>I can do no wrong for I do not know what it is
Does he have a valid point?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>I can do no wrong for I do not know what it is
>I can do no wrong for I do not know what it is
Does he have a valid point?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>>I can do no wrong for I do not know what it is
>Does he have a valid point?
No, Satan.
Read the fricking book that's not hell bible satan that's his nephew Satan the second who isn't the devil and just a random frick
>i don't know what wrong is lmao *lies*
>nooo he's lying I didn't screw up i'm infallible!
>trusting the prince of lies
>trusting the king of lies, God
what's the other option? A former pagan god that loves foreskins, israelites, and being cannibalized
There were some shocking moments, but the ending was a little tiresome in a post internet era, even for an anti-theist like myself.
you could've just typed reddit
I get to decide what "wrong" is not him
so no he doesn't
I humbly ask for anyone educated in theology to explain the alleged differences between lucifer, satan, and the devil, because I've seen people claiming these are separate entities. If that is just nonsense and they are the same being, then accept me saying "I'm a dummy"
it's the same, there's no need to be a theologist just basic catechism, lucifer was satan's name when he was an angel, satan means enemy in hebrew which it's the title he gained when he was cast out from heaven and THE devil it's to indicate that he is the major the daemon around.
Appreciate it boys
>I humbly ask for anyone educated in theology to explain the alleged differences between lucifer, satan, and the devil
There aren't any
as
explains
>inb4 muh morningstar
yes he was called morningstar when he was an angel, aka "Lucifer"
Satan is a general term.
God himself has a 'Satan' that he uses during mock trials in Heaven.
It means accuser and is analogous to the "Devil's Advocate" concept in some stories.
In others, particularly New Testament ones, the Satan becomes a more holistic evil being that has a semi-duality with God.
The Devil as a term is derived from 'Slanderer' in Greek, and is again more of a generalized term, than one that is specifically a title. It is used interchangeably with Satan/'Accuser'.
Lucifer as a fallen Angel isn't really Biblical. There is never a specific story where a fallen Angel is described and given ownership of Hell.
Hell wasn't even a thing, until the New Testament, the israelites didn't have a concept of Hell.
Lucifer and Morningstar as names are both derived from the same line, in Isaiah.
>How you have fallen from heaven,
> morning star, son of the dawn!
>You have been cast down to the earth,
> you who once laid low the nations!
Which was a taunt at the King of Babylon, that God was punishing.
It was only attributed to the Devil, because people read the passage as involving the King of Babylon as either being the Devil, or being possessed by the Devil. Neither of which are actually rooted in the text itself.
yessir, and israelites are still awaiting their first coming of a messiah. All these religions borrowing each other's material is a real mess.
was he an angle or an devil?
he was clay
In old Hebrew "satan" was a term given to someone accusing and first appears in the book of Job where the "satan" being an angel accuses God that Job only worships him because he has given him so much. So he started as an angel and also wasn't the snake in the garden of eden. It was just a snake cause old religions from that region had hate boner for snakes.
incorrect
correct, staff of kings turns into snakes because they're slimy and gross
The 'snake' probably wasn't even a serpent either.
He was mostly likely some kind of semi-angelic being. Serpents in ancient Judaism were associated with being able to divine the future. As well as being associated with the verb Seraph (Seraphim related) meaning 'burning' or 'firey' which referenced Egyptian snake spirits. Often being depicted with wings and auras of power.
It just means he’ll be going to the mental asylum instead of prison
Well let's see:
>drive recklessly over the speed limit
>police stop me
>say "officer I can do no wrong for I do not know what it is"
>still get my license suspended and told that ignorance isn't an excuse for incompetence
Your post is stupid
You're implying that laws decide what's (morally) good and wrong.
Literally Javert mentality.
I need to see Satan fumble with a computer.
>implying he didn't have a hand in cresting the internet and social media ij general
lol
lmao even
today I will remind them, nudity is pure and divine.
>elevated being above humanity
>does bad thing
>is told by the protags he is doing bad things
>"I have no concept of morality"
But since it was explained to him he should understand now, yes? The idea of human morality has been presented to him and he can no longer act as if it's alien to him. He could say he doesn't care or that it doesn't matter to him and even explain why he should be the exception, but he can't feign ignorance any more. Characters like this do some big show of superiority but it just makes them look stupid after morality is explained to them. Why?
because he's The Adversary, The Accuser, The Prince of Darkness, it's token that he has no need for something as frivolous as morality.
I meant in general. But if we want to be specific he above all should understand the nature of humanity better than anyone.
the movie demonstrates that they are as toys, stating if he were to break them not to fret as he will simply assemble more to replace the broken ones.
He is still without the concept of his own morality. Being presented with human morality doesn't change this since it's just knowledge of that contextual system.
Might is right
no because hes obviously lying and coping. just imagine hes a leftist and everything will make sense
The Testimony of Now
ChapterDate, VerseTime
And satan says, "I cannot do right for I know what it is."
I think his armor is based on a real life armor. I know I have seen it somewhere else
“I did not shut my pants. I cannot, I don’t know what that even is?” How can I shit my pants if I don’t know what it is? He is correct. Also does anyone know where I can find a Men in Black flashy thing
No. He can still do wrong because wrong and right are not contingent upon an individual being aware of them. They existed before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they existed after the eye of the heart was open and they began to live consciously in the moral world.
Furthermore we could take right and wrong in less spiritual sense and say it’s just a natural ordering of things and the revolt against the natural ordering of things was gay and moronic and necessitates punishment, therefore punishment is justified even if independent of “Justice”.
How exactly does he know he can't do it if he doesn't know what it is? Surely he does still understand the concept of 'wrong' if he's saying he can't commit an act that is such.
Otherwise you'd think that he would accept that he may have done wrong accidentally. Framing it as some kind of logic question just sort of betrays the fact that he needs to understand what it is to even say that.
You can understand the concept of wrong while also having no moral compass
He knows that some things can be considered bad, but to him it seems that nothing is