I have put my faith into the existence of objective truth.

Objective truth is truth that corresponds to reality regardless of what anyone thinks, wants, or feels about it.

I think that the same is true of religion: there is some answer, and we are able to discern some truths of it. I don't think we are capable of fully discerning and understanding it, but I do not ascribe to any notion of "wishy washy" truth.

I follow the same paradigm for morality. I think that there is an objective morality, and it is the biggest lever towards my belief in God. I've never heard an answer that satisfied me from an Atheist perspective on objective morality. In fact, most Atheist thinkers outright deny it. Hawkings, Dawkins all affirm that there is morality governed by evolution, but certainly deny any objectivity to it. It is simply a byproduct of natural selection. The Atheist perspective is that I would be morally outraged of a genocide in Rwanda not because there is some objective "wrong" about it, but because evolution has taught me that we are less likely to reproduce if we commit that action. If the circumstances were different and the effects on reproducing / sustaining life were positive, we would be morally pleased in the same situation. I've never been able to buy this. As C.S. Lewis says, there are just some things I know I ought to do. I know this deep in my being.

I will acknowledge I am taking this on faith. I'm already mostly convinced in Theism. There are many different proofs with various levels of impact on me, I think the Moral argument has been the strongest.

The evidence for Christianity, to me, is strong. Over half of the world's population follows an Abrahamic faith. Something was going on in that part of the world thousands of years ago.

The Apostles each went to brutal deaths on behalf of what they saw - a risen Christ. Something they could have easily "not believed" had it not really happen. Don't get me wrong, people die for lies all the time. But, were this a lie, it would have been an easily refutable one. The Bible doesn't even paint the Apostles as people to whom belief came instantly. Peter denied Christ 3 times after seeing all he did.

This is not going to be writing that tries to prove Christianity. Rather, I am coming from the position of "mere Christianity", as C.S. Lewis would say, and trying to find my way from there.

“I hope no reader will suppose that ‘mere’ Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions—as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, not a place to live in.”

I am trying to find what room to enter, what place to live in. ==So then -- how do I pick a room?== It's really quite the conundrum. I've researched a lot of denominations, attended several churches. Everyone has justifications for why they hold the worldview that they do. Often times, I can see exactly how they got to that worldview.

I think that the root of it is Authority, Faith, and Reason.

Objective Truth is authoritative. If there is a true Faith that has been revealed to us, then it has to have been revealed to us with some authority.

Assertion: the Holy Bible is infallible and inerrant, and are AN authority on Christianity.

• Faith is required here. Reason too, but certainly not without Faith.

There's no way around this, and there isn't much to argue if it isn't the case. This is a presupposed condition of Mere Christianity. All denominations believe this, so I am going to use it as my starting point. I see three questions stemming from this immediately:

1. Who can interpret the Scriptures?
2. Are the Scriptures the sole authority?
3. How was the Biblical Canon defined?