Rational defense of Christianity?

[watchamadoodle]

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.

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 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.

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.

---

How are you dismissing them? On what grounds?

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.