Fifty Shades of Lucifer

originally posted by: Argentbenign
a reply to: eisegesis May I edit what Mr. Levi accuses Lucifer to be...
He states that Lucifer is the intelligence of the universe.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Lucifer is the intellect of the universe, he is intelligence reversed. People should a start to make difference between this two things. We can see this juxtaposition best portrayed in the Norse mythology. In the sagas, Intelligence would be Odin, and intellect, or Lucifer is Loki the deceiver.

The belief in the knowledge we hold limits our ability to comprehend what really is. Intellect is knowlege held. Intelligence is the ability to see what is really happening, it is wisdom. Wisdom is the ability to think properly outside of the box.

Very interesting. It appears that it was the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (in which I was raised) that made Satan and Lucifer equivalents. As already pointed out, Lucifer means the bringer of light. Seems like an interesting moniker for an evil being. In the Bible both Lucifer and Jesus are referred to as "Morning Star". How could this be, you ask?

If you look at the early history of the Church's approach to Christian Gnostic churches, it would be hard to say that they Gnostics were the evil ones. See for example the Cathars in France.

And now Isis is currently trying to wipe the Yazitis off the face of the earth.

It was also the Church that labelled the Masons as evil. Secret societies are often secret because they will be persecuted if their beliefs were known. Non "Illuminized" Masons are gnostics in their teaching. However, the average persons knowledge of the Church's dogma and doctrine has become so marginalized that I think the average American wouldn't even know that they are dealing with Gnosticism. Further, the large amount of good deeds done by the Catholic Church are by people who are not in the higher decision making levels of the Church.

Good post!

Levis and Crowley's, and Grant's books explain the confusion of symbols quite well too.


a reply to: eisegesis

originally posted by: eisegesis
Notice that Pike states, "scientific and religious Absolute." All faiths are allowed to enter and practice until they reach the higher degrees and it is revealed that Lucifer is the Absolute.

You do know the Scottish Rite Degrees are plays that you watch, right? You can find the text for them online, please show me where in the 32nd Degree Lucifer/Satan is even mentioned.

Pike was also writing his opinion for the Southern Jurisdiction, he is wholly irrelevant in the Northern.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Pike was also writing his opinion for the Southern Jurisdiction, he is wholly irrelevant in the Northern.

Irrelevant in Continental and Co-Freemasonry also.

originally posted by: Sahabi
Irrelevant in Continental and Co-Freemasonry also.

That and the fact that Pike felt that people who believed in Satan were misguided does not really help the narrative.

originally posted by: skunkape23
Eternal Salvation or triple your money back.

...so help me "Bob"

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You do know the Scottish Rite Degrees are plays that you watch, right? You can find the text for them online, please show me where in the 32nd Degree Lucifer/Satan is even mentioned.

Why would either entity be limited to a single name when they're thought to be eternal? Man's desire to have faith when his knowledge fails him can potentially give rise to unique dogmas, relative to perception and historical context, making it impossible for a single name and/or dogma (the Absolute), to survive without at least one group, such as Freemasonry, to purify and preserve all that is Absolute. Even then, the Masons themselves re-veil it in order to keep lower degrees ignorant to the true extant of all related symbolism.

For example,

Rather, Lucifer in this context is seen as one of many morning stars, a symbol of enlightenment, independence and human progression, and is often used interchangeably with similar figures from a range of ancient beliefs, such as the Greek titan Prometheus or the Jewish talmudic figure Lilith.

Saying that Lucifer or Satan is not mentioned is a weak argument considering that Freemasonry hinges on veiled symbolism and allegory.

Does AGNI -- USHAS -- MITRA mean anything to you?

Pike was also writing his opinion for the Southern Jurisdiction, he is wholly irrelevant in the Northern.

Are you using Pike to discredit the entire OP, or just parts of this thread?

If your up for it, how about we just cut to the chase?

Do Freemasons consider the Absolute religion to include some representation of Lucifer?

originally posted by: eisegesis
Even then, the Masons themselves re-veil it in order to keep lower degrees ignorant to the true extant of all related symbolism.

Why are you still, after all the conversations we have had, hung up on the degrees?
You can get your 32nd in one day. One. What is being hidden at that point?

Does AGNI -- USHAS -- MITRA mean anything to you?

No. That does not appear in the Scottish Rite ritual we use in the Northern Jurisdiction.

Do Freemasons consider the Absolute religion to include some representation of Lucifer?

No. There is zero mention of Lucifer/Satan/The Devil in any Masonic ritual. No one tells you what to believe, no one recommends you alter your spirituality.

a reply to: eisegesis

Ahhh, religion. Stories to scare adults at bedtime.

originally posted by: eisegesis
To the guy who wanted a "real magic" show...

There is magic all around you. Not what many would call "conventional" magic, but magic in the form of understanding how to apply the Absolute scientific laws of Nature that govern our existence, physical and beyond.

Well thanks for the reply at least. I figured it would be something like this.

There is no "real magic". There is only twisting words to suit phraseology. What's next? Alchemy? Maybe a bit of the emerald tablets of Thoth?

Somebody message me when one can manifest energy themselves and do so in a reproducible way in a controlled environment. Until then, it remains the fantasy of angst-ridden teenagers.

[B]On the devil.

The scholars here might shed some light on something for me. A personal experience.

I was once publicly challenged to clairvoyantly find out if the devil exists.

I did. What I found was this:

The devil is a lie.

What I found was a Knights Templar seal that locked something away. The seal is a Calvery Cross,

Accompanying the seal was the devil - a fabricated lie. A thoughtform if you wish, though a very well made one. From this thoughtform one could see the threads linking to the believers in the devil's existence.

The Templars are hidding something and the devil is the decoy. In this case, the name Satan also applies to the thoughtfirm and perhaps a few other names.

What they are hidding is what I would call truely evil, but it is not a god or daemon. To give a comparison, the Zoroastrian Ahriman is quite friendly. One time I was destroying a sizable Black Lodge (they hurt nature spirits) and not doing well, a huge dark presence showed up and began to help. He ID as Ahriman so I asked him "why are you helping me?"

"I don't like competition." was the answer. I cracked up and we destroyed the lodge. Ahriman doesn't get worshipped, he is a power unto himself and is carring in his mysterious way. He does have a wonderful sense of humour.

I understand that the Templars were excommunicated from the Church of Rome. It is also said they worshipped Bahamot,

So from experience, I can say that the names devil, Satan, Ahriman are not what people often consider them to be.

Lucifer, I have not encountered.

a reply to: Noncents

(Evil grin)

Proving magic to science is a difficult thing to do. But magical Beings, well maybe . . .

I have a 1913 copy of Webster's Dictionary at home that has a word and definition within.

Nympholepsy The frenzy that overcomes a man when spying on a nymph bathing in the woods.


I'll scan the page and post tonight.



While not proof, Webster is a respected authority . . . ,
and someone coined a scientific term for an illness and defined it. . . .

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Okay, as promised, here is the scan of the definition of Nympholepsy.

I'll correct myself on two points;

Firstly, the edition is the 1927, rather then 1913 and is entitled "The New Universities Dictionary" based on the original foundation of Noah Webster.

Secondly, the official definition of Nympholepsy is a little larger then I remember from fifteen years ago.

Nevertheless . . . .

The entry reads:

nympholepsy, a form of frenzy said to have possessed one who looked upon a nymph while bathing: a frenzy for something unobtainable.




Not quite the clinching proof of magical Beings

Lucifer is the name of the Devil before his fall from grace and being cast out of heaven...
Satan is his new name after he has lost his grace and beauty and is despised by God...

It's the same individual who exists on opposite ends of the spectrum in the eyes of God and who has been altered by God himself...

Satan is no longer worthy of the name Lucifer...

This is something which I feel even confuses scholars as some claim Lucifer is actually refering to the king of babylon... But the confusion is only made greater because the king of babylon was Satan who was boastful and who tried to fill Gods shoes after he was cast down to earth...

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" (Isaiah 14:12, King James Version).

This statement mocks the former glory of Lucifer...
And also points to the damage done afterwards from the throne of pergamon...

He who has decieved many and is known by so many names from history claiming to be God...

This statement by Jesus eludes to the same fall from grace but he does not call him lucifer because he is no longer that individual in Jesus's eye's and is referred to by his disgraced name...

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Luke 10:18


Ezekiel also speaks on Lucifers original state...

13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Lucifer had wisdom, beauty, ability, perfection, and yet he wanted more...

He wanted to be worshiped like God. But God does not share His glory, nor does He permit another to receive worship. So before Lucifer had a chance to make his move, he was removed from the presence of God. Cast out of heaven like a bolt of lightning, Lucifer was stripped of his beauty, his position, and his rights to heaven. And became Satan... Satan's constant attempt ever since has been to oppose the mighty plan of God.

So to answer the question addressed by the op Lucifer was very good but is no more... For now he is Satan and is very bad and will remain bad beyond redemption forever... Therefore truely Lucifer is no longer good or bad because he no longer exists...Because Satan is all that remains...

a reply to: eisegesis

Sorry I forgot to hit reply to your OP when I made the post above...

I hope you can see that I have provided an answer in full...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Excellent addition, thanks!

I will reply when I get home and settle down. I'm interested in what you've said and have a few questions.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I want to continue this thread and would like to ask you a few more question. If you're willing, does the book below constitute as a primary source to draw information from?


I'm extremely interested in the historical analysis of each degree.

originally posted by: eisegesis
If you're willing, does the book below constitute as a primary source to draw information from?

Not for my jurisdiction. That is Cernauism ritual and is not practiced in any great numbers and not at all practiced in Regular Masonry.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Interesting that's the usual narrative of the fall in the Christian tradition.

But what about other theological views for example It seems that Judaism believes that Satan is an agent of God not an adversary. He is used by God to test people and challenge them but he has no free will to defy God.
It would seem that Christianity gives satan great power that is almost equal to God and makes him an adversary of him.
Where Judaism makes him an agent to Gods will with no free will of his own.

In Christianity, Satan is an enemy of G-d, an opposing force, and something very bad. In Christianity, Satan has a level of power that is considered almost equal to that of G-d. In the Christian bible (2 Corinthians 4:3-4), Satan is called the god of this world. However, in Judaism Satan is an agent of G-d, created by G-d for a specific purpose, and something very good. Satan is simply an agent of G-d, just as all the other angels are simply agents of G-d. This is why we frequently see passages where the author appears to interchange G-d and an angel (leading to the often erroneous Christian concept of a christophony).

AskTheRabbi

Why does the ignorance about Lucifer remain after it's been cleared up in this very thread, across ATS repeatedly and across the internet at large?

From an analytical perspective Lucifer is not Satan.

EDIT: Removed, all that. No point. It's already been covered previously in this thread.