If Jesus is 'lucifer', is there a contradiction/problem with 'Luciferianism'

[Desert Snake]

Since Jesus is called 'Lucifer', in the Scripture, and Luciferians call themselves 'Luciferians', /

Are there 'problems' with this inherent inference from one character, 'Lucifer', of the Luciferians, and ...Jesus, of course, also referred to as Lucifer?

 

[Flame]

Jesus calls himself the "the bright morning star" not directly calls himself Lucifer but that's sidetracking. Do I believe Luciferians are contradicting themselves? No. Why would they be if someone else uses the definition of a title?

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus calls himself the "the bright morning star" not directly calls himself Lucifer but that's sidetracking. Do I believe Luciferians are contradicting themselves? No. Why would they be if someone else uses the definition of a title?

Hence, 'lucifer', to Luciferians, is not a name, it's just a title they picked up somehere, and use for the character that represents their group/?

 

[Desert Snake]

I think that if you base an entire religion, even if it's not theistic, around a character, then that character should be more than just a convenient title; especially, when the name/title, is 'shared', by a Deity, that Luciferians sometimes even oppose in arguments.

 

[McBell]

Since Jesus is called 'Lucifer', in the Scripture, can Luciferians call themselves Luciferians, /and not be Christians/ and not be contradicting themselves?

Where is the alleged contradiction?

 

[Flame]

Hence, 'lucifer', to Luciferians, is not a name, it's just a title they picked up somehere, and use for the character that represents their group/?

Couldn't Buddhists be considered the same? They "picked up" Buddha (which is a title) and use that title to represent their group.

 

[Flame]

I think that if you base an entire religion, even if it's not theistic, around a character, then that character should be more than just a convenient title, especially, which is 'shared', by a Deity, that Luciferians sometimes even oppose in arguments.

To which the 'title' is an overall archetype where Phosphorus, Prometheus, ect fit in. Its not just based on a single convenient title that is thrown because people feel like it.

Your other thread CLEARLY shows this.

 

[Desert Snake]

Where is the alleged contradiction?

There isn't one, inherently. However, there could be a contradiction via same name/title, for a Deity , as the character chosen to represent a religion that often references itself in some sort of oppositional stance to xianity.

 

[Desert Snake]

Couldn't Buddhists be considered the same? They "picked up" Buddha (which is a title) and use that title to represent their group.

There's an argument for that, yes

 

[Desert Snake]

To which the 'title' is an overall archetype where Phosphorus, Prometheus, ect fit in. Its not just based on a single convenient title that is thrown because people feel like it.

Your other thread CLEARLY shows this.

No, it isn't that vague. 'Lucifer', has become like a name, a recognizable name used in literature, and such. This is not some 'general inference', title

 

[McBell]

changed the thread title/ There isn't one, inherently. However, there could be a contradiction via same name/title, for a Deity , as the character chosen to represent a religion that often references itself in some sort of oppositional stance to xianity.

Is that not the specific reason "lucifer" was chosen?
To show Christians their opposition?

 

[1137]

Lucifer is a title.

 

[Flame]

No, it isn't that vague. 'Lucifer', has become like a name, a recognizable name used in literature, and such. This is not some 'general inference', title

We can say the same with Caesar which was a family name which was later changed into a title. Now I work with someone with the first name of Caesar.

As for it becoming more recognizable, of course! People love to pick a romanceable name and use it as they please.

 

[Desert Snake]

Is that not the specific reason "lucifer" was chosen?
To show Christians their opposition?

That could inferred, yes. Hence the problem, if Jesus is called Lucifer.

 

[Desert Snake]

Lucifer is a title.

Hence Jesus being referred to as 'Lucifer'. That's great, however, that 'title' if used as a main description, also can basically become the 'name' of the character.

We can say the same with Caesar which was a family name which was later changed into a title. Now I work with someone with the first name of Caesar.

As for it becoming more recognizable, of course! People love to pick a romanceable name and use it as they please.

This is inferring that the title 'Lucifer', is a very broad description of what is being implied in ''Luciferianism''.

That isn't a problem, unless ''Lucifer'', is going to be used as persona, that /opposes'', Xianity ,etc. Clearly, until further argument demonstrates otherwise, that is a contradiction.

 

[Desert Snake]

/Jesus is called Lucifer
/The 'broad 'title' ,/character inference,, chosen for Luciferianism, is ''Lucifer''
/''Luciferianism'', in some way, 'opposes' Xianity'

 

[Desert Snake]

We would have to conclude that the title chosen for ''Luciferianism'', /Lucifer,, is not meaningful in any character/persona,, sense

 

[1137]

Hence Jesus being referred to as 'Lucifer'. That's great, however, that 'title' if used as a main description, also can basically become the 'name' of the character.

If I am CEO of my company, and my name is Greg, what tells you more about my nature?

 

[Flame]

We would have to conclude that the title chosen for ''Luciferianism'', /Lucifer,, is not meaningful in any character/persona,, sense

For you, yes, for other no. Personal opinions doesn't have much weight in the large scheme of things.

 

[Desert Snake]

If I am CEO of my company, and my name is Greg, what tells you more about my nature?

The argument isn't that the ''title'', is not broad in some sense, or indicating that it means the 'same thing', as jesus. The argument relates to putting a persona , a 'name', to the title, that infers something, besides a very broad usage title.
ie, you can't say that it is a 'broad general title', and also say that 'Lucifer', means 'this persona', /specific character/, at the same time.

Logically, we might not even know 'who' you're referring to.
/If you write ''Lucifer'', and it is a 'broad title', then it could mean different personas, Jesus being one
/If you write 'Lucifer', with the intent to mean someone specific, /'not Jesus', in this example, then you are not only being vague, //We don't know which ''Lucifer'', you're talking about,, but you are also not using the title in a ''broad'' sense, anymore. /Hence now a character specific 'name'.