Rational defense of Christianity?

[fr0d0]

Are you by any chance looking for facts or are you looking for meaning and purpose?

I'm not sure what you are asking. I do look for meaning and purpose. Facts are useful too.

'Facts' as in scientific information ie information revealing the mechanics of creation is NOT the subject of the bible. If you're looking for those facts you are looking in the wrong place. No reasonable person would make this mistake, but I feel it's necessary to point it out.

Science moves on. Nothing much stays the same (to scientific understanding). Our understanding evolves and improves constantly. This is the amazing thing about science. We would be foolish to declare ourselves at the pinnacle of all understanding. Ever. In just a few years we could have very different ideas.

What would a scientific revelation prove (hard scientific fact written in religious texts, beyond what the technology of the time was capable of) in theological terms? That belief in God cannot be doubted? To me, that would be contradictory. Belief has to be a choice. If you don't choose to believe, then you cannot believe.

The facts, if there are any, serve as only anecdotal back story to the plot.

I'm not sure what you mean here either. I agree that the details are uncertain on how Judaism and Christianity evolved.

I refer to the above. The flawed creation subplot alive at the time of authorship are irrelevant to the point being made. All we need do is read it back in context of those flawed models.

I believe the Bible is inerrant.

I looked up a definition of inerrancy on wikipedia (my bolds):

Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

It takes a lot of imaginative justification to claim that the Bible is inerrant. There are a lot of bad teachings and factual discrepancies - even in the gospels IMO.

From my serious study I have found no discrepancies yet. I will continue looking of course.

The Bible is part of the language of expression of the subject that all other religions are part of. They are all evidence vouched for. How are you dismissing them? On what grounds?

I'm not sure what you mean (especially the part in bold). I don't dismiss the Bible or Christianity. Even as a human creation, Christianity has some good ideas (and some bad ideas too). Buddhism and Hinduism also have some good ideas.

I do dismiss Christianity's claim to be the only religion or even the best religion. I don't see any evidence to support that claim.

In my opinion, all expressions of religious endeavor are relevant to study of the subject. As a Christian, I think I'd be missing a massive resource relevant to my study if I didn't consider everything. That doesn't have to change my personal interpretation. In my view, Christianity is the currently ultimate evolutionary step of all of that endeavor. If I should learn any different, then I'll have to change my beliefs to suit.

I respect hugely a lot of religious expression. I certainly don't dismiss any lightly. The development of Judaism owes a lot to the preceding beliefs that had evolved up until it's conception. I believe that the Jews made the perfect connection of those ideas in coming up with it's own faith, and later those ideas were perfected in Christianity. Perfected as in restored the original concepts that were misrepresented through the old testament.

I imagine on the logical grounds that the fictional book was written by fallible men and that there is zero evidence to support that those men were even remotely divinely inspired by a deity.

Yep.

Absolutely those men were fallible. But we're not talking about the men but what they wrote. 'Divinely inspired' is a virtue posthumously awarded by generations unable to find fault with the statements.