God quite obviously created man with the ability to disobey him. While the reasons that God did this are not entirely clear, it might be argued that God did this because as regrettable as sin is, it was more important to God for man to have the ability to make that choice, even if that choice happened to be something other than what God would want.
However, Matthew 5:30 has Jesus saying quite bluntly, "if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it away from you." Putting aside the implications here that Jesus may appear to be advocating self-mutilation for some greater good, it seems that Jesus is very obviously suggesting here that it is actually preferable to have the choice to sin ripped away from you by force than it would be to engage in said sin.
But these two premises are completely at odds with eachother. Either it is somehow better than man has the freedom to choose, even it means to sin, or it is better to not have the choice in the first place than do something God does not want. If it is actually better that we do not have the choice than it is to sin, then why would an omniscient God have ever made us with the ability to? And if it is more important to have the choice, even if that somehow also means that we may possibly sin, then why would Jesus use such an example which suggests the opposite?
How can this apparent contradiction be resolved?