2) the fundamental unfairness of God withholding wisdom from "perfect" mankind, teasing them with it by placing it in their reach, but then punishing them for acting like fools (those who lack wisdom) when that's exactly how God made them; that appears to be a clear-cut case of Divine entrapment (which isn't excused by miracles).
The story is not about fairness, its about authority.
Yeah, but read my post IN THE CONTEXT it was written, as realize that once again you may have missed the point, and instead went on a tangent of attacking a straw-man of your creation.
For one, I never said the story WAS about fairness, so that's a straw-man of your creation.
I wasn't even talking about the goal of the AUTHORS of the original tale (which I agree WAS a depiction of the Divine Authority challenge), but instead I had moved beyond by asking the reader to step outside of the story for a minute to consider the fundamental fairness of the actions depicted IN the story, to question whether it's fundamentally "fair" (moral/right) for the God character to engage in such deceptive entrapment, in the first place.
Note that I even specifically used the word "fair" in an attempt to question the basic presupposition upon which the entire story is premised, and even intentionally avoided the word "sin" (since it carries the baggage of a God who DOES possess the moral authorty to dispense moral laws, by expressing Divine Will). I avoided the term, since if someone accepts that a God has the Divine Authority to define 'sin', then they're basically excusing ALL of God's actions, however morally-repugnant they may seem; in their book, God can do no wrong, cannot "sin" even if it IS "unfair", since "might makes right". That's an argument used to justify the actions of tyrants and dictators, not loving Gods.
(It's also an admission of God's morality NOT being "perfect", but more based on the whims of someone who makes up the rules as he goes. It's why Christians excuse God's endorsement of slavery, or condemnation of homosexuality, etc. If pressed, they can only come back with God said it's wrong, so it's wrong; God makes the rules.)
Instead, I'm trying to appeal to whatever sense of basic fairness persists in a believer's often-atrophied 'moral compass', which is exactly WHY I offered a comparison to those who hand out candied apples (with razor blades inside) to children on Halloween, mentioned those who violate Federal Law by leaving sweet-tasting antifreeze in an open container where children or animals could drink it, and why I offered the comparison of leaving loaded guns lying around the house where small children could play with them, etc. Those are ALL attempts to get believers to question the fundamental morality ("fairness") of analogous situations, since all are examples of "irresponsible custodianship/conservatorship", a legal concept. It's hard to see for some, but becomes easier to recognize by replacing the name "God" with something less loaded.
THEN, if someone objects only AFTER Jehovah's name is revealed to be the 'actor', the person rightly needs to consider whether they're victims of the "appeal to Authority" fallacy, since the existence of such a 'Divine Authority' remains an unproven hypothesis (whereas the existence of "inspired men" who CLAIM to SPEAK for such Divine Authorities IS proven, and ARE known to exist).