Well, if they didn't have free will they wouldn't have been able to eat the apple to begin with. In most Christian communities (at least that I've seen) the prevalent view is that God gave us free wills; it comes with having a soul. There's also the belief that the tree wasn't actually special, it was the act of disobedience that gave man knowledge of good and evil. Adam was ignorant to evil before hand, then disobeyed, and then realized he could continue to do that. Although I could see how @AlwaysOnTime came to his conclusion, as a Christian I think I have a slightly different perspective, haha
Actually I think you're right, that's why I wasn't fully sure about what I was saying. I never read the bible so I'm a bit uninformed. So did the apple actually give them something God didn't want them to have (i.e. wisom/some other devilish thing like knowledge) or was it just a test to see how they would use the free will given to them (i.e. use it to disobey or just accept it and be thankful)?
This is why, in my opinion, the bible was never meant to be taken in any literal or specific way. And now we have a lot of ignorant people using it to backup their ridiculous beliefs/statements, and cherry picking what they like or what can be interpreted to their advantage. It just sounds like a story that was meant to teach morality to people. I feel like the people who wrote it would laugh in modern religion's face for taking it so seriously. Then again, the morality aspect only went so far - they still stoned women and treated them like property, for example.
I appreciate your thoughts on the subject, but you can't blame people for holding it all literally. The bible typically doesn't differentiate between the literal and the figurative, so it CAN be a bit hard to discern. Also, at the time that the individual segments of the bible were written they were pretty progressive. In the New Testament (the part with Jesus, I don't want to assume how much background knowledge you have) women could own property and not get married, which was a ridiculous notion in the first century. The New Testament also holds everyone as equals, where nobody is any better than anybody else. A Christian is only better off than any other human being because we've been forgiven our sins after seeking that forgiveness. We're still sinners, just sinners who get our slate wiped clean as long as we strive to improve. I know too many of my fellow believers who put themselves on a pedestal, an act which the bible specifically condemns. It's not the bible's fault that humans are fallible, it's our own.
That's what I'm saying - the bible is a decent book, and like you said, fairly progressive for its time, but people fail to apply it to their lives properly. You kind of jumped back on your point there - at first you said that it's wrong to blame people for holding it all literally (which I agree, it's too far down the road to really blame anyone), but then you admit that it's our fault for being fallible (unless those two are unrelated). But you are right, the bible is probably difficult to read through, but I still see no reason to take anything absolutely literally - its meant to serve as a moral guide, not a constitution.
Haha, I guess you could see it as me being a bit hypocritical, I'm sorry! Let me rephrase: We are, by nature, pretty messed up. I think anybody would agree with that. So it can't be helped that some would take EVERYTHING in the bible literally, even the stuff that isn't meant to be taken that way. That doesn't excuse the mistake, though, it just recognizes that it's natural.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the bible and its authors had the right ideas, but due to our nature, like you said, we were bound to make a mess of it and cause the troubles that we have today. Just the fact that Christianity has split into dozens, if not hundreds of different sects, all interpreting the bible in their own ways and modifying it, says so much about how we fail to simply follow along and be united under the same, general moral rule of "Be cool, man." (I'm pretty sure that was pretty much all Jesus talked about).
He also called the Pharisees (a self-righteous group of Jews at the time) a "Brood of Vipers" more than once, so that's neat. I think Jesus summarized himself pretty well in Matthew 22:36-40
I think an important thing is what God says as he banishes Adam and Eve.
"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (Genesis 3:22).
God explicitly states that their expulsion is to prevent Adam and Eve from becoming immortal, and not as punishment for going against his word. Whether this is his true purpose, I have no idea, but throughout the Genesis, like striking down the Tower of Babel, God tries to prevent man from achieving immortality. Therefore, I think that the fruit "gave them something God didn't want them to have," as you said, and was not placed as a test. Of course, there are many other interpretations, and I'm not a scholar of the Bible. Regarding free will, I think that man had free will regardless if the fruit was a test. After all, God had only banned the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and allowed Adam and Eve to do whatever else they wanted. Unless I'm misinterpreting the meaning of "free will"?
The best analogy for free will was described as this: Free will is like God taking you to a fast food restaurant. God sets up the scenario, but you get to choose anything from the menu.
Brilliant. Where is this from? I tried googling but no results showed. Did you make it yourself?
I heard it at a youth convention when I was about in 7th grade. Mark Matlock was the speaker. He's very very good at explaining what he believes God intended.