Posted on

Why did God Let The Serpent (Satan) Into The Garden Of Eden?

Atheists love to bring up this argument stating that it would be wrong for God to do so, knowing what would happen. The first question I would like to ask the atheist is “from what moral standard would you be coming from?” If you present the argument as it being wrong for God to do so, then you must be coming from a moral standpoint.

Adam had a good grasp of what right and wrong was. He was an adult and had the free will to chose whether or not to take a bite of the fruit that Eve presented him with. It all boiled down to the freedom that God gave Adam to choose. The freedom to choose opens up the door for sin to entering; you make that choice.

God knew that Adam would sin. Adam and Eve were not automatons. They were tempted and the rebellion nature came through.

It was God’s will to allow Satan into the garden. Do you not think that even as parents we allow our children to do things that we know they will fail at, why would God be any different? It is by our failures that we grow and learn.

God Bless

Brian Mason

Advertisements

About beaconapologetics

A Christian Apologist. A follower of Jesus. A defender of the Christian Faith

14 responses to “Why did God Let The Serpent (Satan) Into The Garden Of Eden?

  1. Thanks for your reply Vince. I simply do not understand what you are writing. Could you please have an English interpreter translate your composition so I can fairly respond to you?
    God Bless!

  2. Vince Weeks ⋅

    U where wrong only garden satan enters was the garden of eden in there mind as they where asleep Adam had the power god gave him to name and order .adam sin in his mind and then they eyes where open.Adams heart wasn’t in the right place way b4 the garden thats why he was put to sleep .which was the first time sleep was.

  3. If you are being serious here I will answer, so I assume you are. God created man in His own image.

  4. You will not answer my question and I have asked this repeatedly “I will respond to all you ask “It is immoral to:” First do you believe in Moral absolutes”?

  5. “I concede that I can imagine a situation where I would kick my son out of the house. The situation would dependent on my son causing significant harm to others of the household. It will take more than just defiance or rebelliousness”. Your opinion.
    ” But I will never tempt him, and I especially won’t tempt him if I know it will cause harm”. Neither would God nor did He.

    I will respond to all you ask “It is immoral to:” First do you believe in Moral absolutes?

    By the way the “God of the Bible” DOES exist and I am glad you Capitalized God. Not many God haters will do that.

    Brian

  6. Yes, clearly, if your argument is correct.

  7. I concede that I can imagine a situation where I would kick my son out of the house. The situation would dependent on my son causing significant harm to others of the household. It will take more than just defiance or rebelliousness.

    But this is not the situation we’re talking about with Adam and Eve. I might teach my son a lesson by allowing him to do something that I know he’ll fail at. But I will never tempt him, and I especially won’t tempt him if I know it will cause harm. It’s like leaving my 18yo son in the house alone with a beautiful and skilled seductress who’s mission it is to have sex. Even worse, she has aids, and I’m the only one who knows it.

    Let’s not start a discussion about free will.. Analogies are imperfect and fall apart at some point. I didn’t feel it was necessary to quantify that the “kids” are adults and free to choose; it is kind of assumed and ultimately not necessary to demonstrate the important points I made, most of which you did not respond to. I’ll be more more explicit.

    It is immoral to:
    1) create a situation where you know the outcome will cause harm and suffering, when it’s in your power to prevent it *at any time*
    2) blame a child for the father’s transgressions
    3) absolve someone of their transgressions, by accepting the sacrifice or payment of another
    4) create a situation where a person must do something (mob boss says pay me) or face a severe consequence (or I’ll break your legs)
    5) disproportionately punish someone, especially if the only transgression is disbelief in a claim that is rationally impossible to accept (requires faith)

    The only way to find the above morally acceptable is to argue that God is God, and if he does it, it is moral, because he is author of moral law, after all (as you’ve done in the comments here). And that is why I say, I am more moral than the biblical God, and so is almost everyone alive today.

    If the God of the bible exists, he may well make the rules, but that does not make him moral. And it certainly does not make him loving. I am relieved, beyond measure, that I can’t find a reason to believe in Yahweh any more.

  8. Well, it sort of ruins the omnibenevolent attribute. To top that, such a plan is a crappy reason to believe someone is creator god of all existence, perfect in every way.

    Clearly, anyone who believes in the god of the christian bible is not thinking this whole thing through if your argument is correct.

  9. You have a weak argument. You disagree with it because you don’t see it as being fair? Actually His plan is His plan, not ours.

  10. The trouble with what you say is that your god supposedly knew they would fail… and he let it happen anyway. Then you claim this is part of his plan. The take away here is that eternal damnation was part of your god’s plan. He knew what would happen and did it anyway. Omniscience is like that… not like the stupid ball trick you spoke of. What a realistic way to present your deity – his plan was eternal damnation for humanity.

  11. Actually my analogy is only one of many. If you read the post and I am certain you did, Adam and Eve were adults. They were given the freedom of choice to take from the fruit.

    If I were to throw a ball to you I know you will try to catch it, but that does not mean you won’t drop it. I KNEW that you would try to catch the ball, what you do with it is your choice. That is your free will or whatever handle you want to put on it.

    If you use your son Dave’s example I agree, the only way I wouldn’t is if he was in defiance or rebellious. Again remember your son I am guessing is not an adult? Well I defied my father when I was 18 and guess what, I was kicked out of the house…pack your bags, the whole nine yards. So what I am saying is context is very important here.

  12. You asked me to be shorter. So hard. I’ll have to cherry pick what to respond to.

    What moral standard? The only one there is: the humanly authored moral standard that is imperfect, but improving. I am more moral than the biblical God, and so is almost everyone alive today.

    Forget Satan, let’s run with your analogy. If my son, Dave, fails at something and disappoints me–even though I knew he would fail, so that I can teach him a lesson–I do not kick him out of the house. I do not automatically pass the blame to Daisy, my granddaugther. I do not absolve Dave of his responsibilities because Danny, his step-brother–who was a perfect boy that never disappointed me–offered to learn the lesson on Dave’s behalf. I do not lock up my great grandchildren if they do not accept that Danny is the only one who could learn the lesson, and that they can never please me through their own efforts. I do not do any of those things, because that would be monstrous. Why, if God does this–and worse–it suddenly becomes moral and acceptable? Why do people celebrate Danny!?

Comments are closed.