I was just wondering how many luciferians there are on this board? And what your view of lucifer is? this also goes for theistic satanists. I know as satanism and luciferianism is a diverse and individualistic and highly personal "label" for a path that everyone has their own unique understanding of who lucifer /satan (depending on you paradigm/archetype) whether he/she (yes some view lucifer as feminine) is literal , merely an archetype, a sort of athiestic symbol- as in levayan satanism or as a label given to an older entity = as in Ningishzidda-ism or those into enki. Do you relate lucifer to the nephillim? the roman god? get into as much specifics as possible, it would be wonderful to get a good consensus to see how diverse the satanists/luciferians are on this board.
God is evil and that lucifer did not wish to bend on knee and tried to rise up and was cast out of heaven.Hell is a place lucfier made for him-self and his followers to dwell in.Also lucifer saw what god had done to man and did not want us to stay this way,so he made us like gods by giving us knowledge of good and evil.For this i think we should be gratefull,but to never worship,as he made us beyond such things.We should trive to be like him and bow before no man or deity.
Also i feel that the bible is filled with half-truths and out in out lies,trying to confuse and brainwash the weak-minded.
As side note your avatar what is it?As it kinda looks familiar to me.
I tend to think Satan & Lucifer as the same entity, but being as oppposite polarities of each other.
Satan: Physical, animal & carnal force (of destruction). The realm of causality.
Lucifer: Spiritual, divine & force (of development through destruction of old worn patterns). The realm of non-linearity or "a-causal".
Not to say that both powers would be limited in just these two simple concepts. Far from that.
And I also tend think the psyche or the mind as a medium that reflects these forces, and draws it's patterns of behaviour from. By my own nature and temper I propably have more Satan in me than Lucifer, but I'm reaching towards Lucifer.
All this might make no sense in you, just my own views.
Well, I believe "Satan" is Enki, the earth god from Sumerian mythology. I do not worship Enki to a huge extent mainly because I don't think he wants mindless worship done in his name, I think he has our best interest at heart, and is trying to help us emerge spiritually and united. You could call me a Spiritual/Traditional Satanist but I hate how when I explain it to people , sometimes the first thing that pops into thier mind is "evil" or "hateful" or something to that extent, I don't blame them though, it's probably been drilled into thier heads at some level. I agree with the spiritual philosophy of satanism, abolishing Karma, empowering yourself, becoming god-like. And I really feel good vibes with the creation story, but I don't think just yet my mind accepts it 100.00% I mean I accept it to a very high degree, but I won't be able to 100% accept it untill something convinces me it's true. I do say I believe it but my objective mind doesn't allow me to assimilate it totally, not yet anyway.
So Satan/Lucifer to me, are the same being, our creator god, and our true ally. The bringer of knowledge and understanding...
I think, perhaps, I don't belong on this thread. I jumped over here from the one thred here that does deal with my specific area.... perhaps my preading out is more like a virus. I will back off after this though.
I just wanted to say what the origin of "Lucifer" is.... historically speaking.
The word "Lucifer" is, as I am sure you all know, a Latin term. Not only did it not exist before the Roman language, it is actually a fairly late Latin term. Of course, like most titles, you could state it as a common noun or a propper noun. The first time it seems to come into existance as a name, a propper noun with the big "L", as a non human being, is in the "Vulgate" (latin translation of the Bible) by Jerome. Of course, like all entries of such words there is a story. You see, Jerome was involved in a thological war with a Catholic Bishop by the name of "Lucifer", and he seems to have written this section into the Bible as an attack on this bishop. He took a reference to a Babylonian king, and as a rhetoritician he twisted the translation to say "Lucifer" so that this king who is sspoken poorly of in the Bible would be both eqated with Satan, and with this Bishop.
No good translation of the Bible actually contains the term "Lucifer". SO, in reality "Lucifer" is actually just a bishop.
However, from the Greek there are also other terms that could be translated this way. In Gnostic texts there are four "Lightbringers" that seem to be related to some cosmology that may have been common to the "Mysteries" (post Platonic). There would be four "lucifers" in this usage.
There is one other usage that may have both inspired the name of the bishop mentioned previously, as well as maybe being a thought in the mind of Jerome...... Jesus may have been called "Lucifer" by some Gnostic groups. A cary over of this may be in Rev, 16:22. Compare this with the Vulgate usage of the term.
Interestingly, in modern times, there have been a few NAC (Native American Chruch) groups that have picked up on this. They compare the belief that Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca are actually one and the same when they take off the mask, to the possible biblical implications I mentioned... and come up with the notion that these are the same beings (based partly, of course, on the comparison that the Aztecs made between Jesus and Quetzalcoatl). This is VERY modern, but there is actually a suprizing historical equation as well (and I know that most of the NAC members are not fully aware of the history I mentioned, but find it in Biblical usage all the same).
Honestly, that is really probably the oldest usage, "Lucifer" as "Jesus", or at least the Logos in various aspects.
I hope I don't sound bad here, but honestly it becomes a little bit humorous to some of us that people think of "Lucifer" as "Satan". I mean, if the name comes from a late Christian twisting of terms, and then modern people buy into that, then they really aren't getting beyond such dark ages usages.
I honestly don't mean this to come out negatively against those who use this term in that way. I mean, in a sort of Jungian way everyone can use the term however they wish (and I genuinely belive this). I just mean that from an historical perspective the thought that Lucifer is some kind of "being" (especially one to be equated with Satan) will always evoke a little snort.
The Nephilim, BTW, have not been equated with Lucifer until VERY modern times. In fact, the notion of the Nephilim as beings is quite a departure from the original meaning of the terms. Think about this.... in order to bring these notions together one much cross religious, hermaneutic, and era boundries. I mean, you have to take the term as it was originally presented, rethink it to fit much later interperation of usage, and then twist it again to fit an even later linguistic mistake. In fact, you then have to twist it again to fit a modern secondary hermaneutic, which means there are four pretty heavy walls between equating the two terms, logicallu speaking...........
And in the Gnostic meaning, "Logic" (logos), is in fact the "Lucifer" to some extent, which means that modern usages have to fit through many hoops to try and fit the quite direct usage of Gnostic orders. I will be honest in saying that I doubt such made up personal usages are as viable as something more traditional. What would be the difference between "Luciferians" and the New Age Movement? I would say "none!!!"
[QUOTE=pmcv]I hope I don't sound bad here, but honestly it becomes a little bit humorous to some of us that people think of "Lucifer" as "Satan". I mean, if the name comes from a late Christian twisting of terms, and then modern people buy into that, then they really aren't getting beyond such dark ages usages.
I honestly don't mean this to come out negatively against those who use this term in that way. I mean, in a sort of Jungian way everyone can use the term however they wish (and I genuinely belive this). I just mean that from an historical perspective the thought that Lucifer is some kind of "being" (especially one to be equated with Satan) will always evoke a little snort.[/QUOTE]
This was well said, and it made me think. As I see Lucifer as the utmost flame of consciousness in the human mind, and the very fact that it implies one can be(come) divine without submitting oneself to a will of some outer "God", is quite satanic in many ways.
All though it wouldn't be historically correct to think Lucifer same as Satan, it is in many ways correct to think so today. As the judeo-christian religion "satanized" the pagan gods of the old world, in modern times they are actually satanized, have become as the counter force. (Again, not to say that Satan would be reduced as being a simple concept of counter force, just one side of it.). "As our gods became your Satan, Satan became our God"...or something like that.
As long as you know where the terms are coming from, I see no problem in it. All the more, names and terms aren't that important, as long as you know what they mean for yourself and can explain them to others if needed.
I'm not a satanist or a luciferian so maybe I shouldn't reply, but to me, Lucifer (The Light Bearer) is the fallen angel. He was banished from "the light" and because of that he (or some else) changed his name to lucifuge (avoiding the light of day). He is also known as Satan (the accuser or the enemy).
P.S. These names (Lucifer etc.) could be titles instead of names (like Michael)
[QUOTE=Inuus Grim]To me Lucifer is one of the titles for the Prince of Darkness and is not an actual godname.[/QUOTE] Interesting,What would a god name be for the dark one?
Well, I personally don't think of Lucifer as Satan and I've already said that I think he is many things at once. Lucifer is a name we give to someone (or something)...it is not the only thing that defines him. I think you may have missed a lot of the point of this thread by considering only Christianity.
I understood that you don't personally use the term this way, but Christians do. And it is not so much that I missed the point of the thread, since I do understand that many people here use the word very differently from each other and from Christians. My point is related to the one I made over on teh Samael thread, as well as the point I have made concerning other terms in the past like "Baphomet". It is simply that while I think people can use a term however they wish, it is good to also know the original usage.
Do you refer here to Modern Luciferians, Traditional Luciferians, or both?
What I meant by the "New Age" comment (and actually the term "New Age was not what I meant, but "post modernist".... it was simply too late for me to try to type what I wanted to say *lol*) was that there is a notion of completely relativistic usages of terms that are an attribute of a very modern philosophical school. The New Age movement is one face of this, but not the only one. The point then, is that a usage of the term "Lucifer" or "Satan" (or any of these other terms I have mentioned in my short stint on this forum) can either be related to the original usage, or it is essentially relativism. Or to put it another way, wouldn't a "Traditional" Luciferian be one who used the original usage? Later movements can either be seen in thier own contexts, or as post modernist relativism (E.G. New Age).
Interesting,What would a god name be for the dark one?
Lucifer to me is the "Lux" part of the Prince while Satan is the "Nox" part of him. For almost a year I have prefered Set to be an appropiate name for the Prince. As of late October of this year, I came to conclusion that Azazel is also an appropiate name. I call "the dark one" Azazel whenever I feel I should and I call him Set whenever I feel I should.
Azazel is dark yet he brings light. So to me, Lucifer is not a good enough name for him and neither is Satan. These are more like titles for him based on his two sides (light and dark). Plus if you actually research the titles, you will see that there are many spirits named Satan. The Book of Enoch mentions "Satans." The name Lucifer itself can also be applied to any spirit that bears light.
I get what you're saying, but I think most people use the term "Traditional" to basically mean they view Lucifer as an entity. The terms Traditional and Theistic really don't describe it well in my opinion, but those are the words people use.
Ah, ok... I think I get what you mean better now. I think we may be talking about semantics, and perhaps we are really on the same page with different areas of familiarity.
For instance, Inuus Grim is talking about Lucifer as "the Dark One". In your outline this would conform to the better known "Tradition" of Christianity in spite of the fact that it goes against the very eymology of the word.
There is no way I can debate that, and so I agree with you and with Inuus Grim. I only wish to point out that this is still a much later usage that is dependant on Christian thought.
The only thing I would want to stress in this conversation would then be that it would be important not to connect this usage with, say, the other two older usages, and draw a connection (maybe this is a throwback to the thread on Gnosticism and Satanism).
I will still respond to the "satanism and gnosticism" thread when i have the time. Traditional satanism or theistic satanism is labelled luciferianism sometimes. the nephillic myth actually goes along with that as much as the theologians who had interprited that myth possibly when concoting or transcribing the mythos of lucifer as fallen angel. I as much had found the irony of this quite remarkable as their is a frater whom had the name lucifer- which probably would point out the fact that lucifer was at some point in time a christian name. that is really just a sidenote i suppose.
I myself have a sort of ecclectic understanding of the entity that i choose to label "lucifer" as much in my own right i relate to being a sort of "fallen angel" as much as i had been in a upper middle class family and have expierienced the more "gritty" side of life so to speak. It helps to have a good archetype to embodie and as much lucifer is a figure of countering great odds as such- if one views the world as their enemie as much and the figure of "lucifer" as a sort of teacher of the ways of survival in this cruel condition one might sort of see the importance. The diference between the literalist ie "orthodox" interpritation of the initial christian theology is merely a more familiar figure for those who are odviously more indoctrinated into that mindset of a sort of dualistic sense of cosmology and the divine.
Those whom are in the LHP or have chosen a more "dark" path are those whom need a more pragmatick understanding of the essence of the principles of spirituality- and in a sense the figure of lucifer not as a adversary to good but as much the embodiement of truth in contrary to the "falsehood" of the world is in a sense a good light. A lot of people live in the "darkness" so to speak and are blind to the gnosis that can come- and I do not counter the initital instinct that you had had towards lucifer relating to a sophia type figure, that was pretty dead on. However odvious the plagurizism of the gnostic texts it is I suppose in a manner a sense of dressing up the figure of lucifer or fleshing him out so to speak.
Be it a literalist interpritation it would bear a striking similarity that had been found within the "morning star" mythos that one might find popping up throughout different cultures- if there is a essential overlay of that I would not explictly go into that as much. The depth and the intellectualization of the understanding of lucifer need not be more then there is a force of which is higher then oneself that is rooting for them in contradiction to the malevolence and cruelty that the world might bring. In my own mind lucifer has come in a sense to show us our true natures and as much to reveal our abilities that we have been kept blind to and kept humble. This is not a matter of pride or arrogance, it is in essence the root of all spiritual and occultic means to find a manner to transcend our condition and find a levity of which the odds may be weighed in our favor. Well the force of our WILL must be stronger then the force of the world.
my apologies for the longwindedness. Hopefully i won't kill this thread with my wordy response. I suppose if i could summon up who lucifer is to me. I would say that it is me. I strive to be lucifer and to find my own godhood. As much a creature of the darkness as of the light.
To me Satan and Lucifer are just energies that exist within Baphomet, Baphomet being the Great Life Force that encompasses the Earth, giving life and taking it in equal measure. Satan is the archetype of strength, power and lust for life that I 'tap into' so that I may gain his attributes. Lucifer is the Dark Essence that radiates blinding light. By this I mean that he is the Dark Force that moves and inspires all things. And he radiates pure light because to me he is the personified manifestation of ALL knowledge, and you must tap into this knowledge to evolve and learn be ever be cautious not to be blinded by it. Both Deities are to be respected with the utmost reverence but never worshipped as worship would be contradictory to everything they stand for. You worship Jahova like a lowly maggot, you take Satan/Lucifer as part of youSelf and walk with strength and pride.
Satan is the archetype of strength, power and lust for life that I worship and 'tap into' so that I may gain his attributes
Oh cool you worship Satan.
Both Deities are to be respected with the utmost reverence but never worshipped as worship would be contradictory to everything they stand for. You worship Jahova like a lowly maggot, you take Satan/Lucifer as part of youSelf and walk with strength and pride.
Lucifer as the fallen angel character was largely invented by John Milton. When I think of "Lucifer" I think of the King of Babylon (as pmcv describes) or as the character fleshed out by Milton.
To me Lucifer represents the light of one's own consciousness/unconsciousness, imagination, the emotional content of one's core. This entity is the power of dream, knowledge, and spiritual self-awareness, the Light Bearer - The Light of Spiritual knowledge. *Anyway that's my personal opinion*
[QUOTE=AJAtheMetastasis]To me Lucifer represents the light of one's own consciousness/unconsciousness, imagination, the emotional content of one's core. This entity is the power of dream, knowledge, and spiritual self-awareness, the Light Bearer - The Light of Spiritual knowledge. *Anyway that's my personal opinion*[/QUOTE]
that was beautiful man. can i have your permission to use your qoute?
Regardless of where the name comes from: to me, Lucifer has come to represent humanism, so much that a little human in this vast universe can become a god...or even God. I think most of us at some point have entertained, or felt this way, some have made it into their path in life. Some of us, like me move on to value humility, because lucifer as pride leads to such hubris as the sinking of the titanic or the ecological imbalance and detachment from each other; it is an emphasis on "I" that is outside of nature...that is overcoming nature...fighting the natural order, and expecting to obtain power from it and not being humble to accept the gifts we receive from it, thinking we are entitled to its knowledge , and not understanding that it can be taken away at any moment. I admire Lucifer's arrogance and remarkable rationale of things spiritual, but I dont find it spiritual. At least, not for me. Lucifer is a romantic and most beautiful, alluring being, but a liar and an accuser. The material world is his, and he may have it. Something has to represent these things for me because they exist, and Lucifer does it for me.
Ningishzidda-ism or those into enki. Do you relate lucifer to the nephillim? the roman god? get into as much specifics as possible, it would be wonderful to get a good consensus to see how diverse the satanists/luciferians are on this board.