Q&A on Luciferianism

[Adept]

Hey guys, every few months I do some in person Q&A's on Luciferianism just for some professors I'm friends with or philosophy clubs. Have one this week and figured might as well do one here, there seems to be no LHP presence here outside myself, which is fine since I don't get along too well with my peers.

Anyways, absolutely nothing is off limits (unless it somehow violates forum rules). Ask away! Speaking factually and not arrogantly, this is honestly a pretty rare chance for anyone even slightly interested in other philosophies / religions, we are a rare breed.

I guess to get the obvious answered - I am not a Satanist. Lucifer and Satan have no connection outside of fiction, it's a weird translation issue with Isaiah 14:12 (if I remember correctly). Lucifer means 'light-bearer', alternatively Morning Star, shining one, bringer of light, and variation. 'Lucifer' is a title, not a name, that can be applied to any real or mythological entity bringing about change through knowledge, being commited to true objective knowledge.

Anyways, go for it!

[Arcturus]

some say that satan is also a religious demonisation of the word, and it's astrological meaning, saturn (being the planet of worldly power- which kind of fits, cos worldly power (which is necessary to live/thrive) taken to its extreme, or being out of balance, gives rise to materialism to the point that might be regarded as unhealthy). also i don't think that an "absolute evil" pole of being exists--it would self destruct, literally.

i believe also that jesus twice refers to himself as the morning star (venus) in the bible. i think problems arose when societies such as theosophy, which would probably be deemed as heretical, and possibly even "evil", by some organised religions, began using the name lucifer as the name for one of their publications...so by association maybe, in one instance.

so, could you name one, or more, being(s) that have supposedly/possibly held the title of Light Bringer? how often does it happen? can anyone hold that title or must you be born that way (presently)?

[Adept]

Historical I'd say the Buddha was a 'lucifer', the Greek philosophers, the alchemists, Christ maybe in some aspects, any hero figure relative to their stories and any scientist / magician working with objective forces (relative to the knowledge they were capable if at the time) could qualify. For me I think an aspect of a Luciferian is the desire to better themselves and humanity, to push forward, so some of the above examples may fail.

Mythologically I think the Egyptian god Thoth is the ultimate lucifer, especially through hermetic eyes as the creator of all science, all philosophy, etc. Prometheus obviously, though I'm not a fan of Greek mythology. Samael and Lilith. Melek Taus. The list can go on depending who you ask

It can happen all the time. However, for me, I think one really needs to embrace the title to own it. I wouldn't call every scientist a Luciferian, they'd have to embrace the title and kind of the occult ideology that comes with it. Scientists and anti-scientists alike can both fail - both the fundamentalist who rejects science and the scientist who shuns any belief in benefit from religion are shunning "light" / knowledge.

A 'lucifer' definitely cannot be born, as babies we have no knowledge and no real ability to reason.

[Arcturus]

i think we differ on what a luciferian being actually is, or represents, then, which is cool. i'd go with (as maybe's) buddha, jesus, possibly king arthur, st. germain, krishna, horus and many others. i'm of the understanding that they are most definitely born that way and cannot be any other way, i.e. a being is born that cannot be conditioned--their mind remains vacant. apparently this occurs (a special birth) once every 500 hundred years (once every 2000 according to theosophists). possibly, inbetween too, but guaranteed to happen at specific intervals, apparently. id guess that you can only bring light (understanding) if you have ended conflict and misery in yourself, completely, and very few seem to have done that.

[Adept]

Your list I definitely agree with, though there are so many views of Horus I couldn't say I agree they ALL are, haha.

The great thing about the path is we don't have to agree. I'll point out I'm always very clear that I speak for MYSELF when I do these Q&As and remind them every time they ask a generalization question that the views differ.

[lemex]

Hey guys, every few months I do some in person Q&A's on Luciferianism just for some professors I'm friends with or philosophy clubs. Have one this week and figured might as well do one here, there seems to be no LHP presence here outside myself, which is fine since I don't get along too well with my peers.

Anyways, absolutely nothing is off limits (unless it somehow violates forum rules). Ask away! Speaking factually and not arrogantly, this is honestly a pretty rare chance for anyone even slightly interested in other philosophies / religions, we are a rare breed.

I guess to get the obvious answered - I am not a Satanist. Lucifer and Satan have no connection outside of fiction, it's a weird translation issue with Isaiah 14:12 (if I remember correctly). Lucifer means 'light-bearer', alternatively Morning Star, shining one, bringer of light, and variation. 'Lucifer' is a title, not a name, that can be applied to any real or mythological entity bringing about change through knowledge, being commited to true objective knowledge.

Anyways, go for it!
Isn't the original (translated) Iaiash 14:12 this... How art thou fallen from heaven. O day-star, son of the morning! How are thou cut down to the ground. And didst cast lots over the nations.

In the biblical version it becomes, "How are you fallen from heaven. O Lucifer, son of the morning! How are you cut down to the ground. You who weakened the nations. A slight difference.

Personally, I see the writer talking about 3 things, the day star (son), the fallen Israel, and Babylonia who has rule and so dominates the nation. It is very interesting to see the use of the word son as well. This relationship is used to describe Jesus to. It implies a higher power exists. Or the son is the Babylon king who is the son of day-star.

We actually see a couple of other references that use morning star, such as in Revelation 22:12, not having anything to do with lucifer, but meant to mean either King David or Jesus himself. This then becomes meaning of position.

Conceptually it may be not good or bad as we think, but how it's used.

[Adept]

Morning star ALWAYS has to do with Lucifer, which is why the association with the devil is ridiculous since a Jesus calls himself the bright morning star.

Also, the actual translation is "shining one", not day star.

[lemex]

Morning star ALWAYS has to do with Lucifer, which is why the association with the devil is ridiculous since a Jesus calls himself the bright morning star.

Also, the actual translation is "shining one", not day star.
I know everyone is told this..... but is it an absolute. Remember, you are translating. When I said original, I meant Hebrew which required translating and not the original word. Maybe someone can confirm the first use because I would like to know. I have to go by what's out there, even written and realize it might not be true. I'm actually less concerned with changes, always have been. If you say day-star was never used and shinning always was, then I will accept that. It is the use of celestial bodies. :smile:

[Adept]

All this is irrelevant anyways. It's tied to the symbolism of Venus which rises in the sky and then falls.

[lemex]

All this is irrelevant anyways. It's tied to the symbolism of Venus which rises in the sky and then falls.
Hoping this isn't taken out of context. I read your post on beliefs feeling people don't listen and argue. I wasn't going to continue the post but and it was not my intention to shut down any communication. I'd ask you, please continue, or msg me if you'd like to expand. You gave information not everyone knew, I mean I never knew Jesus was ever compared as being a star, but then I don't believe in that particular book. And now I understand the title "Jesus Christ, Super Star." ......lol

You give the impression shinning has the quality of good which comes from a basis of teaching. IOW the devil can't be good, and that is the paradigm.

As silly and nonsensical as it is today, how could our ancestors conclude, or say some of the things they did. Why the hold over. Lucifer the title. The Hebrew phrase first used was heylel ben shakhar. I've seen at least 3 variations of it's spelling, but generally it's agreed to be as follows, heylel means shining or giving off light; ben means son; and Shakhar may come from (and probably does) Shachar meaning (god of) dawn. If so, it already existed this concept. Here we had another civilization borrowing from it. Lucifer merely expressed that. It really isn't that far fetched.

We don't even know what the first belief of the Christian writers was, not really. We cannot think we believe as our ancestors did or they thought as we do. But you're right it is a conflict, why a light giver when satan abandoned it. I'll also tell you Satan of old was not that of today. Apparently it was satan. satan was anything that was an obstacle, anything before you, it could be a person, an army, a rock in your path, but it became a thing, it changed. It evolved. If you're not aware, satan served God, and had a place there. It was more a concept back then to that migrated and remained.

Certainly we have to give credit to the ancients on this one. :smile: They know, we don't and we can't ask them! Personally, we may have thought titles such as lucifer are older then it was and had always been that way. I don't think you'll ever get the real answer here, i mean today. :hug3: Simply the true connect is the modern inclusion of the word "brighter".

[Adept]

I'm honestly not sure what point you are trying to make.

[Rah nam]

My friend Sheram who is friends with the one they call Lucifer, is just dismayed. Why does everything have to end up in worship.
One of the greatest flaws in the human makeup.
He has left, there is no more dark verses light. He only played his role as asked by the creator, which includes all participants in this game. And now the game is over. Even so not all have realized it. But soon will.
May all be well

[Adept]

My friend Sheram who is friends with the one they call Lucifer, is just dismayed. Why does everything have to end up in worship.
One of the greatest flaws in the human makeup.
He has left, there is no more dark verses light. He only played his role as asked by the creator, which includes all participants in this game. And now the game is over. Even so not all have realized it. But soon will.
May all be well

Who said anything about worship? It certainly has no place in my system!

[Eudaimonist]

Does Luciferianism come with an ethics? Would you please describe that ethics to me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[WmBuzz71]

Lucifer is a female spirit who rules middle Earth 3D, in which we live in, she also is Jesus shadow.

Satan goes deeper, he is connected to Saturn the Karmic planet. He rules the 4th Dimension, his Portal is the South.

The Devil rules the 6th dimension, his portal is in the North, his planet is Jupiter.

Close all the portals on Earth, then we face an Alien evasion.

Don't know if it's accurate or not, just the way I see it.

[Adept]

Does Luciferianism come with an ethics? Would you please describe that ethics to me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Of course it varies, and I'm sure some hold moral systems I would find flawed. Generally I see Luciferians - including myself - holding to the Law of Thelema (which is itself an entire moral system) and also putting almost a moral emphasis on seeking objective knowledge about the world, knowledge about yourself, and just a general idea of bettering the self and humanity.

[someguy92]

I have one question.

Who do you define sa "Lucifer" who is Lucifer in your view, desribe him more precisely from your point of view.

[Adept]

I have one question.

Who do you define sa "Lucifer" who is Lucifer in your view, desribe him more precisely from your point of view.

There is no "him". As I said, "Lucifer" is a title.

[someguy92]

Than who holds the title? And who in your view is Satan?

[Adept]

Than who holds the title? And who in your view is Satan?

Whoever takes the title and can logically defend the title, or is assigned the title by another lucierian. Both people and mythological character alike. I try constantly to remain worthy of the title, I've only met one other online who both fit and took it. Likewise, I know some who are worthy of the title, but since they choose not to take it I don't refer to them as such.

Satan is a title for "the adversary". Mostly unconnected though the two titles are certainly not mutually exclusive.