• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Lucifer, the “Good Guy” calling out God's bull****.

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
Reminds me of Satan as he twisted truth and tried to tempt God Himself.
Do you understand how little theological sense this makes, and how completely it invalidates the gravity of the temptation in the desert? This is a fairly large problem that Christianity has.

This mentality relegates Satan to some moustache-twirling caricature villain, and makes the perceived (and promoted) threat of "the devil" just ridiculous and laughable. It entirely loses every thread that Satan is meant to represent.

Just as he cannot be taken seriously as a threat or a danger to one's soul ("Not today, Satan!") it removes the function of Satan as one who tempers the soul. This mentality comes from Christians misunderstanding the difference between satan and Satan. One is an adverb (describes a person) and the other is a Proper Noun (is a person). While someone who is a satan is one who opposes the will of god, Satan is an agent of god that tests the piety of those who are either regarded to be holy or claim to be. This was the purpose of Jesus wandering the desert; to test his piety and his spiritual strength, things that were necessary to undergo the task he was about to do. Had he failed, the sacrifice would have been in vain. Satan was not there to foil Jesus, but to administer that test: the common Christian mentality would be like accusing a teacher of trying to fail a student for issuing them a term final test.
 

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
I believe in Him. I know He is the fallen solider of light, light itself. When I say fallen I mean like a Purple Heart. Omni is His nickname, it is a reference to His omniscient nature.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Do you understand how little theological sense this makes, and how completely it invalidates the gravity of the temptation in the desert? This is a fairly large problem that Christianity has.

Actually, I don't see a problem at all. As I view it, it makes utmost sense and the temptation was a necessary point for Jesus to fulfill the bringing back of humanity into relationship with their Creator.

This mentality relegates Satan to some moustache-twirling caricature villain, and makes the perceived (and promoted) threat of "the devil" just ridiculous and laughable. It entirely loses every thread that Satan is meant to represent.

I think this is an imagination gone amok. :) He is more like someone who presents himself as an angel of light even though there is not light in him. (light of truth and the light of God)

Just as he cannot be taken seriously as a threat or a danger to one's soul ("Not today, Satan!") it removes the function of Satan as one who tempers the soul. This mentality comes from Christians misunderstanding the difference between satan and Satan. One is an adverb (describes a person) and the other is a Proper Noun (is a person). While someone who is a satan is one who opposes the will of god, Satan is an agent of god that tests the piety of those who are either regarded to be holy or claim to be. This was the purpose of Jesus wandering the desert; to test his piety and his spiritual strength, things that were necessary to undergo the task he was about to do. Had he failed, the sacrifice would have been in vain. Satan was not there to foil Jesus, but to administer that test: the common Christian mentality would be like accusing a teacher of trying to fail a student for issuing them a term final test.

There is some truth as in satan and Satan. (among others)

Satan was there in an attempt to sit on the throne and replace God. He always wanted to foil the Messiah and thus the murdering of children in an attempt to snuff the Messiah's life, purpose and destiny.

He is a danger to mankind's soul. IMV. For if he can blind the eyes of men, they will be held captive by the same.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
As I view it, it makes utmost sense and the temptation was a necessary point for Jesus to fulfill the bringing back of humanity into relationship with their Creator.
In what way does a private test apply to all of mankind? Explain that one.

He is more like someone who presents himself as an angel of light even though there is not light in him.
I mean, when it's your caricature I suppose you can say whatever you want about it. But you're describing a comic book villain, not a theological entity. What's more, you are entirely misrepresenting Satan in favor of this fanfiction Frankenstein's monster - and no, I'm not talking about this from some Satanic, adoration point of view. I mean that you are literally warping the Hebrew figure of Ha-Satan in favor of your constructed evil deity archetype.

Ha-Satan is not an angel of light, he is an angel of temperance. Trials. The hammer and anvil to heated steel, judging people who are claimed to be righteous or who claim to be so themselves. So no, he does not present himself as an "angel of light". Secondly, as an angel, there is the "light of god" within him, just as there is within all beings. (Fun fact, the denial of this errs close to the unforgivable sin that Jesus spoke of). By the theology, all things have the "light of god" in them, and if you find conflict between that theological fact and whatever notion of demons and devils and "fallen angels" you might have, perhaps you should closer investigate those beliefs in demons and devils and fallen angels, and from whence they come.

There is some truth as in satan and Satan. (among others)
There is all the truth, as that is linguistic and theological fact.

Satan was there in an attempt to sit on the throne and replace God. He always wanted to foil the Messiah and thus the murdering of children in an attempt to snuff the Messiah's life, purpose and destiny.
Absolute nonsense.
 
Last edited:

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Creating life in the midst of an war on Satan isn't very wise. An unsuspecting God never considered the possibility that God's creation of Satan would become God's eternal enemy. God never suspected that there would be evil. That's not very Godlike.

It's fascinating that so many people latch on to the character of Satan and make a big deal to glorify a monster that wants to destroy souls. A lot of people seem to love that version of the character.

God otoh sets about doing actions that are never explained nor justified to anyone. Blind obedience is demanded by God instead.

Both characters are awful and unclear. The Bible is literary garbage. It makes you think about all kinds of atrocious rubbish. What is truly good and evil isn't clearly defined.

When I first read about God and the Devil I imagined that the devil wanted to destroy innocent souls out of pure hatred and arrogance. Then God himself set about destroying peoples without explanation never establishing the motives and reasons for doing so. God because God and for no other reason does God command worship. Then God subjects His earthly creations to Satan.

The story is whatever you want to make of it.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I mean, when it's your caricature I suppose you can say whatever you want about it. But you're describing a comic book villain, not a theological entity. What's more, you are entirely misrepresenting Satan in favor of this fanfiction Frankenstein's monster - and no, I'm not talking about this from some Satanic, adoration point of view. I mean that you are literally warping the Hebrew figure of Ha-Satan in favor of your constructed evil deity archetype.

I suppose you can have your viewpoint but it isn't my caricature, it is what is displayed in my scripture.

An entity which is found theologically.

It is what was explained by Jesus and the Apostles.

Ha-Satan is not an angel of light, he is an angel of temperance. Trials. The hammer and anvil to heated steel, judging people who are claimed to be righteous or who claim to be so themselves. So no, he does not present himself as an "angel of light". Secondly, as an angel, there is the "light of god" within him, just as there is within all beings. (Fun fact, the denial of this errs close to the unforgivable sin that Jesus spoke of). By the theology, all things have the "light of god" in them, and if you find conflict between that theological fact and whatever notion of demons and devils and "fallen angels" you might have, perhaps you should closer investigate those beliefs in demons and devils and fallen angels, and from whence they come.

First, I didn't say he was an angel of light. I said he "presents" himself as an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Second, there is not light of God within him. If there was, there would be fellowship:
2 Corinthians 6:1... for what do righteousness and lawlessness share together, or what does light have in common with darkness?
1 John 1:5...This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.

But I understand that there may be different viewpoints.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Sorry, missed this one.
In what way does a private test apply to all of mankind? Explain that one.


Hebrew 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let’s hold firmly to our confession.15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things just as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let’s approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace for help at the time of our need.

It was through one man's sin that there was separation between God and man. Jesus came as the last Adam to restore the relationship--so he had to pass the test of no sin so that the penalty of death on the cross would be so unjust to an innocent as to necessitate just recompense... salvation of mankind

Had he sinned, Satan would have the legal right to have death take him. The wages of sin is death.
 
Last edited:

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
It was through one man's sin that there was separation between God and man. Jesus came as the last Adam to restore the relationship--so he had to pass the test of no sin so that the penalty of death on the cross would be so unjust to an innocent as to necessitate just recompense... salvation of mankind
So then, answer this: Is a teacher evil for administering a test?

Had he sinned, Satan would have the legal right to have death take him. The wages of sin is death.
I'm not sure you truly understand this bit from the preceding claim, but please do show where there would have been this "legal right" to slay Jesus himself.

I suppose you can have your viewpoint but it isn't my caricature, it is what is displayed in my scripture.
Please, do provide some examples.

An entity which is found theologically.
No. Theology being the study of religious belief, your take on Satan is found to be derived purely from mistranslation and cultural misunderstanding and appropriation.

First, I didn't say he was an angel of light. I said he "presents" himself as an angel of light.
And neither does he do that.

Does he disguise himself? Even your own translations disagree on whether "Satan" is transformed into (caused to take new form exteriorly), or transforms into (innate ability). Or whether or not this is a transformation (taking on a new form) or a masquerade (pretending to be).

Additionally, your uses of the letters of Paul only really illustrate the cultural misunderstanding and appropriation. Not only do the opinions of Paul hardly reflect the teachings of Jesus, but ironically his claims there don't differ all that much from the spiritual principle of temperance and trial, yet remain incorrect in twisting this principle to the narrative of malicious corruption. And Christianity suffered from thereon because of it. You are using a culture that you half understand, and in doing so are not creating new life (as it were) but a shambling corpse.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Lucifer Is a One-of-a-Kind “Good Guy” Among Literary Villains

Complete literary role reversal.

So. A question directed at mythological Christian lore.

Is lucifer a good guy or the bad guy?

I see lucifer as a good guy exposing the tyranny and iron rule of a malevolent and evil diety that will kill anyone not in complete obedience to it.

I remember thinking God was good at first, but there are enough examples in the Bible and apocryphal works that suggest otherwise when the overall picture is layed out on the table.
Silly question. Lucifer is all about himself. Pride is his whole gig.
He wanted to be greater than God, that was his motivation.
Not anything noble.
And um, God literally died for the people who killed him, BTW.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
So then, answer this: Is a teacher evil for administering a test?

The problem is that you are viewing "test" in with a western societal viewpoint as in an exam. There are many variations of meanings just like the word "love' has.

The fallacy here is that you are saying all words "test" has only a single meaning.

I'm not sure you truly understand this bit from the preceding claim, but please do show where there would have been this "legal right" to slay Jesus himself.

First you have precedent. Adams first sin caused him to die (In the Hebrews the word is plural). If the wages of sin is death, it has the automatic understanding that there is a legal penalty. Much the same as if you rob a bank the police have the legal right to remove you from society.

Ephesians 4 clearly states that sin gives the devil a foothold in your life.

Not to mention, it really is just plain logical.

The wages of sin is death. In that he took our sin, he died. But because he personally had no sin, death had no hold on him.

Please, do provide some examples.

I did. But you can take Jesus' word on it. Get thee behind me Satan. He also cast out devils. I'm not sure what image you have given him.

No. Theology being the study of religious belief, your take on Satan is found to be derived purely from mistranslation and cultural misunderstanding and appropriation.

I disagree. :)

And neither does he do that.
Oh... I guess Paul didn't know what he was talking about. ;) I guess you know better?

Does he disguise himself? Even your own translations disagree on whether "Satan" is transformed into (caused to take new form exteriorly), or transforms into (innate ability). Or whether or not this is a transformation (taking on a new form) or a masquerade (pretending to be).

Additionally, your uses of the letters of Paul only really illustrate the cultural misunderstanding and appropriation. Not only do the opinions of Paul hardly reflect the teachings of Jesus, but ironically his claims there don't differ all that much from the spiritual principle of temperance and trial, yet remain incorrect in twisting this principle to the narrative of malicious corruption. And Christianity suffered from thereon because of it. You are using a culture that you half understand, and in doing so are not creating new life (as it were) but a shambling corpse.

Now, there is part of your issue. You are anti-Paul but the Apostles gave him the right hand of fellowship. Maybe you know better than the Apostles?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Some reasons from the article of note...

How is Lucifer possibly the good guy in this story? First, consider the role God plays in this story. Although God presents himself as all knowing, all powerful, and all loving, his actions are those of a manipulative and abusive tyrant. If you don’t follow his exact commands, you are put to death. If you question his authority, you are put to death. If you don’t have absolute faith in him, he will cast you into a lake of fire to suffer for eternity.


God told A@E what would happen and it did. God was a caring Father wanting to protect them from the road of evil and telling them the consequences. God no doubt would have gone on to teach A@E about good and evil as they matured but they were tricked by the liar into not trusting God. This does not mean that God does not try to bring them back to the path of good or that He does not want to forgive them.
Nobody follows His exact words and nobody does not question His authority, God knows this and expects it and still loves us and calls us back and accepts us even without us being perfect. (unlike in other religions btw, where perfection is needed to reach the goal.)


Lucifer’s role is to call bull**** on the tyrant and to give Adam and Eve the knowledge they need to flourish in the real world. Where God says, “Have faith in me alone and don’t ever question what I tell you,” Lucifer responds, in essence, “No, you should always question the tyrant. Don’t believe any authority figure just because they tell you to believe them. Do your own research and figure out what’s true on your own.”

Lucifer is a wrong name but Satan's role is to lie. He was not given this role by God but chose it for himself.
It is good to question things when they seem wrong.
But it is also good to realise that in the story the real authority (not just an authority figure) is God.
Satan is the epitome of insanity, the arrogant, angry rebel who wants to destroy what is good and the good things that God has given us, along with destroying us also and loves it when people see him as the good guy and say, along with him, that God is evil because He wants to judge us, and who cares about that, let's do whatever we want and ignore what God is supposed to have told us. God is not real and I (Satan) am not real anyway.
 

soulsurvivor

Active Member
Premium Member
Is lucifer a good guy or the bad guy?

I see lucifer as a good guy exposing the tyranny and iron rule of a malevolent and evil diety that will kill anyone not in complete obedience to it.
Actually, Lucifer and Satan (or the Devil) are two separate persons. Satan or the Devil are evil but not the same as Lucifer. Lucifer or the 'bringer of light' is not evil, he is just 'fallen'.

As for God - he is good by definition - that is why he is a God. Which means the person described in the Bible who 'will kill anyone not in complete obedience to him' is not a real, universal God. He is just a tribal deity who has not really achieved his divinity yet.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Lucifer Is a One-of-a-Kind “Good Guy” Among Literary Villains

Complete literary role reversal.

So. A question directed at mythological Christian lore.

Is lucifer a good guy or the bad guy?

I see lucifer as a good guy exposing the tyranny and iron rule of a malevolent and evil diety that will kill anyone not in complete obedience to it.

I remember thinking God was good at first, but there are enough examples in the Bible and apocryphal works that suggest otherwise when the overall picture is layed out on the table.
"Lucifer" has nothing to do with Satan. Christ is the Light-Bringer, not the devil, according to the Bible. The most probable angelic name for Satan seems to be Samael from what I've seen. This rebellious anti-hero view of Satan is really a rehash of the Prometheus myth with Christian imagery, and Prometheus was not generally viewed as a hero to the Greeks, either.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
The problem is that you are viewing "test" in with a western societal viewpoint as in an exam.
No, I'm really not, but continue.

The wages of sin is death. In that he took our sin, he died.
Yeah, that's not what that means. "The wages of sin is death" refers to the "death" of one's soul, the original notion of Perdition - that of division and separation from god, and the denial of the resurrection. It is not a legally binding clause that says "if you sin, you are to be executed".

I did. But you can take Jesus' word on it. Get thee behind me Satan. He also cast out devils.
Oh, fantastic. You could not have used a better example.

When Jesus told Peter "Get behind me, satan", he was not calling him "the devil". This is a fantastic example of where Biblical scholars really dropped the ball and misunderstood what exactly they were translating. Jesus was accusing Peter - who in that moment was objecting to Jesus' lead - of being a satan. By saying "Get behind me, satan" (language Peter would have well understood), Jesus was telling him that through arguing with Jesus, he was opposing the will of god. He needed to fall in line and obey.

As well, Jesus did not cast out "demons" or "devils" - that again is mistranslation, and culturally incorrect words being applied and warped through the ages. He cast out unclean spirits. There is a distinction.

I disagree.
Disagree as you will, but that is what the theology shows when it is actually studied, rather than "taken on faith".

Oh... I guess Paul didn't know what he was talking about.
Correct. Really the only reason that Paul's letters are included is that they chart the evangelical efforts around the Mediterranean during his time, and spread the "proper message" that set up ecclesiastical policy.

You are anti-Paul but the Apostles gave him the right hand of fellowship.
Correction; Paul claimed that he was given the Right Hand of Fellowship. By people that he never met, and had in fact been persecuting up until his miraculous conversion.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
We are in this "system" of good and evil because we listened to Satan and took our freedom before God knew that we had grown enough to be ready for it.
Yeah, that's the message I grew up hearing.
But who's to say they wouldn't have died anyways? After all, it is stated Jehovah kicked Adam and Eve out partially so they couldn't eat from the Tree of Life. Who's to say Jehovah even ever intended to them to eat from that or from the Tree of Knowledge?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Yeah, that's the message I grew up hearing.
But who's to say they wouldn't have died anyways? After all, it is stated Jehovah kicked Adam and Eve out partially so they couldn't eat from the Tree of Life. Who's to say Jehovah even ever intended to them to eat from that or from the Tree of Knowledge?

That morality would eventually come up in the lives of A@E shows us that they would have had to learn about it at some time.
That God calls us to receive eternal life shows us that He wants us to have eternal life.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
IMOP

The 1955 Urantia Book revelation is free online, no copyright. Its NOT a religion, has no leader etc. It contained a section that explains who Lucifer and his assistant Satan is/was. It contains the "Lucifer manifesto". Since so many people here are already atheist and aligned with Lucifer, I thought that I may as well post his manifesto. Its sort of corelated with the OP piece.


The Lucifer Manifesto

53:3.1 (603.2) Whatever the early origins of trouble in the hearts of Lucifer and Satan, the final outbreak took form as the Lucifer Declaration of Liberty. The cause of the rebels was stated under three heads:

53:3.2 (603.3) 1. The reality of the Universal Father. Lucifer charged that the Universal Father did not really exist, that physical gravity and space-energy were inherent in the universe, and that the Father was a myth invented by the Paradise Sons to enable them to maintain the rule of the universes in the Father’s name. He denied that personality was a gift of the Universal Father. He even intimated that the finaliters were in collusion with the Paradise Sons to foist fraud upon all creation since they never brought back a very clear-cut idea of the Father’s actual personality as it is discernible on Paradise. He traded on reverence as ignorance. The charge was sweeping, terrible, and blasphemous. It was this veiled attack upon the finaliters that no doubt influenced the ascendant citizens then on Jerusem to stand firm and remain steadfast in resistance to all the rebel’s proposals.

53:3.3 (603.4) 2. The universe government of the Creator Son—Michael. Lucifer contended that the local systems should be autonomous. He protested against the right of Michael, the Creator Son, to assume sovereignty of Nebadon in the name of a hypothetical Paradise Father and require all personalities to acknowledge allegiance to this unseen Father. He asserted that the whole plan of worship was a clever scheme to aggrandize the Paradise Sons. He was willing to acknowledge Michael as his Creator-father but not as his God and rightful ruler.

53:3.4 (603.5) Most bitterly did he attack the right of the Ancients of Days—“foreign potentates”—to interfere in the affairs of the local systems and universes. These rulers he denounced as tyrants and usurpers. He exhorted his followers to believe that none of these rulers could do aught to interfere with the operation of complete home rule if men and angels only had the courage to assert themselves and boldly claim their rights.

53:3.5 (603.6) He contended that the executioners of the Ancients of Days could be debarred from functioning in the local systems if the native beings would only assert their independence. He maintained that immortality was inherent in the system personalities, that resurrection was natural and automatic, and that all beings would live eternally except for the arbitrary and unjust acts of the executioners of the Ancients of Days.

53:3.6 (604.1) 3. The attack upon the universal plan of ascendant mortal training. Lucifer maintained that far too much time and energy were expended upon the scheme of so thoroughly training ascending mortals in the principles of universe administration, principles which he alleged were unethical and unsound. He protested against the agelong program for preparing the mortals of space for some unknown destiny and pointed to the presence of the finaliter corps on Jerusem as proof that these mortals had spent ages of preparation for some destiny of pure fiction. With derision he pointed out that the finaliters had encountered a destiny no more glorious than to be returned to humble spheres similar to those of their origin. He intimated that they had been debauched by overmuch discipline and prolonged training, and that they were in reality traitors to their mortal fellows since they were now co-operating with the scheme of enslaving all creation to the fictions of a mythical eternal destiny for ascending mortals. He advocated that ascenders should enjoy the liberty of individual self-determination. He challenged and condemned the entire plan of mortal ascension as sponsored by the Paradise Sons of God and supported by the Infinite Spirit.

53:3.7 (604.2) And it was with such a Declaration of Liberty that Lucifer launched his orgy of darkness and death.


Outbreak of the Rebellion

53:4.1 (604.3) The Lucifer manifesto was issued at the annual conclave of Satania on the sea of glass, in the presence of the assembled hosts of Jerusem, on the last day of the year, about two hundred thousand years ago, Urantia time. Satan proclaimed that worship could be accorded the universal forces—physical, intellectual, and spiritual—but that allegiance could be acknowledged only to the actual and present ruler, Lucifer, the “friend of men and angels” and the “God of liberty.”

53:4.2 (604.4) Self-assertion was the battle cry of the Lucifer rebellion. One of his chief arguments was that, if self-government was good and right for the Melchizedeks and other groups, it was equally good for all orders of intelligence. He was bold and persistent in the advocacy of the “equality of mind” and “the brotherhood of intelligence.” He maintained that all government should be limited to the local planets and their voluntary confederation into the local systems. All other supervision he disallowed. He promised the Planetary Princes that they should rule the worlds as supreme executives. He denounced the location of legislative activities on the constellation headquarters and the conduct of judicial affairs on the universe capital. He contended that all these functions of government should be concentrated on the system capitals and proceeded to set up his own legislative assembly and organized his own tribunals under the jurisdiction of Satan. And he directed that the princes on the apostate worlds do the same.

53:4.3 (604.5) The entire administrative cabinet of Lucifer went over in a body and were sworn in publicly as the officers of the administration of the new head of “the liberated worlds and systems.”

53:4.4 (605.1) While there had been two previous rebellions in Nebadon, they were in distant constellations. Lucifer held that these insurrections were unsuccessful because the majority of the intelligences failed to follow their leaders. He contended that “majorities rule,” that “mind is infallible.” The freedom allowed him by the universe rulers apparently sustained many of his nefarious contentions. He defied all his superiors; yet they apparently took no note of his doings. He was given a free hand to prosecute his seductive plan without let or hindrance.

53:4.5 (605.2) All the merciful delays of justice Lucifer pointed to as evidence of the inability of the government of the Paradise Sons to stop the rebellion. He would openly defy and arrogantly challenge Michael, Immanuel, and the Ancients of Days and then point to the fact that no action ensued as positive evidence of the impotency of the universe and the superuniverse governments.

53:4.6 (605.3) Gabriel was personally present throughout all these disloyal proceedings and only announced that he would, in due time, speak for Michael, and that all beings would be left free and unmolested in their choice; that the “government of the Sons for the Father desired only that loyalty and devotion which was voluntary, wholehearted, and sophistry-proof.”

53:4.7 (605.4) Lucifer was permitted fully to establish and thoroughly to organize his rebel government before Gabriel made any effort to contest the right of secession or to counterwork the rebel propaganda. But the Constellation Fathers immediately confined the action of these disloyal personalities to the system of Satania. Nevertheless, this period of delay was a time of great trial and testing to the loyal beings of all Satania. All was chaotic for a few years, and there was great confusion on the mansion worlds.
 
Top