That is a really good point, but to call a sin a sin does not depend on a person knowing anything, even knowing what we think should be “enough”. We all certainly use previous knowledge as a source of blame or condemnation, “he should have known better”, but the sin itself is sin regardless of what they know:
CCC1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."1
There is a distinction to be made between “knowing that it is a sin” and “knowing what one is doing”. If the people who hung Jesus were not sinning, then the call to forgive would have been misplaced. But no, the people were indeed sinning, they were doing a deed contrary to the eternal law, which calls for love of neighbor, mercy, forgiveness, etc. The crucifixion was definitely a failure in genuine love for God and neighbor!
True, but if he touches the stove, he will definitely know something relevant, something new. We could say the child was lacking in some knowledge, even though we may condemn and blame the child for his acts (vs forgive).
Well, holding someone to account is a different topic. A & E did not know all the relevant information, for if they did, and were not blinded by desire, they would have avoided eating the fruit. But they did do so, and they regretted their choice, so there was some gap in their grasp of the ramifications. The story of A&E may present the image of a Father who does not forgive, but Luke 23:34 presents a completely different image, more in keeping with the Sermon on the Mount and the story of the prodigal son.
Do you see what I mean, though? It is really hard to come up with an example. I can’t find one.
Thanks for your response!