kiwimacahau
Well-known member
Is that the only measure you're using as a definition?
‘Church of Lucifer’ to Open in Texas
- Thread starter Angel4Truth
- Start date
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
The morning star................
The morning star................
First of all, you would need to familiarize yourself with what the Church of Lucifer is all about, what a 'Luciferian' is, and WHO Lucifer is. You can start by going to their website here to get their knowledge-base/understanding.
We had a thread on the Lucifer/Satan connection (if there even is any), and the history of such association, noting that the word 'Lucifer' is only found in the latin Vulgate translated by Jerome, since it is a latin term, meaning 'light-bearer', 'luminous one', 'day-star', 'morning star', 'son of the morning' etc. The Hebrew word in Is. 14:12 is 'helel',...the Greek Septuagint renders it 'heōsphoros'...all meaning essentially the same thing. It can be debated if this is even a 'proper name', beyond being only a 'descriptive title'.
The term/name 'Lucifer' only later became associated with 'Satan' as a fallen angel and 'tradition' has assumed that ever since. Until then, 'Lucifer' (the word) did not have any satanic association whatsoever (unless you can prove this statement wrong), ....a few Christian Bishops were even named 'Lucifer',...and there was not an uproar over it. It just means 'light-bringer', 'morning-star', 'shining one', etc. - (also refers to 'Venus'). - we mortals are even called 'stars' when we shine with righteousness and the divine nature, for 'God' is LIGHT. If we serve 'God', we are "light-workers" (to 'coin' a common more new-age angle on this), but it still holds since if we are sharing light, love and truth, we are expressing 'God'.
'Lucifer' then according to its true appellation and meaning is not at all 'satanic', unless you can prove emphatically there was/is a being named 'Lucifer' (thanks to Jerome for translating Is 14:12 as such in the late 4th century). In fact, as you know, Jesus is also referred to as the Bright and Morning Star. Overcomers also receive the 'morning star',...it is a reward (see the Book of Revelation). - understanding the inner/esoteric meaning of the word, is essential here.
I would be cautious and interested in staying aware of its activity and judge a tree by its fruit. There are aspects of Luciferianism that are reasonable, as far as some of its principles go philosophically, but these would have to expounded upon. Citizens ought to be conscious of the various organizations that comprise their community,....it would only bother me, if there was some kind of harm or injustice that the group was perpetrating on anyone.
The morning star................
First of all, you would need to familiarize yourself with what the Church of Lucifer is all about, what a 'Luciferian' is, and WHO Lucifer is. You can start by going to their website here to get their knowledge-base/understanding.
We had a thread on the Lucifer/Satan connection (if there even is any), and the history of such association, noting that the word 'Lucifer' is only found in the latin Vulgate translated by Jerome, since it is a latin term, meaning 'light-bearer', 'luminous one', 'day-star', 'morning star', 'son of the morning' etc. The Hebrew word in Is. 14:12 is 'helel',...the Greek Septuagint renders it 'heōsphoros'...all meaning essentially the same thing. It can be debated if this is even a 'proper name', beyond being only a 'descriptive title'.
The term/name 'Lucifer' only later became associated with 'Satan' as a fallen angel and 'tradition' has assumed that ever since. Until then, 'Lucifer' (the word) did not have any satanic association whatsoever (unless you can prove this statement wrong), ....a few Christian Bishops were even named 'Lucifer',...and there was not an uproar over it. It just means 'light-bringer', 'morning-star', 'shining one', etc. - (also refers to 'Venus'). - we mortals are even called 'stars' when we shine with righteousness and the divine nature, for 'God' is LIGHT. If we serve 'God', we are "light-workers" (to 'coin' a common more new-age angle on this), but it still holds since if we are sharing light, love and truth, we are expressing 'God'.
'Lucifer' then according to its true appellation and meaning is not at all 'satanic', unless you can prove emphatically there was/is a being named 'Lucifer' (thanks to Jerome for translating Is 14:12 as such in the late 4th century). In fact, as you know, Jesus is also referred to as the Bright and Morning Star. Overcomers also receive the 'morning star',...it is a reward (see the Book of Revelation). - understanding the inner/esoteric meaning of the word, is essential here.
I would be cautious and interested in staying aware of its activity and judge a tree by its fruit. There are aspects of Luciferianism that are reasonable, as far as some of its principles go philosophically, but these would have to expounded upon. Citizens ought to be conscious of the various organizations that comprise their community,....it would only bother me, if there was some kind of harm or injustice that the group was perpetrating on anyone.
One who worships their father, the devil is what is a luciferian is, no matter how they choose to define it.
:rotfl:
Monitored, you say. That's cute. Who'd do the monitoring? Who'd they report to? What are they looking for? What criteria would you use for "monitoring" houses of worship?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
The Leo Taxil Hoax exposed
The Leo Taxil Hoax exposed
For the record, some may remember we had a thread about Freemasonry where we covered Albert Pike's notable book "Morals and Dogma", and some of his quotes about 'Lucifer' there. Nowhere does he promote the worship of Lucifer as 'God' (as construed or understood by traditional belief about 'Lucifer' being 'Satan' or the devil), but was comparing and expounding upon the true meaning of the word 'Lucifer' as I noted in my previous post, in a philosophical sense, since his book was mainly a philosophical discourse on masonic principles as well as his own opinions, and such is claimed in the preface of his work.
The play of duality between 'light' and 'darkness ' is a prominent theme in esoteric philosophy, - its understanding how these 'terms' are used in context, that is key. Pike's writings need to be understood in proper context. If you knew the facts which are being shared here for your benefit, you would not presume things, but be diligent to 'study for yourself'. The word 'Lucifer' has no satanic meaning whatsoever,....this was superimposed upon it later after Jeromes Latin Vulgate translation, where it was assumed that Is. 14:12 was speaking about some angelic being that fell and later became 'satan', the 'devil'. No traditional-orthodox Jewish theologian would interpret the verse as such.
The above quote assumed to be that of Albert Pike has been exposed as a HOAX, otherwise known as the Leo Taxil Hoax,...Leo Taxil is a pseudonym for an author (Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pages) who hoodwinked the Catholic church and some of her leaders with his fantasy-tales of Lucifer being the God of Freemasonry to win their support against Freemasonry being of the devil...but at the same time sabotage their reputation. His was a two-fold attack on both Freemasonry and The Catholic Church. He later confessed to the fraud.
Also see these links -
Albert Pike and Lucifer - the Lie that will not die
Leo Taxil - the tale of the Pope and the Pornographer
The 'Lucifer Issue
A Hoax (full articles in upper left corner)
~*~*~
Good expose of the FRAUD below:
The Leo Taxil Hoax exposed
Here's a Luciferian some may have forgotten, at the ground level these people don't know what lies ahead.
33rd degree Mason Albert Pike
everready
For the record, some may remember we had a thread about Freemasonry where we covered Albert Pike's notable book "Morals and Dogma", and some of his quotes about 'Lucifer' there. Nowhere does he promote the worship of Lucifer as 'God' (as construed or understood by traditional belief about 'Lucifer' being 'Satan' or the devil), but was comparing and expounding upon the true meaning of the word 'Lucifer' as I noted in my previous post, in a philosophical sense, since his book was mainly a philosophical discourse on masonic principles as well as his own opinions, and such is claimed in the preface of his work.
The play of duality between 'light' and 'darkness ' is a prominent theme in esoteric philosophy, - its understanding how these 'terms' are used in context, that is key. Pike's writings need to be understood in proper context. If you knew the facts which are being shared here for your benefit, you would not presume things, but be diligent to 'study for yourself'. The word 'Lucifer' has no satanic meaning whatsoever,....this was superimposed upon it later after Jeromes Latin Vulgate translation, where it was assumed that Is. 14:12 was speaking about some angelic being that fell and later became 'satan', the 'devil'. No traditional-orthodox Jewish theologian would interpret the verse as such.
The above quote assumed to be that of Albert Pike has been exposed as a HOAX, otherwise known as the Leo Taxil Hoax,...Leo Taxil is a pseudonym for an author (Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pages) who hoodwinked the Catholic church and some of her leaders with his fantasy-tales of Lucifer being the God of Freemasonry to win their support against Freemasonry being of the devil...but at the same time sabotage their reputation. His was a two-fold attack on both Freemasonry and The Catholic Church. He later confessed to the fraud.
Also see these links -
Albert Pike and Lucifer - the Lie that will not die
Leo Taxil - the tale of the Pope and the Pornographer
The 'Lucifer Issue
A Hoax (full articles in upper left corner)
~*~*~
Good expose of the FRAUD below:
| Freemasonry, Lucifer, & the Strange Case of Léo Taxil | |
| Freemasonry, Lucifer, & the Strange Case of Léo Taxil | |
everready
New member
Lucifer's name was changed to Satan when he tried to overthrow Gods kingdom, that church of Satan is just a smokescreen to keep mankind’s eyes off the larger picture.
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception-Freemason_Lucifer_Albert_Pike
everready
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception-Freemason_Lucifer_Albert_Pike
everready
Last edited:
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
Lucifer was never a proper name. Moreover the lies about Albert Pike have already been addressed.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Even if we use 'Lucifer' in a positive light, since the word means "morning star"....
Even if we use 'Lucifer' in a positive light, since the word means "morning star"....
Already addressed,....you cant use a hoax by Leo Taxil to prove anything, since its a fabrication. These anti-masonic websites keep spewing out the same fraud.
Futhermore,...'lucifer' is a word that means 'morning star', 'daystar', 'shining one', 'Venus'...If 'morphed' into a proper noun.....it can apply to anyone really, yet in Is. 14:12 its referring to the King of Babylon, likened to a fallen star. It refers to a 'MAN'....see context.
Also,...remember the OP is about the Church of Lucifer,...not 'satan'. 'Satan' is another entity, personality, archetype. The principles in the Church of Lucifer and cults who respect Lucifer as a 'positive light' (in principle, archetype, symbology) DO NOT worship SATAN as a personality depicted in traditional Judeo-Christian mythology (unless they specify such in their tenets).
~*~*~
'God' is Light. Lucifer as a term meaning 'light' would derive from 'God' (there is no other source), which is why Jesus is also referred to as the 'morning star', and every child of God, has in potential the 'morning star' (light) in our hearts (the Christ within, the hope of glory).
You need to educate yourself on the facts presented earlier. Light is light. - there are different personalities who may 'bear' light, expressing and serving the light. The issue is the 'light' not the 'bearer' of the light....the 'bearer' is only the vessel.
If 'Lucifer' is used as a 'meme' (in some schools), a positive archetype for 'light' (wisdom/knowledge/illumination)...then so be it. Unfortunately the 'word' has been 'satanized' by tradition, making this word refer to a person (as a proper noun), an angel who fell from heaven and became 'satan' or 'the devil'. On biblical grounds alone, this can be refuted, as a false or unsupported 'association' or 'identification'.
~*~*~
> Lucifer and the Craft - a good article proposition, accepting first that 'Lucifer' is not 'satan', and that 'Lucifer' if taking in its meaning in its 'positive light', is not evil or satanic,...but is symbolic of 'light/truth/knowledge'.)
Even if we use 'Lucifer' in a positive light, since the word means "morning star"....
Already addressed,....you cant use a hoax by Leo Taxil to prove anything, since its a fabrication. These anti-masonic websites keep spewing out the same fraud.
Futhermore,...'lucifer' is a word that means 'morning star', 'daystar', 'shining one', 'Venus'...If 'morphed' into a proper noun.....it can apply to anyone really, yet in Is. 14:12 its referring to the King of Babylon, likened to a fallen star. It refers to a 'MAN'....see context.
Also,...remember the OP is about the Church of Lucifer,...not 'satan'. 'Satan' is another entity, personality, archetype. The principles in the Church of Lucifer and cults who respect Lucifer as a 'positive light' (in principle, archetype, symbology) DO NOT worship SATAN as a personality depicted in traditional Judeo-Christian mythology (unless they specify such in their tenets).
~*~*~
'God' is Light. Lucifer as a term meaning 'light' would derive from 'God' (there is no other source), which is why Jesus is also referred to as the 'morning star', and every child of God, has in potential the 'morning star' (light) in our hearts (the Christ within, the hope of glory).
You need to educate yourself on the facts presented earlier. Light is light. - there are different personalities who may 'bear' light, expressing and serving the light. The issue is the 'light' not the 'bearer' of the light....the 'bearer' is only the vessel.
If 'Lucifer' is used as a 'meme' (in some schools), a positive archetype for 'light' (wisdom/knowledge/illumination)...then so be it. Unfortunately the 'word' has been 'satanized' by tradition, making this word refer to a person (as a proper noun), an angel who fell from heaven and became 'satan' or 'the devil'. On biblical grounds alone, this can be refuted, as a false or unsupported 'association' or 'identification'.
~*~*~
> Lucifer and the Craft - a good article proposition, accepting first that 'Lucifer' is not 'satan', and that 'Lucifer' if taking in its meaning in its 'positive light', is not evil or satanic,...but is symbolic of 'light/truth/knowledge'.)
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
so much about the devil...........
so much about the devil...........
Those 5 "I wills" are the King of Babylons sayings, who is called the 'Day star, son of the morning', a 'man' assuming to be a 'bright star' - see verse 16:
The verse is literally speaking of the King of Babylon, the pride and vain-glory of a 'man' who exalted himself to the point of vanity and self-destruction. Using the passage as a 'double-prophetic' to also refer to the fall of an angel called 'Lucifer' is reading into the text making it apply to something or someone else. Of course anyone can 'figuratively' assume that Isaiah was ALSO taking about a fallen angel with the latin name "Lucifer" in the Hebrew text(?),...but how many orthodox Jewish theologians would endorse such a translation? Nothing in the context warrants such an allusion, - at best one can only refer to the 5 "I wills" as an example of a personality who has gone to the heights of self-pride and vanity, showing that such 'pride' will surely precede a fall.
The name, description or title "lucifer" is NOT in the original Hebrew. It got introduced into the text of the Latin Vulgate, as a word closest to the Hebrew 'helel' (not a proper name but a designation/'epithet') for the king of Babylon.
Some light on Lucifer (Theosophical article)
Btw, a study of the Jewish concept of Satan (note there is no 'devil' or 'Lucifer' in orthodox Jewish theology) compared to the Christian concept of 'satan' (as it identifies such a being as also being 'lucifer' and 'the devil' (an unholy trinity of sorts) is notablely different from one another. - {a side study of interest all its own}
so much about the devil...........
Those 5 "I wills" are the King of Babylons sayings, who is called the 'Day star, son of the morning', a 'man' assuming to be a 'bright star' - see verse 16:
The verse is literally speaking of the King of Babylon, the pride and vain-glory of a 'man' who exalted himself to the point of vanity and self-destruction. Using the passage as a 'double-prophetic' to also refer to the fall of an angel called 'Lucifer' is reading into the text making it apply to something or someone else. Of course anyone can 'figuratively' assume that Isaiah was ALSO taking about a fallen angel with the latin name "Lucifer" in the Hebrew text(?),...but how many orthodox Jewish theologians would endorse such a translation? Nothing in the context warrants such an allusion, - at best one can only refer to the 5 "I wills" as an example of a personality who has gone to the heights of self-pride and vanity, showing that such 'pride' will surely precede a fall.
The name, description or title "lucifer" is NOT in the original Hebrew. It got introduced into the text of the Latin Vulgate, as a word closest to the Hebrew 'helel' (not a proper name but a designation/'epithet') for the king of Babylon.
Some light on Lucifer (Theosophical article)
Btw, a study of the Jewish concept of Satan (note there is no 'devil' or 'Lucifer' in orthodox Jewish theology) compared to the Christian concept of 'satan' (as it identifies such a being as also being 'lucifer' and 'the devil' (an unholy trinity of sorts) is notablely different from one another. - {a side study of interest all its own}
Last edited:
Brother Vinny
Active member
Wasn't there a story about the lesbian mayor of Houston tracking sermons in her area for anti-gay rhetoric? The Christian Right got their knickers in a bunch over that, and rightfully so.
In similar manner, we should allow whoever else their religious liberty, unless some point of civil law is being violated.
keypurr
Well-known member
I was only trying to show you that this church is not claiming to be a Christian church.
Your verse speaks of it looking like a Christ sponsored church. I added the hi light to show you a point friend. I can not and would not try to change your original post. I am on your side in this one, but the verse is speaking of "Christian" churches that are not really Christian.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
'lucifer', the light-bringer....illumination/knowledge
'lucifer', the light-bringer....illumination/knowledge
It depends on how you look at it, but as I shared earlier....the word 'lucifer' refers to the 'daystar' or 'morning-star', as the King of Babylon was like a 'shining star' having exalted his throne to the heavens, it refers to Venus, and is a metaphor, figurative description-title, not necessarily even a proper noun/name. Only in some latin translations of the OT is it translated as 'lucifer', a later development to which it was later made to refer to 'satan' or 'the devil', a 'move' that even some traditional Christians see no justification for.
The Jewish view of Satan is quite different in some respects than the Christian view -
The Jewish view of Satan
What Jews believe
Granted, the Church of Lucifer in some sense is a natural reaction or move towards independence from dogmatic traditional religious institutions, and the principles promote self-responsibility and reliance, finding your own true Self and living from the integrity of your own true will, finding your own path and being true to it. Any movement using the name 'Lucifer' will naturally get a "rise" out of most folks since we've been 'conditioned' to believe 'lucifer' is 'satanic', but esoteric philosophy or 'occult science' has a different understanding of what 'lucifer' represents, but one must apply themselves to comprehend the metaphor thru right study and proper 'context'.
Helen P Blavatsky called one of her magazines 'Lucifer' perhaps as a reactionary gesture and subtle motive to get a 'rise' out of traditionalists, but she goes to explain fully the meaning of the word, plus goes to great length to explain the allegories of 'satan' and 'lucifer' in her other works, such as the 'The Secret Doctrine' (which by the way is used by critics to claim she was a 'devil worshipper' by cherry-picking and taking passages out of context).
More Theosophical articles:
Lucifer the Lightbringer
Greetings from “Lucifer” to the Archbishop of Canterbury! (this is a bold and somewhat humorous address to the Archbishop in one of the editions of the 'Lucifer' magazine, which importantly shows a Theosophical view of Christianity, clarifying some misrepresentations of it, and showing where Theosophy certainly agrees with and upholds the moral-ethical teachings of Jesus, as they relate to the kingdom of heaven within, and those precepts which promote the goodwill and brotherhood of all men.)
'lucifer', the light-bringer....illumination/knowledge
It depends on how you look at it, but as I shared earlier....the word 'lucifer' refers to the 'daystar' or 'morning-star', as the King of Babylon was like a 'shining star' having exalted his throne to the heavens, it refers to Venus, and is a metaphor, figurative description-title, not necessarily even a proper noun/name. Only in some latin translations of the OT is it translated as 'lucifer', a later development to which it was later made to refer to 'satan' or 'the devil', a 'move' that even some traditional Christians see no justification for.
The Jewish view of Satan is quite different in some respects than the Christian view -
The Jewish view of Satan
What Jews believe
Granted, the Church of Lucifer in some sense is a natural reaction or move towards independence from dogmatic traditional religious institutions, and the principles promote self-responsibility and reliance, finding your own true Self and living from the integrity of your own true will, finding your own path and being true to it. Any movement using the name 'Lucifer' will naturally get a "rise" out of most folks since we've been 'conditioned' to believe 'lucifer' is 'satanic', but esoteric philosophy or 'occult science' has a different understanding of what 'lucifer' represents, but one must apply themselves to comprehend the metaphor thru right study and proper 'context'.
Helen P Blavatsky called one of her magazines 'Lucifer' perhaps as a reactionary gesture and subtle motive to get a 'rise' out of traditionalists, but she goes to explain fully the meaning of the word, plus goes to great length to explain the allegories of 'satan' and 'lucifer' in her other works, such as the 'The Secret Doctrine' (which by the way is used by critics to claim she was a 'devil worshipper' by cherry-picking and taking passages out of context).
More Theosophical articles:
Lucifer the Lightbringer
Greetings from “Lucifer” to the Archbishop of Canterbury! (this is a bold and somewhat humorous address to the Archbishop in one of the editions of the 'Lucifer' magazine, which importantly shows a Theosophical view of Christianity, clarifying some misrepresentations of it, and showing where Theosophy certainly agrees with and upholds the moral-ethical teachings of Jesus, as they relate to the kingdom of heaven within, and those precepts which promote the goodwill and brotherhood of all men.)
Last edited:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Bump 
Noting my former commentary on the subject, we continue to expand..........
Thought to resurrect this thread with the important info shared regarding 'satan' and 'lucifer', how they are different personalities or designations within a given context and not necessarily the same being that theology or mythology has made them out to be. As far as the 'morning star' goes, it may be a non-personal reference to Venus only figuratively applied to the king of Babylon, but any allusion or allegory can be applied to suit one's narrative. In the meantime religious folks could assume satan being a good angel named Lucifer that took a fall, but the hebrew text doesnt support that, while satan is just as much as servant of Yahweh as an other created being, so in the end all souls or angels serve God one way or another, as the divine will ultimately prevails thru-out creation.
The video presentation here holds Lucifer only as a title given to the king of Babylon, it is not a proper name but a description of the morning star,...a man who exalted himself as a 'shining one'. Thats it. The legend and role of satan is a whole nother matter, while the rest is mythology mixed with whatever theology you prefer to adopt, obviously. Another view of the Ezekiel reference of the 'anointed cherub' is that it refers to Adam, and not necessarily to a satan or lucifer, names that can apply to different personalities. (in second video)
------------o
Noting my former commentary on the subject, we continue to expand..........
Thought to resurrect this thread with the important info shared regarding 'satan' and 'lucifer', how they are different personalities or designations within a given context and not necessarily the same being that theology or mythology has made them out to be. As far as the 'morning star' goes, it may be a non-personal reference to Venus only figuratively applied to the king of Babylon, but any allusion or allegory can be applied to suit one's narrative. In the meantime religious folks could assume satan being a good angel named Lucifer that took a fall, but the hebrew text doesnt support that, while satan is just as much as servant of Yahweh as an other created being, so in the end all souls or angels serve God one way or another, as the divine will ultimately prevails thru-out creation.
The video presentation here holds Lucifer only as a title given to the king of Babylon, it is not a proper name but a description of the morning star,...a man who exalted himself as a 'shining one'. Thats it. The legend and role of satan is a whole nother matter, while the rest is mythology mixed with whatever theology you prefer to adopt, obviously. Another view of the Ezekiel reference of the 'anointed cherub' is that it refers to Adam, and not necessarily to a satan or lucifer, names that can apply to different personalities. (in second video)
------------o