god's Lies and The Real Truth About Lucifer

[crossfire]

If Satan and Lucifer are both titles than surely they could both apply to the same cosmic entity.

I don't know about a cosmic entity, but one instance where the titles of both Lucifer and Satan might be applied to the same entity in the same instance would be to the fictional boy who said "The Emporer has no clothes!" He'd be Satan in that he was going against the accepted propaganda regarding the Emporer's clothes, and Lucifer by telling the truth and revealing that the propaganda was false.

 

[Liu]

If people began spreading untruths and confabulation about yourself, would that change who you really are?

The idea of Lucifer as Serpent in the Garden comes from the Christian Gnostics, thousands of years after the authentic Roman-Greco Lucifer. As for Satanists . . . no comment!

Nope but no Christian is talking about that Roman deity when talking about Lucifer, and a majority of Satanists are not talking about the Christian entity (nor the Roman deity) when calling their deity by that name either.
If you are called Bob and have a dead grandpa of the same name, shouldn't people be allowed to talk about you without your grandpa's friend complaining that they are telling lies about his friend Bob?

I could guess where you're coming from if you were a theist. But it seems to be merely about the name, and as I said, more than one mythological character and more than one concept can have the same name.

If Satan and Lucifer are both titles than surely they could both apply to the same cosmic entity.

As long as there is such a cosmic entity to whom those titles both fit, but that's pretty common belief among Satanists in general, not just among us pantheists, to consider our deity both a bringer of enlightenment and an accuser/opposer in one way or another.

 

[crossfire]

Nope but no Christian is talking about that Roman deity when talking about Lucifer, and a majority of Satanists are not talking about the Christian entity (nor the Roman deity) when calling their deity by that name either.

That is all based on propaganda. Dare we say the Emporer has no clothes and reveal the propaganda as a lie?

If you are called Bob and have a dead grandpa of the same name, shouldn't people be allowed to talk about you without your grandpa's friend complaining that they are telling lies about his friend Bob?

If someone is practicing identity theft, it is appropriate to go after them.

I could guess where you're coming from if you were a theist. But it seems to be merely about the name, and as I said, more than one mythological character and more than one concept can have the same name.

]
The name Lucifer doesn't fit if it is based on propaganda--such would constitute identity theft.

 

[Liu]

That is all based on propaganda. Dare we say the Emporer has no clothes and reveal the propaganda as a lie?

Propaganda it would be if it was intentional and as I said before I see no reason to assume that even the original translator was thinking of the Roman deity Lucifer when translating.

If someone is practicing identity theft, it is appropriate to go after them.

If someone randomly has the same name, then it isn't.

 

[crossfire]

Propaganda it would be if it was intentional and as I said before I see no reason to assume that even the original translator was thinking of the Roman deity Lucifer when translating.

If someone randomly has the same name, then it isn't.

So, everyone thinking Lucifer = Satan, Satan = Lucifer is just a "random" thing?

 

[EtuMalku]

Nope but no Christian is talking about that Roman deity when talking about Lucifer, and a majority of Satanists are not talking about the Christian entity (nor the Roman deity) when calling their deity by that name either.

I take solace in knowing that all these Christians you mention have no idea about their own scripture . . . kind of makes it fun

If you are called Bob and have a dead grandpa of the same name, shouldn't people be allowed to talk about you without your grandpa's friend complaining that they are telling lies about his friend Bob?

But that's not the case here, is it? No one is calling Satan and Lucifer by the same name, but they have confused both of them and refuse to take responsibility for the confusion. You know the Vatican mentions Lucifer in their Masses and such, because they do understand that Lucifer is the Morning Star, not Satan (they use the name Satan when they want to talk about Satan).

I could guess where you're coming from if you were a theist. But it seems to be merely about the name, and as I said, more than one mythological character and more than one concept can have the same name.

How many colors red do you know?

As long as there is such a cosmic entity to whom those titles both fit, but that's pretty common belief among Satanists in general, not just among us pantheists, to consider our deity both a bringer of enlightenment and an accuser/opposer in one way or another.

There's no arguing with theists.

 

[crossfire]

crossfire said: ↑

So, everyone thinking Lucifer = Satan, Satan = Lucifer is just a "random" thing?

I pretty sure I explained it clearly in this thread, probably more than once..

Yeah, it's kinda like talking to a wall, huh?

 

[EtuMalku]

Yeah, it's kinda like talking to a wall, huh?

It is, and my reply wasn't meant for you by the way

 

[Liu]

Yeah, it's kinda like talking to a wall, huh?

Feeling the same with you two

I take solace in knowing that all these Christians you mention have no idea about their own scripture . . . kind of makes it fun
But that's not the case here, is it? No one is calling Satan and Lucifer by the same name, but they have confused both of them and refuse to take responsibility for the confusion. You know the Vatican mentions Lucifer in their Masses and such, because they do understand that Lucifer is the Morning Star, not Satan (they use the name Satan when they want to talk about Satan).

How many colors red do you know?

So your argument is that there are 2 separate archetypes, one of them the myth of the morning star, the other one the myth of the fallen angel, and they should better be treated separately by not giving them the same name?

Okay, so it's the morning star-myth and not that obscure Ovidian deity which you take offense at getting demonized...

The morning star didn't need any Christians in order to get demonized. It's already there in the original text in Isaiah - sure, the text originally referred not to some fallen angel but to a human king that overestimated his might and therefore fell "like the morning star". But the idea of portraying the morning star in that negative manner is in there already, and there even seem to have been some other Canaanite myths that went into a similar direction and sounded quite close to depicting the morning star as a deity rebelling against the main deity. Not an expert on this, just gathering information from Wikipedia, memory, etc., but that story's similar enough to what people normally associate with Satan that I wonder what pre-Christian separate morning star myth you might have in mind that was demonized by Christian propaganda.

There's no arguing with theists.

And I don't even really identify as a theist, at least not in the sense of believing in a deity that is a person.

 

[crossfire]

Feeling the same with you two



So your argument is that there are 2 separate archetypes, one of them the myth of the morning star, the other one the myth of the fallen angel, and they should better be treated separately by not giving them the same name?

Okay, so it's the morning star-myth and not that obscure Ovidian deity which you take offense at getting demonized...

The morning star didn't need any Christians in order to get demonized. It's already there in the original text in Isaiah - sure, the text originally referred not to some fallen angel but to a human king that overestimated his might and therefore fell "like the morning star". But the idea of portraying the morning star in that negative manner is in there already, and there even seem to have been some other Canaanite myths that went into a similar direction and sounded quite close to depicting the morning star as a deity rebelling against the main deity. Not an expert on this, just gathering information from Wikipedia, memory, etc., but that story's similar enough to what people normally associate with Satan that I wonder what pre-Christian separate morning star myth you might have in mind that was demonized by Christian propaganda.

How do you explain this, then?

It seems Satanists aren't the only ones who want to claim the Morning Star:

Revelation 22:16 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to attest these things to you for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright Morning Star.”​

According to the Christians, Jesus was in heaven, fell to earth, had to suffer and die, and rose again. Yes, Jesus was detested by the powerful status quo at the time. Does this make Jesus Satan?

 

[Liu]

How do you explain this, then?


According to the Christians, Jesus, was in heaven, fell to earth, had to suffer and die, and rose again. Yes, Jesus was detested by the powerful status quo at the time. Does this make Jesus Satan?

Easy. The same concept (i.e. in this case the morning star) can be interpreted in several ways (e.g. as a bringer of light or as a prideful rebel against the sun deity) at the same time in different contexts by different people (or sometimes by the same people).

And sure Jesus also has some anti-authoritarian aspects.

 

[crossfire]

Here's the passage from Isaiah 14 to compare:

12 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!
13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.


16 Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
“Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble,
17 the man who made the world a wilderness,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?”

18 All the kings of the nations lie in state,
each in his own tomb.
19 But you are cast out of your tomb
like a rejected branch;​

According to the Chrisitans, Jesus came to earth, had aspirations to build a kingdom "not of this world," had to die, was made a spectacle of during his crucifixation, and was cast out of his stately tomb...

 

[EtuMalku]

So your argument is that there are 2 separate archetypes, one of them the myth of the morning star, the other one the myth of the fallen angel, and they should better be treated separately by not giving them the same name?

Not even remotely. The definition of an Archetype is as follows;

ar·che·type
an original that has been imitated.
synonyms: quintessence, essence, representative, model, embodiment, prototype, stereotype;

The Lucifer archetype is the 'authentic' Lucifer, the Platonic First Form. The Abrahamic Lucifer is purely a manipulative bastardization of this archetype.

The morning star didn't need any Christians in order to get demonized. It's already there in the original text in Isaiah - sure, the text originally referred not to some fallen angel but to a human king that overestimated his might and therefore fell "like the morning star". But the idea of portraying the morning star in that negative manner is in there already, and there even seem to have been some other Canaanite myths that went into a similar direction and sounded quite close to depicting the morning star as a deity rebelling against the main deity. Not an expert on this, just gathering information from Wikipedia, memory, etc., but that story's similar enough to what people normally associate with Satan that I wonder what pre-Christian separate morning star myth you might have in mind that was demonized by Christian propaganda.

If you're not going to read anything I post, there is little need, and less desire, to continue discussing this with you. I have explicitly explained all about the Morning Star, and the verse from Isaiah.

 

[Liu]

Not even remotely. The definition of an Archetype is as follows;

ar·che·type
an original that has been imitated.
synonyms: quintessence, essence, representative, model, embodiment, prototype, stereotype;

The Lucifer archetype is the 'authentic' Lucifer, the Platonic First Form. The Abrahamic Lucifer is purely a manipulative bastardization of this archetype.

I admittedly was using archetype very colloquially here, and more in the sense of Jungian archetypes if anything than of Platonic forms.
So, the issue you have is that there is one authentic archetype of Lucifer that exists somewhere in the realm of ideas, and the real myths are mere bastardizations? Well, everything in the real world is less "perfect" when compared to the platonic form from which it's derived. But synonyms of the term Lucifer (e.g. Helel) were as I mentioned already used outside of Abrahamic religions in what you call a bastardized manner.

As I mentioned before, my impression is that there were two interpretations of the astronomical phenomenon of the morning star, one being that it rebels against the sun deity but falls, the other that it announces and brings the sun. I agree that the one of it as a bringer of the sun sounds more original, but I don't know which one is older, therefore I wouldn't call one of them a bastardization of the other.

If you're not going to read anything I post, there is little need, and less desire, to continue discussing this with you. I have explicitly explained all about the Morning Star, and the verse from Isaiah.

You are pretty much the only person with which I discuss online that tends to rage-quit discussions with me in that manner, claiming I wouldn't have read what they wrote. Perhaps the issue isn't with me but with you.
Even if you explained things that doesn't mean that I agree with your conclusions and those conclusions are what we are talking about here. Also, not everyone believes in platonic forms.
And where did you explain "all about the Morning Star"? I don't see any mention of e.g. the Canaanite myth of Attar's rebellion anywhere in this thread even though that seems to be among the oldest myths of the morning star that are attested. As I said, I don't know more about that myth than it says on Wikipedia, so if the information there is wrong and you know it, then please do tell, but if it's right then it seems like a valid counter-argument to me to your position so don't just dismiss it with that ad hominem.

Here's the passage from Isaiah 14 to compare:

12 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!
13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.


16 Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
“Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble,
17 the man who made the world a wilderness,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?”

18 All the kings of the nations lie in state,
each in his own tomb.
19 But you are cast out of your tomb
like a rejected branch;​

According to the Chrisitans, Jesus came to earth, had aspirations to build a kingdom "not of this world," had to die, was made a spectacle of during his crucifixation, and was cast out of his stately tomb...

Are you now arguing that the passage in Isaiah was actually the inspiration for referring to Jesus as "morning star"? I see why one could get that idea but it doesn't seem that likely to me.

 

[crossfire]

Are you now arguing that the passage in Isaiah was actually the inspiration for referring to Jesus as "morning star"? I see why one could get that idea but it doesn't seem that likely to me.

I was comparing this to where Jesus said, "I am the bright Morning Star" in Revelation 22:16. The book of Revelation even talks about the founding of the New Kingdom in heaven. (Does this make Jesus a usurper?)

 

[EtuMalku]

I admittedly was using archetype very colloquially here, and more in the sense of Jungian archetypes if anything than of Platonic forms.
So, the issue you have is that there is one authentic archetype of Lucifer that exists somewhere in the realm of ideas, and the real myths are mere bastardizations? Well, everything in the real world is less "perfect" when compared to the platonic form from which it's derived. But synonyms of the term Lucifer (e.g. Helel) were as I mentioned already used outside of Abrahamic religions in what you call a bastardized manner.

As I mentioned before, my impression is that there were two interpretations of the astronomical phenomenon of the morning star, one being that it rebels against the sun deity but falls, the other that it announces and brings the sun. I agree that the one of it as a bringer of the sun sounds more original, but I don't know which one is older, therefore I wouldn't call one of them a bastardization of the other.

The word Lucifer can be traced to the ancient ideals surrounding the myths
associated with the Morningstar and his brother the Evening Star. Early on these
myths place the Morningstar into the role of attempted usurper who is defeated
and becomes a ‘fallen’ deity. It would not be until the Gnostics of the 1st century
A.D. and Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’ (1667 A.D.) found Lucifer to be the Serpent in the
Garden of Eden and transformed the myth of the Fallen Morningstar into that of
the angel Lucifer the principle of compassion for life and creation, defiance of
corrupt authority and the current of spiritual evolution.

 

[Liu]

I was comparing this to where Jesus said, "I am the bright Morning Star" in Revelation 22:16.

Yeah, I know, that's what my reply was about.

The book of Revelation even talks about the founding of the New Kingdom in heaven. (Does this make Jesus a usurper?)

As I said, I understand how someone might get that idea, but nope.

The word Lucifer can be traced to the ancient ideals surrounding the myths
associated with the Morningstar and his brother the Evening Star. Early on these
myths place the Morningstar into the role of attempted usurper who is defeated
and becomes a ‘fallen’ deity. It would not be until the Gnostics of the 1st century
A.D. and Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’ (1667 A.D.) found Lucifer to be the Serpent in the
Garden of Eden and transformed the myth of the Fallen Morningstar into that of
the angel Lucifer the principle of compassion for life and creation, defiance of
corrupt authority and the current of spiritual evolution.

But why do you call that a bastardization of the morning star? If any it improves its reputation.

Or what exactly are you calling a bastardization of what?

 

[EtuMalku]

Yeah, I know, that's what my reply was about.As I said, I understand how someone might get that idea, but nope.


But why do you call that a bastardization of the morning star? If any it improves its reputation.

Or what exactly are you calling a bastardization of what?

Wow . . . are you just trolling us now? Nobody can be this dense.

 

[Liu]

Wow . . . are you just trolling us now? Nobody can be this dense.

???
If I'm misunderstanding then tell me - your ad hominems don't help.

The issue is, you didn't really state clearly what it is you're claiming, or rather your claims seemed to contradict each other, so I went from one guess to the next - if that sounds confused then it's in reaction to your writing.
For example, here you are referring to something named Lucifer that existed before any religious propaganda was attached to it:

If you want to truly understand something like Lucifer, you look for its Platonic First Form, it's Authentic Ideal. Not the conflated, confabulated, misuse of its name/word for the sake of (religious) propaganda.

So I assumed you are referring to either the Roman deity, or to the Canaanite myth of Attar/Helel as both of these were at least without much Abrahamic influence.

But here you seem to say that this authentic Lucifer is a principle of spiritual evolution etc. that was only invented by the gnostics and didn't exist earlier:

The word Lucifer can be traced to the ancient ideals surrounding the myths
associated with the Morningstar and his brother the Evening Star. Early on these
myths place the Morningstar into the role of attempted usurper who is defeated
and becomes a ‘fallen’ deity. It would not be until the Gnostics of the 1st century
A.D. and Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’ (1667 A.D.) found Lucifer to be the Serpent in the
Garden of Eden and transformed the myth of the Fallen Morningstar into that of
the angel Lucifer the principle of compassion for life and creation, defiance of
corrupt authority and the current of spiritual evolution.

So I asked whether I understand you correctly in that claim as it seems to contradict things you said before.

I hope you at least understand now what it is that I don't understand.

 

[EtuMalku]