Let me rephrase, have you ever done anything you knew was wrong?
The bottom line is this.
If he says yes, I have sinned. Then he is saying I am a sinner, in need of a Redeemer.
If he says no, then he must be God, because no one else on earth can truthfully make that claim.
Charlie, I would like you to consider this.
Suppose a child was raised to think that stealing was right. Then one day they didn't steal, and felt really bad about it.
Suppose a child was raised to think that stealing was wrong. Then one day they stole, and felt really bad about it.
By your logic, BOTH children sinned. Both needed a Redeemer - the child who refused to steal needs a Redeemer, you claim.
Can you see where your juvenile logic is flawed?
Charlie, let's take Anfauglir's excellent point one stage further, and bring in another Charles whilst we are at it.
Dicken's novel Oliver Twist is a work of fiction
influenced by events and mores of the time. As you may know, amongst it's themes it's also a social commentary on life in Victorian England. Again, to be clear, the people may have been fictional but much described was not.
In the book we come across Fagin and his children who live a life of crime - often indoctrinated from birth. It's what they know. Perhaps all they know. It's how they survive. Some were subject to standards many would consider today to be inhuman. Yet, perhaps their biggest "crime" (sin?) was that they were born poor. Note I'm not saying it's "right" and, according to societal standards even then, their acts were crimes which brought penalties, often severe.
Fast forward less than two hundred years and things have changed. Social reforms have, at least, attempted to redress the iniquity of past times. Moreover, in the UK,
young children are no longer executed for petty crimes, the last execution was in 1964, the death penalty was abolished in 1998, and since 2004 parties subject to the European Convention on Human Rights are prohibited from restoring such.
Now let's look at Yahweh, shall we? Pick whatever number you like; 2,000, 5,000, 6,000, 10,000, 4,500,000,000, 13,800,000,000 years; it matters not to how much has (not) changed.
If I understand, I can paraphrase what you've said as "a sin is a sin is a sin" and everyone is a sinner. According to your Bumper Book of Backwards Blame nothing has changed. Circumstances don't matter, context (something theists love to pull out of their hat when it's time to play the obfuscation card) is irrelevant, knowledge of the rules doesn't matter, and pretty much everyone is subject to eternal damnation and torment unless they kowtow to a deity who can't even be bothered to pop in for a cup of tea.
Previously I questioned your definition of love, and you didn't respond. So, explain to me again, how this Yahweh character is (a) loving and (b) anything other than a simplistic and, frankly, barbaric reflection of a time when "might makes right" and the primary way to influence people was through fear, ignorance, the sword and the spear?
You see, Charlie. I strongly suspect that you may feel that the problem is that "we don't get it". But, the reality is that we do.