god's Lies and The Real Truth About Lucifer

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Followers of Lucifer and Education/Believers of Lucifer: god's Lies and The Real Truth About Lucifer
I am hoping this will educate many people.

 

[EtuMalku]

Followers of Lucifer and Education/Believers of Lucifer: god's Lies and The Real Truth About Lucifer
I am hoping this will educate many people.

Lucifer has nothing to do with the Abrahamic faiths, he is NOT the Satan found in the Abrahamic myths. Lucifer as a deity is not mentioned in the Christian bible, but the word 'Lucifer' is used adjectivally as a title. The biblical use of the word Lucifer is personifying the Morning Star of Phoenician/Canaan cosmology.

Lucifer the Roman-Greco deity is mentioned in Publius Ovidius Naso's "Metamorphoses", which was written in 8 B.C.E., the Roman poet Virgil mentions him as far back as 29 B.C.E. And the first mention is from Timaeus by Plato in 360 B.C.E. This Lucifer is also portrayed as a Lunar deity unlike his usual association with Venus.

The Hebrew translation had the word Helel in the place of Lucifer, and it was St. Jerome who replaced the word Helel with Lucifer. Helel means ‘shining one’. In 382 AD, Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome to write a revision of the old Latin translation of the Bible. This task was completed sometime during the 5th century AD, and eventually, it was considered the official and definite Latin version of the Bible according to the Roman Catholic church. By the 13th century, it was considered the versio vulgate – the common translation.

Isaiah 14:12 according to the Vulgate translation:
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

 

[crossfire]

Satan ≠ Lucifer
Lucifer ≠ Satan
Satan = The Opposer
Lucifer = The Morning Star

 

[Liu]

Tons of UPGs in this thread...

Who can tell whether any spiritual truths we learn have some objective truth to them.

Who can tell which name belongs to which entity, and which entities even exist at all.

Sure, originally, Lucifer referred to some Roman deity, but it has since centuries been used as a name for Satan, so I'd not say that it's not an appropriate name.

 

[crossfire]

Tons of UPGs in this thread...

Who can tell whether any spiritual truths we learn have some objective truth to them.

Who can tell which name belongs to which entity, and which entities even exist at all.

Sure, originally, Lucifer referred to some Roman deity, but it has since centuries been used as a name for Satan, so I'd not say that it's not an appropriate name.

So propaganda is truth? Really?

 

[EtuMalku]

Tons of UPGs in this thread...

Who can tell whether any spiritual truths we learn have some objective truth to them.

Who can tell which name belongs to which entity, and which entities even exist at all.

Sure, originally, Lucifer referred to some Roman deity, but it has since centuries been used as a name for Satan, so I'd not say that it's not an appropriate name.

"I'd not say that it's not an appropriate name." . . . what does that even mean?

 

[EtuMalku]

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.

 

[Liu]

So propaganda is truth? Really?

Truth? Where are you taking that from? All I was saying is that if it comes to spiritual things, knowing whether anything is objectively true is quite difficult.

Things can still have some kind of truth to them on a subjective level, i.e. a personal meaning. E.g. even if there should be no spirits or deities whatsoever, some people still experience them as being there.

"I'd not say that it's not an appropriate name." . . . what does that even mean?

That means that I think there are valid reasons for people to call Satan Lucifer.
Are double negations that difficult?

Me being a pandiabolist, I don't really equate my deity anyway with those mythological characters, but I think there is a lot to be taken from associating both its "Satanic" and its "Luciferian" aspects to the same being.

 

[crossfire]

Truth? Where are you taking that from? All I was saying is that if it comes to spiritual things, knowing whether anything is objectively true is quite difficult.

Things can still have some kind of truth to them on a subjective level, i.e. a personal meaning. E.g. even if there should be no spirits or deities whatsoever, some people still experience them as being there.

Well, the thread title is, "god's Lies and The Real Truth About Lucifer." Hence, my question, "So propaganda is truth? Really?" Would you consider propaganda (as per "god's lies" in the OP) truth or lies? The OP is calling the propaganda lies, whereas you are saying propaganda is truth.

 

[EtuMalku]

That means that I think there are valid reasons for people to call Satan Lucifer.
Are double negations that difficult?

Which valid resonswould that be?

 

[Liu]

Well, the thread title is, "god's Lies and The Real Truth About Lucifer." Hence, my question, "So propaganda is truth? Really?" Would you consider propaganda (as per "god's lies" in the OP) truth or lies? The OP is calling the propaganda lies, whereas you are saying propaganda is truth.

That would be the least of the claims of the article linked, even if it's in the title.
Some examples of claims the article makes and that seem to me very much UPGs (at least if meant literally, but I see no indications for a metaphoric interpretation):
- That there is a creator deity and that he had some specific egotistical reasons for creating the world
- That there is an entity named Lucifer that exposed that deity by telling humans about the motives behind creation
- That there is some kind of "premortal world" in the middle of the universe
- That there is some afterlife-realm called "heaven" in which people are forced to worship the creator deity

Considering all that, whether we call that creator-opposing being now Lucifer or whatever else doesn't seem to make much difference to me.

And which of the things that the OP calls "god's lies" would I have been calling truth?

Which valid resonswould that be?

As I mentioned above, the name being used since centuries in that meaning.
Sure, originally "Lucifer" referred to a Roman deity or similar, but ask 100 native speakers of English in the US and at least 99 of them will say something like that it's a name of Satan.

And I think many Luciferians are very much about those aspects of their deity* which imply a just, morally well-founded rebellion against a tyrannic demiurge, whereas Satanists often are rather amoral themselves and see their deity* as the same, as an antigod that is morally dubious at best.
Not like that would be a 1:1 correspondence, many people are somewhere inbetween and for example the Satanists of TST tend to be very moral and stress that "opposing tyranny"-aspect quite a lot whereas the guys of the formerly so-called Misanthropic Luciferian Order are rather nefarious. But it's at least a tendency, and it seems in accordance to that that @Luciferi Baphomet is calling her deity rather Lucifer. It also makes sense in a way if you look at the literal meanings of the names.

Additionally, I would assume that if there are deities or spirits that some of them might go by more than one name and/or that some might share the same name.

*deity here both in a theistic sense and in the sense of the mythological figurehead one aligns oneself with while being atheistic

 

[crossfire]

<...>
And which of the things that the OP calls "god's lies" would I have been calling truth?

Indeed. Propaganda is propaganda.

As I mentioned above, the name being used since centuries in that meaning.
Sure, originally "Lucifer" referred to a Roman deity or similar, but ask 100 native speakers of English in the US and at least 99 of them will say something like that it's a name of Satan.

It was the Morning Star. And yes, the propaganda around Lucifer has become widespread. Is that any reason to continue spreading and empowering the propaganda, especially if you know it to be propaganda? Is pleading that people believe the propaganda make it right? To do so would be totally contrary to Luciferian principles of spreading light and understanding instead of spreading the darkness of propaganda.

 

[Liu]

Indeed. Propaganda is propaganda.


It was the Morning Star. And yes, the propaganda around Lucifer has become widespread. Is that any reason to continue spreading and empowering the propaganda, especially if you know it to be propaganda? Is pleading that people believe the propaganda make it right? To do so would be totally contrary to Luciferian principles of spreading light and understanding instead of spreading the darkness of propaganda.

For your info, I'm a language historian by profession, so I might have a slightly unusual way of thinking about these things. But if I would use every single word that has changed meaning in its original meaning (if that was possible, the "original" was millenia ago), you wouldn't understand a thing of what I'm saying.
"Lucifer" is far from being the only word that got its new meaning from using a formerly positive or neutral term in a negative sense, pejoration in general is very wide-spread. And by calling our deity Lucifer we are actually reclaiming that name (even if in again a new meaning).

Also, I'm not even sure whether that was intentional propaganda, at least not directed against the Roman deity.
In Hebrew, it does say "helel" in the sense of "morning star" in the bible, and "lucifer" is simply the Latin term for that. As far as I know, that deity of that name was so obscure that the translator likely wasn't aware of its existence.
And sure, the equating of Helel with Satan is also not what was meant when that book of the bible was written, but Helel was already used negatively there.

PS: You may be a luciferian, but I'm a devil worshipper and discordian. Sure I value the increase of knowledge, it's one of the greatest goods to me, but who am I to condemn anything that my deity brings, including confusion?

 

[crossfire]

For your info, I'm a language historian by profession, so I might have a slightly unusual way of thinking about these things. But if I would use every single word that has changed meaning in its original meaning (if that was possible, the "original" was millenia ago), you wouldn't understand a thing of what I'm saying.
"Lucifer" is far from being the only word that got its new meaning from using a formerly positive or neutral term in a negative sense, pejoration in general is very wide-spread. And by calling our deity Lucifer we are actually reclaiming that name (even if in again a new meaning).

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.”​

Also, I'm not even sure whether that was intentional propaganda, at least not directed against the Roman deity.
In Hebrew, it does say "helel" in the sense of "morning star" in the bible, and "lucifer" is simply the Latin term for that. As far as I know, that deity of that name was so obscure that the translator likely wasn't aware of its existence.
And sure, the equating of Helel with Satan is also not what was meant when that book of the bible was written, but Helel was already used negatively there.

PS: You may be a luciferian, but I'm a devil worshipper and discordian. Sure I value the increase of knowledge, it's one of the greatest goods to me, but who am I to condemn anything that my deity brings, including confusion?

If you don't question everything, what kind of Satanist does that make you?

 

[Liu]

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.”​

​

Sure, I never said otherwise. Actually I said above that there can be several entities going by the same name.

If you don't question everything, what kind of Satanist does that make you?

Lol, I do try to question everything. But there is a difference between questioning stuff and putting an absolute moral value on the results of one's questioning. Part of being a Satanist is acknowledging that people may come to different conclusions regarding how to react to a given situation.

 

[crossfire]

​

Sure, I never said otherwise. Actually I said above that there can be several entities going by the same name.

Lol, I do try to question everything. But there is a difference between questioning stuff and putting an absolute moral value on the results of one's questioning. Part of being a Satanist is acknowledging that people may come to different conclusions regarding how to react to a given situation.

Certainly, we are all different and see things differently. We all have different minds. For instance, I don't even see Lucifer as a deity in even the remotest sense of the word--it's more like a set of principles than anything else, symbolized by the Morning Star. It's the message, not the messenger.

 

[Liu]

Certainly, we are all different and see things differently. We all have different minds. For instance, I don't even see Lucifer as a deity in even the remotest sense of the word--it's more like a set of principles than anything else, symbolized by the Morning Star. It's the message, not the messenger.

Yeah, I was using theistic language but meaning all kinds of dealing with these myths. My own metaphysical beliefs are basically deistic (i.e. the deity exists but is not a person), which is neither theistic nor atheistics, but in practice I combine all three (i.e. also treating the deity as if it exists as a person, and as if it's merely a set of attributes).

 

[EtuMalku]

As I mentioned above, the name being used since centuries in that meaning.
Sure, originally "Lucifer" referred to a Roman deity or similar, but ask 100 native speakers of English in the US and at least 99 of them will say something like that it's a name of Satan.

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

And I think many Luciferians are very much about those aspects of their deity* which imply a just, morally well-founded rebellion against a tyrannic demiurge, whereas Satanists often are rather amoral themselves and see their deity* as the same, as an antigod that is morally dubious at best.

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!

Not like that would be a 1:1 correspondence, many people are somewhere inbetween and for example the Satanists of TST tend to be very moral and stress that "opposing tyranny"-aspect quite a lot whereas the guys of the formerly so-called Misanthropic Luciferian Order are rather nefarious. But it's at least a tendency, and it seems in accordance to that that @Luciferi Baphomet is calling her deity rather Lucifer. It also makes sense in a way if you look at the literal meanings of the names.

Additionally, I would assume that if there are deities or spirits that some of them might go by more than one name and/or that some might share the same name.

*deity here both in a theistic sense and in the sense of the mythological figurehead one aligns oneself with while being atheistic

I'm not much for theism so this last paragraph is off the charts for me, I disagree with theistic philosophy.

 

[Kapalika]

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

However I don't call Yahweh "God" so I can't say that "God" has lied about Satan, only Yahweh

 

[EtuMalku]

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

As in the Prince of Darkness or something like that?