God's injustice towards Adam and Eve

[Mister Agenda]

I am not following this at all, why exactly could they not understand what death was prior to anyone dying? None of us has experienced it and we all seem to understand it just fine.

Well, we have examples of it happening, don't we? That said, I'll yield the point, I suppose someone could have a 'good enough' understanding of death if it was explained to them: it's bad, your body eventually disintegrates, and your loved ones will be sad.

I am also missing the relevance of this anyways, they should not have eaten the fruit because God told them not to, end of story.

It's relevant to whether they were competent to be held accountable. There's a good reason we don't execute a six-year-old who kills someone.

God telling us not to do any action-regardless of what it is-is enough to make it wrong to do that action.

Hypothetically speaking, sure. It doesn't mean the person doing it understands the wrongness of what they're doing. The plain wording of the story has A&E not knowing right from wrong until after they ate the fruit. I appreciate that you have a different interpretation, but it seems to be based entirely on the premise that it can't possibly REALLY make God look unjust.

They were aware of it but not ashamed of it.

Sigh, that's what I mean by their awareness of their nakedness, sorry I didn't express it in a way that made that clear enough for you. Anyway yes, they did not feel shame prior to eating the fruit. You can't feel shame unless you know you did something wrong.

How does that mean they did not know right from wrong prior to eating the fruit?

Shame is consciousness that your behavior was wrong. It's in the defintion and everything.

If they did not know right from wrong then the serpent would not have had to persuade Eve as he did, he could have simply told her she should eat the fruit.

A minute ago you were arguing that she knew what dying was, now you're arguing she had to know right from wrong in order to not want to do something she'd been told would kill her? It doesn't take a moral sense to resist doing things that might kill you, just a sense of self-preservation.

Rather he had to question what God had said because she clearly knew that she ought to not disobey God.

You could make a much better case for that had not God specified there would be dire consequences for disobedience. The threat of death nullifies any argument that she had to know it was morally wrong to disobey to resist the serpent's wiles for even a moment. Instead it emphasizes her child-like mentality that she will apparently believes whatever she was last told, no matter who or what it came from.

The rest of Genesis seems to indicate that eating the fruit seemed to cloud their moral judgment if anything.

According to your version, they had perfect moral judgement up to the point where they ate the fruit, which is pretty odd since when they had perfect moreal clarity, they ate the fruit!

Look, I get that this particular part of Genesis is poorly written, but you're taking a story where a single fruit can affect your sense of morality or make you immortal literally. I don't think the people who first wrote it down took it nearly as literally as you do.