Why the forbidden fruit?

[dybmh]

In the story of Adam and Eve, God forbids them to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It seems to imply that God did not want them to know good from evil. Why would that be? And does that strike you as not wanting them to spiritually grow?

If Adam and Eve started out perfect, then God didn't want them to spiritually grow; how could they? Thus, the prohibition makes sense, right?

OTOH, if they were flawed, and God wanted them to spiritually grow, accomplishing that would take extra-special care. That would involve showing them that they were flawed, and setting them up to break the law. But, unless the plan was executed in a very specific manner, a person would naturally doubt God's intention for all future laws as well. And if that happened a person would not spiritually grow, instead they would spiritually diminish.

So, we don't really know God's intention, because we don't really know if Adam and Eve were perfect or flawed. And maybe that's why the question you've asked is so difficult to answer.

I tend to think eating from the tree was required, and was God's intention else why was the tree planted in the first place.

This opinion ( that God hoped they would eat the forbidden fruit ) is shared by Rabbi Manis Friedman, but for completely different reasons. His interpretation of the Adam and Eve story is somewhat famous. You can find it on youtube. perhaps his approach will be satisfying?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I do not disagree with any of the previous comments but have another idea to pop as well, though it may clash with some interesting ones.

In the story of Adam and Eve, God forbids them to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It seems to imply that God did not want them to know good from evil. Why would that be? And does that strike you as not wanting them to spiritually grow?

Maybe you are correct. Why and how was a serpent more crafty than Eve? Also, why in chapter 11 would the L-RD divide people who sought to obtain the power to do unified projects? It does seem like suppressing people is one possibility: suppressing their moral ability and suppressing their technical ability.

It wouldn't be the first time that an educated class saw lower classes as a threat both to moral stability and to sovereignty. It could explain the question. This is a theme in Plato. CS Lewis (an influential Anglican writer) associates technology with evil in both his personal opinions and in his fiction, and this likely results from his experience with bad uses of technology in World War I. Universities and governments sometimes work to keep knowledge out of the hands of laypeople. Its somewhat like gun-control conceptually. If no one can make bombs and weapons then they cannot use them, right? Similarly if people don't understand how to apply laws and morals, then they might be forced to turn to wise people for answers about how to deal with legal and moral conundrums.

Theory of government suggests limited representative government not completely representative government. Today we have large masses of voters in democracies, and they sometimes throw away their votes and also make bad decisions. Pure democracy is considered to be very unstable. In its place arise republics which are thought to be a stop-gap, placing educated people into positions above the riff-raff. Some people believe in despots and kings for similar reasons, though I do not.

All I am saying is that these are common ideas which appear in various places at various times. It would not surprise me if these thoughts were appearing in Genesis. I'm not saying that this is final or that Genesis is definitely suggesting that moral knowledge should be restricted or technical knowledge, either. I'm saying that this is a common thought among upper classes. They fear disturbance of working systems and also tend to worry about the moral depravity of lower classes. Would writers of Genesis be immune to similar thoughts? I don't know, and this is not a closed argument or a final one.

 

[YoursTrue]

If Adam and Eve started out perfect, then God didn't want them to spiritually grow; how could they? Thus, the prohibition makes sense, right?

OTOH, if they were flawed, and God wanted them to spiritually grow, accomplishing that would take extra-special care. That would involve showing them that they were flawed, and setting them up to break the law. But, unless the plan was executed in a very specific manner, a person would naturally doubt God's intention for all future laws as well. And if that happened a person would not spiritually grow, instead they would spiritually diminish.

So, we don't really know God's intention, because we don't really know if Adam and Eve were perfect or flawed. And maybe that's why the question you've asked is so difficult to answer.

I tend to think eating from the tree was required, and was God's intention else why was the tree planted in the first place.

This opinion ( that God hoped they would eat the forbidden fruit ) is shared by Rabbi Manis Friedman, but for completely different reasons. His interpretation of the Adam and Eve story is somewhat famous. You can find it on youtube. perhaps his approach will be satisfying?

It is clear to me that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was set there to represent the authority that their Maker had and He is keeping that authority, but for the present time is allowing the devil to have reign over the earth, and we can see what's happening. But it will not always be this way. How do you feel about the need for a Messiah, or deliverer?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

God was protecting Adam and Eve from something that, one, they did not need to know about, and two, will only corrupt them if they are exposed to it - as it truly has destroyed mankind.

There is no way they could progress spiritually without developing a moral conscience. So why was it forbidden. It makes no sense to me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Innocence is not a bad place to be. Jesus said we should become like innocent children. Perhaps we should think of growth being simply trusting God without doubting.

Innocence is where you are when you are a child. But we don't stay children, and no loving parent tries to keep their kids babies.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What I see on this thread are several believers trying to make the myths mean something valuable.

Myths ARE valuable. Please read Tolkien's famous essay, "On Fairy Stories." https://coolcalvary.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/on-fairy-stories1.pdf

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I tend to think that it's part of a myth to teach some lessons versus a real event. If taken literally, the story doesn't add up as being even remotely logical.

BTW, are you familiar with "The Power of Myth" whereas you saw it or read it? In this context, I assume you're aware that "myth" does not mean nor imply falsehoods.

I have nothing but respect for myths. I'm an ardent fan of Tolkien.

 

[Brian2]

I actually agree with all that.

But my question remains, why in the story does God wish to hold mankind back from moral sentience?

If we can't handle one thing, don't eat the fruit from that tree, how are we going to handle knowing many other things that would be wrong for us to do? We were not ready for the in rushing of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If we can't handle one thing, don't eat the fruit from that tree, how are we going to handle knowing many other things that would be wrong for us to do? We were not ready for the in rushing of the knowledge of good and evil.

You don't understand my question. By prohibiting the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God was essentially insisting that we remain in ignorance. He was making us permanent children. This is not a good thing. Only a bad parent tries to keep their kids from growing up. God was apparently content that mankind remain like the animals who don't know right from wrong. That does not sound like a loving father.

 

[dybmh]

It is clear to me that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was set there to represent the authority that their Maker had and He is keeping that authority, but for the present time is allowing the devil to have reign over the earth, and we can see what's happening.

That could be any tree then, right? God could have prohibited orange trees, or apple trees, any tree, and God's authority would have been established by any of them.

How do you feel about the need for a Messiah, or deliverer?

My belief is: The concept of salvation was 100% part of the plan from the very beginning. At the end, the world will experience open miracles that will make belief in God undeniable. Salvation of the Jewish people is part of that. That salvation will include an individual, who will gather all the Jewish people into the land both physically and spiritually. That will include establishing the sanhedrin, rebuilding the temple, restarting the offerings, being anointed as king, the whole she-bang.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Knowledge of good and evil is only 2/3 good. When you get to knowledge of pleasure there are two laws; kindness, and if bring in a serious spirit you bring in a serious demon, and a human being. But, pleasure always defeats pain, and knowledge defeats the lack of knowledge every time. Remember to find a way for the modest human to complete the wisdom to liberation, and the nature of the existence of angels in our world, by abiding to this nature, samsara.

 

[dybmh]

You don't understand my question. By prohibiting the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God was essentially insisting that we remain in ignorance. He was making us permanent children. This is not a good thing. Only a bad parent tries to keep their kids from growing up. God was apparently content that mankind remain like the animals who don't know right from wrong. That does not sound like a loving father.

OK. So you're taking the position that Adam and Eve were flawed. Being innocent like children indefinitely is a flaw. And a parent who forces their children to never grow up is making a mistake.

No problem. God gave the rule, but wanted them to break it. The serpent was enlisted by God to tempt Eve. Eating the fruit would enable Adam and Eve to understand why God had set them up. Yes, they would also learn that bending the rules and breaking them might be required sometimes, but never without consequences. They also learned that honest confession, and repentance will bring them back into God's good graces.

If so, it was all part of the plan. God intending to stifle his children is not the only way to understand the story.

 

[Brian2]

You don't understand my question. By prohibiting the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God was essentially insisting that we remain in ignorance. He was making us permanent children. This is not a good thing. Only a bad parent tries to keep their kids from growing up. God was apparently content that mankind remain like the animals who don't know right from wrong. That does not sound like a loving father.

We don't know that God was going to prohibit that knowledge forever, so we can't assume that. But it is clear that humanity could not handle that knowledge if they could not handle knowing just one thing that was evil for them to do, eating the fruit. And it is clear they could not handle that knowledge when we look at what us humans have done since then with that knowledge.
A more pertinent question might be why God put that particular tree in the garden to make into a prohibition instead of some more benign tree, like the tree of the knowledge of what the moon was made from.
Part of the answer to that might be that when they ate from the tree (no matter if it was just about the knowledge of what the moon was make from) they lost their innocence at that point and opened themselves up to being tempted or confused by other things that meant nothing to them before that, such as being naked, and so needed a more clear picture of good and evil to help them through the maze of feelings and emotions that then could confuse them.

 

[YoursTrue]

That could be any tree then, right? God could have prohibited orange trees, or apple trees, any tree, and God's authority would have been established by any of them.

That would be correct. The Bible does not say what fruit it was, but it was not the fruit that poisoned them. It was their disregard of God's admonition and blatant disrespect.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK. So you're taking the position that Adam and Eve were flawed. Being innocent like children indefinitely is a flaw. And a parent who forces their children to never grow up is making a mistake.

No problem. God gave the rule, but wanted them to break it. The serpent was enlisted by God to tempt Eve. Eating the fruit would enable Adam and Eve to understand why God had set them up. Yes, they would also learn that bending the rules and breaking them might be required sometimes, but never without consequences. They also learned that honest confession, and repentance will bring them back into God's good graces.

If so, it was all part of the plan. God intending to stifle his children is not the only way to understand the story.

That would be a cruel father who knew his children would be hurt and made it so they could not avoid it. The Almighty did not do that.

 

[YoursTrue]

You don't understand my question. By prohibiting the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God was essentially insisting that we remain in ignorance. He was making us permanent children. This is not a good thing. Only a bad parent tries to keep their kids from growing up. God was apparently content that mankind remain like the animals who don't know right from wrong. That does not sound like a loving father.

Let me say something here. If I go to class I expect to learn something I didn't know before. I wouldn't try to overpower the teacher, would I, if I weren't an expert? Adam and Eve had a lot to learn. If they disregarded His direction, it could be disastrous. It was disastrous.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OK. So you're taking the position that Adam and Eve were flawed. Being innocent like children indefinitely is a flaw. And a parent who forces their children to never grow up is making a mistake.

No problem. God gave the rule, but wanted them to break it. The serpent was enlisted by God to tempt Eve. Eating the fruit would enable Adam and Eve to understand why God had set them up. Yes, they would also learn that bending the rules and breaking them might be required sometimes, but never without consequences. They also learned that honest confession, and repentance will bring them back into God's good graces.

If so, it was all part of the plan. God intending to stifle his children is not the only way to understand the story.

Not flawed. But their consciousness lacked teh moral dimension. They were on par with the other animals. So why did God want that?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Let me say something here. If I go to class I expect to learn something I didn't know before. I wouldn't try to overpower the teacher, would I, if I weren't an expert? Adam and Eve had a lot to learn. If they disregarded His direction, it could be disastrous. It was disastrous.

Are you saying that Eve did the right thing, but just did it too soon?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We don't know that God was going to prohibit that knowledge forever, so we can't assume that.

So eve actually did what God wanted, but just did it too soon?

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you saying that Eve did the right thing, but just did it too soon?

Is that what you got from my comment? Eve disobeyed.