that was funny Adrian.Anways without quoting everyone let me just attempt to sum it up again.
Infants have the ability to choose, yet they have no rational moral construct to judge right and wrong. They pick the red block over the blue one because it's instinctual. Once they develop reasoning skills they also start developing moral constructs to validate right and wrong. That's when we call them children. The child continues to develop moral constructs based off extranious observations and grows into a sinner.
Yes you have the ability to choose. You may choose good or evil but your nature, aside from morality and society, would choose more evil than good.
As for original intention, I disagree. We had no knowledge of good and evil before the original sin. I envision a group of adult shaped infants. I mean imagine a world where humans had the same morals and rational as another species of deer. It would be a far friendlier and peaceful place. But we don't we chose reason and knowledge. I don't think they chose to disobey as much as let their natural curiosity take control. That lack of control or taking control is our free choice. All in all we take the good with the bad but we can't blame God for our choice. You're continuing Adam and Eve's choice by using your rationale. You wouldn't know what rational, logical or scientific is without them, so yes you can take credit for that one.
I'm not one to schew personal responsibility either, so I wouldn't let anyone else die for my sins. He did though in my book (which I know you don't believe) and that's why I'm thankful and praise God whenever I can, as thanks for the opportunity, not out of fear.
If I were an omnioptent, omnipresent being with my current moral constructs, perspective, bias and logic then I'd choose differently as well. However he just provided and we chose.
As far as his Glory, I do think he'd rather have a few morally developed respectful visitors back in heaven then billions of warring, rebellious social misfits. He's already had one rebellion and he's probably quite done with that. Let's say God came down tomorrow personally and visited every person in the world with rational thought. He showed you everything you needed to believe he was God. Now let's skip ahead 6 generations and the children who's parents saw God are long dead and due to our mortality people start to curiously question whether it really happened. I mean we can't see God or hear God, so why should we believe in him. 6 more generations down the road there's a frationing in society between the believers and the non believers. People start arguing and warring and restricting people's rights, leading to territorial wars ,etc. That's about where we're at today so why should he go through all that if we ALL can't learn to constantly overcome our nature and develop a moral construct which universally and consistantly chooses Good over Evil?
I feel there are no true absolutes within our universe. That doesn't say that 99.999~% of the time a universal truth can't be consistant, and relied upon. Your use of suffering I think is wrong. I've stated elsewhere that the only suffering God has wrought on modern man is a seperation from his Love, which in fact we chose for ourselves. Disobeying God is wrong, because it is contrary to the only absolute we have access to, which is God. We may misconstrue his meaning and intent and signs, but if you ever heard it from God himself, you wouldn't question it again. I wouldn't call what God has morality, it's just God's nature. It's like I can say, "Void, that was a good use of morals making that decision." but what if you always made that decision that way, before and till the end of time never chaning. It wouldn't necessarily be a set of developing values like morality and ethics are as we see them today, it'd be a constant and absolute.
@EvF -
"If God is to be approved for allowing" I don't understand the context of your language here. Could you perhaps rephrase for me. Thanks!
I think I covered everything.. If I missed something point it out please.
