FORBIDDEN FRUIT. The Role of Plants in the Human Experience.

[William]

This topic is connected to the topic Knowledge of Good and Evil where the question "Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?" was asked.

The topic of The Role of Plants in the Human Experience, particularly when framed around the idea of Forbidden Fruit, opens up a vast field of inquiry, touching on history, mythology, spirituality, biology, and even ethics.

1. The Symbolic Role of Plants: Forbidden Fruit in Mythology

2. Plants as Sustenance and Spiritual Connection

3. Ethical Questions: The Boundaries of Human Use

4. The Biological Role of Plants in the Human Experience

5. Cultural Reflections and the Forbidden

The Role of Plants in the Human Experience, especially through the lens of forbidden fruit, highlights the complex and layered ways in which plants influence human existencespiritually, biologically, and culturally. Whether seen as symbols of temptation and knowledge, as sacred entities, or as sources of sustenance and healing, plants are deeply entwined with what it means to be human. And the concept of the "forbidden" invites us to explore the limits of knowledge, morality, and power in our relationship with nature.

Does the idea of Forbidden Fruit in relation to gaining knowledge create barriers to gaining knowledge?

[TRANSPONDER]

One thing I noticed about the NT is that God not only tells us what he wants us to know, but he only tells Jesus what God wants him to know. He apparently doesn't know who touched him, or that he will help the Syrio - Phoenecian woman in the end, and he does not know that Noah and Eden are tall stories. Though you may believe they are true, but I never thought you were that kind of Theist.

Of course, one can argue that Jesus Did know those things, but pretended he didn't in order to make teaching - points, but that is keeping God's information from us, isn't it?

[William]

Re that Tread topic, because use of certain plants open one up to reportable phenomena, the argument that GOD purposefully keeps secrets from Humans coupled with the argument that GOD created such plants suggests that the secrets are not supposed to be permanent.

Since the human instrument/form/body is designed is such a way that the mind experiencing being human doesn't ordinarily have full access to all knowledge of GOD through the body experience itself, and given there are ways provided for this to occur, the "hiding" (what we think of as being hidden) is temporal unless there is prohibition forced upon humans and punishments for using such plants to uncover what is "hidden".

That is the intended focus of the thread subject.

Temporary Veiling
Are GOD's Secrets Meant to be Permanent or Unveiled Through Human Experience?

Given that certain plants have the capacity to open humans to spiritual phenomena and deeper knowledge, the argument that GOD purposefully keeps secrets from humanity becomes complex. If GOD created these plants, then it suggests that such hidden truths are not meant to be permanently withheld. The human body, designed to experience life in a limited capacity, doesnt naturally allow full access to divine knowledge. However, with these plants available, the act of "hiding" seems temporaryunless prohibition is imposed, with punishments for using these plants to uncover what is hidden.

The thread intends to explore whether the divine secrets that appear "hidden" are intended to be gradually revealed, or if humans are punished (by GOD) for seeking knowledge through the means that have been provided.

[Bible_Student]

Altered states of consciousness do not transform reality or provide additional insights into it. These substances, found in some plants, merely cause a modified perception of the world and illusions resulting from an overstimulated brain.

The tree from which God forbade the first couple to eat didn't contain any element that could grant humans superior knowledge. It served as a simple prohibition, aimed at demonstrating humanity's willingness to allow God to define what was right or wrong. Once they defied God, their minds recognized that they had forsaken Him and were left to their own devices. From that moment, they had to independently determine their actions to thrive within the confines of their newly limited existence.

The forbidden fruit was purely symbolic; it contained no special vitamins, minerals, hallucinogenic toxins, or magical properties to reveal new realms. The pivotal question is whether they should have allowed their Creator and Father to decide what was best, thus avoiding decline. While consuming the fruit marked the onset of their downfall, it was ultimately the Creator's judgment that sealed their fate.

The mind-altering properties of certain plants and their use are unrelated to Christian beliefs or biblical texts.

[Difflugia]

The forbidden fruit was purely symbolic; it contained no special vitamins, minerals, hallucinogenic toxins, or magical properties to reveal new realms.

Which verses led you to this important understanding? Considering that God didn't want Adam and Eve to "become like us" by eating from the Tree of Life and becoming immortal, it seems like at least one of the trees had magic powers. Why are you certain that the other didn't?

[TRANSPONDER]

Altered states of consciousness do not transform reality or provide additional insights into it. These substances, found in some plants, merely cause a modified perception of the world and illusions resulting from an overstimulated brain.

The tree from which God forbade the first couple to eat didn't contain any element that could grant humans superior knowledge. It served as a simple prohibition, aimed at demonstrating humanity's willingness to allow God to define what was right or wrong. Once they defied God, their minds recognized that they had forsaken Him and were left to their own devices. From that moment, they had to independently determine their actions to thrive within the confines of their newly limited existence.

The forbidden fruit was purely symbolic; it contained no special vitamins, minerals, hallucinogenic toxins, or magical properties to reveal new realms. The pivotal question is whether they should have allowed their Creator and Father to decide what was best, thus avoiding decline. While consuming the fruit marked the onset of their downfall, it was ultimately the Creator's judgment that sealed their fate.

The mind-altering properties of certain plants and their use are unrelated to Christian beliefs or biblical texts.

Surely the fruit did contain some Substance that allowed the first humans to understand morality. It couldn't just be, as you try to argue, about they disobeyed and thereby leaned about right and wrong. That just doesn't work. Indeed, it is not how it reads.

Of course as a fairy -tale i don't expect it to; but you do. You hint at symbolic, but then slide into evasion as a not unfamiliar theist technique into a theological discussion what they should have 'allowed' God to do. That is not a pivotal matter but an evasive one, intended to distract and divert from your really poor apologetic.

Isn't that it?

[William]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #13]

1. Materialist Critique and Selective Treatment of Religious Experiences


When you argue that plant-induced phenomena result in mere illusions, it mirrors a materialist critique of religious or spiritual experiences. Ive noticed that many Christians tend to dismiss experiences like NDEs or plant-induced phenomena as hallucinations, while insisting that biblical accounts of divine encounters are unique and true.

If all experiences are processed through the human brain, why should we consider ancient biblical accounts as inherently more valid than contemporary spiritual experiences? Couldnt it be that both are ways of interpreting contact with the divine, using the available cultural or symbolic frameworks?

2. Symbolism in the Bible


You mentioned that the Tree of Knowledge is purely symbolic, representing obedience rather than any intrinsic magical or hallucinogenic qualities in the fruit itself. If this story is symbolic, it invites us to reconsider how we approach other biblical narratives.

Where do we draw the line between whats symbolic and whats literal in the Bible? If the Eden story is metaphorical, could other miraculous events, such as the burning bush or Revelations visions, also be interpreted symbolically? This opens up the possibility of viewing many biblical stories as spiritual metaphors rather than historical events.

3. Overlooking the Role of Plants in Human History


You mentioned that mind-altering plants dont play a role in Christian theology or biblical texts. However, throughout history, plants have played a crucial role in spiritual practices across many cultures, often being used to access divine knowledge or insight. If GOD created these plants and theyve been part of humanitys spiritual toolkit for centuries, why would we dismiss their potential role in biblical contexts?

This dismissal seems consistent with Christian cultures history of prohibiting practices involving plants, such as those used for altered states of consciousness. These prohibitions may reflect human attempts to control and limit certain types of knowledge, rather than a divine mandate. The role of plants in spiritual history, coupled with Christian prohibitions, suggests that there might be a fear of their potential to uncover deeper truths about GOD and the universe.

Instead of viewing these plants as threats, could it be that they are tools placed within creation to facilitate greater understanding and connection with the divine, much like other natural elements used throughout biblical narratives? It seems worth considering how Christian prohibition has shaped the modern rejection of these potential pathways to divine knowledge.

[JehovahsWitness]

Every reputable Corporation utilizes confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. Thus, limiting information to those with proper authority appears to be entirely normal

Evidence does indicate the existence of confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. If the author of the text alluded to in the OP intended the "fruit" (see Genesis in the bible) to represent a similar notion, then the answer to the question in the OP would be yes possibly, but arguably justifiably so.

Without my making any claim whatsoever in this regard , a first century author made the following comment which can be related to this point, namely (all things being equal) that the propriator of knowledge automatically holds power over disclosure. The statement recorded (refering to divine authority) is as follows ....

ACTS 1:17

"It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction."

CONCLUSION The notion of divine non-disclosure existed (as proven by the scripture sited), as early as the first century and in all probability earlier and may well have been the intended idea the author of Genesis wished to evoke by the aforementioned forbidden fruit.


JW

[TRANSPONDER]

It's the old problem, the old flaw, and the old limitation that renders all Christian and Biblical discussion null and void, though of course the Bible Authorities will never admit it. It is arguing within the Bubble, or Box. It is assumed it is all true (unless one dismisses it as Symbolic which translates as 'Not True', and the discussion is about how it Works, where a god that knows everything, at least about what it is is doing. The answer outside the Box is that it is all invention, wrotten by men who did not know these things, if it even occurred to them.

But Believers have to try to think up explanation, or excuses if they can't come up with one.

Fancy excusing God from telling his believers what they needed to know by reference to the non disclosure agreements of flawed and sinful humans, never mind as in house dirty tricks to keep it secret.

Of course I did this myself and am bound by it even after retirement to protect the information of the public, but God does not have to do that, so it is only concealing stuff because he is either incompetent or dishonest.

Unless, as i say it is all made up by humans who don't know any better. I know that Christian or Bible apologists will say they understand that atheists have their doubts, but I have trouble in understanding a mind so sunk in Belief that it will not even consider doubt and question, but only ignore that and push it away.

Apologetics, I reiterate come in three levels,
evidence
fiddling
sauce.

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #17]


I understand the analogy between corporate confidentiality agreements and GODs withholding of certain knowledge. However, this comparison is intriguing because, unlike corporations, which operate within systems of limited human authority, GOD is traditionally viewed as an omniscient, benevolent being whose purposes and motives are understood to transcend corporate or human power dynamics.

If GOD created humanity with a desire for spiritual understanding, then withholding knowledge indefinitely, as in the case of the Tree of Knowledge, seems counterintuitive to divine guidance. In the human experience, GODs creation includes plants known to facilitate deeper understanding and spiritual connection, a kind of knowledge-sharing embedded within nature itself. If the nature of GOD is love and guidance, wouldn't any withholding be temporary, intended to be revealed through a path of growth rather than permanent restriction?

While confidentiality agreements are certainly a part of human society, they often create barriers between those with power and those without. Applying this concept to GOD and divine knowledge suggests that only an elite has access, reinforcing exclusivity and division in the spiritual journey. The Tree of Knowledge, if meant to symbolize a "confidentiality agreement," sets up a scenario where curiosity and the search for truth are restricted rather than encouraged.

Its worth asking if this aligns with the portrayal of Jesus as a revealer of knowledge, someone who broke down religious barriers and challenged authorities who limited access to divine truth. The Christian tradition holds that Jesus came to share and reveal divine understanding to humanity. Given that plants have historically facilitated similar connections with the divine across cultures, could it be that GOD provides tools for accessing wisdom, revealing knowledge through creation itself, rather than withholding it?

Scriptural Evidence (Acts 1:17) and Divine Non-Disclosure


Acts 1:17 does mention that certain knowledge belongs to GOD alone, yet Jesus mission included sharing understanding and bringing humanity closer to GOD, indicating that divine knowledge was meant to be pursued with reverence rather than permanently withheld. The notion of divine non-disclosure as applied to Genesis Tree of Knowledge is an interpretation that justifies restriction, yet Jesus teachings often encourage the oppositeurging people to seek and know the truth about GOD with open hearts and minds.
The reference to Acts 1:7"It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction"warrants closer examination of its context. Jesus speaks these words to his disciples just before his ascension, in response to their specific question about the timing of the restoration of Israel. His statement reflects a particular context: the exact timing of future events, such as the Kingdom's arrival, is beyond human knowledge.

This context suggests that GODs non-disclosure relates to specific divine plans or timing rather than general spiritual or moral knowledge. In contrast, Jesus often encouraged understanding and truth-seeking as vital to spiritual growth. This distinction matters because it indicates that GOD may only withhold knowledge temporarily or in specific cases, not as a blanket policy over all divine truth.

If we consider this within the broader biblical narrative, it seems GODs creation provides avenues, like nature and scripture, for humanity to seek understanding and relationship. Tools such as certain plants, which have been shown to facilitate spiritual experiences, align with this purpose. Rather than being withheld, divine knowledge appears to be something humans are encouraged to pursue, with temporary boundaries in place for guidance rather than permanent restriction.


In considering the role of plants in human spirituality, as well as Jesus efforts to reveal truth, it seems GODs creation includes means by which humans can access divine insights, albeit in responsible and reverent ways. Rather than serving as "non-disclosed" information, these tools might signify that divine knowledge is meant to be gradually revealed, not permanently hidden, allowing humanity to engage in a genuine relationship with the Creator.

Conclusion

While confidentiality in human systems is understandable, comparing this with divine non-disclosure invites deeper reflection. If we consider Jesus mission as revealing GODs truth and offering a path to greater understanding, the symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge might better represent a temporary, developmental phase for humanity rather than a permanent restriction.

Would it make sense, then, that GOD provides tools in nature (like certain plants) that facilitate a gradual unveiling of knowledge? This would imply that GOD intends for humanity to grow into understanding, aligning more with a nurturing, guiding presence than an authority withholding truth indefinitely.