What was the forbidden fruit?

“It is only the ability to hate that gives love its value.”

This statement hardly seems true. If it were then wouldn’t it follow that those who hate others like members of the KKK and Hitler would be overflowing with love. Wouldn’t they have an appreciation of love for all of their ability to hate? I just have never seen anyone with hate in their heart put any kind of value on love. People are often blinded by hate and rage. Love gives love its value. When people are confronted with love they may have a change of heart, but that doesn’t seem to be true with hate. Hate is cruel and only grows the more it is fed until the person is consumed by it.
It is a sad lesson to have to learn what love and goodness is by experiencing evil. I doubt God wanted people to eat the fruit of good and evil? It cost him. It cost him his son who was tortured and horribly killed. The idea that you have to experience evil to know what good is does not seem true in the case where no evil existed. Maybe good and evil are more a state of being.

Ooo Ooo . . . i wanna be a intelligentsia ! ! !

*********************************

This is just too silly. The notion that there were such a place is hilarious enough, but that it was inhabited by "the first man" and "the first woman" is a real corker. By the way, there was a Sumerian myth of such a garden, Dilmun, in their tale Enki and Ninhursag. This long predates the Akkadians, of whom Abraham (if he ever actually existed) was one. As usual, not only is the bible full of fairy tales, they're not even original, and represent confused versions of the original.

If you Read your statement carefully you will see that is self refuting. Hate probably changes more hearts than love.

I'd say, It is the ability of people to choose that gives love its value.

It seems unlikely to me that good can come from evil. There is a train of thought that says, The mind cannot give back what it has not first been given. This has been used to explain why those who have been battered often grow up to become batterers themselves. They become what they know and if it is hate then they become hateful. But of course, in life, things are never so exact.

The ability to choose, or more aptly free will, seems to be a necessary component for love. Love has to be freely given. If it is forced/coerced then is it love? Still I don't think you need hate to know/show love.

Garbage in, garbage out is the conventional wisdom but I've never been a fan of 'conventional'. If it has any real value, love overcomes and transcends convention.

I would belive it to be a physical "fruit" being a fig as it is said that they covered themselves wroth leaves from the tree in which they ate if this is the case unless the where kids the leaf would not have covered however a fig leaf is plenty big now as far as the allegory I belive that the fruit itself contained the knowledge and once they at it their eyes were awakened

Doesn't make any sense, because sex parts already existed with all the necessary chemistry to reproduce its own kind.

Maybe not. They didn't have belly buttons, did they?

That makes all the difference. Learn something new every day.

However according to the story not the knowledge or the desire

Do you mean to imply there were no desire for sex?

Prior to eating the fig.... according to the texts mind you....

The text does not specifically say they covered themselves with the leaves of the tree which they ate, rather it said they sewed leaves together to make an apron. What makes you think the Genesis account was written as allegory? do you believe Jesus was also Allegory? or King David also?
I appreciate you are not a faith man, but I am intrigued by the origin of your perceptions of scripture

Based on histortorical fact alone

For the most part

Never once claimed to deny that any of the people really existed with the exception I do suppose the old testament maybe but that doesn't mean that it wasn't written to fulfill the need of man instead of devine inspiration

aye I understand that Supe, it wasn't really intended as a loaded question.
I am not going to tell you that the bible is true my friend, or that it is Gods inspiration, that much is not necessary to the discussion, but a holistic study of the book shows it to be a book that, from the writers perspective record the history of man, starting with Adam, through Cain, Abel, Seth, Noah, Abraham, David, Solomon and Jesus to name a few, the Gospels give lineages that are similar to those from the books of Genesis through to Malachi, listing times, events, Nations and people.
In order to assert Genesis as Allegory and Jesus as a historical character as many may claim, one must take these Genealogies and decide which allegorical character gave birth to a historical character.

If Genesis is Allegorical, that allegory spans the entire bible.

There is a reason we don't know more, because whatever it was it didn't matter because it was forbidden. If you want to start out with God is not good then you are eating the fruit anyway. What did Satan ever do for Adam and Eve. Nothing.

There is a reason that it is not further specified, so too with the sacrifices of Abel and Cain and several other examples. The author wants you to accept the premise. If you go the route you suggest you just get a different form of the same lesson, namely was God 'right' to forbid 'X'. He did forbid and that is what is needed to know. I think a goodly number of traditional and modern Jewish commentators would follow me in this.

That attitude has probably turned off a goodly number of people from knowing God. It sounds more like church doctrine than gospel truth.

What happened to 'Ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened to you'?