Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me, Christianity is the one that worked in application.
Yeah, I think when comparing entire worldviews, this is true. When just looking at specific claims and doctrines, though, Christianity is, at first glance, completely insane. A number of other worldviews strike me as the opposite--they look reasonable, but if you get too close, the absurdity creeps in.
I would partially agree, in the sense that one's own personal beliefs may be predicated upon 'direct contact', or being the direct witness of a 'miracle intervention.' Hence, once someone claims they speak to, and have been contacted by God, I always ask...
Do you believe in the ones whom claim they speak to some claimed opposing agent, ghost, alien, other?
This doesn't really make sense as a question. You're comparing first-hand experience and second-hand accounts here--you would need to ask the person who actually claimed to have seen an alien or ghost if they found their own claim credible, and the response would presumably be "yes."
Mind you, "divine intervention" doesn't necessarily mean direct contact or witnessing a miracle. Christianity traditionally teaches that faith is, to a certain extent, a gift, though, so the idea of compelling evidence strikes me as somewhat out of place.
It again further demonstrates that, if we are to leave 'truth' to revelation/contact/other, then many 'beliefs' are still on the table. Hence, what distinguishes the Bible as truth, over the rest? How can the Christian reject the earnest claims of someone whom claims contact or intervention from some claimed opposing claimed agent?
Revelation doesn't preclude reason. In my experience, "how do you pick religion A over religion B?" is only an issue for people who don't take religious claims seriously in the first place--if someone cares about the issue enough to research various traditions, they usually end up with informed opinions about them. (Unless you're just researching other religions for apologetic purposes--that just leads to caricatures.)
I think so.
What constitutes 'reliable enough.'? That some events in history look to resemble the claims from the Bible, or, that the verification of 'eyewitness attestation' of the supernatural, or somewhere in between?
That would be a subjective judgment.
What
is the 'beauty and hope' exactly? I think this depends on whom you ask.
Traditionally speaking, Christian hope is the Resurrection of the Body--a renewed
world where all that is wrong will finally be set right. It's cosmic, not about cheating the system and getting to a disembodied heaven.
But regardless, I feel you might agree, that believing or hoping something is true, lends no more or less credibility to it's truth.
No, but I have a deep moral problem with operating under the assumption that reality is not ultimately good.