Recon5,
I'm not whining. This is a discussion and we disagree. I'm just pointing out what I see as shortcomings in the idea in OP.

Your appeal to free will is a non-sequitur by the way.

Indeed says me and any careful reader of the text who isn't interested in making excuses for the character of Yahweh.

"Is that a fact, Max? It was *original sin*, Max."

Adam and Eve's culpability for their actions has to be judged against their ability to understand the nature of right and wrong. It is clear that they didn't know much about right and wrong. They don't even notice that they are naked, or that nakedness in public might be an issue until after they eat the apple. They behave as children behave. No objective reader could say they were well equipped mentally to engage in any kind of sober deliberation about the nature, right or wrong, of their actions. They were ready made to be manipulated by the serpent. They don't even know to hide until after they eat the magical fruit. Their behavior before and after after the eating event demonstrate clearly they didn't know what they were doing morally prior to the event. How did the character of Yahweh, in all his 3-O magnificence miss this terrible turn of events? He seems in the text as shocked as the reader by what has transpired.

This is their first error by the way. The punishment, especially for poor Eve is deeply unjust. Where is the correction, where is the explanation? There is none, and I foresee trouble brewing owing to a lack of instruction.

"Their sin convicted an entire race and got it evicted from the Garden and the utopian existence free of pain and suffering.."

This of course is the most immoral part of the whole tale. Why should any of the descendants of the characters of Adam and Eve share in a punishment for crime in which they took no part? Would you punish the wife and child for the crimes committed by the husband and father? How about the criminal's grandchildren, or great-grandchildren? Would you consign them all to prison, or to the gallows? Hopefully you wouldn't. But if you would such actions would not be just, logical or kind.

*you people are insisting would have been provided to us if only God *reallllly loved us. He bloody well DID."

I don't think Yahweh's behavior is at all consistent with anything like healthy love, or affection. It is not behavior consistent with any of those things.

"Again you implly ignorance where it doesn't exist."
Their ignorance of right and wrong, clearly does exist. They don't engage in guile, or subterfuge until after they gain a knowledge and understanding of right and wrong after they consume the fruit of knowledge. They don't take the fruit and try to conceal their actions. They eat it right in the open, after a dialogue worthy of children. Then they notice they have genitals. I would say not noticing that you are naked, or that nakedness might imply things or stir up emotion is the very definition of ignorance. They don't cover up their bits until after they eat.

"Whether exposed to good and evil or not, they very clearly knew wrong from right, as evidenced by their guilt at the transgression."

They don't know right from wrong until after they eat and gain a knowledge of good and evil. Prior to that, they existed in a state of innocence. The couple hides because of their nakedness.

"Regardless of whether you believe the punishment "harsh", the crime was great, and they were perfectly cognizant of what the punishment would be.

For a first error, given their ignorance and innocence (I'm referring to their childlike understanding), and the added insult of punishing all their descendants yes I have no problem saying the punishment was harsh and deeply unjust. Nor was the crime great. They ate some fruit, and didn't understand the gravity, that is to say the rightness and wrongness of what they were doing. It was neat fruit to be sure, but it was still just fruit, and the people who ate were tricked into the action by the most competent deceiver in the book. And that deceiver's marks were mental toddlers. So yes, harsh and unjust.

The quote you gave was that eating from the tree of knowledge would cause certain death. Nothing about unleashing evil on the world. Nothing about suffering for generations upon generations.

In most civilised countries we expect people to be able to know what kind of punishment their crimes will bring and we expect the punishment to be proportionate to the crime.

Your God however reminds me of my late father's favourite joke when he was a high school principal. "We don't have any rules at my school. But God help you if you break them"

If he ever tells me that, I'll happily listen. So far, he hasn't. He hasn't told anyone alive that. I don't believe he's told anyone that at all.

Besides, if God really was good, how do you explain Brazil's 1-7 loss to Germany? Checkmate, theist!

Read up. Unleashing evil on the world carries consequences.

"That seems kind of a cavalier attitude to the people who suffer and die, so that other people get to demonstrate this virtue."

"Demonstrating" these virtues are the tools we were given to overcome pain and suffering. Or you could hang out here a little longer and whine about how unfair it all is. Your call.
Free will. You can haz it.

Says who? You? Based on what evidence, Max?

"The couple in the myth are incapable of adequately understanding the depth of their transgression. They were not sufficiently armed with knowledge that would allow them to reason through the problem presented to them by the talking serpent."

Is that a fact, Max? It was *original sin*, Max. Their sin convicted an entire race and got it evicted from the Garden and the utopian existence free of pain and suffering *you people are insisting would have been provided to us if only God *reallllly loved us. He bloody well DID.

Again you implly ignorance where it doesn't exist. Whether exposed to good and evil or not, they very clearly knew wrong from right, as evidenced by their guilt at the transgression. Regardless of whether you believe the punishment "harsh", the crime was great, and they were perfectly cognizant of what the punishment would be.

"it rather harshly attacks people ignorant of wrongs and rights (they are not capable of really understanding remember-they have no knowledge of good and evil) and in the second it applies the punishment to people (everyone who came after) for a crime in which they had no part."

Next time He tells you not to eat the tree, listen. Don't eat the tree. It was good *and evil, remember?
And free will was exercised in the eating of the fruit.

Did God not create a world of which he knew every decision to be made and every outcome?

No, I don't think so, for two incompatible reasons. First, God may not have created the world. Second, it seems to me that if God can know beforehand that if he creates World A, the outcome will necessarily be X, if he creates World B, the outcome will necessarily be Y, and if he creates World C, the outcome will necessarily be Z, then it is his choice, and his choice alone, what happens if he creates World A, World B, and World C. For example, if he knows that in World A, Judas will betray Jesus, in World B, Judas will not betray Jesus, and in World C, Judas will be the preeminent Apostle whose successors will be popes, if he creates World A, he guarantees that Judas will betray Jesus.

It is argued that God is outside of time, and therefore his "foreknowledge" doesn't determine what happens. However, if he has the choice of creating an infinite number of different worlds, and he chooses one particular world, then he has indeed chosen exactly what will happen in that world.

Did God not create a world of which he knew every decision to be made and every outcome? He therefore knows that creating a world with suffering creates a better outcome. He would also know that it is valuable into eternity to demonstrate virtuous courage. God knows, that struggling for self control, has eternal value.