Clueless asks:

Why put man into a position where you know he's going to disobey without understanding that it is evil until after he has disobeyed? Why punish the descendants of that man for his crime instead of allowing each to choose? Why the 10 arbitrary rules? Why not 20? How does breaking off a piece of yourself and having it killed horribly somehow allow forgiveness of those made-up sins? No judge in the world would allow one person to take the death sentence for another's crime. How is that justice? How does it make sense to condemn tens of millions of people to eternal torment simply because they had never heard of you? Why did he even bother in the first place? To amuse himself?

Is there something I'm missing?

Yes. You're missing quite a bit. For now, I'll dispense with the usual, deserved insults and take the questions as if they were meant seriously. (They weren't.)

Why put man into a position where you know he's going to disobey without understanding that it is evil until after he has disobeyed?

I assume this is a reference to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, from which Adam was banned from partaking. Just like a child, man need not understand good and evil in order to obey. From the earliest age of semi-consciousness, man knows obedience and disobedience. Any two year old can tell you this. Adam knew to obey. That was all he needed to know.

As for why he was given the choice, the answer is even simpler. Without choice, man is a mere automaton. Even animals have the freedom of choice (any dog owner can see this readily enough). If man could not choose (to obey or to disobey), then he would not be conscious, or perhaps not even sentient. Without choice, man would be nothing more the amoral lump of purposeless flesh the unbelievers would have us believe. Instead, man was given soul and spirit, an opportunity to choose righteousness--an easy one at that--merely by obeying one, simple request. Man exercised his freedom...badly.

Why punish the descendants of that man for his crime instead of allowing each to choose?

Once perfection is tainted, it cannot be easily restored. Add a tiny bit of leaven to a lump of dough, and it will eventually work its way through the whole lump. It will be very difficult to remove that little bit of leaven thereafter. Once the first couple was corrupted with evil, they were sure to be imperfect parents. These "leavened" parents could not help but pass on some of their imperfection to their children. And so the cycle is perpetuated. There is no hope that man can perfect himself on his own and stop the perpetuation of his evil. Therefore all future generations would inherit the sins of the first parents, unable to unilaterally extract the leaven so thorough integrated into the dough of mankind.

The view that condemnation is punishment is also a loaded one. A more accurate point of view would come from understanding that perfection cannot be integrated with imperfection and yet remain perfect. As such, imperfection cannot be allowed to contaminate, if you will, the presence of perfection. In other words, the sinful cannot be in presence of the Lord. To do so would necessarily mean the utter destruction of the sinful in order for the unchanging nature of the Lord to remain perfect. Sinful men are not punished for their sins, per se, but merely not able to be with the Lord.

As for choice, I've already covered this. True, we all have inherited our leavening from the first parents, but we also have freedom of choice. Because of our leavened nature, though (even if unintended by the Creator), we cannot help but sin ourselves. So each of us is condemned not only because of the sins of our parents but because of our own, inevitable sins.

Why the 10 arbitrary rules?

We have ten fingers. Makes 'em easier to remember. Anyone with a clue about the metric system, for example, can understand why there are ten. Don't get hung up on that. Take it as the gift it's supposed to be.

These ten are not arbitrary. They represent two categories of law, toward God and toward man. They wholly encapsulate our fundamental rights (e.g., to life, property, honest testimony, etc.). They summarize the details of the rest of the law very nicely. All common law was derived in one fashion or another from these ten.

There are also not just ten. The Decalogue is certainly a good start, but the Lord went much further and expounded greatly on these by giving, by one method of counting, 613 statutes. (Before you complain about 613, I promise you were subject to more than this just on your way to work this morning.) The Law He gave us was for our benefit, so we may know what it means to live in peace with our neighbors and our Maker.

Why not 20?

Because that's too many fingers for just two hands.

How does breaking off a piece of yourself and having it killed horribly somehow allow forgiveness of those made-up sins?

"[B]reaking off a piece of yourself" is not the best way of understanding the nature of the Trinity, but I'll let that slide for now. The answer to this question is the entire Gospel, Good News. Man sinned (see above). Man cannot redeem himself any more than a lump of dough can extract its own leaven (again, see above). The only hope for redemption--that is, being able to return to the presence of the Lord--is for perfection to accomplish what imperfection cannot. By sacrificing His perfect Son, the Lord had justice served on behalf of all the guilty by One who was/is perfect. By justice being fully served upon Jesus, all have a chance to have their sins removed perfectly. Leaving us our freedom of choice, that which makes us more than a coffee table, we each can choose to accept Jesus' offer of redemption or reject Him. So, what you claim was "unfair", the fact we all have inherited a sinful nature from the first parents, has come full circle to where we each now, once again, have the freedom to be perfected by the Lord or to remain tainted and reject the offer to again be in His presence.

No judge in the world would allow one person to take the death sentence for another's crime.

Au contraire, this happens more often than we'd like to admit. We probably all know of at least one instance in our lives when the innocent have born the sentence for the guilty, and those who demanded justice are satisfied even if the truly guilty party is freed. "Somebody has to pay for this crime," we've each said in our hearts at one time or another. Our sense of justice (where do you think we got that?) demands that somebody be convicted and sentenced. Sure, we'd prefer the truly guilty person to pay, but if we can't have him, we'll take the next guy. We're just sure he's guilty of something anyway, we tell ourselves.

You may be sure that no judge would allow such a substitution to occur, yet recent facts have shown at least 40% of death-row inmates in several jurisdictions are innocent of the crimes for which they were sentenced. If the truth is different than the sentence, then somebody (likely a lot of somebodies in each case) turned a blind eye to that truth and wishfully projected guilt onto the wrong man. You may argue this was not consciously done, but that's merely a poor attempt to avoid righteous culpability.

How is that justice?

Again, from where do you think you received your sense of justice? And who appointed you judge of justice anyway? In truth, justice demands a sacrifice. Without it, it's as hollow as a vacuous apology. Jesus provided the perfect sacrifice, one more complete than any of us who are tainted could do.

How does it make sense to condemn tens of millions of people to eternal torment simply because they had never heard of you?

To whom much is given, much is expected. Those of us with access to the Word of God have little excuse at all for not choosing obedience and forgiveness. Those who have no means of getting to know the Lord by name are not necessarily held to the same standard. The very nature of creation, even of mankind, shouts out the traits of the Creator. It's easy to see He is good and we are sinful. It's easy to know we must depend upon Him for ridding ourselves of our evil natures. These are the key elements in the Gospel. Even without knowing the Lord's name, this may be sufficient. Nobody is condemned unjustly. We all rightfully deserve to die and be tormented forever. We are all racked with evil, and even a hint of honesty with oneself makes this plain to see.

Why did he even bother in the first place?

Why did He create us? Why did He give us free will, allowing us to choose poorly? Why did He sacrifice His only Son to a brutal death? Why did He do so much to give us a way of being redeemed and perfected so we may spend eternity with Him? He loves us. Any decent parent can understand this. Is there any doubt or hesitation in a loving parent in his willingness to do whatever is necessary for the benefit of his children? No! If we who are so depraved can love our children so much, how much more must the perfect Father love us?

To amuse himself?

I am quite sure He is wildly amused by us frequently. I'm sure the Author of life still laughs even at His own creation at times. I don't believe this is His motivation for creation and redemption, but I cannot imagine a purely stoic God. As disheartening as others' stupidity is to me, I still laugh at it. How much more entertaining must our foolishness be to Him? This does not diminish His compassion (nor does my amusement at others' expense diminish mine, contrary to popular accusation). You can't help but laugh at how ridiculous we are, nor, I'm sure, can He.

Is there something I'm missing?

There was, yes. Despite my desire to laugh at your expense because of your immense foolishness, I do hope my thoughtful answers satisfy you. Of course, these answers are not mine. I didn't discover them any more than Columbus did America. You too can find these answers and so much more--answers to all the big questions of life--in the written Word of God. All it takes is an honest desire to seek truth.