That it was wrong to be naked? Or that it was wrong that they did what God told them not to and they try to hide it by hiding the most private physical parts of themselves? It's not too far of a leap.
Doesn't matter how far of a leap it is. The fact that you have to make a leap at all means that you're putting your own interpretation on the story. If you go based on what the story itself says, Adam realized that being naked was wrong, which is why he made clothes. When YHWH went for a walk in the garden, Adam hid, and when YHWH asked him why he was hiding, he said that he was afraid because he was naked. Until now, 'naked' has only been used to describe someone not wearing clothes.
Furthermore, your interpretation doesn't make sense. Adam eats the fruit, and realizes that it was wrong to disobey YHWH, so...he uses fig leaves to cover his physical nakedness? In other words, he tries to hide the fact that he disobeyed YHWH's command...by inventing clothes to cover himself with? I just don't see it.
And yet when we discuss this we must take everything literally, leaving no room for leeway. Why is this?
Because we're discussing Christian logic. When you discuss logic of any sort, you don't want to leave "leeway", because that invites someone else to take off running with their own interpretation of things.
Again, I submit that it is not the physical part that they were feeling bad about, nor did they feel bad at all. They were afraid, as the bible clearly states. Afraid that God would see what they had done and be angry. Just like any child who knows they have done wrong feels. This is emotionally and spiritually naked, much harder to bear than physical nudity. But Adam and Eve, being as emotionally underdeveloped as they were, couldn't understand this yet.
I don't agree with you. First off, the Bible states that their eyes were opened, and they realized their nakedness, so they made coverings out of fig leaves. If they didn't feel bad about being physically naked, why waste time trying to cover their physical nakedness? I don't buy that it was simply because they felt "emotionally and spiritually naked" instead and were too immature to realize the difference between that and physical nakedness. That requires you to interpret the story, to write things in as it were. The problem is that your interpretation differs from the interpretation of others, and so the only way to get to the bottom of things is to strip out all the interpretations and focus on what the story itself actually says.
And before you say 'God should have given them this beforehand', I'll tell you that's what he's doing here.
If that's the case, YHWH has no sense of moderation at all. Because subsequently, he punished Eve by making her suffer great pains when giving birth, punished Adam by forcing him to painfully toil in the fields in order to eat, until the day he died, and then further punished them both by kicking them out of the garden so that they would not also live forever. Oh, and this applied to all of their descendants too. I can think of far more effective ways to make sure the lesson is learned than to throw what amounts to a temper tantrum and punish them far out of proportion to what they did.
Oh, now we're reading too far into the story. Even though it says they made clothes out of fig leaves, that's reading too far into the story. But it really doesn't say that...
I'm going based on what the story itself says - that Adam and Eve had their eyes opened, realized their nakedness, made clothes for themselves, then heard YHWH walking through the garden and hid. Nowhere does it say that they actually put the clothes on - you assume they did, but it is not stated. I'll admit that it doesn't say that these events happened one after the other with no space in between, but it's not unreasonable to assume that they immediately followed each other.
And yes, I am imposing my own attitudes on the story, just as the author did, and you are doing. So I think we're all on even ground on that subject.
The difference is that I'm accounting for that and working to keep my own attitudes from influencing my reading of the story. You, clearly, are not. So no, I would not say we're on "even ground".