Thread: Lux Lucis . . . Today

The old concept of Lucifer as it has been seen through the centuries is a tainted and incorrect concept, the Gnostics understood the clearest archetype of the Lucifer Principle / Archetype.

A clear and immediate rendering of what Luciferianism is, has been brilliantly stated, in my opinion, by a person who goes by the name Detoxorcist:

"Luciferianism is the product of 'religious engineering', which sociologist William Sims Bainbridge defines as "the conscious, systematic, skilled creation of a new religion" in his book New Religions, Science, and Secularization".

Luciferians embrace gnosis / enlightenment from ALL Paths, and understand that there are several 'enlightened' avatars that have walked among us and future ones that will walk among us.

Luciferianism is the Path to Self-Enlightenment through the delicate balance of Light & Dark, unlike Satanism it does not embrace our base, hedonistic, and Pan-like Self and unlike Abrahamic beliefs, it does not embrace only the Light, but seeks a balance of both Dark & Light.

In my opinion, this is where religion fails . . . and where WE begin.

The sky is filled with light
Can you see it?
All the black is really white
If you believe it
. . . NIN

Yes, Detoxorcist put it beautifully.

Yes he did have a way with words. I am a Wiccan on the religion level, but on a philosiphacal level, I agree with many of the concepts he outlined.

eloquently put

Being a former member of the ToS . . . I would have to concur with your observations completely . . . very well stated and understood, I love the Diabolicon (ahem, where did you get a copy of this?)

Originally Posted by EtuMalku

A clear and immediate rendering of what Luciferianism is, has been brilliantly stated, in my opinion, by a person who goes by the name Detoxorcist:

"Luciferianism is the product of 'religious engineering', which sociologist William Sims Bainbridge defines as "the conscious, systematic, skilled creation of a new religion" in his book New Religions, Science, and Secularization".

This is of no importance, but I have a slightly different reference to the origin of the term 'religious engineering', in my files (coined by Members of The Process, quoted by Bainbridge)- and I found a website with the version that I have:
New Religions, Science, and Secularization

Originally Posted by fatalist

Hey EtuMalku, thanks and I appreciate your comment. I am not sure where I got my copy, but it was online. I believe I just simply googled it and saw a pdf link, and then printed it. Here it is, and it seems to still work: http://www.angelfire.com/rings/black...diabolicon.pdf

It is part of the pdf collection from the http://www.angelfire.com/rings/blacklotusmonastery/

I hope its the same copy the TOS refers to and is legitimate.

Yes, that's it! Enjoy, it is a cool read!

Originally Posted by GaianGuy

This is of no importance, but I have a slightly different reference to the origin of the term 'religious engineering', in my files (coined by Members of The Process, quoted by Bainbridge)- and I found a website with the version that I have:
New Religions, Science, and Secularization

It would be nice if you took the time to "quote" this difference as you say. I too could have referenced the entire book from where I got the statement.

You're right - I summarized the difference, but didn't quote the passage;
"Members of The Process, founded mainly by students from an architecture school, referred to the creation of their cult as religious engineering, the conscious, systematic, skilled creation of a new religion".

As I said, it is of no importance. You said: "...'religious engineering', which sociologist William Sims Bainbridge defines as..."

In the reference I have, the definition of 'religious engineering' is attributed to "Members of Process", whom Bainbridge is quoting.

VERY WELL PUT! BRAVO! pure inspiration