Who created Lucifer with the potential to become Satan?

Who created Lucifer with the potential to become Satan?

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Those two have nothing to do with each other. And stupid christcucks confuse Satan with something else anyway,

    Read your fucking holy book, you retards.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Why does the mention of one single thing from the Bible always send antichrists into such a rage? They'll spend hours on end for days in threads about a topic that only makes them rage. That's not a good argument convincing anyone that you truly believe it's all false.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    There's a crazy little thing called free will, anon.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Why would a prefect and self-sufficient God create such a crazy thing? (or anything at all, he is already perfect)
      Was he lacking something?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      [log in to view media]

      Angels, not unlike humans, were given free-will.
      Satan decided his own "glory" was le more epic than Gods and rebelled like a retarded teenager.
      beat me to it in saying that, though.

      Those two have nothing to do with each other. And stupid christcucks confuse Satan with something else anyway,

      Read your fucking holy book, you retards.

      What are you smoking

      Why does the mention of one single thing from the Bible always send antichrists into such a rage? They'll spend hours on end for days in threads about a topic that only makes them rage. That's not a good argument convincing anyone that you truly believe it's all false.

      Kek ikr

      Why would a prefect and self-sufficient God create such a crazy thing? (or anything at all, he is already perfect)
      Was he lacking something?

      God has no need for anything, he is already actualized. He made angels because he wanted to, simple as that. Nobody asks why someone would draw a Pepe as a devil or a Smaug Dragon, do they? God took it a step further, spread the joy if you will, and gave them free will, a sort of "AI", if you will. Some angels abused it, that's all there is to it.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >God has no need for anything
        >because he wanted to
        This is super fucking incoherent
        wants are desires, which can be explain in terms of a lack

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          [log in to view media]

          >Kid is perfectly healthy, sugar levels stable
          >Wants candy anyway
          Do you want kids to have diabetes or something?
          You _genuinely_ think because someone wants something, that they need it? Lmao

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            [log in to view media]

            > Analogy of children
            Why does it depend on intra-universal analogies?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >needs
            I didn't use that word.

            Do you not have the mental capacity to formulate your desire for kids not to have diabetes in terms of lacks?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              [log in to view media]

              Stop thinking so hard. I mean it. For instance, if I think about why my shit is a specific colour and look it up, I'll try to avoid the exact chemicals and minerals that cause that exact coloration, thus condemning me to an endless cycle of unattainable tendie balance.

              You just gotta look for the right tendies, and other foods anon. Not always eating the candy.
              God is fully actualized and perfected, he does things simply because it pleases him, just like the giga-chad Tom Bombadil. If you don't know who Tom Bombadil I'm seriously ashamed of you. I'm saying this for your own good.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          If God had no desires God would have never created anything to begin with. Creation implies desire.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Which directly implies that he lacks what he desires.
            He wouldn't desire it, if he already had it, right?

            But the Christian want to say God is, and always was - Perfect.
            A perfect being supposedly lacks nothing. So why create anything at all? Yet alone a world that may bring about something you hate, such as sin.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              [log in to view media]

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                [log in to view media]

                If Bob Ross gave you paint and a paintbrush, and you just flung paint on his expensive wall instead, you wouldn't exactly be surprised if he became disturbed, would you?
                Of course, Bob Ross would kind of see it coming if he gave _everybody_ the free will to do that in his art studio, yet he was such a damn gigachad I wouldn't be surprised if he would go ahead and do that anyway if he could have

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                [log in to view media]

                Doesn't some meaning get loss in the analogy? The source, Bob Ross, does not have all the properties of an omniscient Ex-nihilo Creator because he ex-materia gives you the paintbrusj but yet the target, the Ex-nihilo Creator has the property of anthropomorphic disturbance?

                [log in to view media]

                >Why create anything at all
                I mean, you didn't _need_ to type that, but it amused you to do so.
                That's it. God is the actualized mind, and the word "muse" (to think about) is clearly from the same root word as amusing. You think God didn't get a good chuckle out of creating the platypus bro?

                >You think God didn't get a good chuckle out of creating the platypus bro?
                Why would a non-human entity get a chuckle?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you telling me a story about a painter instead of engaging with the issue I raised?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                [log in to view media]

                Theists only use anthropomorphic analogies (the Subject has properties "like" but not quite like humans) when positively describing the Subject, which is analogical language, because the theistic system says between Creature and Creator there can be no statement of similarity which would then entail a greater dissimilarity.

                The only way for theists to univocally (the negation has the same meaning when use about humans - not having that trait - as about the Subject) describe something is via negativa, apophatic theology. "The Subject is not x". Now monotheism denies the cosmos altogether. "The Subject is not the world/universe."

                The thing which gives these analogies the feeling of reality in Christians is the doctrine of the Incarnation - hence the theist may feel that they participate in these same properties and predicates.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              [log in to view media]

              >Why create anything at all
              I mean, you didn't _need_ to type that, but it amused you to do so.
              That's it. God is the actualized mind, and the word "muse" (to think about) is clearly from the same root word as amusing. You think God didn't get a good chuckle out of creating the platypus bro?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I am not perfect or self-sufficient. I have lacks and desires.
                Presumably God does not.

                Does God desire a good chuckle? Was he lacking something to laugh at?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              A God that does and creates nothing is imperfect by definition. It's a useless God.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                [log in to view media]

                Not doing and not ex-nihiloing anything in contentment is not divine?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I'll let you in on a secret, perfection is a meme-buzzword with entirely made-up properties
                it's not a real feature of the world

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >by definition

                How the fuck do you define perfection?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          It's not incoherent. "want" and "need" are two distinct words with specific distinct meanings, I suggest you improve your vocabulary, the difference between "want" and "need" is something toddlers learn

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            With enough faith the believer don't need food as it's merely worldly nutrients.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        [log in to view media]

        There's a crazy little thing called free will, anon.

        >free-will

        What model of free will explains Satan? Metaphysical libertarianism or compatibilism? Did Satan ex-nihilo the will to rebel, or was he determined by an Other to rebel?

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.gotquestions.org/did-God-create-Satan.html
    https://www.gotquestions.org/if-God-knew.html

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Ur m9m when she got pregnant by a druggy alcoholic

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It was ur mom when she bred the double aids yunkie

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    He's literally Shiva in that duality. A sadist creator can only derive his pleasure by first creating and demanding praise before destroying to hear the music of devastation. A sick demented way of existence but still it's with us and can even be seen in children - a topic covered by a work of Marquis de Sade IIRC.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    They are both of the Devil's nicknames. Beelzebub has a ton of them. Shaitan Iblis of the Jinn

Your email address will not be published.