The first 3 chapters of Genesis

The question is an illogical one not an interesting one to my mind. One cannot evaluate a thing to be good/evil before one knows about good/evil. And that knowledge came after the fact.If one insists that it is not pure illogic by introducing it then clarity of view is the mimimum one should deliver on. Rule #4 covers this.

If like little children then that is not disobedience that is ignorance.*Anyway it swings both ways: if 'capable' of disobedience (if you insist on calling it that) then also 'capable' of obedience. But you say they are incapable of obedience. How so? A little child often will follow an instruction and are thus capable of obedience.*
{AbE} Strictly speaking a child not doing what it is told whether through ignorance or wilfulness or whatever is disobedience. Thus we will probably arrive at: Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Posts 237/241 cover the essentials.

You say only capable of disobeying not obeying. But however ignorant or innocent children are capable of obeying as well as disobeying so your analogy doesn't work.From where the insistance that they were UNABLE to obey. We know they did not. We know they were tempted. But from where "could not"? From where the foregone conclusion?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

So what God has said didn't provide sufficient for a balanced choice - it was a foregone conclusion once so tempted?

Kinda?You said they were incapable of obeying prior to eating the apple. Disobeying (eating the apple) was the only option for them. That means disobeying was a foregone conclusion.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Because children are capable of being disobedient. Now, after the schoolteacher reminds them to be quiet what do they do. Obey.If they did not - then why would the teacher bother asking them to be quiet?Jar says incapable of obeying. Children are capable of obeying as well as disobeying. We are dealing with one instance in time. God saying "Be quiet" vs. the serpent saying "Be Noisy".

And a fall leads back to choice and choice leads back to responsibility and responsibility means punishment is just. Which kind of leaves us all snookered and in need of a saviour.

And I pointed you to those message in order to underline your correct observation that my agreement was only apparent. One doesn't need to know anything about right and wrong in order to know about consequences. And it is not necessary to know full consequences either - just sufficient to match the level of temptation. Increase the knowledge of depth of consequence (which you seem to demand) and you also need to crank up the temptation in order for a balanced choice to exist (which you seem to forget about)Providing choice is the issue at hand I argue. Jar is in the process of arriving at "they had no choice" I do not agree - not even apparently - with this.

That they would eat was inevitable given the manipulants. So God punishes them for doing something that they had no choice but to do (they could not obey God you said).What angle to you now travel down so as to not make God a jerk.

I'm afraid Jar is the one who introduced the analogy of innocent little children - not me. I am following his analogy in so far as it is useful to. I don't see them as little children myself. Created beings well undertanding of someones rightful dominion over them is how I see it. That there would be serious consequences was known to them.

You got mail sis

You are aware that all your argument is predicated on there not being a fall. Innocent little children presumes no fall - for instance. So you sail in HMS assertion the same as everyone else.Its just a question of what fits better. A just so story is an assertion you understand