in the broadest and most positive sense, yes; although for convenience sake there will be times when by ‘sceptic’ (and yes I habitually prefer the British spelling even though strictly speaking ‘skeptic’ is closer to the original Greek ) I mean those who do not yet agree with me on various positions.
I do wish to emphasize the relation between those two connections, though. After all, by terms of the slightly-less-broad usage, practically every Christian in world history, past present and future, counts as a sceptic in relation to me (unless they happen to believe exactly the same as I do in all particulars, which I do not expect or even especially desire); and I in relation to them. Yet, does this difference mean that they are necessarily my enemies, or that their differences are necessarily not due to critical thinking on their part?
No. No moreso than my differences from them are necessarily due to a lack of critical thinking on my part.
The same principle must be extended, then, by me, as a logical consequence, to all others who disagree with me. My beliefs, in total, will not be someone else’s beliefs, nor my rationales their rationales; but to disrespect others, on this ground, is an open pit. I may disagree with others for such-n-such reasons, but to disrespect others due merely to differences would require, for logical coherency, that I also disrespect myself for disagreeing with them.
I realize that this initial focus on myself will seem egotistical. I’ll begin addressing this soon in future entries. Until then, I will point out that, psychologically, the egotist would be looking for ways around the logic of the previous paragraph, in order to try to keep his own self-respect while sacrificing the respect of other people as competition against his own ego.
I will also mention here, that it would be difficult to overestimate the importance of my observations in this comment, to the material content and results of the forthcoming rationale. To anticipate where, from nearly a decade of experience now, I know this is going to go: it would be no exaggreration to say that I am now and will always remain an orthodox trinitarian Christian (and, subsequently to this, a universalist), because I believe and accept what I have just said in regard to myself and other people. Even if those people are my opponents; even if I disagree with them strenuously as to fact and truth; even if we are and must (in this vale of separation) be enemies.
I believe the theological doctrines of Christianity to be true, because I accept, as a logical necessity, quite literally for sake of argument, that I am required to truly love even my enemies. If I don’t, then I retain my own epistemic rights (or do I…?!) only by, to put it bluntly, cheating. Or by waging a war of oppression, to put it another way.
Those results are a far piece (and maybe a far peace ) down the road. But when I was looking over my answer to you, I recognized the fullness of where I will be going, present already in my reply. For whatever it may be worth, I thought I should say something about it.