I want to be convinced - an experiment

Hello, Sarde. I think that it is a great thing for you to want to be a teacher. Teachers have to know both sides of an argument as well as the best way to present it to their students. I think that all youth should be taught the basics of philosophy, theology, science, and logic. I am a Christian believer. I believe in a personal God manifested through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is real. After reading both of the websites that you presented to me, I have these comments:
On one side, we have the Biblical Inerrency argument. One side claims that the Bible is inspired by God. Although written by humans, the spirit and personality of the book is very much God.
This side has no defineable proof, other than the changed lives and the overall personalities of the believers. The other side, articulate and bright as they are, has presented a united front of scholarly opposition to the Bible as a serious work of literature, let alone truth. This side has quite a few "facts" although I would question why these facts are presented as such when none of these critics present any case for changed lives or humble and loving personalities. Rather, these scholars present us with the human educated mind as a triumphant force that is free and unshackled from religious restraints imposed by dogma. Paul N. Tobin, the author of the second website which you mention, is an avowed atheist. I guess that the point that I want you to consider is this: Lets take two imaginary characters.
Character number one is an uneducated Mother. She raises her kids on love and discipline. She does not know much in the way of science, law, or classical literature. she is a firm believer in God, however. Despite her many human faults, she is able to show her kids an inner character that is humble, Christ loving, fair, and humerous. Her kids grow up respecting her.
Character number two is a brilliant teacher. Well educated and opinionated. This teacher is driven by a love of the truth. She wants her students to see through all of the hypocrisy and prejudice of history. She has read all of the arguments. All of the articles for and against. She wants her students to know the truth! I ask you, Sarde. What is the truth? Is it the love of Christ in the Mom? Or is it the love of wisdom in the teacher? Which one of these two woman are the most important and influential in the lives of the kids, if they had one as a mother and one as a teacher? One more thought. Should these woman be at odds with one another?

Not at all. I am merely saying that the Spirit of God is Love, and it is Love and not education that will sway a child. Even though the mom claims atheism, God still uses her to rise her kids. It is impossible for her to have genuine love without His Spirit. Love is not an evolved chemical bonding concept.

I tend to see many of the stories in the Bible not so much as literal yet not as myths either. For example, take Noah and the Flood. What is the underlying message of this tale?
Gen 6:9=This is the account of Noah.Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.(The best that a human can be)Gen 6:11-13= Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.(God is telling a righteous man how the rest of the people are hopelessly wicked. What can we learn from this story in todays world? )
Who determines when a people become hopeless? The people or God? When does a criminal become incorrigible? I am a believer. Zach, but I have heard two sides to this fact. Thousands of others have seen the Bible not so historically accurate. I suspect that this question goes deep into spiritual war and hidden agendas, so I do not really know or care which side is right. I do believe that the Bible as Gods character expressed in interaction with humanity is flawless. The flaws within the book come from humanity--not from God. In the Bible are three types expressed in the original Greek: "First we will define the Greek usages and words as a foundation. Eros, phileo, and agape are the three pre-biblical words for love.Eros was "the name of the little demon deity whose image dances on the Valentines of our time. Among the Romans his name was Cupid, the lusty off-spring of the voluptuous goddess, Venus." The ancient Greeks considered the demon Eros as the central driving force, motivation, all that man is in attitude, ambition and action.The worship of Eros also brought much of the music into the Greek culture and was designed for the temples of fertility to stimulate sensual ecstasy.The dance of modern burlesque was performed by the prostitute priestesses to call the male worshippers to sexual frenzy, whereby they sought to lose themselves from their "dismal daily lives." The second Greek usage, one which we do find in our NewTestament, is the word "phileo." Where erotic-love is the demonic lust of the flesh for flesh, phileo-love is the natural affection in all people for the appetite of the senses. Eros is Immoral, so phileois ammoral. It can be both good and bad, both wicked or right, depending on the moral condition of the lovers. Such as meant by Paul in Titus 1:15,"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled."
"Therefore, it is an unchangeable fact that phileo-affection is the deepest affection known by the unconverted. It is no wonder God warned against "mixed" marriages between the saved and the lost. To continue with phileo, it is a very emotional centered affection and an affection based upon one being satisfied by the object. Once this satisfaction is gone, so is the phileo. If the object of phileo assumes any attitudes or actions which are displeasing, the phileo disappears in direct proportion to the displeasure. Marriages based on phileo can be very fulfilling, only if both spouses continue to satisfy the pleasures of the other spouse and do not begin to become very critical or negative.

I suppose, neil, that for clarification we should ask what the source of love is? If the source is merely biological, I can see where you have a point. I do not believe that love is merely a biological phenomenon.