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?

Lucifer is a rebell. He is total non-conformist, that revolts against society. In fact, his name means "the one who brings the light". But this light can be quite dangerous. For amateurs this light could destroy the one who want to get in contact with him dilettantely.
He wants to fight accomodativeness and foreign determination, dependance of god aswell.
He is the aspect of the falling angel.

Satan is sex, seduction and temptation. He confronts us with our vices and deficits. He showed Eva the apple in the paradise. While lucifer wants to create his own world with new rules and his comprehension of accomodativeness, satan tries to do the best of this world. Means, that he takes everything he can reach. Make your life a better one with no care of others. That would be his rule.

The word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Bible -- Isaiah 14:12 -- but only in the King James and related versions: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . . ." The New Revised Standard Version translates the same passage as "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, Son of Dawn!" In other translations we find: "O shining star of the dawn!" (Moffatt) or "O morning-star, son of the dawn!" (Hebrew Bible). The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as "Lucifer," which was a reasonable Latin equivalent. And yet it is this Lucifer, the bright one or lightbearer, that came to be understood by so many as the name for Satan, Lord of Darkness.

Lucifer is not an Adversary as the word Satan (Shaiten) describes
Lucifer is the 'Bringer of Light' in other words Lux Lucis (Lucifer) is gnosis, truth and Divine knowledge.
Lucifer makes His debut in the Testaments as the Serpent in the Garden of Eden pointing out to Eve that God is a liar and you will not die if you eat of the fruit of knowledge, which she did and did not die.
Lucifer brought us the Truth and our Free Will, shows us the way to either be One with God or to be a God ourselves

Satan is a personification of the Judaic word al-satan (who borrowed it from the Persians' Shaiten) meaning adversary. The word is used more as a descriptive noun or pronoun. A fallen tree preventing a husband from getting to his injured wife would be considered a tree of shaiten, more or less.
Shaiten did not become Satan until much later where Jewish sects / tribes such as the Essenes began referring to anyone not an Essene as a Shaiten. Still further the Roman Christian church decided it was time to personify shaiten into Satan and have Him become the scapegoat for all evil in the Christian world.
There is no Satan

Lucifer est lux lucis

Lucifer is the god of progress and intellectual inquiry, not only the divine inspiration behind the spiritual enlightenment of the Gnostic and the heretic and the lover of God in all his/her forms.
Through Lucifer's spirit humanity first climbed down from the trees and has represented the flow of progress ever since.

But Lucifer may be more than a metaphor for rebellion, enlightenment and advancement - as the pure creative and motive light, Lucifer may actually be the key to life itself . . .

The DNA within the nuclei of all cells of living creatures contains biophotons or ultra-weak proton emissions - in other words, light!
A dynamic web of light constantly released and absorbed by the DNA connects cells, tissues and organs and serve as the organism's main communication network.

Lucifer is on the move inside you and me, chattering between cell and cell, rousing the cohorts of the life-force, keeping us alive and wonderful. Every man and woman is a star - and now we know we have our own inner light.

Lucifer is a Greek god, comparable to the Roman Phosphorus. As stated above, Lucifer is the bringer of light. Satan is basically the demonization of dieties from other religions, at least for christians. Satan is often the demonization of Pan, another Greek god.

During OBE's, once we have achived a certain progress in our spiritual work, it is quite possible to se Lucifer as a real spiritual teacher and entity. His roll in Divine work is remarkable. He is strict towards human beings. He does not show them any respect if they did not diserve it. Archangels Michael, Gabriel and many others, are generally speaking, gentle toward human beings. Lucifer is gentle only if a human being diserve that. Simply speaking, when we can not stand Lucifer's light, it is not because he is evil, but rather it is due to our darkness. When we see Lucifer, he would simply say: Have you done what I have told you? - then we would clearly recall that we met him before we were born into this life. No wonder that people missinterpreted Lucifer as some kimd of devil as he is not easygoing.
In contrast to Lucifer, I really doubt that Satan could be a real being.
Sorry for my English, it is not my native language.
I found this forum interesting.

So then in accordance to legend how the two came to be? What I mean is Lucifer was god's favorite angel before the war in heaven and then since the revolt he was cast out by arcangle michael with his flaming sword and as the prince of darkness and father of lies fell a great emerald was chipped from his crown, so then where dose satan come into the story? is this simply Lucifers fallen name? if so then why is Satan associated with the Deadly sin of wrath and Lucifer with Pride as if too separate entities...

I guess I'm my own rambling's I've deduced that they are separate but where dose the demon Satan come from?

was he simply another fallen angel? perhaps one of Lucifers Vassels or Generals...? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

This post has been edited by Lord_Vahn: Aug 22 2009, 07:39 AM

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."

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.

No the left-hand path is the counter culture (pun?). You cannot destroy beauty, for it exists separately in each individual person. There was once a time where people thought Fat was a sign of wealth and beauty, how times have changed. From what I know about the left handed path is far different from the picture you paint. In my experience those who choose the left hand usually are following a specific counter cultural deity who is considered mischievous and tricky. These gods or idols seek to bring chaotic power to those who are lower on the cultural food chain. Examples of these are: Prometheus, Eris, Raven, Coyote, Spider/Iktu, Set, Baphomet, Lucifer, Pan, Morrigan, Lilith... the list goes on.

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."

I hate to break your tunnel vision: but christianity isn't the only religion out there... The Google gods say a rough 33% of the world is christian. I fail to see why I wasted my time looking this up. I think you should spend more time thinking hard about your information before you shoot your mouth off and offend somebody. I would hate to compare acts in the name of christianity to the holocaust. I will continue my post to benefit other readers.

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.

Like I said earlier, the domineering culture has a clash with the counter culture. The counter culture (usually those underprivileged) worships the gods of discord and chaos to bring direct change into their lives. One could make the point that worshiping 'Jesus' at one point in time was considered "The Left-Handed Path." Don't get me wrong: some people do things that are inherently evil in the name of Magic(k) (for instance human sacrifice). People everywhere will find reasons to do retched, horrible things to one another in the name of anything.

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."

It is not for a magician to see in the shades of black and white, it is to see objectively. We leave that black and white business to priests. Philosophy and Ethics are a separate, personal matter that does effect one's magic but to only the user.

Note to the poster:
I hate to remind you but this is not a place to preach: it is a place to learn, share ideas, and questions. You have not answered any of the poster's questions you have only spread your interests and taboos. Please try and refrain next time.

This post has been edited by Dancing Coyote: Aug 23 2009, 03:43 AM

So then in accordance to legend how the two came to be? What I mean is Lucifer was god's favorite angel before the war in heaven and then since the revolt he was cast out by arcangle michael with his flaming sword and as the prince of darkness and father of lies fell a great emerald was chipped from his crown, so then where dose satan come into the story? is this simply Lucifers fallen name? if so then why is Satan associated with the Deadly sin of wrath and Lucifer with Pride as if too separate entities...

I guess I'm my own rambling's I've deduced that they are separate but where dose the demon Satan come from?

was he simply another fallen angel? perhaps one of Lucifers Vassels or Generals...? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

Lord_Vahn, my explanation as stated earlier is that the word Satan is from Persian and later Judaic words Shaiten & al-satan respectively and meant 'Adversary', a word that was originally used to denote something in your way so to speak. A fallen in tree preventing you from rushing to he aid of someone would have been considered the shaiten.

Eventually the Jewish sect, the Essenes became notorious for labeling anything and anyone al-satan who did not agree with them, even other Jews that were not followers of the Essene beliefs were al-satan and considered an Adversary.

By the time the Christian church got a hold of this concept and put into effect our pagan headed red devil all-evil scapegoat was created.

Lucifer on the other hand is not mentioned in any scriptures, it was Milton's epic book 'Paradise Lost' that clinched the deal and married forever, together Satan & Lucifer.

Note to the poster:
I hate to remind you but this is not a place to preach: it is a place to learn, share ideas, and questions. You have not answered any of the poster's questions you have only spread your interests and taboos. Please try and refrain next time.

I have indeed answered the original question, and have offered more information toward that answer than any other post in this thread.

Please try and read the post next time!

This post has been edited by Imperial Arts: Aug 24 2009, 01:45 AM

oh dear, such strong opinions...
guess i'll jump into the mosh pit.

"Lucifer" is not a name. let me restate that for emphasis: LUCIFER is not a NAME.

or more accurately it *was* not a name, until some creative mistranslation in the western branch of the early catholic church. In eastern orthodoxy this mistake was never made.

Lucifer is latin (not greek or hebrew) a compound word from the root words Lux, and Ferre. Lux is also the root of the word "luminance" it just means 'light'. Ferre is the latin word for 'bearer' and is the root of modern words such as ferry (like you'd cross a river on). It is a translation of the greek word 'Phosphoros' ( Φωσφόρος ) which also simply means bearer of light and/or 'the morning star' (the planet venus in one half of it's orbit, in the other half of its orbit it is the evening star). In hebrew it is heilel ben-shachar ( הילל בן שחר ) which literally means 'venus the morning star'.

Its oldest use in that locale is likely zoroastrian, although almost every culture on earth has noticed that the planet venus, the brightest star-like body in the sky, moves back & forth (from our perspective) between being the morning star and the evening star, depending on it's position in it's own orbit, relative to ours. It never appears in the sky far away from the sun though, because its orbit is 'inside' ours, so from our perspective it is always near the sun.

Now, what is the significance of venus in its 'morning star' aspect? simply this, it precedes the dawn. in ancient times, as now, light was seen as something which makes things known, as apposed to darkness which conceals. and so, to be a light bearer, was "to enlighten", to shed light on, to make things clear. This was not used as a personal name, it was used as an adjective which you could apply. For example, i can show you greek texts which call various gods or goddesses by their name followed by the title 'phosphoros' meaning that the deity was being exalted as an enlightening aspect. Similarly, in the bible, jesus christ is himself called 'the morning star' as a compliment. the phrase in the bible where they mistranslated and got all confused is a passage where they were talking about a babylonian king, who was regarded as really awesome by his people, but whom got 'smote', just to illustrate how awesome god was, yada yada. the words heilel ben-shachar were not used as a proper name, but as a title or nickname which the king's people sometimes called him because they (the evil babylonian heathens) thought he was a pretty awesome king.

Anyways... in greek, my explaining of all this could earn me the title 'Εκατερινη Φωσφόρος (Hekaterine Phosphoros, or "Kate, Enlightener") since I'm illuminating things here. Conversely if I saved your life I might be called 'Εκατερινη σωτηρία (Hekaterine Soteria, or "Kate, Savior"). Its used as an adjective rather than a proper name.

of course, humans like to personify every archetypal concept under the sun. so yes, there is personification of the morning star as an actual mythological character in more than one human religious tradition. And it would be easy to perhaps draw a parallel between Promethus's bringing of fire, or The Serpent's temptation of eve at the tree of knowledge, as being vaguely 'enlightening' actions. However, the association of the latin adjective lucifer and the christian 'devil' is something which you can blame entirely on bad scholarship within the roman catholic branch of the christian church.

Of course, people thinking that Lucifer = Devil is a tradition which has gone on for what? about 1600 years now in the western branch of catholicism. So you have to ask yourself, when does it stop being a 'mistake' and just become "the new version of things".

I'll tell ya though, study into about a hundred more such theological quagmires and you'll start to develop a real intellectual disdain for the religious belief in an "absolutely true & accurate" religious text... gah. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/angry_pissed_off_emoticon.gif)

on a mostly off topic side-note, I have a character in an online video game "mmo", named Luci Ferre. She's a hero standing for truth, justice, and... well actually just truth and justice, sorry american way. her custom look makes her almost blindingly bright to look at in the game. her name has sparked a number of interesting discussions there.

Personally, if there were a being which was the universal embodiment of the archetype of 'enlightening action', then I would be it's fangirl groupie.

This post has been edited by Kath: Nov 3 2009, 03:13 PM

When dealing with spiritual entities, I think you should make your own personal conclusions. Personally, I like to think of Lucifer as the first being that realized his individuality (as in he realized that he was separate from God and had a Will of his own). He showed other angels in heaven that they too had Wills separate from God, and there was the great war in heaven between Lucifer (individual Will) and Messiah, son of God (God's Will). Messiah and his angels banished Lucifer and his followers from heaven and so Lucifer led his followers to where God had not yet manifested and there The Fallen created hell using their own individual Wills. They made what THEY wanted instead of living in what God had made. In their newly created Hell, Lucifer pronounces himself Satan and becomes the Adversary of God. Then in an attempt to show the angels who stayed loyal to God which was stronger the Will of the individual or the Will of God, Satan descends upon the earth and gives men intelligence and Wills of their own (tells Adam and Eve to eat of the Forbidden Fruit). I do not see God as an individual entity, rather as an indifferent force or energy ( a more clear image would be how Buddhists consider everything to be One, the Oneness that they speak of is God). An individual becomes One with God when he forsakes his desires or his Will and adopts the Will of God (this is what I consider RHP). LHP is embracing your own individual Will, you seek to find and strengthen your own Will so that you never lose your individuality from God's Will and are able to enact your Will upon your own environment how you see fit instead of how God sees fit. I do not denounce either path, I see them as merely two choices of developing one's spirituality on earth, become one with God or become your own god.

The story of The Fall that I like best and which I related in this post is from The Diabolicon by Michael Aquino. And for those that may disregard this source as nonsense or historically inaccurate, I can only say that this text is just as, if not more, reliable than the Bible for spiritual purposes. A god or spiritual entity exists if you believe it exists and it acts the way your subconscious believes it to. The Egyptians believed that anything that had an effect on the brain or mind was as real as anything else (i.e. dreams held as much impact as occurrences in their daily lives).

You can not prove or disprove the existence of any spiritual entities to anyone. They will make such decisions for themselves eventually.

I like Kath . . . (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bigwink.gif)

Lucifer is latin (not greek or hebrew) a compound word from the root words Lux, and Ferre. Lux is also the root of the word "luminance" it just means 'light'. Ferre is the latin word for 'bearer' and is the root of modern words such as ferry (like you'd cross a river on). It is a translation of the greek word 'Phosphoros' ( Φωσφόρος ) which also simply means bearer of light and/or 'the morning star' (the planet venus in one half of it's orbit, in the other half of its orbit it is the evening star). In hebrew it is heilel ben-shachar ( הילל בן שחר ) which literally means 'venus the morning star'.

Do you study Latin Kath?

Cos I do (IMG:style_emoticons/default/banana.gif) and I'm always looking for other Latin students!! We aren't very common, but I guess more people would study it if they just dropped the silly misconception that Latin is dead and therefore useless... this is a great example of the way Latin can clue you in on aspects of the past..

Do you study Latin Kath?

Cos I do (IMG:style_emoticons/default/banana.gif) and I'm always looking for other Latin students!! We aren't very common, but I guess more people would study it if they just dropped the silly misconception that Latin is dead and therefore useless... this is a great example of the way Latin can clue you in on aspects of the past..

My teacher last year would make us take a test on Latin every week i loved it it was very interesting as well as brought my grade up if you are teaching this i wold not mind to become a student... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/i_triangle.gif)

saluta
hehe, i learned 'some' latin from a woman I knew who spoke fluent latin and was nice enough to teach me some (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
i haven't had a formal latin course, non.
salveo

My teacher last year would make us take a test on Latin every week i loved it it was very interesting as well as brought my grade up if you are teaching this i wold not mind to become a student... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/i_triangle.gif)

I don't teach it! If only I knew it that well... I'm just a lil first year student studying it because I love languages and it goes nicely with my linguistics major.... However I might be persuaded to scan the excercises in my Latin books as they are easy enough to follow along on your own.

saluta
hehe, i learned 'some' latin from a woman I knew who spoke fluent latin and was nice enough to teach me some (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
i haven't had a formal latin course, non.
salveo

Nice! That's very cool. It's such a valuable language to know, especially when discussing this kind of thing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lock.gif)

omnia vincit veritas (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I can't really say anything from a religious or historical perspective but I can talk about astral experiences. I've done a lot of work on exploring balance and the spectrums of light and darkness and that lead me to seeking out the prince of darkness, which at the first notion honestly digested me (I was Christian and some things stick) but the prince of darkness wasn't Satan as I met him. The prince of darkness is a title and is passed down, from what I was told by the current prince it's the title for the reighning force of darkness, the strongest and most knowledgable of the force. Though he doesn't rule over demons by right of title, they do respect him, as do many of the astral beings.
When it came to meeting the morning star, it seemed to be the same type deal, only lucifer still holds that place sort of, or at least no ones taken it (maybe no one can?) and when I asked about the Satan connection (which annoyed him and almost led to him not helping me explore the nature of light) he simply said that they "helped each other out once" and haunt really spoken since.
So, I'm going to say from my experience that, they are different entities. Asi said, this was all on the astral and ogre a course of quite some time and lots of people have their own opinions on astral experiences, but, that's what I have to say, hope it helped or at least something to think on.

To this question, in order to respond correctly and consistently, you have to choose the type of culture. In Western culture we have a kind of response, from the east, not westernized, we'll have another.
For me, there is no Devil, there is no Lucifer the Angel of , borne by the thought fraud by the Roman Catholic Church, then transformed to his choice of pride in-chief of the Demons SATANA_ consequently no Angel and anything that is outside of the human being, but everything is within man.
This is my thought, not meant to be absolute truth, I would like to quibble about this topic.
What do you think?

This post has been edited by arianna: Jan 14 2013, 12:02 PM