• 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!

LHP Only: The Differences Between Lucifer and Satan

crossfire

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
From this thread in the LHP DIR:
Anyone up to a Same Faith Debate (LHP Only) regarding the differences between Satan and Lucifer? We can also throw in the other two Crown Princes Belial and Leviathan as well. (Satan as Crown Prince of the South opposite Belial Crown Prince of the North forming the Carnal/Material axis--often referred to as the Apollo (Satan)--Dionysus (Belial) polarity as contrasted to Lucifer as Crown Prince of the East opposite Leviathan Crown Prince of the West forming the mental/spiritual/abstract Axis?)

It is really needed, imo.
Click to expand...

I've linked to this new same-faith-debate thread there. Feel free to tag/summon appropriate folks to the party.
 
crossfire

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
If we can get @Iti oj to reply, that will demonstrate the Luciferian stance. What about the other LHP practitioners?
 
Rapha

Rapha

Active Member
Lucifer = Enki = fallen seraph against humanity
Satan = haSatan = class of Jinn (Shaytan class) that existed before Enki spliced neanderthal DNA with angel DNA to create a slave race - Adam and Eve.
The jinn leader is named Azazel.
 
Liu

Liu

Well-Known Member
As stated in the other thread, I can't really debate this since I consider it the right of every practitioner to use these names in whichever way they consider them fitting. They have been used to describe so many different concepts that a lot of different interpretations are possible.
I use the names interchangeably. But pondering about them, I came to the conclusion that since there nevertheless are at least two different concepts I connect to them it may make sense to use those two names for those separate concepts.

I'd say Satan is existence (= self and everything a self could perceive). It's the All.
I derive this definition from the LaVeyan idea to take Satan as a symbol for the true nature of humankind.
As a Pantheistic Satanist I consider existence to be amoral, bound to subjectivity and change, and inherently divine.

Lucifer then is a certain aspect of this view on the world, namely a personification of that which makes one see the true nature of existence clearer, or in other words, that which brings enlightenment. So it stands for self-development, skepticism and knowledge, and by that can be connected to a moral code, like for example the humanist values many Luciferians and The Satanic Temple connect with their religions. By connecting it to a moral code one however risks leaving the LHP and returning to dogma.
 
Last edited:
crossfire

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
There's nothing wrong with having a moral code as long as you have done the reasoning behind it.
 
EtuMalku

EtuMalku

Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Obviously Satan is not the anti-Christian boogeyman created by the Judeo-Christian world, that was yesterday. He is much more than that Abrahamic name, Satan has always existed, only under other names and guises, Satan is a powerful and primordial archetype of man's psyche.

This archetype is the reflection of how we perceive ourselves in relation to what we call the "others". Satan is a social and cultural phenomenon as old as the mind of humanity itself. There has always and will always, be essentially two worldviews consisting of oppositions and they are "Us & Them" or "Me" and "the rest of you" . . . etc.

So, who/what is this Satan? He simply is who you are not!
__________________________________________________________________________

Lucifer is the Principle of Compassion for Life and Creation, the Light born in the Womb of Darkness . . . defiance of corrupt authority and the Current of Spiritual Evolution. Lucifer is that core level of the Cosmos. The Principle of Self development. The model of individuality, individuation, and independence. Lucifer is symbolized from culture to culture and is defined by that culture. Lucifer is a Collective Name for Spiritual Freedom.
 
Liu

Liu

Well-Known Member
@crossfire: Agreed; a moral code which comes "from within" of course is in accordance with the LHP. Only when one considers this moral code to be universal it gets problematic.
I mentioned this point because it is what makes me a bit uneasy regarding separating my concept of Lucifer from my concept of Satan.
 
crossfire

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Liu said:
@crossfire: Agreed; a moral code which comes "from within" of course is in accordance with the LHP. Only when one considers this moral code to be universal it gets problematic.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Every situation is different. A moral code that does not recognize this is, in my opinion, immoral. :cool:
I mentioned this point because it is what makes me a bit uneasy regarding separating my concept of Lucifer from my concept of Satan.
Click to expand...
Interesting.
 
Liu

Liu

Well-Known Member
EtuMalku said:
Amorality is like the Primacy of Darkness . . . immorality only exists because it has morality to be compared to
Click to expand...
...and because of that, if you have a moral code which you consider to be universal, this moral code is immoral.
 
Liu

Liu

Well-Known Member
No, not really, I was referring to people who don't consider the world to be amoral but to have an objective morality and which because of that think that their personal moral code would be the universal one. Those people then would, from our amoral perspective at least, have an immoral moral code since, as crossfire said, it would be corrupt and false.

All that under the presumption of course that there actually is no objective morality, but I guess that this is a basis we can all agree on.
 
crossfire

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Liu said:
@crossfire: Agreed; a moral code which comes "from within" of course is in accordance with the LHP. Only when one considers this moral code to be universal it gets problematic.
I mentioned this point because it is what makes me a bit uneasy regarding separating my concept of Lucifer from my concept of Satan.
Click to expand...
Do you believe in an objective reality, or are you a metaphysical idealist? I can see how trying to separate your concepts of Lucifer and Satan would make you uneasy if you were a metaphysical idealist.
 
EtuMalku

EtuMalku

Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
Amoral: being neither moral nor immoral; lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply

A moral person believes there exists some kind of intrinsic morality
An immoral person describes someone who knows the difference but doesn't care
An amoral person believes right and wrong is subjective and not intrinsic

Therefore a moral person would see both immoral and amoral people as immoral because they are judging them against what they believe to an intrinsic principle
An immoral person also believes that morality is intrinsic but chooses to do the 'wrong' thing
The amoral person laughs and spreads their wings . . . :rolleyes:
 
1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Everyone has a moral system, it's silly to pretend otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top