How did Satan get to the garden of Eden?

[Thief]

I was reading Gen 3 and I ended with more questions than answers.
1. Did God put Satan in the garden?
2. Didn't God know what would happen?
3 Did you notice that Satan always gives a piece of truth & a lie

Sorry to have arrived so late....
No.... God did not put Satan in the garden.

It is noted in my copy of Genesis that....'the serpent is more subtle'...
In other words...'he slithered in'....

But my copy does not refer to the serpent as the Adversary.
That would be, the Fallen Angel, who was once God's Favorite.
It is an assumption they are the same entity.
It is also an assumption the serpent had some cause to interfere with the
'intended' manipulation at hand in the Garden scenario.

As story telling goes....some kind of 'adversary'.... makes the 'story'.

And most stories are coherent when one action follows another.
A linear series of events unfold as the story is told.
The idea that God can know all things in advance is contrary to most story telling.

If God knows the end, even as the story begins....then you don't really have one action following another.
For the sake of action, and reaction, one must assume that absolute control is not occurring during the Garden event.

Likewise absolute control in not being applied to your mind and heart.
You are participating in your own story.

And yes....a lie is most effective with a dash of truth.

 

[sincerly]

I don't necessarily have a problem with a "first cause", but I don't think such a thing has to be equated with a god. There are many other options, and all more rational, than ascribing a first cause to the Abrahamic god.

Any other "first cause" than a Creator GOD would have to deal with "something from nothing" which isn't "more rational", but is more "illogical/irrational". No matter how far back or how many "options" one still has to deal with the "How did that come about/to be produced/source---and that from nothing."

The Abrahamic GOD for about 2000 years showed to people that what HE said came to past/be so/could be relied upon as truth. Those things were written down for our admonition. Moses writings were before the Vedas or at least by the time of their writing.(What was the source of those writings/beliefs---from the scattering from Babel.)

Then you go into Biblical teachings as if they are a priori fact that everyone should just accept without any question, on nothing other than what it says of itself. To me, this is illogical, ludicrous, and self-deceiving. There is no logic in accepting the Bible just because it says we should, without any evidence for it to back it up.

Anyone can believe any "imagined thing" they please. Acceptance is with the individual---Whether from idols of whatever material of from the thoughts of a human being. I'm unaware of any belief system which doesn't believe in a Creator GOD that claims their belief/god created/produced "all that is seen".

If the only reason you say this is because of the Bible, that is no reason at all. Why accept something only because it is supposed divine revelation from god, with no supporting objective truth? If that's the case, why not accept the Quran, the Vedas, or anything else that claims to be the direct revelatory word of god? It makes no sense.

What doesn't make sense is "to believe all that is seen"---had no Creator GOD. Because you and I exist along with all we survey about us, is evidence enough for ME and makes perfect sense.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Any other "first cause" than a Creator GOD would have to deal with "something from nothing" which isn't "more rational", but is more "illogical/irrational". No matter how far back or how many "options" one still has to deal with the "How did that come about/to be produced/source---and that from nothing."

Only if you don't take the multiverse into account. How do we know that our universe wasn't created by a highly intelligent being from an alternate universe? I'm not contending that this is the case, but only that it is a possibility.

Anyone can believe any "imagined thing" they please. Acceptance is with the individual---Whether from idols of whatever material of from the thoughts of a human being. I'm unaware of any belief system which doesn't believe in a Creator GOD that claims their belief/god created/produced "all that is seen".

Buddhism and Taoism are the two that come to my mind. Buddhism has no dogmatic beliefs regarding the subject, and Taoism believes that all things come from the Tao, which is not a creator god, but a force or energy.

What doesn't make sense is "to believe all that is seen"---had no Creator GOD. Because you and I exist along with all we survey about us, is evidence enough for ME and makes perfect sense.

I posit that no creator god is needed. I think the universe was "created" by some type of energy. But let's say for a moment that you are right, and that there is no other option but that a god had to create all that is. Why not some other god? Aristotle certainly believed in a first cause, he was the first to offer a logical view of the first cause. But his first cause was a far cry from the Abrahamic god. If we assume that the first cause has to be a divinity, it could just as easily have been Brahma/Indra/Vishnu/Shiva, or Amaterasu, or Ra/Horus/Isis/Osiris, Ahura Mazda, Zeus/Chronos/Gaia, or any of the various other gods.

This is my point: there doesn't absolutely have to be a divine entity that is the first cause, and even if there is, it doesn't mean it's absolutely one specific god. Even if we take religion into account, we can make the assumption that it was multiple gods, created by an even higher god. The list is practically endless.

 

[sincerly]

Sorry to have arrived so late....
No.... God did not put Satan in the garden.

It is noted in my copy of Genesis that....'the serpent is more subtle'...
In other words...'he slithered in'....

Hi Thief, Agreed, GOD didn't place Satan in the Garden; however, neither did "he slither in". The "story" isn't the first three chapters of Genesis, but continues to Revelation 22:21.

But my copy does not refer to the serpent as the Adversary.
That would be, the Fallen Angel, who was once God's Favorite.
It is an assumption they are the same entity.
It is also an assumption the serpent had some cause to interfere with the
'intended' manipulation at hand in the Garden scenario.

As story telling goes....some kind of 'adversary'.... makes the 'story'.

The very fact that the "serpent" is contradicting what GOD had instructed makes it/him an adversary to GOD and Mankind.
Since the Ending of the "story" is in Revelation, we can see the relationship of the Genesis account. Rev.12:7-9, "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, [that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Notice Jesus in Luke 10:18 says, "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."

And most stories are coherent when one action follows another.
A linear series of events unfold as the story is told.
The idea that God can know all things in advance is contrary to most story telling.

If God knows the end, even as the story begins....then you don't really have one action following another.
For the sake of action, and reaction, one must assume that absolute control is not occurring during the Garden event.

Likewise absolute control in not being applied to your mind and heart.
You are participating in your own story.

Thief, as is seen in the writings of books, TV series, etc., none follow one linear path of thinking. The scenes change from one action another action and back as the plot progresses and details are brought in to enlarge the picture/understanding. This is seen in Genesis and the creation of Man in 1:25-26 and 2:18-25.

As far as knowing all things, The writer of those things does have in mind the end from the beginning.
So does GOD. Rev.4:11, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. "
All that is recorded from Genesis to the End of Revelation will end as in that "pleasure" which GOD Created them For---without there ever being more rebellion. None who have a rebellious thought will be in the new heavens or new earth.

And yes....a lie is most effective with a dash of truth.

Agreed.

 

[Thief]

Hi Thief, Agreed, GOD didn't place Satan in the Garden; however, neither did "he slither in". The "story" isn't the first three chapters of Genesis, but continues to Revelation 22:21.



The very fact that the "serpent" is contradicting what GOD had instructed makes it/him an adversary to GOD and Mankind.
Since the Ending of the "story" is in Revelation, we can see the relationship of the Genesis account. Rev.12:7-9, "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, [that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Notice Jesus in Luke 10:18 says, "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."



Thief, as is seen in the writings of books, TV series, etc., none follow one linear path of thinking. The scenes change from one action another action and back as the plot progresses and details are brought in to enlarge the picture/understanding. This is seen in Genesis and the creation of Man in 1:25-26 and 2:18-25.

As far as knowing all things, The writer of those things does have in mind the end from the beginning.
So does GOD. Rev.4:11, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. "
All that is recorded from Genesis to the End of Revelation will end as in that "pleasure" which GOD Created them For---without there ever being more rebellion. None who have a rebellious thought will be in the new heavens or new earth.



Agreed.

This was good.....thank you.
The only portions between us...
I happen to believe the event of Man as creation is Day Six.

The story of Adam and Eve is a separate event....a different story.

Revelation is yet another event pending, not yet in motion.

 

[sincerly]

Only if you don't take the multiverse into account. How do we know that our universe wasn't created by a highly intelligent being from an alternate universe? I'm not contending that this is the case, but only that it is a possibility.

dyanaprajna, does a "highly intelligent being from an alternate universe" deminishThe fact that it is GOD??

Buddhism and Taoism are the two that come to my mind. Buddhism has no dogmatic beliefs regarding the subject, and Taoism believes that all things come from the Tao, which is not a creator god, but a force or energy.

"A force or energy" in that sense is the old belief that "GOD" created and then just left it to itself---for better or worse. But that isn't what the Creator of the world says of HIS Creation in the BIBLE. All of mankind who are in agreement with being in a right relationship with GOD and their fellow Human Beings will possess and live in the Earth made new.

I posit that no creator god is needed. I think the universe was "created" by some type of energy. But let's say for a moment that you are right, and that there is no other option but that a god had to create all that is. Why not some other god? Aristotle certainly believed in a first cause, he was the first to offer a logical view of the first cause. But his first cause was a far cry from the Abrahamic god. If we assume that the first cause has to be a divinity, it could just as easily have been Brahma/Indra/Vishnu/Shiva, or Amaterasu, or Ra/Horus/Isis/Osiris, Ahura Mazda, Zeus/Chronos/Gaia, or any of the various other gods.

The problem with Other "gods" is for the past 3000 years NONE have shown any interest in Humanity, but the Creator GOD of the Bible.
People have paid homage to those "gods", but there is no response by those "gods" for the betterment of Humanity.

This is my point: there doesn't absolutely have to be a divine entity that is the first cause, and even if there is, it doesn't mean it's absolutely one specific god. Even if we take religion into account, we can make the assumption that it was multiple gods, created by an even higher god. The list is practically endless.

Hey, That is why from the Creation of this world the first humans had the power of Choice. Believe GOD or believe "the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh or the lust of the pride of life"---which were the basis for the lies which were told to them.
My point being: DO I accept a "god" of my own making; OR Do I accept the GOD who Created me??

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

dyanaprajna, does a "highly intelligent being from an alternate universe" deminishThe fact that it is GOD??

It can, yes.

"A force or energy" in that sense is the old belief that "GOD" created and then just left it to itself---for better or worse. But that isn't what the Creator of the world says of HIS Creation in the BIBLE. All of mankind who are in agreement with being in a right relationship with GOD and their fellow Human Beings will possess and live in the Earth made new.

First of all, you're still acting like the Bible is a universally textbook of science. It's not. Second, I'm not suggesting that this initial force or energy is in anyway, shape, or form, what people call 'god'. What you described is deism. I'm not a deist, and that's not what I'm trying to get at.

The problem with Other "gods" is for the past 3000 years NONE have shown any interest in Humanity, but the Creator GOD of the Bible.
People have paid homage to those "gods", but there is no response by those "gods" for the betterment of Humanity.

I'll try to refrain from making insults here, I can keep a pretty tight reign on my tongue, or in this case, fingers. First, your god has not in any way worked for the betterment of humanity. His people are constantly trying to stop humanism, impede scientific progress, and hold man back from his liberties and freedoms. The fact is, I find that there are many gods today who are still worshiped, to be much more benevolent than yours. If your proof of your god is in morality, then you are going to be hard pressed to give evidence for it. Other gods answer prayer just as much, if not more, than yours. Other gods perform miracles just as much, if not more, than yours. Well, that's if you accept that prayer works and miracles happen. I don't believe in either. Maybe if, after 30 years of believing in your god, had he answered one prayer, or sent just one small miracle, I might have a different viewpoint. But it's not just from personal experience. Many people have had the same experience with your god that I have, namely, none. And many people experience their god or gods in life-changing ways every day, gods, that is, of different religions. You're limiting your viewpoint to only what you want to see, not what's really there.

Hey, That is why from the Creation of this world the first humans had the power of Choice. Believe GOD or believe "the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh or the lust of the pride of life"---which were the basis for the lies which were told to them.

Now, I'm a bit confused here. Are you suggesting that morality can only be found in your religion, and only practiced by those who worship your god? Or are you trying to say something else here, and I'm just not understanding it?

My point being: DO I accept a "god" of my own making; OR Do I accept the GOD who Created me??

Or do I accept a god at all? That's the choice I opt for.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Or do I accept a god at all? That's the choice I opt for.

Not really .. You claim that you have "no god", but in reality, you use your philosophy in order to deny true Divinity.

Do we think the Buddha stood head above everyone else? Yes
. . .
In Buddhism, the human realm is just one of six realms of existence, and the only one in which full enlightenment can be attained. This is why the Buddha said he was superior to any and all gods.

I doubt very much whether 'Buddha' claimed to be "superior to all" .. that's what I mean about your worship of a human being, who never claims divine truth..
I mean who do you think he was, to put him up on a pedestal like that? And you believe this false information about his superiority?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Not really .. You claim that you have "no god", but in reality, you use your philosophy in order to deny true Divinity.

That's from the illogicallity of theistic religions. They simply cannot perceive a world were people don't believe in divinity of some sort. There is no such thing as "true divinity" or even divinity at all.

I doubt very much whether 'Buddha' claimed to be "superior to all" .. that's what I mean about your worship of a human being, who never claims divine truth..
I mean who do you think he was, to put him up on a pedestal like that? And you believe this false information about his superiority?

First, it's stated in the Buddhist scriptures that the Buddha did indeed claim to be above all gods, and superior to them in every way. Second, as I've stated before, there is no worship in Buddhism. The Buddha realized his Buddha nature, after the knowledge of how to do so had been lost for aeons. And he taught us all to do the same, how to do it. Why worship something you can become? Why worship at all? The power, all knowledge, all wisdom, is already inside of each of us, all we have to do is let it out. If you do not believe such, that is fine, it's your choice. But do not take your misunderstandings about Buddhism, and then try to use them in debate. If you want to actually know what Buddhism teaches, instead of what your religion teaches about it, there are many, many sources to check out. First, go and understand actual Buddhist teachings, not what you perceive them to be. Then come back and we can have a discussion. Until then, there's no point in going forward with this debate.

 

[muhammad_isa]

First, it's stated in the Buddhist scriptures that the Buddha did indeed claim to be above all gods, and superior to them in every way. Second, as I've stated before, there is no worship in Buddhism.

You must be totally blind!
If you can't perceive that somebody who claims "in one breath" that there is no divinity, and then in their next state that " the Buddha did indeed claim to be above all gods, and superior to them in every way" is not a TOTAL CONTRADICTION, there's no hope for your salvation..
..you must be mesmerised .. Buddha most surely is your 'false god' !

..go and understand actual Buddhist teachings, not what you perceive them to be.

I am not attracted to hypocracy .. I've heard enough from you to know that although Buddha may have been a clever philosopher (or even a man of God), Buddhism in its present form (as you describe), couldn't be further from the truth .. I'm only interested in the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

You must be totally blind!
If you can't perceive that somebody who claims "in one breath" that there is no divinity, and then in their next state that " the Buddha did indeed claim to be above all gods, and superior to them in every way" is not a TOTAL CONTRADICTION, there's no hope for your salvation..
..you must be mesmerised .. Buddha most surely is your 'false god' !

I am not attracted to hypocracy .. I've heard enough from you to know that although Buddha may have been a clever philosopher (or even a man of God), Buddhism in its present form (as you describe), couldn't be further from the truth .. I'm only interested in the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

Then good day.

 

[waitasec]

You must be totally blind!
If you can't perceive that somebody who claims "in one breath" that there is no divinity, and then in their next state that " the Buddha did indeed claim to be above all gods, and superior to them in every way" is not a TOTAL CONTRADICTION, there's no hope for your salvation..
..you must be mesmerised .. Buddha most surely is your 'false god' !

i don't see a contradiction...

i am above your god....since your god was conjured up by goat herders

 

[sincerly]

It can, yes.

I fail to see where a being from another "mutliverse" who did "the creating of this world" would NOT want to be recognized as the owner/Lord/GOD of this/HIS created workmanship. Or would deminish that fact. (I understand your believing "there are no gods" as revealed in the Buddha writings.)

First of all, you're still acting like the Bible is a universally textbook of science. It's not.

No! Not science as such, but a recorded history of how all things came about which we see about us. The history of mankind and how best to relate to the Creator and one another. It is about obedience and disobedience and the results of each action. However, it doesn't stop there. Because of the consequences of disobedience, A way of escaping the final results was, also, included. A better world is ahead.

Second, I'm not suggesting that this initial force or energy is in anyway, shape, or form, what people call 'god'. What you described is deism. I'm not a deist, and that's not what I'm trying to get at.

Deism="belief in the existence of a supreme being arising from reason rather than revelation." That's not what I believe.

Now, I'm a bit confused here. Are you suggesting that morality can only be found in your religion, and only practiced by those who worship your god? Or are you trying to say something else here, and I'm just not understanding it?

Truth is found in all false ideas/beliefs. Or it would not be believed. The greater the amount of truth/fact the easier it is to accept. But the "ANY" falseness still renders the whole as false.

Or do I accept a god at all? That's the choice I opt for. (and from your post to M_I--And he taught us all to do the same, how to do it. Why worship something you can become? Why worship at all? The power, all knowledge, all wisdom, is already inside of each of us, all we have to do is let it out.)

That idea was one of the "serpents lies" in the garden" "Ye shall be as gods".

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I fail to see where a being from another "mutliverse" who did "the creating of this world" would NOT want to be recognized as the owner/Lord/GOD of this/HIS created workmanship. Or would deminish that fact. (I understand your believing "there are no gods" as revealed in the Buddha writings.)

I guess that would all depend on how you define "god". Said being may not fit the attributes of what you would consider to be god, or even fit a standard definition, it might be nothing more than a being with a great amount of power, but not much else.

No! Not science as such, but a recorded history of how all things came about which we see about us. The history of mankind and how best to relate to the Creator and one another. It is about obedience and disobedience and the results of each action. However, it doesn't stop there. Because of the consequences of disobedience, A way of escaping the final results was, also, included. A better world is ahead.

I can understand that.

Deism="belief in the existence of a supreme being arising from reason rather than revelation." That's not what I believe.

No, I never said I thought that's what you believed. I know that's not what you believe. I thought you were saying you thought that's what I was describing.

That idea was one of the "serpents lies" in the garden" "Ye shall be as gods".

This goes back to what I said at first, it all depends on how you define god. Buddhism takes a vastly different definition of god than all other religions do.

 

[sincerly]

I guess that would all depend on how you define "god". Said being may not fit the attributes of what you would consider to be god, or even fit a standard definition, it might be nothing more than a being with a great amount of power, but not much else.

What defined your supposition was IT "created this world". However, it wouldn't be from a "multiverse" if: """Said being may not fit the attributes of what you would consider to be god, or even fit a standard definition, it might be nothing more than a being with a great amount of power, but not much else."""


(1)If it fit my expected "attributes" of what a god should be----then it would be a god of my imagination and not one with the ability to creat this world and all that is in it.
(2)Then the "standard definition" is, also, a product of the human mind. and back to a figment of one's imagination. So this "creating source" from the "multiverse" is controlled by the person and all else it created.
(3) Again, the power it was said to possess was the Ability to creat this world. Which would make that power worthy of reverance from one of its created beings.

This goes back to what I said at first, it all depends on how you define god. Buddhism takes a vastly different definition of god than all other religions do.

Which is "no gods"other than self which was expressed in your: """Why worship something you can become? """

 

[Thief]

i don't see a contradiction...

i am above your god....since your god was conjured up by goat herders

Not that I would be offended....
But isn't that a bit contrary?

 

[waitasec]

Not that I would be offended....
But isn't that a bit contrary?

it would be contrary if i said "i am above my god"

 

[Thief]

it would be contrary if i said "i am above my god"

oh no you don't....you can't use that!

Whether it's my God or yours....
You would have to rewrite all definitions.
And then proclaim your godly attributes.

That you don't believe in life after death.....

 

[Thief]

Back to topic...
I didn't rebuttal this earlier...now seems good.

Hi Thief, Agreed, GOD didn't place Satan in the Garden; however, neither did "he slither in". The "story" isn't the first three chapters of Genesis, but continues to Revelation 22:21.

As depicted, the serpent having subtle qualities....did slither into the garden.
It's a metaphor.

If the image is difficult, you could change it, but as it is.....
The serpent moves about with hardly any disturbance to the surroundings.
Hardly a noise...almost no movement to see....
is often a surprise when it makes itself known.
Sometimes that surprise is deadly.

That he entered the garden of his own accord....excuses God.
He was not invited....and that excuses Man.

I see no notation in Genesis, that he excuses himself.
He would be an intruder....a trespasser.

 

[waitasec]

oh no you don't....you can't use that!

Whether it's my God or yours....
You would have to rewrite all definitions.
And then proclaim your godly attributes.

That you don't believe in life after death.....

your god said he was jealous of other gods....