Thread: A question about Luciferians?

Originally Posted by Great American Desert

Lucifer and Satan are indeed the same being.

Perhaps this is a true statement now, but I really do not think it is fair to say that they are the same, mainly because they were equated thanks to a mistranslation of the Old Testament.

When the early Hebrews were organizing the first texts of Judaism, they borrowed heavily from the local Canaanites (later known as the Phoenicians). These locals worshiped a pantheon that included a god of the morning sun that the Hebrews called Helel. When Latinized, Helel became Lucifer, which means light-bringer. One confusing detail is that some scholar's say that the god of the morning sun is Shaher, but most say that Helel was the rising star. Regardless, it makes little bearing on the situation because Helel, which translates to Lucifer, existed long before Christianity.

In a 7th century B.C.E. Canaanite scripture, Helel is described as falling from grace because he tried to take over the high god's position: "How hast thou fallen from Heaven, Helel's son Shaher! Thou didst say in thy heart, 'I will ascend to heaven, above the circumpolar stars I will raise my throne, and I will dwell on the Mount of Council in the back of the north; I will mount on the back of the cloud, and I will be like unto Elyon' [the high god]".

Several hundred years later, Isiah compared King Nebuchadnezzar to the Morning star: "How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! ... For though [sic] hast said in thine heart, 'I will exalt my throne above the star of God... I will sit upon the mun t of the congregation, in the side of the north... I will be like the most High'" (Isaiah 14:12-4, King James Bible).

Clearly, Lucifer, which is only mentioned or alluded to a few more times to describe light and glory, is NOT equal to Satan. In fact, Christ is even linked t Lucifer in II Peter 1:19 ("We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, s unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise into your hearts") and Apocalypse (aka Revelation) 22:16 ("I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, an the bright ad morning star").

Thanks to The Dark Archetype by Denise Dumars and Lori Nyx for this information.

Mirfalan: this is all good and true from a rigidly orthodox historical view. But one's Gnosis tends to shed a different light on the matter. I won't repeat myself - my rhetoric has shown itself many other places in this forum, even in the post that you quoted partially above.

Heres a wild concept...both Satan and Lucifer are in actual fact the 2 warring forces that makes up Mankinds Mentality...

Satan would represent the base, somewhat immoral animal instinct that has served us so well thus far now starts working against us, (personified by the God Pan). Now, As we now need to play nice with each other, we need a new paradigm....Lucifer...he who illuminates and may allow us to ascend to the next level?

This isn't really my scene, so flame away if you wish...

Originally Posted by S33k3R

Heres a wild concept...both Satan and Lucifer are in actual fact the 2 warring forces that makes up Mankinds Mentality...

Satan would represent the base, somewhat immoral animal instinct that has served us so well thus far now starts working against us, (personified by the God Pan). Now, As we now need to play nice with each other, we need a new paradigm....Lucifer...he who illuminates and may allow us to ascend to the next level?

This isn't really my scene, so flame away if you wish...

That is an interesting proposition, but I have a different one:

New religions are copies of old ones, this process going back to the first religion, whatever that was. Probably just a bunch of extremely primitive humans that worshipped carvings of women. I already touched upon this in my previous post here. There really is no truth to any religion or belief system, but there is a lot of evidence suggesting the existence of other realms, be they higher or lower. The intelligent occultist, however, will look at religious systems as archetypes to link the conscious with the subconscious and thus communicate with higher energies. The intelligent occultist will also be versed in science and history, knowing that faith is a poor substitute for empirical data.

I do not mind that people worship Lucifer, but they should know that the Morning Star was "accidentally" linked to Satan. Both deities, while they seem inextricable today, did not start out even remotely linked.

Originally Posted by Mirfalan

That is an interesting proposition, but I have a different one:

New religions are copies of old ones, this process going back to the first religion, whatever that was. Probably just a bunch of extremely primitive humans that worshipped carvings of women. I already touched upon this in my previous post here. There really is no truth to any religion or belief system, but there is a lot of evidence suggesting the existence of other realms, be they higher or lower. The intelligent occultist, however, will look at religious systems as archetypes to link the conscious with the subconscious and thus communicate with higher energies. The intelligent occultist will also be versed in science and history, knowing that faith is a poor substitute for empirical data.

I do not mind that people worship Lucifer, but they should know that the Morning Star was "accidentally" linked to Satan. Both deities, while they seem inextricable today, did not start out even remotely linked.

Out of curiosity, whence comes your authority? I only ask because you say you "do not mind", as if you had some say in the matter.

I don't think new religions are copies of old ones. Rather, they are new translucent layers lain one upon another, through which we get new embodiments of old concepts. The concept of Lucifer, in my view, originates at the dawn of human intelligence, when we faced the schism of the barbaric, utilitarian mind and the higher, spiritual mind. Lucifer was the spiritual mind that bade us to betray the empirical in a quest for deeper truths, while the creator god represented the brute nature of primitive man.

As time progresses, you have developed characters. The creator god takes many forms and faces, and comes to a critical embodiment in Yahweh, becoming the sole divinity in a developing monotheistic faith. His law is stern and rigid, and on the surface it makes no sense to defy him. Eden's Serpent represents that old desire for greater Truth, the temptation we call Lucifer. And this is the point of marriage between the Luciferian concept and the Satanic concept. A Gnostic knows that Lucifer bears the light of Wisdom of greater spheres and represents a path that usurps the conventional and defies the natural order. This is an abomination to a jealous creator like Yahweh, and thus Lucifer is Satanic within this paradigm.

Nebuchadnezzar aside, my friend. With one film laid gently upon another, and with the marriage of concepts, the necessity of Lucifer's continuation and fusion with the Satanic concept is now crucial to the perpetuation of Luciferian recognition.

I understand and agree with your "intelligent Occultist" comment, but I have to say this: Occultists should never claim that they are using science in their approach. No proper scientist would give the time of day to any of our insane ramblings for the very reason that none of it can be quantified. We must be open to science, but understand where the line is drawn between the two disciplines. As such, no esoteric thinker should feel he has any high ground from which to look down upon others, because no matter how versed he is in science or other academia, be still pursues unobservable flights of fancy that belong in the "faith" category, just like the rest of us.

I don't think new religions are copies of old ones.

Depends on how you define copy. For example, Jesus rising in the bible is arguably an allegory to celestial events etc, and the worship of such would likely have come from Egyptian mythology.

when we faced the schism of the barbaric, utilitarian mind and the higher, spiritual mind.

Utilitarianism is a set of values which, when treated in a way which isn't naive (lol guard's dilemma), generally composes the fundaments of other ethical codes.

Unless you're Ayn Rand, but she was a bint anyway.

People sometimes equate utilitarianism with egoistic pragmatism, though their meanings are very very different on a philosophimical level.

Unless of course you're using utilitarian to mean "sheer utility based", then nit picking on the semantics here hardly seems justified.

Occultists should never claim that they are using science in their approach.

Besides placebo and nocebo effects. Which are pretty interesting.

If you treat occult claims as scientific conjectures, it's possible to use science in your approach, sort of. Like wearing a haematite bracelet, with a priori knowledge of the placebo effect, when you've got high blood pressure.

It applies to black magic too, regardless of any incantation used, it could have theraputic beneficts - yet it's a right clusterf*ck to get your head around using a possible nocebo effect (and forgetting the lie) as a self administered placebo.

Plarkenstorf, the distinction I'm drawing is one of intent, in regards to the copying of religions subject. If a story such as the ascent of Christ found its way to modern believers by way of an Egyptian myth, I see it as a progression...a building on tradition. Bastardized? Maybe so, but I don't think that the purveyors of faith set out to copy another's belief, but to adapt it to something that they have found to be true.

My use of the term "utilitarian" was in no way a reference to a philosophical stance, but to the very function of life being based on utility. Pursue nothing if it's not useful for survival.

It is possible to use a scientific method in regard to the Occult, but you'll never get anywhere with it. A hypothesis would either remain a hypothesis or be proved wrong when the would-be magician finds after repeated efforts that A has no causal effect on B. And in the case that you saw repeatedly that A did indeed have a causal effect on B, you would have to identify the mechanism behind it. And if you found any real practical mechanism that brought forth these events, it could no longer be considered magic.

A scientific approach to magic (or magick, if you prefer) is only good for the magician's amusement. Like I said, we must not forget our place in the world. We pursue the Occult because the empirical just isn't enough.

Plarkenstorf, the distinction I'm drawing is one of intent, in regards to the copying of religions subject. If a story such as the ascent of Christ found its way to modern believers by way of an Egyptian myth, I see it as a progression...a building on tradition. Bastardized? Maybe so, but I don't think that the purveyors of faith set out to copy another's belief, but to adapt it to something that they have found to be true.

There was a Grecian virgin venerating cult in the times of the Roman invasion, a lot of their cult practices were absorbed into Christianity as a means to quell any upheavel from religious dissidents. If that's not copying I don't know what is.

When someone uses mythology in a historical sense they claim it as knowledge. Knowledge = justified true belief, for the most part, though if you're interested in some instances it might not be look up Gettier Problems.

It is impossible, without hypocrisy and self delusion, to use any of these mythological historical conjectures as a basis for your beliefs without treating them as knowledge - ergo, you define them true.

Because of this, the amalgamation of various religious beliefs (look at the Temple of the Black Light, also called the MLO for example) which happens, evidentially contradicts the "truth" part of the definition of knowledge required for basing a coherent belief system on. "Justified" on a universal scale also goes out the window, but I'll get to that, only "belief" remains.

"Found true", this is the 'justified' bit - history does not work on a basis of personal truth, what happened in the past is objective - it either did happen, didn't happen, or whether it happened or not is indeterminate.

I don't understand, if the occult is merely a means to bring some meaning into someone's life, they can do it with far more subtle, self deceiving lies.

My use of the term "utilitarian" was in no way a reference to a philosophical stance, but to the very function of life being based on utility. Pursue nothing if it's not useful for survival.

Kin selection would like a word with you.

A scientific approach to magic (or magick, if you prefer) is only good for the magician's amusement. Like I said, we must not forget our place in the world. We pursue the Occult because the empirical just isn't enough.

The occult as a hobby - fine, in the belief system we're working with at the moment. But finding meaning from it that isn't just fun? It's going to take, as I've said, a lot of self deceit.

Any analysis of the occult applies empiricism to it, either be ignorant and don't analyse or analyse and 'see through' it, they're the only ways to avoid the self deceit all this Left Hand Path stuff strives for.

The latter seems the nicer choice to me.

Originally Posted by Great American Desert

Maybe so, but I don't think that the purveyors of faith set out to copy another's belief, but to adapt it to something that they have found to be true.

Here you are half right, in my opinion. Yes, Religion B will take what is desirable from Religion A. Then, whether intentional or not, Religion B will receive converts from Religion A. Then, when no more people from A join B, B will persecute and demonize A so that B has no more power. Many times, A is all but exterminated. This happens not because there is progression. I would say that Abrahamic religions are way more restrictive and anti-human than Pagan ones. This would be a devolution, a degradation. Christianity, for example, prospered because it was stronger, not because it was a better faith, a progression of spiritualism.

It is possible to use a scientific method in regard to the Occult, but you'll never get anywhere with it. A hypothesis would either remain a hypothesis or be proved wrong when the would-be magician finds after repeated efforts that A has no causal effect on B. And in the case that you saw repeatedly that A did indeed have a causal effect on B, you would have to identify the mechanism behind it. And if you found any real practical mechanism that brought forth these events, it could no longer be considered magic...A scientific approach to magic (or magick, if you prefer) is only good for the magician's amusement. Like I said, we must not forget our place in the world. We pursue the Occult because the empirical just isn't enough.

I am an empirical occultist. I know that does not compute with either pure occultists or pure empiricists. However, I cannot deny that there is an objective reality outside myself. I personally want to impact the world through sheer willpower alone, an act that is currently called "magic" because there is not really a better word at this current time. I suppose I could delve into specificities and say "telekinesis" or "telepathy" or "psionics", but I prefer "magic" because that works for me. Still, I do not delude myself. I do not want a mere placebo effect. I want real results. And, since I believe, and science suggests, that everything in life is comprised of energy (something that pagans knew long ago, but just used different words) including thoughts, than these things are possible from a scientific perspective. The astral realms or spiritual planes can be explained as other dimensions. I just use magical language because it works for me. Like many other people, I find the mystical allure helps focus my mind.

I suppose I do not really have an authority. Yet, education is critical, even for occultists that care solely about results obtained by believing in whatever it is they feel like because it is extremely dangerous and limiting to forget both the real word and its history. Humans are a part of it. Solipsistic delusions could yield results, but they are more likely to lead one to insanity.

Helel as the Morning Star need necessarily be connected to Greek Fosforos and Latin Lucifer only inasmuch as Helel was a deification of Venus in the planet’s role as the herald of the dawn due, obviously, to its position in the sky as a result of its proximity to the Sun and the view of the planet from the Earth’s perspective. The specific reference to Helel in Isaiah be damned, there were indeed many references to the Morning Star in the Bible, particularly in reference to Jesus.

Now, the Morning Star is symbolic. Venus becomes visible just prior to dawn in its Morning Star phase (Venus as the Evening Star was viewed separately). This made Venus the icon of hope, ushering in the dawn. In terms of the superstitious agriculturists, Venus was a symbol of hope because its appearance brought news of the arrival of the nourishing Sun. When applied spiritually, however, it becomes much more symbolic and takes on a much more profound meaning. The darkness of night is representative of ignorance and oppression, whereas the dawn represents enlightenment and liberation. This enlightenment is made possible by the Morning Star, Lucifer, ushering in the dawn. Lucifer is the singular point by which we enter the new age of our enlightenment.

In the Christian mythos, Jesus would indeed be Lucifer in this strict sense. He is the Christian savior, bringing the light of salvation to a world in darkness. Of course, those in the Left Hand Path do not view Jesus as such, but the figure of Lucifer holds true. Many Gnostics drew parallels between the Serpent and Jesus, and some saw the two as having equally important roles for the defeat of ignorance, Jesus carrying on the work initiated by the Serpent. If you remove Jesus from the equation and look only at the myth of Eden, which in my personal opinion is the most profound, you will see the Serpent speaking to Eve, convincing her that if she partakes of the fruit, she will be as a god, knowing the secrets of the Universe. Eden rested comfortably under an imposed blanket of ignorance, and acquiring Knowledge was proscribed by God. This was the darkness of night. The Serpent was the Morning Star, acting as the herald of the light of Wisdom to come, presenting us with the option to pursue Knowledge or remain in ignorance. In this capacity, the Serpent of Eden was Lucifer to those whose shackles he aimed to break, and was Satan to he who imposed the shackles. This is the GNOSTIC perspective on the Lucifer/Satan connection, totally independent of the Helel/Isaiah fiasco, and it is more than valid. It is not solipsist theology, as Gnosis is a greater phenomenon than mere solipsism.

Gnosticism is indeed unorthodox, but another fine quality of the esoteric paths is that those who tread it do not need to value orthodoxy. Occultism isn’t for mere entertainment or petty kicks, but is about the genuine pursuit of knowledge that is not readily evident. The sensory world is not enough for us. Its explanations do not satisfy our greater questions, and we find the answers we seek by means of esoteric channels. And if you pursue these paths in a rigid, textbook manner and never achieve an alternate understanding as a result of being graced by Gnosis, then you have failed and your trek is in vain. And if you had found Gnosis, you would not argue in tones so stringent against another fellow of the LHP. We are educated, but book-based education only takes one so far.

Regarding being 'half right' about my comment on religious evolution: let's not misinterpret. Progression means 'movement', but does not have a preference for better or for worse, as these are relative terms. Even if humans evolve to lose our thumbs, it's still progression. It's still evolution, though it doesn't benefit us. There's technically no such things as devolution. Devolution is nothing more than a term based on one's bias for a particular step on the evolutionary path. If a new faith springs up, influenced by an already established faith, then it is a progression of this former faith, no matter if it appears to be a betterment or a destruction thereof. The more converts it brings in, the more it will adopt from the former faith, but it is not a deliberate copy any more than the English language is a deliberate copy of the many language groups from which its current state derives. It's basic cultural collusion and happens in all aspects of two societies coexisting. Even the former faith, if permitted to exist, will adopt some elements from the new faith eventually, whether it likes it or not.

I'm not saying this in defense of Judaism leeching off of Mesopotamian religion, or of Christianity leeching off Judaism and other surrounding contemporary religions, but because I do not believe that the idea is ever to plagiarize. I could be wrong in some cases, admittedly, but I disagree with the view that events are as cut-and-dry as the 'copying' explanation.

When I say “The concept of Lucifer, in my view, originates at the dawn of human intelligence, when we faced the schism of the barbaric, utilitarian mind and the higher, spiritual mind.”, I can understand why you’d raise an eyebrow to my use of the term utilitarian, although I do not think it was used improperly although informally. But I do not see how the statement is incorrect. Plarkenstorf’s “Kin selection would like a word with you”, makes me wonder if some of my statements are really understood. It was taken well out of context, and it’s clear that my intent was not grasped, or else the above quoted wouldn’t seem an appropriate thing to say. So I will explain a bit.

Man is animal. As an animal, survival is the base instinct. I do not believe in a sudden creation; I believe in evolution. If you believe in evolution, then you must see that early man was not capable of abstract thought to the extent that we are currently. So the early phases of man were instinct driven – they survived at any cost. They selected mates based on the maximum utility, as only those with the most powerful and efficient forms could survive. Leisure was yet to come. But in the course of human development, our minds evolved with a penchant for abstraction. And when the abstract capabilities surpassed the overbearing animal instincts, we had the option to pursue the many possibilities of our unique minds. This view of evolution is very Edenic in a way, as our evolution allowed us to choose higher knowledge, or to remain under the spell of Maya.

So the archetypal nature of the divine figures corresponds to celestial events, corresponding to symbolic representations of human dilemmas. As above, so below, in the greatest sense.

I hope this has clarified my point.