Our English language has limitations.
For example, to state that "It's just God's nature to always be good and never capricious" and "It's just human nature to only occasionally be good" and "It's just Satan's nature to always be bad" is problematic, in that the word "just" used in all three statements "just" made does not necessarily indicate "justice" but rather should semantically be re-worded as: "merely."
Yet, the statements above are "still" [inactively?] inadequate to a certain extent, because the word "nature" implies that the three previously-mentioned entities (e.g. God and humans and Satan) were endowed with irreversible proclivities by some Endower, and therefore sentient beings beset with such "natures" cannot be held innocent or guilty of anything they do with those innate endowments which they had no say over in terms of prior permission, and which they essentially have no control over.
[ Remember how homosexuals and their supporters claim that they were "born that way" - born into, hopelessly addicted and in bondage to that type of sin which they cannot free themselves, and therefore cannot do anything about it with or without freewill choice, and thus place the blame at God for being at fault mis-creating them that way ].
Something else instead of simply ["their" "given"?] "nature" is operational and involved with what they all [e.g. God and humans and Satan] "think" [or mis-think] and actually do -- and that something is non other than free choice, free will, sovereign will, etc.
God does not have to always be good, but instead always chooses of His own free will to consistently be benevolent (under certain conditions to various extents) and reliably good; Satan (and formerly 'Lucifer' as it reads in the KJV and Darby versions) does not "have" to always be bad, but instead always chooses of his own free will to consistently be dependably bad; humans (alive or dead with souls in Hades or Paradise) can be either good or bad, however they (of their own free wills) choose.
The LORD does not force Himself to always be good, nor does He ever force any human to choose to be either good or bad [although He could, however, manipulate their body parts involuntarily with electrical probe devices and chemical drugs], nor does He force Satan to always be bad.
The Creator God has given all free-willed beings sovereign choice ('sovereign' meaning their own choice is their very own, can only be made by themselves alone, and either is not or can not (or both) be altered against their will by any known or non-known entity whatsoever in existence).
A human's sovereign freewill choice is one of the only things that they take with them upon their temporal demise into eternity, besides having the record of all they have done (of both faith or faithlessness plus both good and evil works done) permanently recorded to be revealed and judged at the time and place and circumstances the Almighty Father has determined in His own free-willed mind, as clearly indicated by works-judgment in Matthew chapter 25 and Revelation chapter 20.
Non-thinking deliberate self-deception is a diabolically dangerous and dastardly thing.
One wonders whatever "got into Lucifer's crop" involving his whenever-back decision to rebel against God, unlike what is Scripturally recorded about the apparently-never-having-rebelled Four Living Creatures, Seven Spirits of God, The Twenty-Four Elders, and the good angels who did not become demons. What "bee got into Lucifer's bonnet" in his crazy attempt to try some heavenly coup he should have known he could have never pulled off?
Isaiah 14:12 "How you are fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
13 You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north,
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.'
15 But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit.
Revelation 12:7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,
8 but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in Heaven.
9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world -- he was thrown down to the Earth, and his angels/demons were thrown down with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.
11 And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even to death.
Was there some equivalent of The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil and some other Tempter who tempted Lucifer? Or did he simply (not "just") decide - with his own God-given free will out of the depravity of his own imagination - to choose sometime somewhere back in existence to "get on his high horse" and defy God's limited apportionment for him?
Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by Him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until The Judgment of The Great Day.
Did The Holy Trinity give Lucifer enough warning, and severely enough, to sufficiently caution him about the extensive damnable consequences of him and his demons rebelling against the LORD?
If he did, both you the reader and me the author can see the overwhelming and overriding factor of free-will choice (sometimes ignoring all sense and reason and sanity) given to God-created sentient entities such as the Devil, angels, demons, Four Living Creatures, Twenty-Four Elders, Seven Spirits of God, and humans (but not instinct-only-driven lower lifeforms).
Was there a possibility of redemption for Lucifer-turned-Satan after Lucifer rebelled? Sort of the equivalent of the Son of God dying in forgiving atonement for the rebellious sin of Lucifer and his demonic angels to be applied to them if they had been penitent? If not, was God fair in already and non-reversibly forever cursing Satan and his devils with absolutely no recourse whatsoever for reconciliation?
As we read through the entirely of non-mythological non-fairy-tale non-fable historical Old-and-New-Testaments Scripture, we do read and so know that - whatever the case with the fate of Satan and his demons - it is forever sealed by the prophetic authority, veracity, and permanence of Holy Writ. Satan and his demons perhaps cannot repent, but it is (by Scriptural record) certain that they never will repent, and thus there is no power in existence that will prevent them from being forever consigned to being suspended in Outer Darkness in fiery torment to the ages of the ages.
Now, when we get to humans, and particularly to that inferior-gender mother-of-us-all (Eve) who decided to succumb to Satan's suggested half-lies and insert some of the Forbidden Fruit into that gaping hole under her nose which should have rather remained shut at the time, the Holy Record does inform us that she admittedly was "beguiled" or "seduced" under non-asked-for duress by being besieged with misrepresentative propaganda from The Tempter, which Tempter at the time might have had arms and legs which disappeared after being cursed by the Creator to crawl on his belly and eat dust thereafter.
Genesis 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life."
In Eve's case, being that the idea of perhaps arrogantly defying her Creator in upraised-3rd-finger/thumbing-her-nose-like impudent feminist sexism, or maybe at least "try something new and different" but surely to disobey God's "Don't Eat It!" Divine Prime Directive for her causes (and not "reasons") stated in Genesis chapter three . . . was a result of satanic terroristic-surprise-attack non-solicited temptation, God (in her and her husband's case, as with all of us who follow their sad and pathetic example) decided to provide an understandably-compensating and fair-minded fabulous remedy to correct the situation, which phenomenal solution had both temporary and eternal consequences, known as: "the bloody-atonement gospel of Jesus Christ" [applying only to qualifying and certain humans -- not Satan nor demons nor angels nor the Four Living Creatures nor The Seven Spirits of God nor The Twenty-Four Elders?].
Did God adequately warn all-by-herself-and-away-from-her-protecting-husband-at-the-time Eve, plus Adam, about the potentially-lethal and then initially-plus-finally-fatal fruit of the Forbidden Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil? Did the Lord completely-enough describe the horrendous and far-reaching consequences of them sticking the forbidden fruit into those big holes under their noses? Could not have Eve have more quickly and severely aged with wrinkles and bent over with sagging breasts and crippling arthritis to be seen and stared at in horror by her husband Adam before he ate what he should not have eaten? Could God have provided future photos or video tapes of her, her husband, and her offspring painfully dying by heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, cancers, accidents causing dismemberments and body burns, body-deforming explosions and paralyzing shootings during war and during robberies? Could He not have set up a high-voltage electric fence around The Forbidden Tree, with vicious Doberman Pinchers (yes: pinchers!) and German-Shepherd pit bulls snarling and barking behind that fence?
So Eve could not resist the wayward urge to stick the stuff into her mouth, which is perhaps why Jesus the Christ made such a ludicrous-sounding command in the gospels of the New-Testament to "eat His flesh" and "drink his blood." The Creator of the Primal Pair never forget the means by which his choice lifeforms chose (of their own free wills) to bring about and impose such inevitable consequences of suffering, pain, misery, disappointment, non-fulfillment, and death into the legacy of human beings.
If one were to have had a dialogue with Jesus, like Jesus had with Nicodemus about euphemistically "being born again" - tough for a big old guy re-entering back into some tight virgin vagina (i.e. spiritually born from above), and with the Samaritan woman about euphemistically having "living water" [not sacred semen] which would quench her [sexually-lusty"?] thirst [orally and genitally] . . . about eating Jesus and drinking His blood, it might or might not have gone something like this:
JESUS: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you are not mine, do not belong to me, will have no life in you, and will be damned to burn in fiery Outer Darkness forever."
US: "Did that include The Penitent Thief on a cross who called you 'Lord' (like the woman caught in the act of adultery), who (according to what is revealed in Holy Writ) was neither baptized by immersion nor ingested any part of your body or blood in communion or eucharist during the brief time he was painfully dying in excruciating torture?"
JESUS: "Never mind. He was a special case. Remember Enoch and Elijah, who also might not have been immersed or had eucharist, and how I had previously told my twelve disciples that "they were already made clean by the word that I had spoken to them," and by drinking "the cup" (the fruit of the vine instead alabaster or porcelain cup pieces?) at The Last Supper was considered by me "the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins?" So why did I have to continue on to lynching and murderous crucifixion on some bloody cross?
US: "It was your freewill choice. Kind of weird to regard you as THE Paschal Lamb, which does not give much of an incentive for Jews nowadays to rebuild a Temple on top of The Dome of The Rock and blasphemously re-start animal sacrifices. Our ancestors roasted a facsimile or precursor of you, that "Paschal Lamb," before escaping Pharaoh in Egypt. So, which parts of you should we eat, and should it be fried or baked or boiled, and should we consider it a meal for breakfast or lunch or supper or merely an afternoon snack, and would you like us to chomp on your living or instead your dead body?"
JESUS: "Whatever trips your trigger."
US: "And which body piece or tidbit? Your tongue, one of your eyeballs or fingers or ears or toes, liver or appendix or pancreas, kidneys or lungs or tonsils, brain, part of your buttocks, your navel, or scrotum or even penis?"
JESUS: "Just so it is not my urine or excrement. Remember what was stated about ingesting human filth in Isaiah 36:12 and Ezekiel 4:9-15."
US: "Thank God. Hey, wouldn't it be better to eat some substitute like a non-leavened church wafer or cracker instead of some bloody part of your very-handsome Jewish body of fat and muscle?"
JESUS: "You are not taking me literally on that one. Catholics might consider being superstitious quasi-cannibals. Lutherans and Anglicans simply say that my "spiritual presence" comes to them through "the elements." Baptists regard crackers and grape juice as symbolic. Islamic are confused with jihad-ready self-defensiveness."
US: "OK OK. Our apologies for not taking you however you want to be taken. Now . . . about drinking that blood of yours . . ."
JESUS: "Did I REALLY mean by "drinking my BLOOD" that that includes you guys and future imitators archeologically digging up and sipping various quantities of my transfusion-viable-preserved Type A or B or O or AB blood - chromosomes and corpuscles and hemoglobin and platelets - the whole ball of wax, and complete nine yards?"
US: "Mind if we take only one drop, and dilute it with a gallon or so of pink lemonade or Kool Aid? We never did get that much into Dracula or vampires. In other words, mentally-sick barbaric cannibalism is just not our thing."
JESUS: "Sounds like a plan. I never specified how much blood of mine you would have to drink to violate the Old-Testament command of Leviticus 7:27 (Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people) and Leviticus 17:10 (If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers who travel among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him or her off from among his/her people)."
US: "Whatever you want, by the whims of your freewill choice. Any guy who can do the real miracles that you do and created and maintains all physical objects in the entire Universe, including our own bodies, certainly can say anything He wants, and obviously has a claim to us in determining what we should do."
We are wondering if eating and drinking you is more important than, or even a replacement for, obeying your Ten Commandments and other Biblical moral mandates, and if - by simply or perhaps consistently nibbling and sipping some divine hors d'oeuvres each week or each month and thereby becoming "special" - we can redemptively self-atone for ourselves by so nibbing and sipping such after carnally wasting ourselves living like the Devil, with harlots and riotous living, for the rest of the week or month.
JESUS: "Eating my flesh (however much or little you want of your own freewill choice) and drinking my blood (however much or little you want of your own freewill choice) will certainly be better than gorging yourselves with non-nutritious fast food, and stuffing your obese gut with an excess of loaves of bread, small fish from some boy in a crowd or four or five thousand, pie, cake, ice cream, and beer. Besides, you all deserve it for allowing your great-great+ grandma Eve to ingest the diabolical poison from The Tree which she craved and which I had created as a potential or even likely non-asked-for stumbling block into sin."
US: "Yuck! We're getting nauseated just thinking about doing all this. I think we're almost ready to vomit because of the very thought of the delicacies of your aforementioned body-parts menu! Are you sure that you are not suggesting whatever in metaphors, symbols, and euphemisms with your apparently-absurd-but-constitutionally-free borderline-lunatic speech? Remember that you said that Lazarus was only "sleeping" and needed to be awakened, when he in fact was already actually dead."
JESUS: "Alright, I admit it. As it states in John 6 verse 63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are [only?] spirit and life." Remember what Scripture reads in John 6 verse 68: "Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."
US: "Ah, mere words, words, words. Poetry. Allegory. Similitudes. Parables. Only words. Matthew 12:37 reminds us that by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
JESUS: "Don't eat and drink me "often," but whenever you want: every five minutes, hourly on the hour, once or twice a day, twice a week, only on Monday and Wednesday and Friday of every week, once a month except in February, semi-annually, or once a year during Holy Week on Maunday Thursday or Good Friday to celebrate your Christian passover."