You said that, if choosing to sin has a particular set of undesirable consequences, it is "simply coercion" and that "True free will would allow us to choose not to believe in God and not be punished for that choice." I said that you are equally "coerced" by nature (physics, biology, etc.) to not choose to smash a wall because it could lead to breaking your hand. The same can be also said about choosing not to eat, drink, or even breath. And that's plain causality. There is a cause-- a choice, an action -- and there are resulting effects and consequences.
Similarly, choosing to reject existence of absolute reality or its knowability has its particular set of consequences. As it stands, it translates to human behavior that is based in limited knowledge (i.e. ignorance) and such behavior has consequences that naturally lead to suffering and pain. Just look around at the state of our societies (which is the result of not knowing the true nature of reality). So, to sum it up, you basically complain about the causality of the universe. You want to hit the wall and not suffer the consequences.
Yes, many people don't consider such choices as free. But while options are always limited and the results of choices have pretty much set outcomes, upon closer inspection, the choice itself is always 100% free. And that, in effect, paints the universe as "omnibenevolent" (i.e. allowing for all conceivable possibilities within itself) while containing free will and not falling apart (so to speak). I fail to see how that's not perfect.
Naturally, if universe is perfect, humans are too. So, reiterating traditional Christian conceptions of God and sin as you did is rather moot. Moreover, I don't remember ever mentioning or defending such interpretation.
For starters, the Greek words "hamartano" or "hamartia" (as well as their Hebrew counterpart "khata") that are usually translated to English as "sin" literally mean "to miss the mark," "to err," "to be mistaken," "to bear loss," "to wander from the way," etc. Basically, the term denotes ignorance and harmful impact it has in virtue of further choices and resulting behaviors. Particularly, in the context of ignorance of absolute nature of reality, that is, God. Therefore I said that the more important question is what the word "God" actually denotes.
It certainly does not mean a geezer or ghost with a penchant for pottery, sculpting, magic, and torture. So again, you arguing against original sin, flawed creation, and the rest of traditional Christian dogma, while understandable and correct, is a straw man in my book -- that God you don't believe in, I don't believe in either. Then again, I don't believe in God at all (though I don't deny God's existence!) because I know what that word points at. But that's for another time.
In any case, if you are curious about my position, go through my profile. I've written rather extensively on the whole topic ;)
