The head of the illuminati

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by CipherVeri
 


What does masonry have to do with "Luciferian Doctrine"? I though only whacked out over zealous Christians or people with little brain power believed that garbage. You aren't one of them are you?


I'm going to pretend that post was cordial and respond accordingly. The Luciferian Doctrine is not necessarily associated with anything pertaining directly to christianity or catholicism at all, a very common misconception. Luciferianism is a doctrine that can be traced back to ancient pagandom as the worship of the sun, celestial bodies, I.E. Stars, and the nature in which human life was immersed in quasi druidic early man. It is essentially one of the world's oldest forms of religion. The general thrust of the doctrine is that man himself may achieve godhood through his own works, and Lucifer is the essential mascot to this goal, Lucifer is not explicitly biblical, the very word translates from latin to Light Bearer or Light Ferrier. It is an archetypical representation of the illumination of man, and is commonly represented with the use of a torch.

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that many prominent masonic writers or ghost writers subscribe to this philosophy. Albert Pike, initiator of the Scottish rite of freemasonry and perhaps one of the most important writers for Freemasonry in general wrote in his magnum opus "Morals and Dogma" of the esoteric roots of freemasonry and of the significance of the mystery schools in its inception.

One quote to highlight the general attitudes on lucifer:

“Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable, blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish souls? Doubt it not!” ~Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma

Luciferianism is much older than christianity if the body of work produced by these groups is of any indication. As aforementioned, it is druidic, pagan in origin. Perhaps an outcropping of mankind's first scholar elect who delved into astronomy/astrology, as can be noted in their reverence for the stars.

My friend this has much more to do with ancient religion than it has with the roman contemporaries. Though, if one was to take a look at the general keel of catholicism and luciferianism, It is not difficult to see where they might find conflict in their competing ideologies. The conclusions of many a conspiracy buff christian zealot are faulty to say the least, but they're like whirling balls of crusading moral indignation, and gather quite the resume of data for people like myself to review, and then make independent conclusions, usually far from the normal metaphysical rationale.

Good day to you and stay well read.
edit on 17-8-2013 by CipherVeri because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CipherVeri
 


Lucifer is not Satan. This is a common misconception.... (and yes, I know you didn't say they were the same)

Luciferianism may utilize esoteric knowledge for enlightenment, but illumination and/or esoteric wisdom is not all "lumped" under the term "paganism" or "druidism." There are many streams of illumination that have occurred throughout history all over the world. Further, there are philosophies that believe mankind is divine in nature which are not "Luciferian."

Be careful of painting it all with the same brush. While some parts of it may be similar, it is not one and the same.

peace.

G.



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
reply to post by CipherVeri
 


Lucifer is not Satan. This is a common misconception.... (and yes, I know you didn't say they were the same)

Luciferianism may utilize esoteric knowledge for enlightenment, but illumination and/or esoteric wisdom is not all "lumped" under the term "paganism" or "druidism." There are many streams of illumination that have occurred throughout history all over the world. Further, there are philosophies that believe mankind is divine in nature which are not "Luciferian."

Be careful of painting it all with the same brush. While some parts of it may be similar, it is not one and the same.

peace.

G.


Correct you are. Lucifer is not the satan of the bible, an obfuscation brought about by christian fanfiction for lack of a better term. I never made the claim that all those worlds philosophies were luciferian which portend to the self divining of man, I simply described what the doctrine itself entails, just a general overview. Furthermore such an attempt would be a task fit for a true historical mason, being that no small portion of their texts are involved in consolidating many a culture into one giant huddle of belief systems. There are many nuances that separate world philosophies.



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by CipherVeri
 


It seems you aren't the variety I though. When someone uses that quote and doesn't give Pike the chance of explaining it with the previous paragraph, it sure does make people with tiny brains get all worked up.

The fact that he was simply making fun of those very same people who mistake the term Lucifer for a demon or for Satan, when it's initial and correct definition is the morning star or Venus. Luckily, all he was interested in doing was poking fun as dumbasses and had no interest in being a Luciferian as that would sure give fuel to that very same fire.

There is a fantastic explanation for that right here:

“Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable, blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish souls? Doubt it not!”
Comments around the quote usually say that Lucifer is praised here as a Light-Bearer of freemasonry. But most of the time the quote is considered to be so self-explanatory that it is given without comments. Apparently I started looking for what another party has to say. I was able to find only feeble and indirect defence. Masonic defenders say that Pike was an Episcopal Christian, that he was interested in all kinds of spiritual knowledge, that his leadership was limited with a only few states, that his books are not a dogma for freemasonry and are not in official use since 1974, etc. They also complain that A.Pike is a controversial figure who did damage to freemasonry and offer awkward explanations about how the word ‘Lucifer’ can be understood. This kind of defence seems only to confirm the fact itself that A.Pike was flirting with dark forces.
Having read all that, I almost accepted (as probably many other readers did) that A.Pike was at least occasionally looking at Satan as a source of inspiration to unleash man’s own spirit, in the style of today’s LaVeyan Satanism. However I was perplexed by the fact that a few other places where Lucifer is mentioned in Pike’s volume sounded quite in line with normal Christian theology, and also by the fact that in other Masonic texts I browsed I could not find any references to Lucifer at all. If Lucifer is of any importance to these guys, could they at least mention him somewhere? While double-checking this, I made accidentally one more time a word search in ‘Morals and dogmas’ and naturally stumbled again upon the infamous quote. But this time I bothered to read the text around it. The result was quite shocking: I could not even suggest that the meaning of this quote changes so much when you read the whole paragraph.



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   

The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apothesis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, for traditions are full of sensual or selfish Souls ? Doubt it not! Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired. The Apocalypse, indeed, is a book as obscure as the Sohar. It is written hieroglyphically with numbers and images; and the Apostle often appeals to the intelligence of the Initiated. “Let him who hath knowledge, understand! let him who understands, calculate !” he often says, after an allegory or the mention of a number. Saint John, the favorite Apostle, and the Depositary of all the Secrets of the Saviour, therefore did not write to be understood by the multitude. In the first sentence A.Pike directly says that mason-candidates of the 19th degree (to whom this chapter is addressed) must aspire to God alone despite the works of Lucifer. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Now having the context before my eyes I saw clearly why the name of Lucifer appears in all capitals in the next sentence – because the name itself puzzles A.Pike. He knows that ‘Lucifer’ means ‘Light-bearer’ in Latin and he is simply surprized why this sort of name is used for the Spirit of Darkness. He assumes that his reader knows Latin and understands the question. This naming of Satan as a ‘Light-bearer’ is indeed weird, but it was not invented by A.Pike. It was used by the Church for centuries since its first appearance in Vulgate, the Latin Bible. The next sentence says that Lucifer’s light can blind (seduce) the weak ones, which is again a fairly common idea. ‘Doubt it not!’ is making the statement yet stronger – yes, says A.Pike, indeed his false light can distract those who are sensual and selfish. His allusion to Lucifer is only natural in this place because he is talking here about the book of Revelation. Further A.Pike goes on with in his eclectic semi-mystical style mixing in one bowl the Apocalypse (i.e. the book of Revelation), apostles, Philo, Plato and God knows what else. So the main meaning of the famous quote is a simple and natural question: why the spirit of darkness is called Lucifer = Light bearer? This question is hard for us to understand because we assume that the name ‘Lucifer’ is only one of the names of Satan. I don’t know Latin, but I studied Dutch, so I know that in Dutch ‘een lucifer’ means only ‘a match’. This inspired me to start looking at the ethymology, and eventually I found that ‘Lucifer’ in Latin means a ‘Light-bearer’ (lux = ‘light’, fero = ‘to bring’). But indeed why? Now that I understood Pike’s question, I wanted to know the answer. The answer came through the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line, which I assume to be the ultimate source on the topic. It says that the word ‘lucifer’ was often used to mean Venus – the star that shines in the morning. It is used a few times in Vulgate to indicate “the light of the morning” (Job 11:17), “the signs of the zodiac” (Job 38:32), “the aurora” (Psalm 109:3), and even Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16 ). The only reason why we use it as a devil’s name is an allegoric story retold in Isaiah 14:12 about one of the Babylonian kings falling from his throne as the morning star is falling from the sky. This passage was used by some interpretators as a Biblical proof of the popular legend of a fallen angel, which originated from other sources. St. Jerome, who translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin, apparently used the word ‘lucifer’ just as another word for ‘star’ or ‘light’ in a number of completely unrelated places. St. Jerome had no idea that one of these passages would give rise to another name of the Devil! The story of a fallen angel is sitting so deeply in our minds, that most of us do not realize that the Biblical evidence to support it is so shaky. So the answer to Pike’s question is simple: the name ‘Lucifer’ = ‘Light Bearer’ is a result of misunderstanding, of misinterpretation mixed with somewhat unimaginative translation. I wonder if he would pose this question at all if he knew the modern answer. As a by-product of my little research I came to an interesting conclusion: the story of a fallen angel with a strange name, made so famous through a number of well-known artistic and poetic masterpieces, is based on misunderstanding! There is no direct Biblical evidence to support this story – the only passage on which it was based was originally meant to indicate something else.
reply to post by network dude
 


Link to source



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CipherVeri
Albert Pike, initiator of the Scottish rite...


The Scottish Rite was around for a significant amount of time prior to Pike joining.



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 





Is this the face of the illuminatis leader, and how long ago did she live and who was she?


I don't who she is anymore but lately it seems I might be her bitch.


Kept my history a mystery but now I see
The American Dream wasn't meant for me
Cause lady liberty is a hypocrite she lied to me
Promised me freedom, education, equality
Never gave me nothing but slavery
And now look at how dangerous you made me
Calling me a mad man cause I'm strong and bold
With this dump full of knowledge of the lies you told

~Tupac



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Notice I chose my words carefully, Initiated, not authored, Pike was simply a major catalyst in the popularization of the Scottish Rite, and as such is given a great deal of credit for its proliferation. And though It is true that Luciferianism is borne far more independently of christianity, having Astrological symbology, it would make sense from an ideological standpoint, purely observing mind you, that to become of godhood is in direct conflict with the roman catholic doctrine of worship over attainment. It's probably for this reason that many a zealot finds themselves at conflict with the system, made only the more absurd by the selective adherence to scripture that most followers practice.

At the end of the day I take these to be little more than elaborate metaphors for philosophies that have maintained the heritage of the original parables.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by CipherVeri
Notice I chose my words carefully, Initiated, not authored, Pike was simply a major catalyst in the popularization of the Scottish Rite, and as such is given a great deal of credit for its proliferation.


I would have chosen a different word as initiator means 'to set going by taking the first step; begin'. Perhaps facilitator.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CipherVeri
 

It's still not a correct choice of word for Pike. Reformed would have been more appropriate





top topics
 
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum