Ramblings about lucifer

I've always been facinated with lucifer in general and the references to him and satan in the bible. I suppose I should start out by saying that I do NOT believe lucifer was in the garden with adam and eve and that it was the serpent/snake that decieved the pair. I know that goes against catholic doctorine as well as some protestant doctorine, and considering I'm a catholic it's a big deal.

Anyways, I think it may be possible that Luciefer went after God around the time of the great flood. Here's my reasoning... Before the flood angels were going down to the women on earth and were getting the human women pregnant. The result were men of renoun(sp?) and power. However, eventually all of them turned to evil and violence and it got so bad that all but noah's family were tainted and evil. That is is all from scripture. Then of course there was the flood. Now, it is at this point or right before the flood, that lucifer rebelled against God and it is also where I deviate from christian tradition. Now according to scripture, angels were related to most of the people on the planet. Now I don't know about all of you, but if several of my family members were going to be killed, I woudl want to do something about it, even if they were incredibly evil. I think lucifer may have incited rebellion because his family members, along with family members of several other angels, were about to be completely erradicated. Anyways, lucifer believed that he could save his family members, rule better than god, and so forth. Of course he lost and was exiled into hell for it along with all those that were with him.

Of course there is an alternate theory. Perhapes he knew that he couldn't win and simply walked out on God with a third of the angels.

Anyways, that's just some ramblings of my and not neccessarly truth, feedback is appriciated.

from whatever it is you're drinking.

God paid them to write bad stories about him

Mr L got back in his spaceship (with the angels)

heinlein. great book on religion

When people become self-aware, we are incredibly independent, willful and self-focused because that is the only way to learn what our limits are. The "Terrible Twos" are when most people become self-aware, and in many ways, Lucifer is a far more articulate version of that self-awareness.

I have no problems with the Lucifer mythos - in fact, I believe if more people followed the example of questioning the authority of those who have the big chair, we'd be better off as a species. Lucifer's crime of rebellion was an act of self-awareness. Once relegated to hell, if you take the Miltonian view, Lucifer continues to behave as an independent, self-aware creature, rather than an authoritarian bully (i.e. he did not, upon gaining a realm to call his own, turn into the dictatorial potentate he had so recently fled from).

The councils in Heaven are pretty much an exercise in submissiveness; the councils in Hell are exercises in communitarian function based on individual will. Heaven - and the "good" angels - are all about subsuming themselves to the will of the One; Hell is about community exercise of individual will and cooperation. (I know where I'd rather be, and it has nothing to do with harps and fluffy clouds...)

Admittedly, I'm a Milton freak, so my interpretation is strongly based on Milton, and the fact that I'm not Christian may figure in....

is that Lucifer is a likeable character, you can identify with him, and he is arguably the protagonist. Of the five people in our English department, I am the only one that really likes him. As a result, my American Lit kids are the only ones that really get a Miltonian discussion (of sorts) when reading Of Mice and Men.

In short, I agree with you: Lucifer as metaphor = great lesson to be learned; Lucifer as literal = :yoiks:

positive character. I think that Milton was a rebel himself, a Puritan in a fairly moderate Protestant world, but descended from ardent Catholics. I think the whole mix of faiths around him (and he would have been exposed to Arianism, Friends, Wesleyanism, among others - all Christian in nature but different in his worldview) contributed to a sense of outsiderness that comes through in his writings. Milton was both brilliant and probably hard to live with; but he was very much a freethinker (an early advocate for divorce, too...)

Milton was also not much of a Royalist, and if you take the metaphor into the politics of the time, he's placing Puritan rebel leaders in opposition to the general authority of Established Church and King.

I think that a lot of English professors (and I had several who did not share my love of Milton and Shakespeare) shy away from Milton because it is difficult verse, but also because the subject matter is intellectually uncomfortable, especially for young people -- antiauthoritarianism, praise for the Adversary, putting democratic republicanism in the hands of the fallen, not to mention all the talk of religion. I only had a single prof who seemed comfortable with the material, and he was a Jesuit priest.

As for literality.... If someone's taking it literally, it might be time to check the medication.

so you didn't see the new findings on the History Channel about who Noah really as and how the story got all godded up.. just a guy who owned a barge and got washed out of the lake by an unseasonal storm and had to flee from his creditors to an island.. its an old Sumerian story, as is Genesis

they did one on Sodom and Gomorrah too, Earthquake+Liquefaction=bare sand

much as darkness is merely the absence of light" . . . makes sense to me . . .

I was always curious about the Lucifer thing. Here is a being named "light-bringer," who supposedly rebelled against God (His rebellion? Questioning the order of things, from what I could tell.), and got cast away.

Even at a young age, there were a lot of contradictions I could see with the traditional Christian theodicy - the problem of evil, etc. So I began to wonder - is God really the good guy here? Seems to me that Lucifer was trying to say, "Hey, look, this is a totally f*cked up system, and I don't think it should be that way." So - BAM! - God knocks him down. Big bad bully.

I guess those kinds of thoughts were what led me along the path to atheism. Now I don't believe in God OR Lucifer.

Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven.

I wouldn't look at it as 'God knocking him down' as Lucifer & his cohorts rebelling and trying to take over the joint. Given the choice, they 'want' to be in Hell than in Heaven.

Facinating subject since there is so much we cannot understand about the spiritual relm.

I really like politicat's explanation above, too. You and I apparently disagree on how much this tale models reality, but it's a neat story nonetheless.

but only after they lost the battle (though well fought) against god and the loyal angels. There are those in "hell" that argue that they should fight again to dethrone god, but Lucifer is wise enough to know that the battle is pointless. Of course, he turns his efforts to Adam and Eve because he knows that will really piss off god.

Blatty, an ex-Jesuit, spins a view of Lucifer as God's partner in Detective Kinderman's dream sequences in his sequel to The Exorcist. Too long to explain here, but it's a fascinating take on an old myth.

the morning "star," the brightest object in the sky before the sun rises and washes it out. The Babylonians referred to Venus (the planet) as Ishtar.

Because I've never heard that before, be interested to see what's up with that.