To Yuyutsu.

You asked for me to consider the difference between truth and fact. Often people use the terms interchangeably. "The truth of the matter is..." "The fact of the matter is..."

When they are used, more often the terms are a means to convey a point, regardless if it is factual in how facts are usually something provable. Or that it is the truth regardless if it actually is the truth or not.

How the terms are used is important because just talking about the truth doesn't mean that the truth is actually being addressed. Regardless if the term used is truth or fact.

The difference between truth and fact is that fact is a term for subjects that we can see, hear, or otherwise measure. The truth can include these things but you can't measure if a person is being deceitful, or on anything of their intents. But the reality is that a person can have a good intention or a harmful intention that just isn't measurable even though it is there. Though the reality of certain things can be addressed as being true or not, even if they are not addressed as facts and measurable observations to point to the truth.

On the matter that Peter and I am talking about is on whether Christians should count the bible as a reliable source of what is true and what isn't. He seems to take a position that doesn't make sense to me. Not just a position of not taking the bible seriously and not reading it as some Christians do. But instead to deny that Jesus died and rose again as an event that actually occurred. Can you be Christian with that perspective? Peter has made such a question something to consider. I don't think you can.

I know your opinions on the matter of Christianity not being true, but being something that can point to God. But you're not a Christian, Yuyutsu. If you don't believe in the texts of the bible, that changes nothing of your beliefs.