Why is the Luciferian DIR still considered a subset of the LHP here?

[1137]

First off, the very concept of Lucifer can apply to absolutely any religion in some way, regardless of whether we attribute the religion to the Right or Left. Jesus himself recognize himself as Lucifer, and you certainly can't argue the Christianity is a LHP religion. Buddha was a bringer of light, though her certainly wasn't LHP and his religion is more anti-LHP than possibly Christianity! This enough should set Luciferianism apart from the LHP, even if only LHP practitioners are intelligent enough to understand the true nature of the concept.

Second, the goals of Luciferianism are not necessarily LHP, and the main Luciferian archetypes were almost anti-LHP themselves. The serpent in Eden gave humans knowledge without any possible reward and a guarantee of punishment. Prometheus risked his own life in order to bring fire to humanity. Thoth never needed to do a thing at all. The Luciferian archetype takes the force of Light on themselves and aides in spreading it to the world. This is not even slightly LHP except for the fact that the Luciferian may also desire the light themselves.

Third, the Luciferian is not concerned with social values nor with breaking them, is not interested in the status quo, is not inherently interested in revolution (revolution only being a concern when it is necessary). The Luciferian is simply interested in understanding truth and using it to the best of human ability. In this sense it transcends both the LHP and RHP distinction.

 

[McBell]

Interesting.
Where do you propose it should be?

Third, the Luciferian is not concerned with social values nor with breaking them, is not interested in the status quo, is not inherently interested in revolution (revolution only being a concern when it is necessary). The Luciferian is simply interested in understanding truth and using it to the best of human ability. In this sense it transcends both the LHP and RHP distinction.

Given the above, why does it bother you where the Luciferian DIR is?

 

[Deidre]

How does this differ from ''humanism?''

 

[1137]

Interesting.
Where do you propose it should be?

Other religious movements.

Given the above, why does it bother you where the Luciferian DIR is?

Fair question. I assume you won't mind multiple answers?

Off the bat, this is (or was) an educational forum, and indeed what would be the point (especially in these much lower DIRs) to the forum if not education? To have it labeled as "LHP" specifically is simply not true, and therefore that education is false.

Next, and related, the philosophy / religion itself is majorly centered around facts / truth / knowledge, and so to have it under a misleading subcategory would pretty much violate the philosophy / religion itself. Even if you think "RHP" Luciferianism is absolute nonsense, deny the possibility for its existence is simply ignorance.

Third, when I say the religion / philosophy is not concerned with social values and such, I mean that the more initiated Luciferian transcends the arbitrary definitions of L/RHP. I certainly don't care if others label us with the LHP distinction and call us evil, it's bound to happen anyways. Likewise I don't care if I'm seen as L/RHP. Rather, to stick it under the LHP subheading is simply untrue and so should be changed.

How does this differ from ''humanism?''

In the fact that it's intensely occult in nature, can be fully focused on the divine as opposed to human (as I said, Christian can be Luciferians), and so on. It's not humanism because it simply isn't, though they aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

First off, the very concept of Lucifer can apply to absolutely any religion in some way, regardless of whether we attribute the religion to the Right or Left. Jesus himself recognize himself as Lucifer, and you certainly can't argue the Christianity is a LHP religion. Buddha was a bringer of light, though her certainly wasn't LHP and his religion is more anti-LHP than possibly Christianity! This enough should set Luciferianism apart from the LHP, even if only LHP practitioners are intelligent enough to understand the true nature of the concept.

What about Buddhism makes it come off to you as anti-LHP?

It interests me that you say Jesus or the Gautama Buddha fit the title Lucifer. As far as I'm aware, the unique thing about Luciferianism is that leadership is a virtue. Luciferianism holds wisdom and knowledge at core value, and doesn't have much to say about worshiping a deity. To me, that's pretty much proof that Luciferian principle is interested in self-emergence and experienced wisdom. Not to mention it doesn't seem likely that a Luciferian would relate to a person who chose to be punished for the wrongdoings of others. Luciferianism values self responsibility! Walk on your own path, so at least the struggles would be honestly deserved.

Jesus's character was more interested in helping man find salvation through FAITH, apposed to wisdom. Jesus was all about faith, all about the there and later than the here and now, and simply left man to be confused with no revelation on the present.

Second, the goals of Luciferianism are not necessarily LHP, and the main Luciferian archetypes were almost anti-LHP themselves. The serpent in Eden gave humans knowledge without any possible reward and a guarantee of punishment. Prometheus risked his own life in order to bring fire to humanity. Thoth never needed to do a thing at all. The Luciferian archetype takes the force of Light on themselves and aides in spreading it to the world. This is not even slightly LHP except for the fact that the Luciferian may also desire the light themselves.

I think it's more than just bringing the Light to man; it is important to notice they also had a personality that stood for what they feel is right, without fear of God. That truth and wisdom is worth burning for.

They had the potential to test God! For those that understand these archetypes, it becomes obvious that they weren't in favor of the idea of God transcending morality.

Third, the Luciferian is not concerned with social values nor with breaking them, is not interested in the status quo, is not inherently interested in revolution (revolution only being a concern when it is necessary). The Luciferian is simply interested in understanding truth and using it to the best of human ability. In this sense it transcends both the LHP and RHP distinction.

I'm unsure how that doesn't sound very fitting as a left path.

 

[1137]

What about Buddhism makes it come off to you as anti-LHP?

Its idea of dissolution and lacking of a Self. I don't mean it is, like, directly opposed to the LHP, I mean it has contradictory values based on certain definitions. It's hard to discuss since the distinction is nonsense.

It interests me that you say Jesus or the Gautama Buddha fit the title Lucifer. As far as I'm aware, the unique thing about Luciferianism is that leadership is a virtue. Luciferianism holds wisdom and knowledge at core value, and doesn't have much to say about worshiping a deity. To me, that's pretty much proof that Luciferian principle is interested in self-emergence and experienced wisdom. Not to mention it doesn't seem likely that a Luciferian would relate to a person who chose to be punished for the wrongdoings of others. Luciferianism values self responsibility! Walk on your own path, so at least the struggles would be honestly deserved.

Jesus still has the biggest religion to this day, and it is not even based off of whatever he actually said. He also definitely felt an importance of self-responsibility. Wisdom and knowledge is extremely broad. Buddha gained wisdom and knowledge surrounding meditation. Meanwhile, since Luciferian philosophy puts (or should put) emphasis on what knowledge really, truly is, there can be no gnostic rejection of mysticism, since we do not know it is nonsense. Plus, you cannot forget the art aspect of Luciferianism and occultism in general, in which all values and systems can be useful tools and lead to greater understanding, especially understanding of the mind. Jesus brought the light of his mythology whether it is real or not.

Jesus's character was more interested in helping man find salvation through FAITH, apposed to wisdom. Jesus was all about faith, all about the there and later than the here and now, and simply left man to be confused with no revelation on the present.

Jesus is a mythological character who can be viewed in different ways.

I think it's more than just bringing the Light to man; it is important to notice they also had a personality that stood for what they feel is right, without fear of God. That truth and wisdom is worth burning for

I don't know if I would put it that way. We are talking a philosophy / religion put together based on the definition of a single word - Lucifer meaning "light-bearer". Jesus certainly did not feel god, but that is because he was a "RHP" Lucifer as opposed to others. This is exactly my point.

They had the potential to test God! For those that understand these archetypes, it becomes obvious that they weren't in favor of the idea of God transcending morality.

This is a very strictly Christian perspective as far as I can tell, so it doesn't really interest me.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Its idea of dissolution and lacking of a Self. I don't mean it is, like, directly opposed to the LHP, I mean it has contradictory values based on certain definitions. It's hard to discuss since the distinction is nonsense.

I don't think these concepts might contradict left hand path. The lack of self is a realization important for disillusionment and often it's used to break the bond of values in between things to make letting go easier. Impermanence is the nature of illusionary objects (self, attachments, etc) and so we must not live tightly to these values.

I suppose this is derailing the thread. So i will just say that i can see where you're coming from, but at the same time I think it entirely just depends on how one interprets Buddhist teachings.

Jesus still has the biggest religion to this day, and it is not even based off of whatever he actually said. He also definitely felt an importance of self-responsibility. Wisdom and knowledge is extremely broad. Buddha gained wisdom and knowledge surrounding meditation. Meanwhile, since Luciferian philosophy puts (or should put) emphasis on what knowledge really, truly is, there can be no gnostic rejection of mysticism, since we do not know it is nonsense. Plus, you cannot forget the art aspect of Luciferianism and occultism in general, in which all values and systems can be useful tools and lead to greater understanding, especially understanding of the mind. Jesus brought the light of his mythology whether it is real or not.

But the difference is the way the light was sent. Jesus, in character, has plenty of this light. He could share it with us anywhere, and any time, but instead he shares it among followers instead of all. It seems to me that instead of bringing any light for man to behold, Jesus instead told us about this light, that God possesses it, sometime in the future it will be revealed to those who had faith in this indirect knowledge of the Light. God is the light-bearer, Jesus is the second-hand bearer, and man is bearing the light third-hand.

Jesus had full access to this light and gave us little to nothing of it. Prometheus and the Serpent directly shared this light to man, made sacrifices for it, and did not wait on God's approval.

I don't know if I would put it that way. We are talking a philosophy / religion put together based on the definition of a single word - Lucifer meaning "light-bearer". Jesus certainly did not feel god, but that is because he was a "RHP" Lucifer as opposed to others. This is exactly my point.

The light revealed by Jesus, if there is any, has never been made useful. He was in fact killed by people who identified him as a false prophet. This light must not be very bright or shared to all. Jesus requires us to have faith in the light before we can have it. It's like handing a treat out to your dog, telling him to sit, tell him to keep sitting for a couple of days and he'll get the treat.

Besides, it's probably tainted. When we do get the light, we're supposed to accept it without questioning it; faith.

This is a very strictly Christian perspective as far as I can tell, so it doesn't really interest me.

No, Prometheus too was punished for these actions, but knew it was the right thing to do and worth being punished for.

 

[1137]

I'm not here to debate Christian mythology.

 

[EtuMalku]

First off, the very concept of Lucifer can apply to absolutely any religion in some way, regardless of whether we attribute the religion to the Right or Left. Jesus himself recognize himself as Lucifer, and you certainly can't argue the Christianity is a LHP religion. Buddha was a bringer of light, though her certainly wasn't LHP and his religion is more anti-LHP than possibly Christianity! This enough should set Luciferianism apart from the LHP, even if only LHP practitioners are intelligent enough to understand the true nature of the concept.

Jesus recognized himself as the Morning Star not Lucifer, who is a Roman deity. Christianity is in no way a LHP. Make no mistake that Luciferianism is about Autotheism and is strictly a western left hand path.

Second, the goals of Luciferianism are not necessarily LHP, and the main Luciferian archetypes were almost anti-LHP themselves. The serpent in Eden gave humans knowledge without any possible reward and a guarantee of punishment. Prometheus risked his own life in order to bring fire to humanity. Thoth never needed to do a thing at all. The Luciferian archetype takes the force of Light on themselves and aides in spreading it to the world. This is not even slightly LHP except for the fact that the Luciferian may also desire the light themselves.

You can't discuss Lucifer from an Abrahamic viewpoint, simply because Lucifer has very little, if anything, to do with the Abrahamic faiths.

Third, the Luciferian is not concerned with social values nor with breaking them, is not interested in the status quo, is not inherently interested in revolution (revolution only being a concern when it is necessary). The Luciferian is simply interested in understanding truth and using it to the best of human ability. In this sense it transcends both the LHP and RHP distinction.

If you're referring to Antinomy, then Luciferianism wholly embraces this.



Lucifer has no place in the Christian paradigm, he is not the Abrahamic Satan and/or Devil. The word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Christian 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 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.

The association is clearly in regards to the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar and is in reference to the Morning Star which is a title that Jesus uses for himself as well.

Revelation 22:16: "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Lucifer is a pre‑Christian deity of ancient Roman and Greek mythology. He is mentioned in Publius Ovidius Naso's "Metamorphoses", which was written in 8 B.C.E., Roman poet Virgil mentions him as far back as 29 B.C.E. And the first mention is from Timaeus by Plato written 360 B.C.E

Lucifer that we all know is an archetypal structure from Roman cults, he is the Mercury of the Gauls, He is the Serpent of the Ophites, the Kundalini and Budha of the Vedic, the Uræus of the Pharaoh! 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. As Prometheus, unlike the Abrahamic savior, He dies every day in order to bring us the Flame.

 

[1137]

The entire L/RHP distinction is nonsense in and of itself, so I don't see why any of these points provided in argument matter. At the time, christianity was very much a "satanic" as well as "Luciferian" religion in its revolution for change. Hell, in the words of Christ we can see references directly to Luciferian philosophy, such as self introspection being more important than judging others. To restrict the philosophy / religion on such unimportant grounds is simply counter productive to a religion of limitless light.

 

[EtuMalku]

The entire L/RHP distinction is nonsense in and of itself, so I don't see why any of these points provided in argument matter. At the time, christianity was very much a "satanic" as well as "Luciferian" religion in its revolution for change. Hell, in the words of Christ we can see references directly to Luciferian philosophy, such as self introspection being more important than judging others. To restrict the philosophy / religion on such unimportant grounds is simply counter productive to a religion of limitless light.

I'm not sure your Luciferianism is the same as my Luciferianism. How are you defining R & L Hand Paths?
It seems that you associate Luciferianism with 'revolutionary change', I'm unfamiliar with this association.
Just because Luciferianism may share or parallel certain ideals of another religion, does not link them as one and the same.

Luciferianism is the Ideal western left hand path, it has as much to do with spiritual alchemy and self-deification as it does with Individuation and seeing both objective & subjective reality for exactly what they are and are not . . . hence the metaphor of Light Bearer / Bringer.

 

[1137]

I'm not sure your Luciferianism is the same as my Luciferianism. How are you defining R & L Hand Paths?
It seems that you associate Luciferianism with 'revolutionary change', I'm unfamiliar with this association.
Just because Luciferianism may share or parallel certain ideals of another religion, does not link them as one and the same.

Luciferianism is the Ideal western left hand path, it has as much to do with spiritual alchemy and self-deification as it does with Individuation and seeing both objective & subjective reality for exactly what they are and are not . . . hence the metaphor of Light Bearer / Bringer.

So you choose to simply overlook the **bringer** aspect of Luciferianism to keep it on the spooky side, huh?

 

[EtuMalku]

So you choose to simply overlook the **bringer** aspect of Luciferianism to keep it on the spooky side, huh?

I don't understand this statement . . .

 

[1137]

I don't understand this statement . . .

You don't understand the contradiction in being a light bringer yet not taking that light anywhere? It's inherently implied in the very concept of Lucifer to share the light, hence concern for the spirituality of others, hence non-LHP.

 

[EtuMalku]

You don't understand the contradiction in being a light bringer yet not taking that light anywhere? It's inherently implied in the very concept of Lucifer to share the light, hence concern for the spirituality of others, hence non-LHP.

Where did I say Luciferianism doesn't take the Light anywhere?
The idea of compassion for humanity certainly is a Luciferian trait as is the concern for the spirituality of another . . . this is in no way indicative of a RHP.

I now believe that you don't understand what the western left hand path means . . . either.

 

[1137]

Where did I say Luciferianism doesn't take the Light anywhere?
The idea of compassion for humanity certainly is a Luciferian trait as is the concern for the spirituality of another . . . this is in no way indicative of a RHP.

I now believe that you don't understand what the western left hand path means . . . either.

Care to "enlighten" me?

 

[EtuMalku]

RHP's seek to absolve the self into the objective universe, or what they perceive as the All / God / Absolute / etc.
While the (western) LHP seeks separation from this in order to experience one's higher Self and eventual absolution into that . . . which is autotheism and this preserves one's individuality.

 

[1137]

RHP's seek to absolve the self into the objective universe, or what they perceive as the All / God / Absolute / etc.
While the (western) LHP seeks separation from this in order to experience one's higher Self and eventual absolution into that . . . which is autotheism and this preserves one's individuality.

So a christian who wants power out of god is LHP? These arbitrary labels get more absurd by the day.

 

[1137]

Also, how do you address that the Twp schools you posit aren't mutually exclusive?

 

[Mequa]

Jesus's character was more interested in helping man find salvation through FAITH, apposed to wisdom. Jesus was all about faith, all about the there and later than the here and now, and simply left man to be confused with no revelation on the present.

That is mostly true with the Jesus of the "canonical" Gospels of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

It does appear though that the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas is more "Luciferian". The Gospel of Thomas is available online here:
The Gospel of Thomas Collection -- Translations and Resources