Lucifer, the “Good Guy” calling out God's bull****.

[Shadow Wolf]

God tells us we are important to Him and are loved by Him.

But yet he made a system his own son said many would fail. Seems to me if we were important and loved by him then we wouldn't be so guilty that even our thoughts can be sinful.
Seems to me more like he's just itching for an excuse to condemn us.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

IMOP

The 1955 Urantia Book revelation is free online, no copyright. Its NOT a religion, has no leader etc. It contained a section that explains who Lucifer and his assistant Satan is/was. It contains the "Lucifer manifesto". Since so many people here are already atheist and aligned with Lucifer, I thought that I may as well post his manifesto. Its sort of corelated with the OP piece.


The Lucifer Manifesto

53:3.1 (603.2) Whatever the early origins of trouble in the hearts of Lucifer and Satan, the final outbreak took form as the Lucifer Declaration of Liberty. The cause of the rebels was stated under three heads:

53:3.2 (603.3) 1. The reality of the Universal Father. Lucifer charged that the Universal Father did not really exist, that physical gravity and space-energy were inherent in the universe, and that the Father was a myth invented by the Paradise Sons to enable them to maintain the rule of the universes in the Father’s name. He denied that personality was a gift of the Universal Father. He even intimated that the finaliters were in collusion with the Paradise Sons to foist fraud upon all creation since they never brought back a very clear-cut idea of the Father’s actual personality as it is discernible on Paradise. He traded on reverence as ignorance. The charge was sweeping, terrible, and blasphemous. It was this veiled attack upon the finaliters that no doubt influenced the ascendant citizens then on Jerusem to stand firm and remain steadfast in resistance to all the rebel’s proposals.

53:3.3 (603.4) 2. The universe government of the Creator Son—Michael. Lucifer contended that the local systems should be autonomous. He protested against the right of Michael, the Creator Son, to assume sovereignty of Nebadon in the name of a hypothetical Paradise Father and require all personalities to acknowledge allegiance to this unseen Father. He asserted that the whole plan of worship was a clever scheme to aggrandize the Paradise Sons. He was willing to acknowledge Michael as his Creator-father but not as his God and rightful ruler.

53:3.4 (603.5) Most bitterly did he attack the right of the Ancients of Days—“foreign potentates”—to interfere in the affairs of the local systems and universes. These rulers he denounced as tyrants and usurpers. He exhorted his followers to believe that none of these rulers could do aught to interfere with the operation of complete home rule if men and angels only had the courage to assert themselves and boldly claim their rights.

53:3.5 (603.6) He contended that the executioners of the Ancients of Days could be debarred from functioning in the local systems if the native beings would only assert their independence. He maintained that immortality was inherent in the system personalities, that resurrection was natural and automatic, and that all beings would live eternally except for the arbitrary and unjust acts of the executioners of the Ancients of Days.

53:3.6 (604.1) 3. The attack upon the universal plan of ascendant mortal training. Lucifer maintained that far too much time and energy were expended upon the scheme of so thoroughly training ascending mortals in the principles of universe administration, principles which he alleged were unethical and unsound. He protested against the agelong program for preparing the mortals of space for some unknown destiny and pointed to the presence of the finaliter corps on Jerusem as proof that these mortals had spent ages of preparation for some destiny of pure fiction. With derision he pointed out that the finaliters had encountered a destiny no more glorious than to be returned to humble spheres similar to those of their origin. He intimated that they had been debauched by overmuch discipline and prolonged training, and that they were in reality traitors to their mortal fellows since they were now co-operating with the scheme of enslaving all creation to the fictions of a mythical eternal destiny for ascending mortals. He advocated that ascenders should enjoy the liberty of individual self-determination. He challenged and condemned the entire plan of mortal ascension as sponsored by the Paradise Sons of God and supported by the Infinite Spirit.

53:3.7 (604.2) And it was with such a Declaration of Liberty that Lucifer launched his orgy of darkness and death.


Outbreak of the Rebellion

53:4.1 (604.3) The Lucifer manifesto was issued at the annual conclave of Satania on the sea of glass, in the presence of the assembled hosts of Jerusem, on the last day of the year, about two hundred thousand years ago, Urantia time. Satan proclaimed that worship could be accorded the universal forces—physical, intellectual, and spiritual—but that allegiance could be acknowledged only to the actual and present ruler, Lucifer, the “friend of men and angels” and the “God of liberty.”

53:4.2 (604.4) Self-assertion was the battle cry of the Lucifer rebellion. One of his chief arguments was that, if self-government was good and right for the Melchizedeks and other groups, it was equally good for all orders of intelligence. He was bold and persistent in the advocacy of the “equality of mind” and “the brotherhood of intelligence.” He maintained that all government should be limited to the local planets and their voluntary confederation into the local systems. All other supervision he disallowed. He promised the Planetary Princes that they should rule the worlds as supreme executives. He denounced the location of legislative activities on the constellation headquarters and the conduct of judicial affairs on the universe capital. He contended that all these functions of government should be concentrated on the system capitals and proceeded to set up his own legislative assembly and organized his own tribunals under the jurisdiction of Satan. And he directed that the princes on the apostate worlds do the same.

53:4.3 (604.5) The entire administrative cabinet of Lucifer went over in a body and were sworn in publicly as the officers of the administration of the new head of “the liberated worlds and systems.”

53:4.4 (605.1) While there had been two previous rebellions in Nebadon, they were in distant constellations. Lucifer held that these insurrections were unsuccessful because the majority of the intelligences failed to follow their leaders. He contended that “majorities rule,” that “mind is infallible.” The freedom allowed him by the universe rulers apparently sustained many of his nefarious contentions. He defied all his superiors; yet they apparently took no note of his doings. He was given a free hand to prosecute his seductive plan without let or hindrance.

53:4.5 (605.2) All the merciful delays of justice Lucifer pointed to as evidence of the inability of the government of the Paradise Sons to stop the rebellion. He would openly defy and arrogantly challenge Michael, Immanuel, and the Ancients of Days and then point to the fact that no action ensued as positive evidence of the impotency of the universe and the superuniverse governments.

53:4.6 (605.3) Gabriel was personally present throughout all these disloyal proceedings and only announced that he would, in due time, speak for Michael, and that all beings would be left free and unmolested in their choice; that the “government of the Sons for the Father desired only that loyalty and devotion which was voluntary, wholehearted, and sophistry-proof.”

53:4.7 (605.4) Lucifer was permitted fully to establish and thoroughly to organize his rebel government before Gabriel made any effort to contest the right of secession or to counterwork the rebel propaganda. But the Constellation Fathers immediately confined the action of these disloyal personalities to the system of Satania. Nevertheless, this period of delay was a time of great trial and testing to the loyal beings of all Satania. All was chaotic for a few years, and there was great confusion on the mansion worlds.

I bring up books about Lucifer as well.
The Revelation of Lucifer the Divine by Quentin Pierson
But it's far more easier than that. Satan is am angel of Yahweh, Christians entirely and completely reinvented him into a devil and an adversary of Jehovah, and a translation error put Lucifer in their when it shouldn't be.

 

[Colt]

I bring up books about Lucifer as well.
The Revelation of Lucifer the Divine by Quentin Pierson
But it's far more easier than that. Satan is am angel of Yahweh, Christians entirely and completely reinvented him into a devil and an adversary of Jehovah, and a translation error put Lucifer in their when it shouldn't be.

The Jews of Jesus' day reveal what they believed in their discussion with Jesus:

Mark 3:22-27
New International Version

22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house.

 

[Ella S.]

Yahweh causes more harm than Satan does and demonstrates more of the 7 deadly sins. Yahweh openly admits to being jealous and wrathful, while pridefully declaring himself the greatest being and the ultimate authority on everything. He has a higher body count and, if we take his inflated claims about being the creator of the earth at face value rather than the hubristic bragging of a war deity, he is directly responsible for the majority of suffering, disease, death, drought, starvation, and natural disaster humanity has ever faced.

However, Satan tortured Job and slaughtered the first-born Egyptians, which are not excusable actions. These are only what he is shown to do directly but, from elsewhere in the book, we can infer that he was behind much of the tribal warfare in ancient Mesopotamia, including human sacrifices. We also hear from Jesus, perhaps not a reliable source, that Satan intentionally tries to get people to commit terrible acts including acts of horrific violence and cruel sadism specifically to get them in trouble with Yahweh and thrown into Hell.

(ETA: Satan also tried to persuade Jesus into becoming a tyrannical dictator of the world! I forgot about that. That's really evil, too.)

Either one would make a terrifying antagonist of a Lovecraftian monster story.

 

[Ella S.]

Lucifer is just like us., allows light who lives in us flow. Cause Lucifer was allowing light flow right., Lucifer’s name literally translates from Latin to “Light bringer”, “Light bearer” or “Morning Star”

But that's Latin though., uh?

How come that's Latin word., when did this word come about?

"Lucifer" was a title that some Gnostic sects gave to Sophia because she was seen as the bringer of enlightenment. Other Christians accused the Gnostics of worshiping the devil, calling it "Luciferianism."

Then they went back and cherry-picked verses about the morning star, which is called Lucifer in Latin, and reinterpreted them to be about Satan to support this persecution.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

However, Satan tortured Job and slaughtered the first-born Egyptians, which are not excusable actions.

In those myths, observe that nothing can be done without the express order of Yahweh. Angels don't have free will.

 

[Kenny]

No, I'm really not, but continue.

But, you are.

Yeah, that's not what that means. "The wages of sin is death" refers to the "death" of one's soul, the original notion of Perdition - that of division and separation from god, and the denial of the resurrection. It is not a legally binding clause that says "if you sin, you are to be executed".

Ok... you have made multiple statements that can only be viewed as opinion as you haven't supported any position you have made.

When God said to Adam, "You will die" - Die is plural. Why and what does it mean.

Oh, fantastic. You could not have used a better example.

When Jesus told Peter "Get behind me, satan", he was not calling him "the devil". ...

As well, Jesus did not cast out "demons" or "devils" - that again is mistranslation, and culturally incorrect words being applied and warped through the ages. He cast out unclean spirits. There is a distinction.

Matthew 8:16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.

Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

You will have to do better than that.

Disagree as you will, but that is what the theology shows when it is actually studied, rather than "taken on faith".

But you haven't supported anything

Correct. Really the only reason that Paul's letters are included is that they chart the evangelical efforts around the Mediterranean during his time, and spread the "proper message" that set up ecclesiastical policy.

Hmmm... nope. Who wrote Acts. And who wrote 2 Peter?

Correction; Paul claimed that he was given the Right Hand of Fellowship. By people that he never met, and had in fact been persecuting up until his miraculous conversion.

Again... you still haven't supported your position. Please don't just give opinions...


sooo.....


what exactly put a burr under your saddle?

 

[River Sea]

"Lucifer" was a title that some Gnostic sects gave to Sophia because she was seen as the bringer of enlightenment

I've never heard of Sophia; can you tell me more about Sophia as the bringer of enlightenment?

 

[Brian2]

But yet he made a system his own son said many would fail. Seems to me if we were important and loved by him then we wouldn't be so guilty that even our thoughts can be sinful.
Seems to me more like he's just itching for an excuse to condemn us.

Yes, when humans stepped away from doing what God had said we certainly made everything harder for ourselves and ended up in a place where nobody is able to be morally perfect and so in the end must trust in God and His forgiveness and not in our own goodness.
But it is humanity that did that to ourselves.
It is a good thing God does not want to condemn us and so sent Jesus as a saviour and tells us we can trust in God for forgiveness because Jesus has been condemned in our place.

 

[River Sea]

Lucifer is the Roman personification of the planet Venus, the son of Aurora and Cephalus, and the herald of the dawn. Really, he has nothing at all to do with the Middle East, the bible, or Yahweh. He is also known as Noctifer (Night Bringer) for the planet at dusk. Similar cultural parallels are the Germanic figure Ōstara and English Ēostre, from both of which we get Austria and Easter.

Because Lucifer is the Roman personification of the planet Venus, and the Germanic figure Ostara and English name Eostre appeared as Easter, did Hindus ever have a Lucifer similar to the Romans, Germans, and English?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Zeus represents and upholds the cosmic order, and his persona was refined over the centuries, similar to Yahweh in some respects.

It seems like Yahweh and Zeus were refined to become more moral over time, their original personas shown clearly toxic traits, akin to the poor moral wisdom human cultures had earlier in time. And even still, to this day both appear pretty bad unless you can excuse their actions with “the ends justify the means” morality, which 1) doesn’t make sense with an omnipotent and omniscient deity. and 2) doesn’t make sense considering a lot of these actions Yahweh or Zeus has taken really only had “ends” that suited a selfish agenda.

There were no ends that justified Zeus’s rape. There were no ends that justified Yahweh’s treatment of Job, or his flooding of the Earth.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

But, you are.

Must have been why I used the analogy of a forge, but okay.

you have made multiple statements that can only be viewed as opinion as you haven't supported any position you have made.

We're not talking about Adam. We're talking about your misuse of the "wages of sin" saying, and trying to claim it as some legally binding clause that would have allowed "Satan" to kill Jesus if he sinned.

1010 "...through Baptism, the Christian has already "died with Christ" sacramentally, in order to live a new life; and if we die in Christ's grace, physical death completes this "dying with Christ" and so completes our incorporation into him in his redeeming act."
1012 "The Christian vision of death receives privileged expression in the liturgy of the Church: 'Lord, for your faithful people life is changed, not ended. When the body of our earthly dwelling lies in death we gain an everlasting dwelling place in heaven' "
1019 "Jesus, the Son of God, freely suffered death for us in complete and free submission to the will of God, his Father. By his death he has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men."
~Catechism of the Church, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 11: "Resurrection of the Body"

This is the foundation of the ecclesiastical policy regarding spiritual death should one die a mortal death and not be saved. Despite their protests and fervent disagreement with the Catholic church, Protestants have not left this principle behind, and continue to hinge "salvation" on it. By belief, death entered the world (though was subsequently (conditionally) conquered by Jesus' sacrifice) through the First Sin, yet the "wages of sin" - what you earn through sinning - is spiritual death.

Matthew 8:16

Using modern translations that utilize Middle English words (devil, from Old English deofol, Late Latin (200-600 CE) diabolus) doesn't really make for a strong counter-case of the original language used for that gospel. You will have to do better than that. Additionally the Late Latin diabolus means "slanderer", so really it doesn't have anything to do with unclean spirits.

But you haven't supported anything

I have given you the meanings of satan (שָׂטָן) and Satan (Ha-Satan: הַשָּׂטָן). Your refusal to accept these terms, what they mean, and the fact that their use was confused in translation, does not mean it has not been supported.

Who wrote Acts. And who wrote 2 Peter?

Irrelevant. Paul, as a Gentile, did not understand the culture of which he was spreading and writing about, and from there came many contradictions and theological problems that are inherent and evident in the text. To say nothing of the centuries-long fact that these "revelations" are not accepted by the very people from whom these beliefs are appropriated.

you still haven't supported your position.

Then please, do show us where Paul received his authority from the Apostles beyond a claim that he made.

--------------------------------------

Because Lucifer is the Roman personification of the planet Venus, and the Germanic figure Ostara and English name Eostre appeared as Easter, did Hindus ever have a Lucifer similar to the Romans, Germans, and English?

I honestly could not say. I know little and less of Hinduism, but I would not be surprised if they had a divine figure of the dawn and dusk.

 

[Estro Felino]

I would like Satanists here to answer this question.
What do you think Satan looks like?
Because Dante in his Divine Comedy describes him in detail, and he looks like something like this

Spoiler: Satan

Is that the creature you worship?

 

[Kenny]

Must have been why I used the analogy of a forge, but okay.


We're not talking about Adam. We're talking about your misuse of the "wages of sin" saying, and trying to claim it as some legally binding clause that would have allowed "Satan" to kill Jesus if he sinned.



This is the foundation of the ecclesiastical policy regarding spiritual death should one die a mortal death and not be saved. Despite their protests and fervent disagreement with the Catholic church, Protestants have not left this principle behind, and continue to hinge "salvation" on it. By belief, death entered the world (though was subsequently (conditionally) conquered by Jesus' sacrifice) through the First Sin, yet the "wages of sin" - what you earn through sinning - is spiritual death.


Using modern translations that utilize Middle English words (devil, from Old English deofol, Late Latin (200-600 CE) diabolus) doesn't really make for a strong counter-case of the original language used for that gospel. You will have to do better than that. Additionally the Late Latin diabolus means "slanderer", so really it doesn't have anything to do with unclean spirits.


I have given you the meanings of satan (שָׂטָן) and Satan (Ha-Satan: הַשָּׂטָן). Your refusal to accept these terms, what they mean, and the fact that their use was confused in translation, does not mean it has not been supported.


Irrelevant. Paul, as a Gentile, did not understand the culture of which he was spreading and writing about, and from there came many contradictions and theological problems that are inherent and evident in the text. To say nothing of the centuries-long fact that these "revelations" are not accepted by the very people from whom these beliefs are appropriated.


Then please, do show us where Paul received his authority from the Apostles beyond a claim that he made.

--------------------------------------



I honestly could not say. I know little and less of Hinduism, but I would not be surprised if they had a divine figure of the dawn and dusk.

Sorry... but you make no sense at all.

Show me where Paul was a Gentile.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry... but you make no sense at all.

Show me where Paul was a Gentile.

Is that all that you got from that post? I guess that you had no answer to the rest of it.

As to Paul. His case was a complicated one. He had a Roman father, which by their rules made him Roman. He had a Jewish mother, which by Jewish rules made him Jewish. But most important of all he identified as a Jew so I would agree with your implication that he was not a Gentile.

 

[Brian2]

Is that all that you got from that post? I guess that you had no answer to the rest of it.

As to Paul. His case was a complicated one. He had a Roman father, which by their rules made him Roman. He had a Jewish mother, which by Jewish rules made him Jewish. But most important of all he identified as a Jew so I would agree with your implication that he was not a Gentile.

Why do you say he had a Roman father?
He was a Roman citizen because he was born in Tarsus, a Roman city, but I have never heard that he had a Roman father.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you say he had a Roman father?
He was a Roman citizen because he was born in Tarsus, a Roman city, but I have never heard that he had a Roman father.

You gave the answer yourself. Paul was a Roman. He was a Roman citizen. That would have been passed down through his father.

 

[Kenny]

Is that all that you got from that post? I guess that you had no answer to the rest of it.

Coming into a conversation at the very end and then making a judgment call on the last sentence without context or history....

Well.....

I have no answer for you either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lucifer Is a One-of-a-Kind “Good Guy” Among Literary Villains

Complete literary role reversal.

So. A question directed at mythological Christian lore.

Is lucifer a good guy or the bad guy?

I see lucifer as a good guy exposing the tyranny and iron rule of a malevolent and evil diety that will kill anyone not in complete obedience to it.

I remember thinking God was good at first, but there are enough examples in the Bible and apocryphal works that suggest otherwise when the overall picture is layed out on the table.

It's an interesting idea to think about.
It's a question I've often asked myself, indeed.

Purely in context of the story, the devil / satan / lucifer indeed tends to remind me of this guy:

Then there's also the idea of god engaging in the indiscriminate killing of millions according to the lore, at one point even 99.99% of all living things. While Satan kills like what, 10 people? And when he did that it was even with god's blessing to make a narcistic point on god's behalf.

I've always felt that God is depicted like some kind of Great Leader of a celestial North Korea, with Lucifer being his second in command who rises up against the Great Leader's cruelty in a fight that he could never hope to win. Some kind of ultimate form of sacrificial altruism.

There are MANY points in the christian lore where god orders his followers to go on genocidal and infanticidal rampages, of capturing young virgins as slaves as some kind of war booty, etc.
And while the bible is full of how lucifer supposedly "tempts" people to do evil... I don't think he once invited anyone to go on killing sprees or rape or torture or what have you. The "tempting" seems to be nothing more then "think for yourself, don't listen to this narcistic petty dictator"


So I think certainly a case could be made, quite easily at times, of how Lucifer indeed is the "good guy" standing up to a narcistic and petty all powerful dictator in a fight he can't ever hope to win.

Almost as if the grand moral of the entire thing is "might makes right" and lucifer is only the "bad guy" because he stands up to someone more powerful then him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

but Lucifer is evil too.

Just out of interest. Why do you say that?
What specifically makes lucifer evil in your opinion?

Not saying he isn't. I don't think I know (or remember) enough of the lore to make that judgement.
But I'll admit that going just by what I know / understand, it's not clear to me at all as to why he should be seen as evil.