Great, that you continue! Love it :)

I will respond in parts.

I think it is easier for our debate to take first the basis of the Christian rules and ask yourself whether you agree with them. So I ask you, do you agree with them in principle?

For my part, I am not talking about "a set of ideologies", as I have accepted the correctness of the rules from the Ten Commandments for myself. That is the premise from which I start.

have an inverse meaning of: This is what and who you are ... and you're going to do those things your whole life, and you are going to feel regret and guilt, and then you will ask for forgiveness, and then do it again in fine insanity fashion, then it starts to take on a yucky taste ...

That is your personal interpretation and I want to attack you directly here and tell you that you are following a popular negative attitude that has taken on a life of its own through its constant repetition. But that doesn't make it any more valid.

If you look at it outside of biblical usage, instead of "I am inherently bad" you could say "I am potentially fallible" or "I know that I know nothing". The interpretation of "everyone is a sinner" can be welcomed by you and accepted as fact. Unless you put on the shoe and it offends you to be labelled a "sinner" and "bad". Then find a term that you find less offensive and that you are more willing to accept. Find something which tastes yummy instead of yucky.

None of these terms, however, get around the fact that everyone in life will lie to someone else, cheat, talk badly behind their back and behave in other idiotic or immature ways. If you denied that (which I don't think you would), you'd be a full time idiot. lol

But does the fact that every human being is "fallible" make the rules/commandments superfluous?

The use of language in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, is so offensive to us modern people because we are no longer used to using such terminology and because the life and language of people before our time is actually very different from ours. It is therefore only fair to interpret it with caution and to keep this in mind.

I personally find the idea ridiculous because free will is always present, and sometimes a state of being is a temporary thing which does not give a full picture of who the person is, or if they are inherently bad or inherently good.

I would differentiate here. If in the first step you agreed with the general premise (the correctness of the Ten Commandments), which I formulate as "my fallibility is potentially always present" (which you say with "by nature"), then every single situation in life is one in which the potential "I could be wrong", just like "I could be correct", is always in the realm of the possible or probable. The concept of "inherently good or bad" only says "it's potentially such or such, both are inherent" but it does not say that you cannot decide which of the potentials you are going to use. If it offends you, then maybe because you fixated it and poured concrete over it?

If you admit in principle that you could be wrong, this does not mean that your point of view is invalid or weak. It just means that you don't want to behave like a total rightist. By admitting that you are a sinner, you free yourself from the bigotry of accusing others of their sins, as you endeavour to recognise where the pitfalls lie for you personally. I find it can actually make your appearance and arguments stronger ...

So I disagree with you that the idea is ridiculous. It doesn't undermine your free will, it downright challenges it. Of course it's a very difficult task. No one has ever noticed that it would be easy.