geography? Is that the best he could do? (FWIW, I'm aware of the canned JW answer to this and, for me, it doesn't resolve anything.) Why was he supposedly unambiguous back then (voice from heaven, miracles, etc...), but today we have to accept him on faith and vague identifying marks like "love" and self-fulfilling prophecy (preaching)?
...OUTLAW