The novel analogy is actually as close to what is really going on as we can imagine. God is telling us and the universe for that matter a great, massive epic story. The story is already written but not fully carried out yet. And all of us are characters in that story. I am a novelist myself with a book right on the verge of publication. And as writer, though I created the characters, they really do become their own beings, like they become alive, and they will change the story on me. I still control everything that happens, and sometimes I have to re-direct the characters to what I want them to do.

Like with every story, it would not be a story (or a good one that is) unless there is a villian. In some stories, the villian is nature, or an internal issue, but in the grand sceme of life, our villian is identified as Satan, once the greatest and most powerful angel God created. But God created who was then Lucifer, to be a perfect being, and Lucifer rebelled against God in an attempt to claim the title for himself, becoming Satan. Satan has since sought revenge by taking what God values the most: us. If God didn't value us so high to him, he would not died for us. I'm not saying this to be boastful about who we are, because God doesn't need us.

In this beautiful story, we see God as a knight in shining armor coming down to our level to win us (to use the storied cliche, damsel in distress) back from Satan's evil clutches. The Bible does describe the Christian Church as his Bride, so it is reasonable to call us the damsel in distress of the story.

But this is not your typical fairy tale in which the good guy wins, the bad guy is beaten, and every one lives happily. In this story, there are some people that don't live happily ever after. The story will end when God brings about the End Times and casts Satan into the pit of hell for eternity. But Satan knows his final destination, as as misery loves company, he is trying to get as many of us to fall with him as he can. Hell was not created for man. It was created for Satan and his minions. God did warn us about it in Genesis 3, and Adam and Eve messed it up for all of mankind. But the story doesn't end there. God made a way for us to escape and he is claiming back countless people from the path to hell, as long as they simply believe in him.

It is a grand story that really nearly every single story we know has some root in. But like in many stories, there are those that don't believe the knight will come and save the day. In fact, there are some that try to stop him from saving the day, because they like what the villian is doing. And as in most stories, it won't go so well for them when the King sets things straight. These characters really do make thier own choices. As a writer, I know. But as writer, I take those choices into consideration when I write the plot. I let this character decide what to do in a given situation and I make the plot go where I want based on those choices. The difference is that we can ask God where he wants his plot to go, whereas my characters cannot ask me what they should do. This is actually the best way I have seen to show how 'free-will' and God's sovereignty go hand-in-hand. And personally, I consider it an honor that God would consider me to play a part in his story.

If God is dead, then all things are permissible, yet it turns out that not all things are permissible, therefore God is there.

First off, I don't subscribe to that assumption, but if I did, what then is not permissable, given that there are no moral rights or wrongs?

God cannot sin: ergo, the capacity to sin is not part of the image of God.

So you can pick and choose what parts of God's image he made us from?

As for your Shakespeare quote, this one is much easier to understand:

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living ammounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.

-Albert Camus

Excuse me, but from their perspective, they did. Even from her perspective they did.

Their "perspective" is irrelevent because they are fictional characters. And she is not so intertwined with her work that she believes they are real. She could have made Voldemort remorseful at the end if she wanted, although by her own admission she chose to make him a psycopath; incapable of remorse.

Your analogy of the child jumping into the fire breaks down because if a parent lets their child jump into a fire that would simply be a lack of protection on the parents part. They protect the child because he is young and doesn't understand that the fire will harm him. God has not failed to protect us. He has given us his word as a warning so that we will know that "jumping into the fire" WILL harm us. He is the parent that warns the child. He PROTECT us. He's trying to protect YOU, but all you want to do is jump in the fire.

Our parents tell us not to touch fire, and loving parents would still stop us from jumping in one.

What Christ offers is authentic existence---a life of meaning and purpose. You can become better than what you are through His Spirit, who molds and shapes you into His image. This is not slavery but freedom---freedom to do what is good and right.

That's the opposite of freedom.

That's the opposite of freedom.

Freedom is impossible without law.

Their "perspective" is irrelevent because they are fictional characters.

You miss the point. The relationship of author to novel is quite analogous to the relationship of God to creation. Who would God be responsible to?

So you can pick and choose what parts of God's image he made us from?

God made us in His image: He did not replicate Himself, for that would be a contradiction in terms.

First off, I don't subscribe to that assumption

You seem to. Seems as if you think God is dead or irrelevant (same difference, really) and so you feel free to do as you please---oh wait, doing what you want counts as a limitation. That's your trouble: you won't acknowledge that you are enslaved---to yourself, your own wants and needs. It's pathetic: the one thing that you might be able to control, really control, is the thing which you aren't. That's yourself. Why do I say you don't? Because in order to control yourself, you have to have rules: absolute standards which you believe to be binding.

The thing is, you're like Nietzsche: you desperately want to be the übermensch, but you aren't and know you can't be. It's the paradox of freedom: to choose is to limit yourself. To go right is to keep yourself from going left. You may turn around, but you may never know what would have happened had you chosen the left at the moment of decision.

TBG

No, rather around the reasoning I found to be true. It's not like anybody wants to be a nihilist, but it is what it is.

In this whole thread, I haven't seen any reasoning which might tempt me into nihilism. How did the course of your reasoning go?

Edit: a word from William James, in "Is Life Worth Living?"

Think how many absolutely new scientific conceptions have arisen in our own generation, how many new problems have been formulated that were never thought of before, and then cast an eye upon the brevity of science's career. It began with Galileo, not three hundred years ago. Four thinkers since Galileo, each informing his successor of what discoveries his own lifetime had seen achieved, might have passed the torch of science into our hands as we sit here in this room. Indeed, for the matter of that, an audience much smaller than the present one, an audience of some five or six score people, if each person in it could speak for his own generation, would carry us away to the black unknown of the human species, to days without a document or monument to tell their tale. Is it credible that such a mushroom knowledge, such a growth overnight as this, can represent more than the minutest glimpse of what the universe will really prove to be when adequately understood? No! our science is a drop, our ignorance a sea. Whatever else be certain, this at least is certain,--that the world of our present natural knowledge is enveloped in a larger world of some sort of whose residual properties we at present can frame no positive idea.

Agnostic positivism, of course, admits this principle theoretically in the most cordial terms, but insists that we must not turn it to any practical use. We have no right, this doctrine tells us, to dream dreams, or suppose anything about the unseen part of the universe, merely because to do so may be for what we are pleased to call our highest interests. We must always wait for sensible evidence for our beliefs; and where such evidence is inaccessible we must frame no hypotheses whatever. Of course this is a safe enough position in abstracto. If a thinker had no stake in the unknown, no vital needs, to live or languish according to what the unseen world contained, a philosophic neutrality and refusal to believe either one way or the other would be his wisest cue. But, unfortunately, neutrality is not only inwardly difficult, it is also outwardly unrealizable, where our relations to an alternative are practical and vital. This is because, as the psychologists tell us, belief and doubt are living attitudes, and involve conduct on our part. Our only way, for example, of doubting, or refusing to believe, that a certain thing is, is continuing to act as if it were not. If, for instance, I refuse to believe that the room is getting cold, I leave the windows open and light no fire just as if it still were warm. If I doubt that you are worthy of my confidence, I keep you uninformed of all my secrets just as if you were unworthy of the same. If I doubt the need of insuring my house, I leave it uninsured as much as if I believed there were no need. And so if I must not believe that the world is divine, I can only express that refusal by declining ever to act distinctively as if it were so, which can only mean acting on certain critical occasions as if it were not so, or in an irreligious way. There are, you see, inevitable occasions in life when inaction is a kind of action, and must count as action, and when not to be for is to be practically against; and in all such cases strict and consistent neutrality is an unattainable thing.

And, after all, is not this duty of neutrality where only our inner interests would lead us to believe, the most ridiculous of commands? Is it not sheer dogmatic folly to say that our inner interests can have no real connection with the forces that the hidden world may contain? In other cases divinations based on inner interests have proved prophetic enough. Take science itself! Without an imperious inner demand on our part for ideal logical and mathematical harmonies, we should never have attained to proving that such harmonies be hidden between all the chinks and interstices of the crude natural world. Hardly a law has been established in science, hardly a fact ascertained, which was not first sought after, often with sweat and blood, to gratify an inner need. Whence such needs come from we do not know; we find them in us, and biological psychology so far only classes them with Darwin's 'accidental variations.' But the inner need of believing that this world of nature is a sign of something more spiritual and eternal than itself is just as strong and authoritative in those who feel it, as the inner need of uniform laws of causation ever can be in a professionally scientific head. The toil of many generations has proved the latter need prophetic. Why may not the former one be prophetic, too? And if needs of ours outrun the visible universe, why may not that be a sign that an invisible universe is there? What, in short, has authority to debar us from trusting our religious demands? Science as such assuredly has no authority, for she can only say what is, not what is not; and the agnostic "thou shalt not believe without coercive sensible evidence" is simply an expression (free to any one to make) of private personal appetite for evidence of a certain peculiar kind.

Freedom is impossible without the law.

Explain?

oh wait, doing what you want counts as a limitation. That's your trouble: you won't acknowledge that you are enslaved---to yourself, your own wants and needs. It's pathetic: the one thing that you might be able to control, really control, is the thing which you aren't.

I am not enslaved because what I want does not determine what I believe.

In this whole thread, I haven't seen any reasoning which might tempt me into nihilism.

It's not a choice, it's a fact. The realization that we have no meaning. The choice is the attitude you have while you're living in this meaningeless existance.

TBG:
It's because I think that the propositions of Christianity are no less real than those of science. If you will, I'm a neo-medievalist like Lewis and Tolkien: I don't see a qualitative distinction between my rational knowledge of the physical and the metaphysical realms.

At least you've temporarily stopped denying that you are obfuscating and conflating. But even Tolkien and Lewis recognized an ontological distinction between Knowledge of the Physical and Metaphysical realms. Their problem was that Reductionism was a poor Metaphysical Model (I happen to concur with them on that). While Empiricism was all well and good for scientific advancement and developing more accurate models of the Physical Universe, it was a poor basis for structuring Metaphysical Models.

CS Lewis--The Discarded Image:
I have made no serious effort to hide the fact that the old Model delights me as I believe it delighted our ancestors. Few constructions of the imagination seem to me to have combined splendour, sobriety, and coherence in the same degree. It is possible that some readers have long been itching to remind me that it had a serious defect; it was not true.

I agree. It was not true. But I would like to end by saying that this charge can no longer have exactly the same sort of weight for us that it would have had in the 19th century. We then claimed, as we still claim, to know much more about the real universe than the Medievals did; and hoped, as we still hope, to discover yet more truths about it in the future. But the meaning of the words "know" and "truth" in this context has begun to undergo a certain change.

*********************

The most spectacular differences between the Medieval Model and our own concern astronomy and biology. In both fields the new Model is supported by a wealth of Empirical Evidence.

*********************

I hope that no-one will think that I am recommending a return to the Medieval Model. I am only suggesting considerations that may induce us to regard all Models in the right way, respecting each and idolizing none.

So you, Lewis and I can all agree that Reductionism is a poor Metaphysical Model, and that all Metaphysical Models should be given equal weight. But note that Lewis still makes an Ontological distinction between this and Empirical Knowledge of the Physical.
So you can't use him as intellectual cover.

TBG:
Naturally: all logic is tautological. Even science rests on tautological propositions such as "every effect must have a cause." However, all that LP said was that language rests on tautologies for its structure. The tautologies of metaphysics and religion were taken to be meaningless (though not pointless---if you are early Wittgenstein).

No, all Rhetoric is in principle tautological, because it's just mouths flapping (i.e. "for the sake of argument"). But Logic and Reason should be based on some form of Knowledge that isn't inherently tautological or circular to make any sense at all.

GB

But even Tolkien and Lewis recognized an ontological distinction between Knowledge of the Physical and Metaphysical realms.

This is the crucial thing, though: in the reductionist model, physics in the lens through which metaphysics is to be viewed---and of course the result is epistemological empiricism (which collapses under its own weight due to the limitations of the senses) and metaphysical materialism.

However, for Lewis and Tolkien, the order is reversed: the physical world is to be viewed in light of the metaphysical, which is just as real. Ontologically, they have the same level of existence, they are just known by different mechanisms---different in kind, not quality.

all Metaphysical Models should be given equal weight.

So long as they can stand up to scrutiny.

But Logic and Reason should be based on some form of Knowledge that isn't inherently tautological or circular to make any sense at all.

So two questions:

First, what is your basis for believing the law of non-contradiction, since you don't think it circular? How about the law of the excluded middle?

Second, what is the ultimate metaphysical basis of your counter-model?

I am not enslaved because what I want does not determine what I believe.

You claim to want to believe truth, yet you don't see it.

Explain?

What would you call a country with no limits: where the strong prey on the weak and might makes right. Free? That's not the word that comes to mind. It is only in the presence of law that people are free: free from fear, from want, free to order their own lives, take responsibility, flourish. Only in the presence of law, of responsibility to someone higher than yourself, can you really be free. Limitations and moral laws free a person to live to their highest potential.

TBG

I AM NOT PUTTING THIS IN ALL CAPS TO IMITATE SHOUTING, BUT BECAUSE NOBODY HAS ANSWERED THIS YET: IF GOD LOVED US, HE WOULD EITHER NEVER HAVE CREATED US, OR HE WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN US FREE WILL. HE CREATED US, APPARENTLY, BECAUSE WE ARE THE ONE THING HE CANNOT CONTROL, AND OUR LOVE FOR HIM MEANS SOMETHING MORE. HOWEVER BY DOING SO HE ALLOWS US TO BURN IN HELL FOREVER, OUR CHOICE PERHAPS, BUT WOULD YOU LET YOUR CHILDREN YOU CLAIM TO LOVE JUMP IN A FIRE, EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO? GOD IS EITHER MALICE OR HE IS INDIFFERENCE.

I may be interrupting the discussion, but I just need to give my own answer to this.

We humans make choices. God gave us free will.
With this gift, we can be worse than animals. We can be hideous. We can be horrific. We can be so morally revolting we inspire nausea in other human beings.
We can be evil.

But without this gift,
we cannot truly love.

Should we resent love just because we can also hate?

God loves me, and decided to create me, using the love between my parents as a vehicle. It's why I'm here. The love my friends and family continues to make me strong, just as it enabled me to grow up healthy.
Now I've been hurt. Like most other human beings, I've been injured emotionally and physically by others and I've sorrowed over it. But I would rather bear those wounds a thousand times over than lose the love I've received.
Without free will, my li'l bros wouldn't hit me when they're mad.
But they wouldn't hug me either.

(By the way Andrew, I've seen some discussion about ages in this thread and I've lasted on planet Earth only as long as you have. Just so you know where we stand in that sector.)

Freedom is a very often misunderstood term in Christianity.

One very important thing I have learned in 20 years of missions and what my pastor is preaching on this summer, is the importance of order. And if we have our lives ordered, we actually have the freedom and liberty to do so much more than we could without it. A good friend of mine has a great sermon on freedom that is derived from a common thing we know in various places: speed bumps.

In the US, when you enter a city via a road, you see gradual signs to slow down via speed limits. You actually have a choice to follow the signs and slow down or not to and continue speeding. Sometime you might get caught, sometimes you won't. In Mexico (Juarez in particular since I have been there), when you enter the city, you are hit with a series of speed bumps. That forces you to slow down or you WILL suffer the consequences. And true freedom is when you have that choice to obey or not.

From a Christian perspective, this is the difference between the Covenant of the Law and the Covenant of Grace. To a Christian, Paul tells us that anyone who is not under the covering of Jesus Christ is under the covering of the Law. And the Law is a list of don't do this and don't do that, where it is very clear that not one of us is able to keep all of it. This is like using speed bumps to control traffic speed. The Bible also teaches that due to our sin nature, unless we get a new nature, we really don't have much of a choice but to act in our sin. But under Christ, we are given liberty that is beyond anyone's comprehension and we can choose to do right or wrong. This is life like having speed limit signs and we can choose to obey it or not.

So if you do feel like Christianity will just pull you into slavery and prevent you from doing the things you enjoy doing, that is a legitimate feeling, but a wrong perception. But tell me, does the smoker have the freedom to decide when to smoke or not? Does the drunkard have the freedom to pursue a beer or not? Can someone addicted to porn stop or not? They are hard pressed and when they do fight it and try not to, that is the only thing they can think about. And things like that are the things the people also use to say they 'can't have fun anymore if they become a Christian'. I have to ask, it is really fun from beginning to end? Does the fun last beyond the effects of the alcohol or the drugs? Or do you have to wait until the next dose to get it back? The slavery is not from Christianity, but from being without him.

One cannot experience freedom unless he is given the option of following the laws of the land. But freedom is NOT absence of law. I also poster earlier, but I don't want to go find that one too, about how having order brings about a freedom that could not be established without order. Let's use sports for example, soccer since the World Cup is in action. Soccer has a list of rules saying you can only have a certain number of players on the field. There can only be one player who can use his hands, the goalie, and only within the box. No one else can use his/her hands. You must allow for one defender to remain between you and the goalie unless you have the ball. The list goes on. Without these rules, the game because unplayable, unwatchable, unsportsman-like, and flat out pointless and boring. The rules allows you to follow the game as a spectator, as a player, as a coach, and as a referee. If there was no referee to enforce the rules, it becomes an honor system, which only the players the know the rules will adhere to.

The same goes for life and society. We need rules to guide our actions or we dissolve into a horrific state of chaos. This is talking about any society, regardless of religion. Each society also lays physical boundaries so a person can truly say, "I belong here". If a child is left in an open territory with no markings as their personal playground, he/she may go out to the territory and do whatever he/she wants for a time. But as time passes that child will stay tighter to the home because they don't know what is really theirs or not. But if that field is marked the child will go everywhere within the bounds, and at times try to push the bounds. These rules gives us a place to claim as our own, an identity. Without them, we don't have anything to claim as ours. So rules may sound restricting, but it is within those rules that the greatest level of freedom is reached. The US has set rules that the government can or cannot do, and it is those rules that make our country in a level of freedom that any other country that does not have those rules placed on the government enjoys.

The realization that we have no meaning. The choice is the attitude you have while you're living in this meaningeless existance.

If I may reply with a quote from C.S. Lewis:

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

You claim to want to believe truth, yet you don't see it.

Only because what you call truth, isn't.

What would you call a country with no limits: where the strong prey on the weak and might makes right. Free? That's not the word that comes to mind. It is only in the presence of law that people are free: free from fear, from want, free to order their own lives, take responsibility, flourish. Only in the presence of law, of responsibility to someone higher than yourself, can you really be free. Limitations and moral laws free a person to live to their highest potential.

Of course, total freedom cannot exist because some freedoms take away from others. For example, I try to live by the pagan law of "harm none," but we all know that there are those out there who will not live by this, and that is why the law is, at this stage in our evolution, necessary, though the law itself does terrible things as well, from my point of view. But if you took away the law, things become as they naturally will be.

We humans make choices. God gave us free will.
With this gift, we can be worse than animals. We can be hideous. We can be horrific. We can be so morally revolting we inspire nausea in other human beings.
We can be evil.

We are neither good nor evil, we just are.

Should we resent love just because we can also hate?

I don't resent love, in fact I do my best to love every person. <3 I only resent god, if he exists.

So if you do feel like Christianity will just pull you into slavery and prevent you from doing the things you enjoy doing, that is a legitimate feeling, but a wrong perception. But tell me, does the smoker have the freedom to decide when to smoke or not? Does the drunkard have the freedom to pursue a beer or not? Can someone addicted to porn stop or not? They are hard pressed and when they do fight it and try not to, that is the only thing they can think about.

Addictions are mental weaknesses. I've personally conquered a smoking addiction, completely on my own mental will. Staying addicted is making a choice, dealing with it is a harder choice but it is doable. Now of course these days we have one incurable addiction that I know of (methamphetamene), but it is still making a choice.

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Well apparently we did. Purpose is not a part of reality, dark is. And that's why they're not applicable to eachother.

IF GOD LOVED US, HE WOULD EITHER NEVER HAVE CREATED US, OR HE WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN US FREE WILL. HE CREATED US, APPARENTLY, BECAUSE WE ARE THE ONE THING HE CANNOT CONTROL, AND OUR LOVE FOR HIM MEANS SOMETHING MORE. HOWEVER BY DOING SO HE ALLOWS US TO BURN IN HELL FOREVER, OUR CHOICE PERHAPS, BUT WOULD YOU LET YOUR CHILDREN YOU CLAIM TO LOVE JUMP IN A FIRE, EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO? GOD IS EITHER MALICE OR HE IS INDIFFERENCE.

It sort of sounds like you wish God had either a) made us puppets b) let us do as we want and still be called His children.
Almost like wanting to dodge any responsibility of having self-control, following laws, etc.
Just a perspective of how I'm reading this.
Supposing from another angle- if God had not given us free will and we somehow knew it, people would still think God is malice or indifference by making us with no free will. That said, if we didn't have free will people wouldn't be able to think that but I'm speaking on a figurative point of view.

I have really enjoyed being a part of this conversation but I must pull away. I am leaving in five hours for Atlanta, Georgia to compete in the US Fencing Summer National Championships. I have four events on Thursday, Friday, Sunday and Monday and it is going to be a blast. But on Friday, I am also meeting with the Director of Operation Mobilization's Arts and Performance Department about using the sport as a ministry tool. It will be a brainstorming meeting so pray for me that day as we see where God leads.

I am not taking my computer so internet access will be very limited if any. And since this topic has been growing at more than a page per day, I expect CRP VI to open up when I return almost exactly one week after this post (Tuesday night). Have a great rest of the week and I look forward to seeing how these topics have gone.

No, rather around the reasoning I found to be true. It's not like anybody wants to be a nihilist, but it is what it is.

Still doesn't change the fact that you first wanted to decide who you were as a person, and then found the according belief system. What you "want" to be doesn't matter; there are many aspects of our personality that we might not "want", but are there nonetheless, and we make decisions based on that.

You say you based your belief system on the reasoning you found to be true... so why did you mention that you wanted to first find out who you were, if that wasn't going to affect what your ultimate reasoning was going to be?

In the end, the reasoning is yours. It is based on your experiences, your personality, and, well, you. And then, you found the "definition" that matched your reasoning. It might not have been something you "wanted" to be, but since it matched the reasoning that represents "you", hence you adopted it as your belief system. There's no point in trying to argue against me; if anything, you were only supporting my point.

Not that you had to try to argue with me on this point; I wasn't in any way trying to put you down. I was just trying to explain the fundamental difference between your belief system and ours.

You see, Christianity operates on something I shall call "the denial of the Self". In Christianity, one "surrenders" all his/her individual aspects to God, to let Him do as He wills. Some aspects will be kept, some will be changed in accordance to His Word, and some, because of His Word, will be entirely discarded. Personal reasoning, while a great tool that God allows us to keep and use for our benefit and His glory, must ultimately submit to Him as the final authority, and if there is conflict in the result... well, He wins. Oh, and even the aspects of ourselves we might not "want" to be will be surrendered to Him.

All in all, if you're just going "shopping" for a belief system that fits you, this isn't the one you're going to be looking for, because it doesn't care if it doesn't fit you; it will make you fit it. And, for a lot of people who value their own individualism, that just won't do.

Funny thing is, chances are, if I had not been a Christian, I would have almost certainly been a moral nihilist by now. I mean, just look back on the last few pages where I was presenting questions about the moral wrongness of an act most people consider morally wrong, and whether their claims are truly justified. If that's not nihilistic... well, I'll pull up some other moral dilemmas I play around with that are.

Of course, being a Christian, I had to submit my more nihilistic self to Christ. That meant having to work off there being absolute moral wrongs and rights, with the Bible being the basic instruction manual on what is each. From there, I work out my moral reasoning, referring back to my instruction manual whenever I suspect my reasoning has gone awry (which it does), and even reasoning out the various examples of bad and good moral acts said instruction manual was kind enough to give out. But it all goes right back to my higher authority, God.

Oh, and as for needing law in order to be truly free, I don't need any kind of deep philosophical insight to know that to be true; all I need to do is start up the nearest wide-open sandbox video game, start a new file, and observe myself as I get completely overwhelmed trying to figure out what to do first. Funny thing, when you are able to do anything, oftentimes you end up doing nothing because you never figure out what you want to do. You kind of need something to guide you to do something, whether that be law or your own instincts, whatever they may be.

In essence, by being free you are enslaved, but by submitting to a higher authority you are free. A conundrum? Certainly, on the surface. Christianity happens to be full of these little paradoxes. They require a special kind of reasoning in order to wrap your head around them, and most of the time standard human reasoning will never reach it. Hence why I say Christianity is simultaneously the most logical and the most illogical belief system there is. If you can understand that, great! If not... oh well.

You claim to want to believe truth, yet you don't see it.

Only because what you call truth, isn't.

You know (and to be fair, I'm kind of addressing both of you), I hope you realize that no matter how many times you say that, you're not going to convince any of us to agree with what you claim truth is or isn't...

Anyways, as a closing note, you're probably wondering by what process I came to adopt the Christianity belief system, if I didn't arrive there by my own personal reasoning.

I mean, if I had to pinpoint a personal reason for why I became a Christian, I'd echo the words of a certain marshwiggle: Even if God and Christianity were not true, well, it sure beats the "real world" hollow, so I'm going to live for Christianity and for God even if there is neither.

Well, that's just what I say. The other funny thing is, when denial of the self is involved, you start to forget exactly why you became a Christian. It's almost as though such a thing were inevitable... almost as if my becoming a Christian were...

*dramatic pause*

...predestined.

*dramatic musical riff*

Ah, to be both predestined into Christianity and yet it also being a choice of free will. Yet another beautiful conundrum of Christianity. And, no doubt, a plentiful source of debate right there. Although, personally, I'd have to warn you about trying to join in on it; that stuff gets complex, fast.

Is God really someone who just wants to ruin our 'fun', or does He really care about us and that's why he put the rules in place, to protect us?
Let's look at the 10 Commandments. There are 10 but they can all be summed up in 2 commands - to love God and put him first and love the people around us.

Dr Ransom or any number of other people on NarniaWeb could write something with more depth and interest, but for what it's worth, here's my attempt. I've kept it plain and simple for everyone involved.

Exodus 20 - From the NIV (New International Version):

1. You shall have no other gods before me.
We're selfish creatures by nature, so taking the focus off ourselves and refocusing on God for everything we do, helps us to walk in freedom and His Truth.

2. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
God is our Creator, Saviour and Lord, He doesn't wish for anything else to come between Him and us. Creating idols means that we make them in our image and to our wants and desires, not to what God wants and desires for us. We can also make God out to be something he isn't to drive our own agenda. Worshipping things of our own creation distracts us from the Truth.

3. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
Respect God's name because He's God and because he deserves it. Misusing His name is the same as spitting in His face and saying we don't need Him.

4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
We need to take regular time out of our lives to focus purely on God and His Word. This helps us to walk in His Truth and become more like Him.

5. Honour your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
Respect your parents because they raised you and because they're God's earthly representatives.

6. You shall not murder.
We shouldn't kill one another in cold-blood because that leads to more anger and more hatred. It can lead to more death. We're made in God's sacred image (although now fallen) and therefore are unique and loved. Who but God has the right to judge anyone and save/destroy anyone? This not only decimates society but also relationships.

7. You shall not commit adultery.
We shouldn't think lustful thoughts and act on them. We shouldn't get with another man's wife or another woman's husband. God tells us our bodies are His temple, to be respected, not abused. He wants us to avoid not only the diseases and unplanned pregnancies that can result from such actions, but also to prevent the disintegration of relationships. Sure, it may seem like fun at the time but relationships are fragile and built on love and this comes in the form of trust and respect etc. There are always consequences for our actions. Doing something for our pleasure, especially at the expense of another is just not on. We've all seen TV shows/movies where characters do this and often they show the 'fun' but not the consequences. The consequences of these actions are soul-destroying. God made us as sexual beings. Unfortunately sex can be easily abused but God wants us to have healthy relationships, displaying unconditional love. He wants His people to have secure and committed relationships. He wants the best for us (and by this I don't mean everything will be puppies and rainbows, it most certainly won't be) but there's hope for this Earth and later, the renewed Earth.

8. You shall not steal.
It is the act of stealing, not so much what is stolen. To steal something is to disrespect someone and their property. This isn't what God wants. He wants us to love Him by helping each other.

9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour.
Again, respect those around you and tell the truth. Don't try to push ahead but help others to their feet, so that they can succeed.

10. You shall not covet your neighbour's house. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
We're to be content with what we have, not be jealous and envious of the things we don't have. Only God can complete us and to follow anything else is to make it our idol. If we're content with what we have, we'll look out for each other.