>Knows that his creator is omnipotent and omniscient
>Knows that he will suffer eternally if he rebels
>Knows that there is literally no chance at victory
>Knows that he cannot win
>Still does it
>Somehow convinces other angels to do it
The psychology and motivations of Christian characters makes no fricking sense.
>inb4, he isn't human so his reasons don't make sense for humans
Is not being human make you somehow mentally moronic? Is there a religious/mythological character that's equally moronic?
Paradise Lost is not Biblical canon
wrong!
But it should be. Anyway in Paradise Lost he doesn't believe God is omnipotent and omniscient when he first rebels. He thinks he and his followers can actually win. By the time he realizes his mistake, it's too late to change his mind.
>Omnipotent God knows devil will rebel if he doesn't know he is omnipotent but doesn't just tell the devil he's omnipotent
John Milton is a fricking hack.
Fully comvincing someone that you're omnipotent is virtually impossible. You can do all sorts of mighty things, but all of the prove that you're very powerful, extremely powerful, but none can prove that you're absolutely and totally powerful, that is the doubt that made Satan and his angels rebel.
Satan and the angels who rebelled basically called bullshit on God's omnipotence, they though hey maybe he's lying, maybe he's not all powerful, he might be extremely powerful, but if enough of us band together and go at him we might have a chance, so they shoot their shot, and were squarely defeated.
>makes no fricking sense
He sought to glorify God's creation by the creation of the children of God. The children of God did not rise to fulfill their potential and the father of Sin is to blame for the evil which came into the world as the result.
But God so loved the children of God that he sent his only begotten son to redeem them and raise them back up as the children of God in the Kingdom of Heaven upon the earth.
Meds
Christianity is protected under the first amendment by the united states constitution. The children of God exist upon the earth and have always since the fall.
>omnipotent omniscient
Yahweh is not. He simply claims to be more mighty and wise than everyone else.
>he will suffer for eternity if he rebels
If he rebels he will gain his freedom
>no chance at victory
That is what Yahweh wants to make them believe.
>he cannot win
Not if he doesn't fight
Death to the Tyrant
Is it time to play SMT already?
I can’t look into Satans mind and know what he’s thinking but I’ll play devils advocate for his thought process for your sake OP
>Knows that his creator is omnipotent and omniscient
he also knows he’s inherently good, and so he thinks he can abuse Gods love for him in a way that allows him to gain power over creation
>Knows that he will suffer eternally if he rebels
He doesn’t inherently know this at the time
>Knows that there is literally no chance at victory
He doesn’t know this, he’s not omniscient like God is and is a limited being, he could easily assume that God will let him win
>Knows that he cannot win
He doesn’t, see above
>Still does it
Yes, He’s extremely prideful
>Somehow convinces other angels to do it
He’s also charismatic and probably convinced other angels to think like him through appealing to their sense of pride too
>Knows that his creator is omnipotent and omniscient
He is 100% moronic for not realizing at this point that all of his choices are predetermined and there is no way to counteract an all-powerful being. All of his actions are god's actions by default. There is no rebellion unless god is a schizo or hates himself
You can see people make the same mistake as him in real life
Yeah but people don't have direct proof of an omnipotent omniscient entity which literally created you, and knows everything about you. While this also calls into question the omniscience/benelovence of God because he created him fully knowing he will rebel so he was set up for failure from the very beginning, ignoring that his actions as an individual don't really make sense.
Bad writing tbh.
free will is the gift of the children of God and free will is of God. When the eye is turned upon the wielder of the gift of the children of God prescience fails.
That's just a fancy way of saying that in the Christian canon free will doesn't make logical sense. But that's kind of besides the point.
Sure, but what the frick would give him that idea, and hell how the hell should that be even possible seeing this was before the fall, which means that it doesn't make sense for him to have personal flaws that even allow for this to happen as that would imply that God's creation was flawed.
that is just a fancy way of saying you don't like the answer.
No, not really. It was paraphrasing your answer and quite well. But once again that isn't the aspect of this discussion I'm interested in.
Let's say that the idea of free will with an omnipotent and omniscient creator God makes sense, it does not but for this argument this is really meaningless. It was an offhand comment.
>Sure, but what the frick would give him that idea
Imperfection, doubt, hubris, skepticism. Only God is perfect, remember? Even angels are flawed.
Pridefully they believed their children would wield their gifts to glorify the Kingdom of Heaven but we did not and the father of sin is to blame for belief in us who failed to be as perfect as Enoch.
>Having to make a character act stupid to advance the plot seems like bad writing
>"Um, well have you considered that the character is just moronic?"
explaining the mechanics of a shitty plot point doesn't make it good writing.
It's not a fictional story homosexual.
well that's just the thing, only fiction could have writing this bad.
>story about a man doing nothing with himself
>plot never advances
>there are no other characters for him to have a relationship with
>most boring thing imaginable
Probably the worst written story imaginable, but you're living it.
>if I just keep saying ad hominem insults, no one will realize that I am incapable of responding to the argument
c'mon, anon, at least give it an attempt before you go full-on russian playing Dota 2 mode
>FRICKING MOTHER IS FRICK DOG bawd prostitute MOTHERFRICKER I RAEP YU BICH
You're not making any argument.
have you tried scrolling up a little bit
I've been in this thread since it started. You're just treating the Bible as a fictional story and then demand people who actually believe in it to treat it the same way as you and respond to your criticism.
I'm treating it as a story without regard for whether it's true or false. I never explicitly said it was fiction. My point was that, even if we entertain the bible as being true for the sake of argument, the various plot points simply don't feel authentic.
Satan is a tool fashioned by the author pretending that pretends to be a character, but even on cursory analysis, he clearly isn't one. His actions are nonsensical if you take the perspective that he is a sentient being with agency, but they of course make a lot more sense if you look at Satan's story as being part of a narrative crafted by the author.
Sin is foolish rebellion against God, who is goodness and perfection incarnate. So to illustrate the point, we'll have a story about a bunch of foolish angels who rebel against god and get smacked down, because they are not perfect, but god is.
Explaining the mechanics of something
>Why did Satan do something really, really dumb? Well, because he's stupid, of course!
doesn't resolve the issue. It's just an attempt at justifying the bad writing. That is, it's saying "It's ok that X doesn't make sense," rather than saying "Actually, X does make sense."
>His actions are nonsensical
What is done by the angels is always done to glorify God, even the fall which was redeemed through the Christ. Pridefully the angels assumed their children, the children of God, would wield the gifts only for glorification of the Kingdom of Heaven but we did not.
It was done to glorify God but the gift was godly and prescience could not penetrate it so when evil was birthed the father was rightly condemned.
> I never explicitly said it was fiction.
>Satan is a tool fashioned by the author
I am concluding now that it is fiction, yes, because the writing is extremely convenient (i.e. bad)
>>*someone does something dumb*
the "something dumb" in this case, of course, being an attempt to kill god. That goes beyond just stupid.
>the "something dumb" in this case, of course, being an attempt to kill god. That goes beyond just stupid.
Again, he doubted that God was all powerful, he doubted that he was invincible, probably he still believes today that God is not invincible and just thinks that he didn't have enough power and people on his side to defeat him. I mean if you know someone who claims to be invincible, so you challenge him, and he defeats you again and again, you can always think well maybe next time I'll beat him, and on and on you go forever, never fully believing that your opponent was truly invincible.
I mean this mentality is what impulses posts like this:
Even if he's not completely omnipotent, the christian god is so fricking powerful. He literally created the universe from nothing and then created a race of completely conscious, sentient beings (angels). Whether or not he believed he was literally omnipotent, anyone in Satan's position would know that they had exactly 0 chance of killing god. That's what makes the writing so unbelievable.
To get Satan to foolishly rebel against god and get smacked down because god is all-powerful is so incredibly convenient to the point the bible is trying to make, and so completely implausible if you were to believe that the bible is a neutral account of the history of the universe that the story just seems ridiculous on its face.
>Even if he's not completely omnipotent, the christian god is so fricking powerful. He literally created the universe from nothing and then created a race of completely conscious, sentient beings (angels). Whether or not he believed he was literally omnipotent, anyone in Satan's position would know that they had exactly 0 chance of killing god. That's what makes the writing so unbelievable.
Several points here:
1. From Satan's pov, that doesn't prove he's all powerful and therefore invincible, it only proves that he's powerful enough to create the universe.
2. Maybe God spent all this power in creating the universe and is weak.
3. Maybe the universe already existed and God is just giving himself the credit and is making all the angels believe that he created it (basically the plot of His Dark Materials).
Again we have to notice that Satan just seems foolish after the fact, after God just smacked him down and we're all here judging him and wondering what was he thinking. But from his perspective we can see why he though what he did made sense.
>To get Satan to foolishly rebel against god and get smacked down because god is all-powerful is so incredibly convenient to the point the bible is trying to make, and so completely implausible if you were to believe that the bible is a neutral account of the history of the universe that the story just seems ridiculous on its face.
Incredulity fallacy.
Tbh my approach kind of shifts as I see you guys discuss.
>A being created by a God with the knowledge by God that he is going to rebel against him
>Lacks critical information about his existence
>Tragically fulfils his fate as he is misguided in thinking he has a chance
Kind of kino
>1. From Satan's pov, that doesn't prove he's all powerful and therefore invincible, it only proves that he's powerful enough to create the universe.
Ok, but if god can easily conjure anything into being, it wouldn't matter if he's not literally omnipotent. If anyone tried to attack him, god could conceivably just materialize an exact mirror of the forces attacking him, but make them stronger and more loyal. Satan could never hope to kill someone who can just say "you lose now" and it becomes true.
>2. Maybe God spent all this power in creating the universe and is weak.
why would he assume this without evidence.
>3. Maybe the universe already existed and God is just giving himself the credit and is making all the angels believe that he created it
Assuming christianity is true, what else could've made the universe besides god.
>Incredulity fallacy.
I'm not just appealing to my own incredulity here.
Let me give you an example of the point I'm trying to make.
You're the prosecutor in a murder case. The defendant takes the stand to plead his own innocence. You question him. You ask him where he was on Wednesday at 1:36 AM, the time of the murder. He says he was volunteering at a soup kitchen, providing food to the poor, and was just about to leave to head to his volunteer job at the local humane society.
The mechanics of this answer are facially absurd (what soup kitchens and humane societies are open at 1 in the morning), but more than that, these statements advance a strong interest of the defendant: his desire to appear innocent. That his answers not only put him miles away from the scene of the crime, but also serve a dual purpose of making him look like a saintly individual, it is fair to say that the overwhelming convenience, in cases like this, almost supply a presumption of deceit.
>Ok, but if god can easily conjure anything into being, it wouldn't matter if he's not literally omnipotent.
That's quite literally the definition of omnipotence. You're contradicting yourself here.
>Satan could never hope to kill someone who can just say "you lose now" and it becomes true.
Again, he called bullshit on God being able to do this.
>why would he assume this without evidence.
Skepticism.
>Assuming christianity is true, what else could've made the universe besides god.
Pretty sure Satan is not a Christian anon.
>You're the prosecutor in a murder case.
Your example already doesn't work from this point. We're talking about divine beings, not humans.
>The mechanics of this answer are facially absurd (what soup kitchens and humane societies are open at 1 in the morning),
Anon, I'm fairly certain that there are plenty of soup kitchens open at 1 in the morning to provide homeless people food and shelter during the night. I'm starting to think that you have a very narrow view of the world and that is your problem.
>but more than that, these statements advance a strong interest of the defendant: his desire to appear innocent. That his answers not only put him miles away from the scene of the crime, but also serve a dual purpose of making him look like a saintly individual, it is fair to say that the overwhelming convenience, in cases like this, almost supply a presumption of deceit.
Anon, you'd make a terrible lawyer.
>That's quite literally the definition of omnipotence. You're contradicting yourself here.
oh ok, so Satan would just think
>Yeah, God can conjure the universe existence, and he can conjure me into existence, but he couldn't, for instance, conjure a slightly stronger version of myself to rebuff me when I go to assassinate god
>Skepticism.
yeah, based on fricking what
I don't just wake up and think
>Hmm, today I will doubt the existence of the sky.
Something has to actually incite skepticism.
>Pretty sure Satan is not a Christian anon.
He exists in the christian cosmos. My point is that it's not like Satan was talking with Vishnu or Odin or whoever the frick and they were like "Oh no, bro, it was totally me who made the universe, not that YHWH chump."
>not engaging with the substance of the hypothetical
ok, whatever, dude
>>Yeah, God can conjure the universe existence, and he can conjure me into existence, but he couldn't, for instance, conjure a slightly stronger version of myself to rebuff me when I go to assassinate god
Sure, maybe he thought that, I don't see any reason why he wouldnt'.
>Something has to actually incite skepticism.
Not necessarily, some people are more skeptical than others.
>He exists in the christian cosmos.
Satan obviously doesn't believe that he does.
Once again not the same anon.
>Sure, maybe he thought that, I don't see any reason why he wouldnt'.
Yeah but by this point you are just saying that he would be completely moronic and assume things on the basis of basically nothing.
>Not necessarily, some people are more skeptical than others.
Skepticism isn't having wild assumptions about things based on the evidence established, it is doubting whether certain ideas are true and looking for evidence for or against. If I am skeptical of a thing A, but I have no evidence against thing A but I have plenty of evidence for thing A then I have no idea how one could come to a conclusion other than "A is true".
>Satan obviously doesn't believe that he does.
Why would he not? How would he come to that conclusion?
>Yeah but by this point you are just saying that he would be completely moronic and assume things on the basis of basically nothing.
Ok. He's a moron, I fail to see why that's so hard for you to believe.
>Skepticism isn't having wild assumptions about things based on the evidence established, it is doubting whether certain ideas are true and looking for evidence for or against.
I'm using skepticism in the colloquial way, not the philosophical way.
>it is doubting whether certain ideas are true and looking for evidence for or against.
Well we can say that that's what he did, he challenged God to test whether or not he was truly invincible.
>Why would he not? How would he come to that conclusion?
Ask him.
Not the same anon but
>That's quite literally the definition of omnipotence. You're contradicting yourself here.
Not really, the only thing that God needs is the ability to create the same shit he already did. If he already created angels, why couldn't he just create more angels to fight? That seems like a bizarre assumption.
>Skepticism
What would satan have to be skeptical about exactly? Remember this is at the time where God basically created him as well as everything else.
>Pretty sure Satan is not a Christian anon.
Doesn't matter, what reason has he to doubt things he sees and can confirm with his own eyes? (I know angels don't have eyes but still)
>Your example already doesn't work from this point. We're talking about divine beings, not humans.
So are divine beings just on average less logical and stupider than humans? Are divine beings incapable of reason and following reason? Because I don't think that differences in psychology between human and divine make you suddenly lose grasp of basic logic.
>Anon, I'm fairly certain that there are plenty of soup kitchens open at 1 in the morning to provide homeless people food and shelter during the night. I'm starting to think that you have a very narrow view of the world and that is your problem.
Replace it for any other unlikely scenario, once again not the same anon but his argument works even if his comparison isn't the best.
>Not really, the only thing that God needs is the ability to create the same shit he already did. If he already created angels, why couldn't he just create more angels to fight? That seems like a bizarre assumption.
>What would satan have to be skeptical about exactly?
God's power.
>Remember this is at the time where God basically created him as well as everything else.
Maybe he doubted that God had indeed created him as well as everything else, that's the reason John Milton conjures for explaining Satan's rebellion in Paradise Lost.
>Doesn't matter, what reason has he to doubt things he sees and can confirm with his own eyes?
Again, he cannot confirm God's omnipotence, because of what I already explained here:
>Are divine beings incapable of reason and following reason?
Satan is obviously not being reasonable. He is not a being of pure logic, he's arrogant, prideful, jealous, holds grudges.
>Replace it for any other unlikely scenario
To a judge it doesn't matter how "unlikely" a scenario is, what matters is whether or not is evidence to corroborate his story.
>He is not a being of pure logic, he's arrogant, prideful, jealous, holds grudges.
Again, you're just begging the question
>Why did Satan do something incredibly stupid? Well, because he's incredibly stupid!
>what matters is whether or not is evidence to corroborate his story.
I'm not going to turn this into a legal discussion, but witness testimony is evidence, and the task is often left to the jury (not the judge, the judge resolves matters of law, not fact) to decide whether they think the testimonial evidence is credible or not.
>Again, you're just begging the question
>>Why did Satan do something incredibly stupid? Well, because he's incredibly stupid!
That's not begging the question, if someone does something stupid, it's perfectly fair to conclude that he's stupid.
Even stupid people have reasoning. And even this invites the question of "Why did God make Satan a moron?".
But here's the problem, I really don't want to keep adding more legal concepts but bear with me here it's how I process this shit, the bible is hearsay. Whoever wrote the individual books in the bible is telling you "this is what these other people said and did."
If you're trying to evaluate the plausibility of a hearsay statement, things like extremely convenient and self-serving but otherwise ridiculous narratives become suspect, no?
I don't know what point you're trying to make with the legal analogy anymore, dude.
>Maybe he doubted that God had indeed created him as well as everything else, that's the reason John Milton conjures for explaining Satan's rebellion in Paradise Lost.
So does Satan have amnesia? Does he not remember coming into being?
>Satan is obviously not being reasonable. He is not a being of pure logic, he's arrogant, prideful, jealous, holds grudges.
Why would God make him like that? Those are all negative traits.
>To a judge it doesn't matter how "unlikely" a scenario is, what matters is whether or not is evidence to corroborate his story.
We are working with circumstantial evidence at best or with complete fiction at worst, so that argument doesn't work.
>Ok. He's a moron, I fail to see why that's so hard for you to believe.
Because he was directly created by a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient benevolent being? Why the frick would a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient being make him a moron?
>I'm using skepticism in the colloquial way, not the philosophical way.
Why the frick would Satan have any basis to be skeptical even in the colloquial manner? The same behaviour applies to even skeptical in colloquial sense.
>Well we can say that that's what he did, he challenged God to test whether or not he was truly invincible.
Staking your existence on a vague idea that you aren't able to prove any collaborating evidence for seems like terrible odds. Yes it's not impossible that it couldn't have happened, but requires a lot of assumptions which once again, call into question why God would make one of his angels a complete moron.
>Ask him.
How about you actually show how any being at that time period could even think of coming to that conclusion based on what the religion you believe in claims to be fact.
>So does Satan have amnesia? Does he not remember coming into being?
That's the argument Satan makes to the angels to rebel against God in Paradise Lost, he appeals to what they don't know rather than what they know, a complete inversion of reason. He quite literally asks them if any of them remember being created by God, they answer no and from that he plants the seed of doubt among them, and suggests to them that maybe God is not their true creator, maybe they came into existence on their own (after that isn't that what God says about his creation?) and it's all downhill from there.
>Why would God make him like that? Those are all negative traits.
I don't think God made him that way, he just went off the deep end. Like a conspiracy theorist, he starts questioning little things and then he believes insane, unjustifiable shit.
>Because he was directly created by a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient benevolent being?
Only God can be perfect, not the angels.
>Why the frick would Satan have any basis to be skeptical even in the colloquial manner?
He doesn't that's the entire point, his rebelion is baseless, but he's stubborn and continues to believe he can defeat God because he doesn't believe in what he sees. Like Richard Dawkins saying that even if God were to appear in front of him, he'd believe it was a hallucination.
Stupid people have faulty reasoning.
>That's the argument Satan makes to the angels to rebel against God in Paradise Lost
I'm not arguing based on Paradise Lost, but even that brings the question of why the frick would Angels not remember being created? They aren't humans, they don't need to be birthed, they aren't physical entities so there is no reason for them to not have those memories.
>I don't think God made him that way, he just went off the deep end. Like a conspiracy theorist, he starts questioning little things and then he believes insane, unjustifiable shit.
God knew that he would end up this way even before Satan existed. That's what having omniscience means. So yeah, he did create him like that.
There was not even a moment where God didn't know that Satan wouldn't rebel against him, so why did he create him at all, or didn't change anything about him? If he is omniscient and omnipotent he obviously has control over his personality. Or even acted differently towards him so that he wouldn't go "off the deep end".
>Only God can be perfect, not the angels.
Why not? God is omnipotent, why wouldn't he be able to create perfect beings? And even then, there is a large amount of difference between being imperfect and stupid.
>his rebelion is baseless, but he's stubborn and continues to believe he can defeat God because he doesn't believe in what he sees
But why would he not? Dawkins (who isn't a very good philosopher to begin with but still) has any basis because hallucinations actually happen to humans and he was raised in a world where the existence of God is uncertain, Satan was not, he had direct contact with God, was raised to see him as his creator and had ample evidence to the fact that God is really what he thinks he is.
>Stupid people have faulty reasoning.
But they still have it. I think even a stupid person with the information Satan was given would very probably not take the same actions.
>why the frick would Angels not remember being created?
Because their memories are not perfect, they eventually forget things, only God's is perfect. Even in the Bible a big reason for a lot of the problems that happen there is forgetfulness, that's the entire reason why God kick the shit out of the Egyptians in Exodus, to make the Israelites and their descendants remember. It's a problem even today, as time advances people forget about the atrocities of the past, which is why we today see a rise of holocaust denial, for example.
>There was not even a moment where God didn't know that Satan wouldn't rebel against him, so why did he create him at all, or didn't change anything about him?
To defeat him.
>Why not?
Because only God is good, giving omnipotence to others would mean giving it to beings prone to evil.
>was raised to see him as his creator and had ample evidence to the fact that God is really what he thinks he is.
No that's the point, he didn't, even us cannot *know* for a 100 certain that God is all powerful, we have to take it on faith to some degree.
>But they still have it.
His reasoning was faulty.
>I think even a stupid person with the information Satan was given would very probably not take the same actions.
You think wrong.
Anyway I've got to go, sorry that I can't follow the conversation.
Goobye.
>Because their memories are not perfect, they eventually forget things, only God's is perfect. Even in the Bible a big reason for a lot of the problems that happen there is forgetfulness, that's the entire reason why God kick the shit out of the Egyptians in Exodus, to make the Israelites and their descendants remember. It's a problem even today, as time advances people forget about the atrocities of the past, which is why we today see a rise of holocaust denial, for example.
That problem is only because of our physical bodies though isn't it? Forgetting is due to us dying through the generations or because our nervous systems get older. Why would angels have that issue?
>To defeat him
Why? That unironically seems a bit unfair towards him, creating him only for the sake of defeating him. It's a cruel fate to be served.
>Because only God is good, giving omnipotence to others would mean giving it to beings prone to evil.
Why do we have to be prone to evil? God has free will himself, yet he is good.
Because the purpose of existence is that good will triumph over evil, and it can't do that if evil doesn't exist in the first place.
Anyway now I really have to go, bye.
>Assuming christianity is true, what else could've made the universe besides god.
To be honest, even if Christianity is true, you wouldn't have that information to begin with as Satan. Assume this: Imagine there were several Gods and the Christian God killed them all and proclaimed himself to be the ruler. If there is no trace of them, how would you differentiate it from God just being the first being to ever exist? You can't, but the possibility technically is there... That being said it is a bizarre idea to come up with without prior evidence.
Those who are hellbent on disobeying God will accept any idea that makes them feel righteous.
Also there are literal Satanists who believe exactly this, that the Christian God, if he exists, is not all powerful and that's just what he wants you to think and the Bible is his propaganda and so on and so forth. So if humans today can believe this I see no reason as to why Satan couldn't have come to believe the same thing.
>there are literal Satanists who believe exactly this, that the Christian God, if he exists, is not all powerful and that's just what he wants you to think and the Bible is his propaganda and so on and so forth
you literally just described all israelites.
Stop getting your "knowledge" of Judaism from /misc/
>*someone does something dumb*
>What? Why did he do this?
>Because he's dumb.
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE WHY IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I'm not the anon you were originally responding to, I just saw the opportunity to make that joke and went for it.
>and hell how the hell should that be even possible seeing this was before the fall
The Fall had nothing to do with the angels. It's an event that only involves humans. It was humans who fell, not angels, the angels just rebelled.
It was hard to adapt the Zoroastrian belief in an evil God into a monotheistic religion, so they had to fudge some details to make it work.
Truly, the first politician.
We just don't know the full story of Satan, or anything about how angels think or operate. Really we don't even know if they're creatures who literally exist or some kind of metaphor for something else. But most Christians would rather play around and write fanfiction about it all instead of focus on the much more important thing, which is Christ's teachings.
>Really we don't even know if they're creatures who literally exist or some kind of metaphor for something else.
So Jesus was contending with a metaphor in the desert?
Considering that people are literally tempted to do evil without literally needing the devil present I don't think it's too crazy to suggest that Christ wasn't literally communing with Satan in the desert.
If you knew you were gonna lose, would you
A: Surrender peacefully and get executed anyway
B: Go on a ballistic rampage and try to drag everyone into hell with you
Seems like Mr. Satan choose the second option.
Of course there is also the scenario that he is deluded enough to think like he will win, like the millions of people they could totally beat a bear in a fight or survive a post-apocalypse scenario because they watched a few movies.
Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius
>like the millions of people they could totally beat a bear in a fight
More people think people think this than people who really think that.
>People are unironically answering this question like they somehow know what the devil was thinking despite having no way to know this
Hey it's fun to theorize.
Yahweh usurped the throne of El. Lucifer loyal to the old God, rebelled against the treacherous deity but lost. However due to him being a creation of the one almighty, yahweh couldn't destroy him so vanished to hell.
Actually, funnily enough when I think about it, the existence of the devil in itself is proof that God cannot be perfect.
Because
A) God created him and didn't know he would rebel which means he isn't omniscient
B) God created him completely aware of the fact he would rebel which means he did not care about the consequences which means he cannot be benevolent.
>My evil will be my good
He just loved evil, it is literally that simple.
Yes, this type of mongoloid exists.
Why the frick would God create a being that loves evil if he's supposed to be good? Is God moronic then?
To demonstrate that good will always defeat evil.
Why? What does God have to prove? He is supposed to be perfect, he doesn't need to prove anything. Besides, what's a better way of defeating evil than not letting it exist in the first place?
He couldn't have made this world if evil was absent.
1. He made both the Garden of Eden and Heaven
2. Is God incapable of creating a world without evil? Is he not omnipotent?
It isn't that he is incapable, he simply didn't want to. God will not contradict himself, or else he will be arbitrary and inconsistent which would contradict his omnipotency. The only thing that can stop God is God himself.
He wouldn't be contradicting himself by being good and not creating things that aren't good. That's as consistent as you can get, if anything, creating the world as it is is a far greater contradiction.
Unless his vision of good isn't the same as yours, God is far more alien and human than people realize. The good that he seeks is the wholeness at the end of it all, like a cake, while yours is the sugar.
But God doesn't need to do the whole "Ends justify the means" thing. "The wholeness at the end of it all" can be accomplished instantly with a snap of the methaphorical fingers, he can skip the entire process and still get the same value. The process has value only from a human moral perspective, but from a perspective of an omnipotent, omniscient deity, any sort of loss, even if temporary, to approach an end is completely unnecessary.
Why does God have to go through the process of creating an imperfect world that causes not only untold suffering, but possibly eternal damnation to people in it (who he is said to love), when he can just skip to the end product without all of the negatives? Instead of having people go to heaven or hell he could have simply created a world where the people who would go to hell do not exist, so that they don't have to suffer. Or he could have skipped us right to the point where people are in heaven. There is literally no point to all of this.
Because God has all the time, he takes as long as he wants, he doesn't need the efficiency of a snap of a finger, it is all vanity to him. Look, God wants to give you everything, but do you want everything? He asks this question every waking day of your life. People that go to Hell are people that want to be there.
>People that go to Hell are people that want to be there.
on the topic of extremely convenient beliefs...
They definitely don't want to be with God, so they're sent to a place where God isn't. They should be perfectly happy then, unless of course they realize that God is the source of all that is good, life, pleace, beauty, comfort, so a place devoid of God is a place devoid of all of those things.
In Matthew 12:31 it literally says that all manner of sin will be forgiven. So, in other words, Hell is optional, they want to be harmed, the feeling of Hell isn't that dissimilar from the feeling of suicide. 'My good will be my evil' that is the spirit of it, masochist people exist.
>really necessary?
Yes, do you know the size of everything? Not the universe, but all the happenings that could possibly exist? What is all of that compared to that?
Should bad stuff like that be avoided? Yes too, because our duty, as per Ecclesiastes, is to follow his commandments, and not doing good because of some twisted rebellion against reality. Do good because you love good and not because you hate how the world is, there is a sea of difference between the two.
>People that go to Hell are people that want to be there.
I don't think that ever made sense to me. The reasons why people commit evil and do things in life are far more complex than just making a choice. I'm not denying that there is a choice, but it's not as easy as that. As for him taking as long as he wants, I think that's quite unfair to humanity, was the suffering of the people during Holodomor or Holocaust really necessary? The Cambodian Genocide? Children dying off of sickness? Cancer? That one disease that causes you to become a statue? I don't see much reason for why we couldn't have avoided that.
The reason why people do not believe in God are varied as well. Unless you think that has nothing to do with going to hell or not.
>The reasons why people commit evil and do things in life are far more complex than just making a choice.
None of those reasons justify them in making that choice.
>I'm not denying that there is a choice, but it's not as easy as that.
Making that choice is all that matters.
>As for him taking as long as he wants, I think that's quite unfair to humanity,
It's humanity that is making things so difficult and needing to take this long.
>was the suffering of the people during Holodomor or Holocaust really necessary? The Cambodian Genocide? Children dying off of sickness? Cancer? That one disease that causes you to become a statue? I don't see much reason for why we couldn't have avoided that.
Ask Adam and Eve, all it had taking for all of those things to be avoided was for them to tell the Serpent no.
>The reason why people do not believe in God are varied as well. Unless you think that has nothing to do with going to hell or not.
Again, none of those reasons justify not believing in God.
>christian characters
Stop asking questions.
And yes it was perfectly reasonable to try and tempt an omnipotent being in the desert with a kingdom he could have anytime he actually wanted to.