- there is conflict in that question,in one point you are saying you have to do as god tells you to, and in the other you are saying you have the choice to obey.
Nowhere did I say any such thing. You asked if I would do something if a god told me to do it. I said it depends on what it is. This is the same as it would be for any human.
-"the assumption that we have the ability to know that it is in fact a god telling us to do something."
this tells me you want 'do as you are told', facts=no choice, facts= certainty
Unsure how you got that from the statement which was there merely to refute your earlier objection, (that 'god' wouldn't say any such thing). The question itself assumed our ability to know that it was talking to us - as it would be with any human but I don't see how knowing that a human or god is telling you to do something means "no choice".
if i am instructed to do something or die, this is not from god,this is not a choice.
Baseless assertion and it certainly is, in the theistic scheme, considered a chosen reality of our existence - although I don't see its relevance to the question as originally asked and my original answer to it.
The question did not say: "If god threatens you with death unless..." you simply asked if a god told me to do something whether I'd do it or not, to which I answered: It depends what it's telling me to do - as it would with any human.
if i am instructed to kill someone, this is not from god.again this is not a choice.
Another baseless assertion. In the theistic scheme of course it certainly is a choice: Kill someone or do not kill them. As you continue: "( i wouldn't)". See?
i believe god would not put me in a place where he knows i would not comply.
Your 'belief' in what a god would or wouldn't is irrelevant to the question but makes it meaningless. If you adapted the question to say:
"If god asked you to do something that he already knew you were going to do would you do it", then the answer should be obvious but the question becomes pointless.
i do not think that the bible is inerrant
This is, in actuality, the cowards version of: "It's fiction". Of course the theist can't use such terms because it shows the worthlessness of the entire subject so he says: "I don't believe it's inerrant", which is to say: "I believe that it's fictional - but only whenever it suits me". For what it's worth, I recognise that the bible is fictional as well.
maybe cause he wanted to make sure they would have the idea to disobey.
(they would not have ever thought of eating from the tree otherwise)
1. In absence of the snake, Adam and Eve would still have the free will to disobey. The fruit still exists and they have hands to pick them with, mouths to eat them with and functioning brains with which to decide to do so.
2. The above silliness is equivalent to telling your child not to stick their hands in the socket but then requiring someone to tell them to do the opposite because otherwise they'll never do it. The reality is that at the moment he tells them not to do something, he recognises their ability to do the opposite, otherwise telling them is pointless.
3. What you are doing is assuring that they fall -
"They'd never make the wrong free choice unless..", (god knows what it would take to ensure they fall and makes sure it happens. This makes such god implicit in the crime and equally evil to the snake).
