In his poem "The tyger" he seems to support a morality of lambs and tigers, in which the strongest personalities can do whatever they want to the weak. Both are natural and a creation of God.
In this film the old character says "you read Blake like the devil reads the Bible", but I'm getting convinced about that interpretation being the correct one.
"Did he who make the Lamb make thee?"
*made sorry
Wasn't he a gnostic?
For burger cuckservatives everyone is a fucking satanist lmao
I dunno but he was a raging faggot, I can tell you that for free
I'm not burguer nor conservative. Sorry boy.
he was a perennialist but who knows if he didnt worship the wrong entity?
>expansive readings of an already morally ambiguous/canonically batshit crazy mythology are Satanic
This. You’re just kind of a dumbass OP.
He was a proto-Nietzschean
i doubt he's actually endorsing it. this is from songs of experience, the counterpart to songs of innocence, and i really don't see this as an ENDORSEMENT of the might makes right philosophy as much as a lament of the fact that this is kind of how society is structured. unless i'm being baited in which case sowwy im wetarded
You look the part, though.
Gnostics are satanists.
Your interpretation is horribly wrong, He's not "supporting a morality," he's asking an important question about God and Lucifer.
As others have noted Blake was a gnostic. Romanticism comes straight out of Milton’s Paradise Lost. The old meme there being that the best lines were the devil’s. So yes, you can say Blake borders on a satanic element. In Blake’s case I would say a Satan that is more like Prometheus than Milton’s Satan.
Satan in an aesthetic sense (Promethean) rather than a moral sense.
>God and Lucifer.
ok, so Jesus is the Lamb and the tiger is Lucifer. BUT what is Satanist is to think (as Blake does) that God made Lucifer to be like a deathful tiger. Because it's a path that lucifer choose by himself.
Gospel of Thomas > Gospel of John. Deal with it OP
Did God's plan include what happened with his rebellious angel?
God knew it but he let it happen in order to maintain the free will, until the end of the days. God's plan includes the conclusion, but not the development of the character. lucifer/satan goes by his own.
Why are you even speculating about Gods plan?
I'm just trying to make the point that if God's plan omits anything, even something very small, is He really God?
What is he omitting? Man, what it's the meaning of creation if the product isn't autonomous?
You're not allowing for the possibility that it's both autonomous and planned.
it's not speculation, it's called Catholic tradition
Of course it's planed. What it's planed it's the fact of having autonomy.
God it's perfect. He's so perfect that he wants to share his perfection to someone else. For what he needs to give autonomy. If not, it's like he is watching himself.
Once he gives autonomy, two paths are open: to reject the will of the creator of to embrace it. Obviously he wants everyone to follow his will. It's for what we were created.
sorry the bad english
Blake was straight and fucks
He was pretty explicitly a Christocentric Unitarian.
Catholic tradition is based off the interpretation and writings of man, therefore it is flawed. Having faith in God is having faith in a omnipotent entity, having faith in Catholic tradition is having faith in man.
The irony.