The only way to avoid this (sinning) would be to have our free will stripped away, to become someone -or something- that we are not.
@Tonus
If, out of our own free-will we ask God to give us the new nature he promises, one that cannot sin; how is that violating our God-given free will? Would not that be free wills' ultimate expression?
So, I will either spend eternity incapable of independent thought/action, or I will spend eternity suffering because I invariably broke a rule or crossed a line.
The removal of the sin nature doesn't make sin impossible or render us incapable of independent thought or action. It does however make us adoptable by God, sharers of his nature & heirs of everything he owns - capable of receiving his pure love and returning it without fear or hesitation of any kind.
This is the primary purpose of man - to love God; it is why we are here. It is why there is anything at all. The second purpose is to love our neighbor as ourself.
You mean a moral code that everyone, everywhere will agree with? Assuming such a thing is possible, you get there by trial and error. You experience things, you learn, you adjust.
So, you think that the origin of morality is a convention? I appreciate you presenting possibilities. It's a very important topic.
A convention is something that we all agree to do... like driving on the right side of the road. If we all agree - it works. But we are not talking about getting morality to work. We all know that it works. How we got it is the question. If morality is a simple artifact of convention, then drivers in Britian who drive on the left side of the road are just as correct as those who drive on the right side of the road. This does not account for the existence of universal morality.
I once asked DJW on this forumn if I put a gun to his head and threatened to pull the trigger, would there be anything objectively wrong with that? He could not bring himself to admit that it would be universally morally wrong for me to shoot him in the head.
we now have the ability to reason. And that means we can make determinations
But this is at the heart of Christian criticism of atheism. We know atheists have the ability to reason, be moral, employ logic etc. The problem is that the atheist cannot account for it with his stated worldview. It violates his own presuppositions of chaos, happenstance, copying mistakes and chemical accidents. If the atheist really believed these conditions are what created him, to be consistent he would not be able to "know" anything at all.