Lucifer And Satan.. Are They One Or Two Different Entities? Options

Sooo, there's been a lot about him or them. I can't find an official explanation.
What do you think, they are one or two different entities, and if they are two, then who or what is Lucifer?

I think the answer lies in the reasoning that all God(s), demons, angels etc. are constructs of our mind and are therefore our paradigms.

Satan, Iblis, Samael, Malek Taus etc. is our Adversarial shadow
Lucifer, Ahriman, Phosphorus etc. is our ability towards gnosis (clear understanding of things)
I do not associate the two together

Beautiful constructs such as Pan, Cernunnos, the Horned God, Baphomet etc. symbolize our relations with the World / Universe around us. These constructs are of a dual nature and they inhabit both creative and destructive qualities while keeping us humble to their enormous power.

Of course there are the feminine aspects of all the above mentioned in the forms of Tiamat, Lilith, Hecate, Isis etc.

Ask a few ordinary Christian people about the Devil, and the story will run more or less that the Devil was once an angel named Lucifer, that he tried to usurp Heaven, and was cast out to become Satan. This story is conspicuously absent from the Bible, and its popular form owes more to Milton than to any Apocrypha.

John Milton did for Christian mythology what Homer did for that of the Greeks. There were various stories circulating, and some of the dominant themes were put together, the final product gaining greater acceptance than its original sources.

The Koran describes Iblis as one who would submit to God but not to Adam on account of pride, and whose "fall" includes little else than his exemption from this rule at the cost of divine favor.

The Yezidi religious literature, Mashaf Res, contradicts the favored tale of Satanists who promote them as exemplary, saying instead that they are mere the accursed offspring of the barber who once accidentally wounded Mohammed. They are explicitly opposed to evil, to evil spirits, etc etc, and are divided from Islam more by cultural differences than theological ones.

Persian religion, with its Ahriman or Evil Spirit, owes its popularity among occultists to a common desire for a religion promoting evil as equivalent to good rather than inferior to good. Since Ahriman is the spirit of darkness, who works through ignorance and debasement, it hardly seems equivalent to the values ascribed to Lucifer though in many respects it is congruent to the popular notion of a Devil.

The name Lucifer appears in scripture as a reference to the Morning Star as a metaphor for the short reign of the King of Babylon. Otherwise Satan appears in Hebrew scriptures as a servant of God, adversarial in that he declares mankind unfit to obtain divine favor, and has a comparatively minor role. The Christians expanded that role, but even Jesus refers to himself as "Morning Star." His praises were sung in liturgies using the word "Lucifer" for centuries, and Jews invoke the Morning Star every day.

At this point, and for the last 500 years or so, anyone using the word "Lucifer" is aware that the word refers to the Devil. This is the common usage, and except for a rare considerations of obscure and academic nature, this is its proper meaning and context. Yes, some apologists try to make Lucifer into something noble: a bringer of illumination, a symbol of freedom or something else benevolent. This is nonsense! They should be ashamed. There are plenty of other ways to promote free thought, libertine virtues, non-conformity, etc. The use of Lucifer, in any modern context, is purely antagonistic and has a shock-value appeal only. Its usage belies a fascination with evil and with powers of evil, their identities being presented in a white-washed manner so as to appear acceptable.

When you hear a self-professed Luciferian trying to present the subject as something good or noble, with laudable virtues, you are hearing the sounds of weakness and fear from one who would otherwise be a slave of evil, or mere lies. If there were indeed a genuine respect for these values, it would not require or permit eager promotion of something so widely known for nothing but evil. If they had the courage to be evil, they would be doing evil and that perhaps in secret, but if they had the desire to do good, they would need no figurehead known throughout the world as a symbol of damnation.

[color=#3366FFAt this point, and for the last 500 years or so, anyone using the word "Lucifer" is aware that the word refers to the Devil. This is the common usage, and except for a rare considerations of obscure and academic nature, this is its proper meaning and context. Yes, some apologists try to make Lucifer into something noble: a bringer of illumination, a symbol of freedom or something else benevolent. This is nonsense! They should be ashamed. There are plenty of other ways to promote free thought, libertine virtues, non-conf ormity, etc. The use of Lucifer, in any modern context, is purely antagonistic and has a shock-value appeal only. Its usage belies a fascination with evil and with powers of evil, their identities being presented in a white-washed manner so as to appear acceptable.

When you hear a self-professed Luciferian trying to present the subject as something good or noble, with laudable virtues, you are hearing the sounds of weakness and fear from one who would otherwise be a slave of evil, or mere lies. If there were indeed a genuine respect for these values, it would not require or permit eager promotion of something so widely known for nothing but evil. If they had the courage to be evil, they would be doing evil and that perhaps in secret, but if they had the desire to do good, they would need no figurehead known throughout the world as a symbol of damnation. [/color]

In the narrow mind of the Western Abrahamic believer, Lucifer is equated with the Devil, for much of the rest of the world there is a different view. Where as Lucifer as a Principle is used to symbolize illumination (gnosis actually) and freedom (rebellion actually), it is not a system aligned with the immoral Libertines, on the contrary, Luciferianism is a Left Hand Path belief system.

It is you who feels antagonized by your own brain washed apathy towards anything you have decided is not 'good' . . . the shame is on you for being another unbalanced specimen incapable of understanding yin from yang and demonizing all that disagrees with you.

I suggest you read up a little on modern thinking in terms of Left Hand Paths and Luciferianism, your accusations and beliefs belong in the 19th Century.

In the narrow mind of the Western Abrahamic believer, Lucifer is equated with the Devil, for much of the rest of the world there is a different view. Where as Lucifer as a Principle is used to symbolize illumination (gnosis actually) and freedom (rebellion actually), it is not a system aligned with the immoral Libertines, on the contrary, Luciferianism is a Left Hand Path belief system.

It is you who feels antagonized by your own brain washed apathy towards anything you have decided is not 'good' . . . the shame is on you for being another unbalanced specimen incapable of understanding yin from yang and demonizing all that disagrees with you.

I suggest you read up a little on modern thinking in terms of Left Hand Paths and Luciferianism, your accusations and beliefs belong in the 19th Century.

I lol'd. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ac42.gif)

I read that earlier and thought something similar though I didn't say anything because this sort of thing isn't my specialty.

The deities most frequently associated with the so called "Left Hand Path" are always associated with the destruction of life, the destruction of beauty, and the ultimate futility of spiritual knowledge. You are not the first person who has sought to redefine the words they have chosen to label themselves with, but you should not expect the rest of the world to change their dictionaries.

It is a plain fact that Lucifer is the Devil for 99.9 percent of the people on the planet. The exceptions include only fringe enthusiasts, perhaps like yourself, who have made a trend out of this defiant pretense. The meaning of the word Lucifer (as the Devil) has not changed since the 19th century, and no significant number of people ordinarily think of Lucifer as "the good guy."

If you want a path, or deity, that respects spiritual freedom while sponsoring gnosis or illumination, surely you can find something less diabolic than Lucifer, who is universally recognized as the Prince of Darkness.

Does Krishna not get laid? Does Bacchus not get drunk? Does Buddha not enlighten? Is Hermes Ignorant? Does Allah not lead you to victory in battle? Is Odin's one-eye not far-seeing enough for your taste?

There are a million GOOD gods who sponsor pleasurable activities often thought of as immoral in mainstream society, but you pick out the most notorious BAD guy, and seek to call him good. This does not show superior insight on your part, or even rebellion. It is merely hypocritical self-deceit.

You might consider that I am well aware of the modern philosophies of the "Left-Hand Path."