Fabian Dee recently posted his own take on Luciferianism here. This notice is given as a courtesy to Dee so that this article is not viewed as competition for views with his own. His article is well-researched and worth reading.
One’s first introduction to Lucifer in Christian nations is typically the suggestion that Lucifer is another name for the Devil, or Satan, particularly before being cast out of Heaven. By this view— which I was first exposed to by way of Seventh Day Adventism—, Lucifer was a powerful angel who started a War in Heaven between his own angels and those led by Michael, the Archangel, in an effort to displace God and take the throne. Lucifer lost the war with Michael and was cast down from Heaven. The source for this idea is the Book of Revelation from The Bible. It was reinstilled in the public imagination of the West by figures such as Milton and William Blake.
Before the Christian conception of Lucifer as Satan before his Fall from Heaven, the word lucifer— taken from Latin, an informal rather than formal noun— simply referred to the planet Venus in its capacity as the Morning Star, the brightest star (actually a planet)[1] of the morning sky, and still does, even among some Catholic congregations. The Morning Star—sometimes known as the Green Star because it glows green— is the brightest object in the sky besides the Sun and Moon, but does not rise as high in the sky as Jupiter or Saturn. It ushers in the Sun before retreating beneath the horizon for three days, leading to myths about it trying to steal the Sun’s throne and being cast down because of it, but also, like the Sun, of dying and being reborn. Besides being the Morning Star, it is also the Evening Star. Venus is known for having a synodic cycle of eight years that produces five "petals" or "points."[2]
The sense of Lucifer used in The Bible, such as in Isaiah, wherein Isaiah refers to lucifer in the symbolic manner of the planet Venus but in reference to the Babylonian emperor, whose power was symbolized by Venus due to mythology surrounding Venus in relation to the Sun (the Sun representing God and Venus a powerful second), was that of celestial symbolism. This "Lucifer" was perhaps Nebuchadnezzar, who destroyed the First Temple of the Jews, captured them, and who may have built the Tower of Babel (Etemenanki[3]),[4] though others have suggested that it was instead Sargon of Akkad). Nebuchadnezzar was the world ruler who captured the Jews, and who is called God’s servant in Jeremiah. Regardless, in this sense, Lucifer, still associated with Venus, might refer to a title or seat of authority—similar to that of Son of God, a popular title of royalty— rather than to a particular mortal who fills it, such that there may be many lucifers as there are many kings throughout time. Indeed, The Bible speaks of multiple Morning Stars.
The translation of "Shining One" or "Morning Star" into English as the Latin lucifer was done by John Wycliffe, who was a major part of the proto- or Radical Reformation and of proto- or early Protestantism before its co-optation by Lutheranism and Calvinism as part of the Moderate Reformation. John Wycliffe is known as the "Morning Star of the Reformation," though he curiously also decoded Cardinal as in the Church position as "Captain of the Apostates of the Realm of the Devil, Imprudent and Nefarious Ally of Lucifer." In his use of Lucifer here, he seems to be following an earlier conflation of Satan with Lucifer by Jerome. This is curious considering his title as the Morning Star of the Reformation and his own translational use of Lucifer.
Many proto-Protestant groups of the proto- or Radical Reformation were decried as Luciferians. Among these...
--------------------------------------------------------
Open Invitation to Comment
Feel free to respectfully comment, whether in favor or against. But be prepared to defend your view!
Read More!
You can find more like this on my real blog, Ambiarchy Blog, where I cover topics such as:
- Pantheism: The Belief that Nature is God
- Mutualism: The Belief in Anarchy and Cooperation
- Antapodism: The Belief in Friendship Between Humanity and Nature
... as well as other topics related to natural philosophy, natural theology, science, and history, including but not limited to:
- Witnessing Shell Theory: An Alternative Natural Cosmology
- Henogenic Volution Out-of-Everywhere: An Alternative Approach to Evolution
- Ambiarchy: An Alternative to Neo-Anarchism
Comments
Displaying 1 of 1 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
Will
This one isn't worth it's own blog post, but for those with an interest in Ammon Hillman, it makes a good complement to this article.
Ammon Hillman's Pharmakon
Ammon Hillman, the classicist (philologist and specialist in ancient texts), has caused quite the controversy in his claims about Jesus having been a child-trafficking pirate and occult drug addict. While I will touch on what I think of the claims themselves, I am more interested in the effect those claims have, and I believe that Hillman is as well.
But before I start, I thought I would provide some context for the reader with regard to my own beliefs going into this. I was raised by a very religious mother who was a bit of a seeker and explored a wide array of religions, from her own Millerite foundations (Church of God, 7th Day and 7th-Day Adventism) to Mormonism and later Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism. I, myself, rejected religion s a teenager, and became an anti-theistic atheist, some elements of which have stuck with me to today. But, rather than remaining an anti-theistic atheist, I became a mythologically-agnostic pantheist, which describes me still to this day. As an agnostic pantheist (not unlike Robert G. Ingersoll, by the way, who also claimed pantheism for his own view), I am generally disinterested in myth for myth’s sake, though I maintain an anthropological interest in religious beliefs, and am still open to particular perennial interpretations of mythology more than others. As such, I do have an interest in Christianity, and in particular its philosophical dimensions as inherited from neo-Platonism and Aristotleanism, that is to say from traditional theology as derived from the Book of Nature as opposed to the Book of Man, the Bible, as is revered by Abrahamics.
I similarly have an interest in a particular conception of metaphorical (as opposed to literal) Luciferianism, though I contrast this harshly against Satanism and Rabbinical Judaism (which I tend to conflate to some limited extent, similar to a Gnostic) and see it as having more in common with Greek and Christian Logos theology and return to the neo-Platonic Source. By certain stretches, and many caveats, I am comfortable with being affiliated with either Christianity or Lucifierianism, and in fact believe them to represent one and the same thing, Logos. You can read more on my views on this in my article, “Luciferianism Through the Ages: A Secular Agnostic Pantheist Consideration of the Luciferian Christian Motif.”
This is all to say that I approach Hillman’s work with a religious background, but as a free thinker and truth seeker who has been willing to explore the full range of human religious and anti-religious thought, canonical and heretical. I have my moral foundations, as anyone else does, but I am not a sensibilist. The fact that Hillman’s views are insensible and hurt my feelings, though they do, however true they may be, is not the issue for me. I readily accept harsh realities, as compose my social Darwinistic (more appropriately, Spencerian) outlook on life. But I have a healthy conscience.
With regard to Hillman’s claim, I find it fascinating. My anti-theist side finds great excitement in being able to leverage this against the Abrahamic faiths. At the same time, I feel a great injury (Satanic abuse?) in accepting that such debauchery could plausibly be attached to someone upheld so highly for so long by Christian society at-large. This gives me existential dread and a bit of anxiety, because of how inescapable the ignorance and inadequacy of the multitude-- that which enables such reverence of a pirate-- appears to be. This is not something that I want to believe, but that I must accept if true. When considered against the fondness of the culture for other pirates, Vikings, ninjas and other never-do-goods, it is overwhelming. Perhaps what draws me to write this most, however, is the cult following that has surrounded Hillman.
Followers of Hillman (and Hillman himself perhaps) engage regularly in mental gymnastics. The most instinctual reaction from anyone with a healthy conscience who accepts Hillman’s view is to feel disgust (one of the moral foundations) for the sorts of things Hillman claims Jesus to have done...
[continue reading]