How did Satan get to the garden of Eden?

[fallingblood]

God punished him, as he plays magic sky daddy with all people and punishes them at will for mistakes far less then the snake.

And your true intentions come out. You claim to know the context, and then you state this. And you have the gall to insult me? Just wonderful.

 

[outhouse]

That's true .. but many are .. and you, imo, are one of them!

This account in Genesis that gives insight into why God has ordained this worldly life for us, is very important ... you are acting in the same way as the serpent/satan, in claiming that it's "just a myth" etc.

its not just a myth.

it was written in a mythical sense, BUT metaphors and parables are used to convey morals and give the people their own identity. There are many great lessons within its pages.

but that doesnt make it literal history that ever happened.


adam and creation legends pre-dates hebrews, just as yahweh pre-dates hebrews.

the creation story and god existed before israelites

 

[waitasec]

Why? Why should people see God as immoral? What could that possibly help?

because mankind is capable of being immoral and moral enough to recognize this god character is immoral as
1) he either set man up to fail and thusly allowed for death and disease as a consequence
2) he wanted his creation to remain unaware of the moral consequences of their actions.

in other words, it (our quest for knowledge) all starts and ends with us.

 

[muhammad_isa]

1) he either set man up to fail and thusly allowed for death and disease as a consequence

That's right .. we all fail at some point .. there is not one person who is perfect and will always make the 'right decision' .
We are here to progress .. but those who turn away from God's guidance cannot!

The main thing, is that that we succeed in the long run .. falling over and grazing our knees is a relatively minor inconvenience .. total failure is serious

2) he wanted his creation to remain unaware of the moral consequences of their actions.

Your argument assumes that mankind is "really smart" .. I mean REALLY SMART
They are not, despite the fact that some people seem to think that they are

You can't put "an old head on young shoulders" .. we often have to learn the hard way

 

[waitasec]

That's right .. we all fail at some point .. there is not one person who is perfect and will always make the 'right decision' .
We are here to progress .. but those who turn away from God's guidance cannot!

The main thing, is that that we succeed in the long run .. falling over and grazing our knees is a relatively minor inconvenience .. total failure is serious

Your argument assumes that mankind is "really smart" .. I mean REALLY SMART
They are not, despite the fact that soem people think that they are

You can't put "an old head on young shoulders" .. we often have to learn the hard way

which is why the god character in this fictitious story is immoral

 

[Thief]

which is why the god character in this fictitious story is immoral

I thought we covered this earlier in this thread.
Perhaps several threads.

If there is a God (there is)....and he has made an effort to contact with His creation....(He did)....then....
Someone had to be first.
That would be Adam.

The details of that encounter can be called metaphor and fiction if it makes you feel better.

But latter...when you meet that immoral God.....

 

[waitasec]

I thought we covered this earlier in this thread.
Perhaps several threads.

we did however you seem to interpret my response to muhammad_isa as you...
are you feeling ok?

 

[Thief]

we did however you seem to interpret my response to muhammad_isa as you...
are you feeling ok?

This ain't no private discussion.
You ok?

 

[outhouse]

If there is a God (there is)....and he has made an effort to contact with His creation....(He did)....then....
Someone had to be first.
That would be Adam.

the only way any of this can be true is if you take a literal reading.

adam has ZERO historicity outside of scripture

 

[Thief]

the only way any of this can be true is if you take a literal reading.

adam has ZERO historicity outside of scripture

Well gee.....theological discussions require history?

And you hope to have the last word on this topic?

 

[outhouse]

Well gee.....theological discussions require history?

And you hope to have the last word on this topic?

no the book that contains the story has the last word.

And in no way shape or form, is the snake made out to be satan.


you have to understand how satan evolved into the current concept, so far you have shown yourself to lack this knowledge

 

[fallingblood]

because mankind is capable of being immoral and moral enough to recognize this god character is immoral as
1) he either set man up to fail and thusly allowed for death and disease as a consequence
2) he wanted his creation to remain unaware of the moral consequences of their actions.

in other words, it (our quest for knowledge) all starts and ends with us.

Why does it have to be either or? You're approaching it from a view that God is already immoral, and thus, your interpretation is going to be just that.

The first interpretation isn't very accurate. It assumes God is all knowing, when that isn't a must, and up to this point, we aren't told that. More so, the story suggests the opposite. God has to ask way too many questions, he doesn't seem to know exactly what happened, and he doesn't even seem to know where Adam and Eve are at first. It also ignores the idea of free will, that people have choices, and have the ability to make their own choices.

The second interpretation assumes that people didn't have an idea of consequences, when the story itself suggests the opposite. Why would God tell Adam that there would be a consequence if he ate from the tree, if he wanted humans to remain unaware of such? It really doesn't follow.

 

[Thief]

no the book that contains the story has the last word.

And in no way shape or form, is the snake made out to be satan.


you have to understand how satan evolved into the current concept, so far you have shown yourself to lack this knowledge

Yeah well....
The book doesn't use the word Adversary either.

But you don't see the serpent as an adversary?
A character attempting to intervene in the garden event?

 

[outhouse]

But you don't see the serpent as an adversary?

not to god, a trickster, yes.

thats why they made him a snake, they wanted him percieved as a dirty little dangerous deciever

Yeah well....
The book doesn't use the word Adversary either.

exactly

half of genesis predates the concept of satan anyway

 

[Thief]

not to god, a trickster, yes.

thats why they made him a snake, they wanted him percieved as a dirty little dangerous deciever
exactly

half of genesis predates the concept of satan anyway

But it does not circumvent the character of deception.

Try as you may, the serpent got in the garden.
He then did something vile.

You can't take the serpent out of the garden.
Do you really think you can take the Satan out of the serpent?

Most people won't follow you.
They don't want to.

 

[fallingblood]

not to god, a trickster, yes.

thats why they made him a snake, they wanted him percieved as a dirty little dangerous deciever

Or an adversary. If a dangerous deceiver is not an adversary, what is?

 

[outhouse]

But it does not circumvent the character of deception.

Try as you may, the serpent got in the garden.
He then did something vile.

You can't take the serpent out of the garden.
Do you really think you can take the Satan out of the serpent?

Most people won't follow you.
They don't want to.

But its not written that way.

a snake is a despised creature. its why the author wrote a talking snake in.


yes I understand many people inject imagination to a literal reading without understanding the valid history of not only the composition or redactions, but just what the author's really wanted to get across with their style

 

[outhouse]

Or an adversary. If a dangerous deceiver is not an adversary, what is?

an adversary to who is the question.

gods adversary in the same context as other ha-satan passages?? not even close.


in this context he is adam and eve's only, and not really their adversary.


god was not a apponent in this context, neither was adam or eve


he is not, nor was he ever written in as satan

 

[fallingblood]

But its not written that way.

a snake is a despised creature. its why the author wrote a talking snake in.

In Caanan, there were a number of snake cults, as well as a reverence for snakes in Mesopotamia as well. Both suggest they weren't despised. There were seen as entities of strength and renewal.

Also, since God created the serpent, it is implied that the serpent is good. Since God is attributed as saying his creations are good.

 

[fallingblood]

an adversary to who is the question.

gods adversary in the same context as other ha-satan passages?? not even close.


in this context he is adam and eve's only, and not really their adversary.


god was not a apponent in this context, neither was adam or eve


he is not, nor was he ever written in as satan

Did I say a single thing about Satan? Nope. I didn't mention an adversary such as that in the "other ha-satan passages."

Try to read what I said, instead of what you think I'm saying.