Talk:Luciferianism

message: I suggest someone with adequate knowledge on the subject change or improve the "Differences between Luciferianism and Satanism" section of the article. Not all forms of Satanism are materialistic and carnal. For example, the current 218 (The Temple of the Black Light) seems to have an extremely negative attitude towards the physical world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.18.191.170 (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Misinformation

message: Changed the wording in the first paragraph to "popular" rather than "canonical." Biblical canon does not correlate Satan and Lucifer. The name is mentioned once in the KJV translation of the Bible, in Isaiah 14:12. The passage refers to the King of Babylon, King Nebuchadnezzar II. The passage in Revelations about a morning star refers to Jesus, not to Satan. Satan and Lucifer were not considered to be the same being until Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.116.11 (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon

message: I heard they use bibles to prove that lucifer is a good spiritual being...
They use bibles to outsmart those who oppose thier beliefs or doctrines.
I heard rumors that they have "decieved" or took away members from various of churches to join their religion. I don't know if that's really true but I hope those of you who read this might try to prove it wrong or right.
:Lucifer was an angel, although he is mentioned mostly in the Apocrypha, which is also where the only actual mention of the Fall is. E.g. Lucifer can be seen in words such as "elucidate" the Latin root roughly meaning light-bearer, from the Greek φώσφορος. The rest is a bunch of hollywood adolescent fantasy and paranoid urban myth, I heard the same b.s. too once, but I decided to investigate on my own, rationally. Not only read LaVey, because you might be blurring a line between Luciferian and Satanic  which is admittedly already ambiguous, but read the 1992 FBI Report --Satanic Ritual Abuse By Kenneth V. Lanning, Supervisory Special Agent Behavioral Science Unit National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. And for goodness sake, the last place people from the Left-Hand path want to be is around Christians and churches - that is Hell. I'm Agnostic, for the record, but I share a certain kinship with this feeling. You can take the Christian out of the church but you can't take the church out of the Christian. And if s.o. were hypothetically "tricked" against their will into believing something, their low IQ and poor convictions are to blame, not Satan. Also, it's not hard to outsmart most Christian laymen with their own Bibles, though there are always the exceptions, the "wikipedians" of the world, whom I do respect. I read the KJV Bible cover to cover when I was 11 (it did take 2-3 months). I'm still no Biblical scholar but I know it better than someone who only reads the parts their pastor tells them to. I'll end saying this: under no circumstances believe what people tell you at face value. Under no circumstances believe me either! Go out, do some research, and come to your own conclusion whatever that might be. Find out what you believe. No one has a monopoly on Truth - γνῶθι σε αὐτόν. Khirad 09:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: hear

message: The Process might be mentioned on this page as Robert DeGrimston had a three god belief system including Lucifer. Khirad 11:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the process

message: If satanists don't worship the devil/satan or any other "god" then why do they call themselves satanists?  It would make more sense if they used another name, so people would not be thrown off by the name.--Moosh88 00:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MODERN satanists (as opposed to TRADITIONAL satanists) say they don't worship the devil/satan or any other god. as for traditional satanists, i'm more and more under the impression that there are different versions of traditional satanism, and that they don't all believe and/or claim to believe the same thing, so i'd prefer not to make broad, generalized statements about traditional satanism and traditional satanists. Gringo300 04:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the name is for shock value, since Satanism is basically a philosophy. Hedonism with an anti-Christian name. Ric 04:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LaVey outright explains that he chose the name for shock value and to annoy Christians. 
Maybe it's just me, but certain portions of this article seem to be biased in favor of Luciferians, and it speaks very little about their relations and differences with LaVeyan Satanists. Perhaps an NPOV check or small rewriting is in order?
68.53.121.170 15:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: I have a question regarding the clarification of wording used.
In the beginning of this article there is the following paragraph.
Luciferianism is often identified as an auxiliary of Satanism, due to the canonical identification of Lucifer with Satan. Some Luciferians accept this identification, and thus could properly be called Satanists. Others reject it, arguing that Lucifer is a more positive ideal than Satan. They are inspired by the ancient myths of Egypt, Rome and Greece, Gnosticism and traditional western occultism.
To whomever wrote the above paragraph:
In the last sentence, "they" refers to whom exactly?  
They are inspired by the ancient myths of Egypt, Rome and Greece, Gnosticism and traditional western occultism.
Does "they" refer to..
* all Luciferians?
* the division of luciferians that view Lucifer as "a more positive ideal than Satan"?
* or the Luciferians whom accept the identification of Lucifer as Satan?
Please clarify.  Thanks.  sloth_monkey 09:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question, regarding clarification 

message: Under the header, "Religious/Traditional Luciferianism", there is the following paragraph.
It is also considered by some Luciferians that Lucifer is the name of an alien entity, or race of entities, that exists outside of our awareness and that also genetically manipulated early primates thereby creating the human being.
I am intrigued by this notion, as it parellels the ideas of some conspiracy theories I've heard.  Please cite sources for this information and, if possible, elaborate to explain the beliefs further.  sloth_monkey 09:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question, regarding references 

message: Should the text regarding the conspiracy theory involving aliens really be classified under the heading of "Religious/Traditional Luciferiansim"?  Shouldn't it be moved to a different heading, recognizing it as a seperate class of Luciferianism from that of the traditional religious Luciferianism?  sloth_monkey 10:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alien conspiracy 

message: Citation is needed for this article. The only group of Luciferians that associate themselves with this sect are those that are involved with Aaron Donahue's movement. However, that information is obsolete since you kind folks at Wikipedia deemed him as not being notable. So, why does this even exist?
--Oublier 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraterrestrial-based Luciferianism 

message: Luciferianism seems to have very little, if any, historical connection to traditional Gnosticism, why is the word "Gnostic" in the title? The word "Gnostic" is becoming grossly over used.--Harpakhrad11 20:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spiritual/Gnostic Luciferianism"? 

message: I challenge this section, and I recommend removal.  There are no citations, this would fall under original research.  I am an admin of Luciferian Research Society, which has a membership of all Luciferian outlooks, but I have never come across a member describing themselves as an Arcadian Luciferian.  I have never come across an Arcadian Luciferian in any situation in the Left Hand Path. It may be one or two individuals call themselves Arcadian Luciferians, but so few to be unworthy of mention on Wikipedia.
--LiberatedWay (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arcadian Luciferianism 

message: This article is somewhat confusing for a number of reasons:
#The article lacks accuracy and consistency.  I won't point out all the ways this is shown, but there is enough to make one wonder about the purpose.  Is it for the purpose of satanistic promotion, as suggested by others?  I must agree that there seems to be a lot of bias, else why would it take the form it has.
::* That's just arguing "The article isn't as negative as I want it to be". Perhaps there aren't many negative comments because there aren't many negative things to say about us?
#Where is the proof of the information given?  Under the "Lucifer" section there are incomplete references taken out of context from the Bible.
::* Whether they're out of context is irrelevant. The article isn't claiming that the Biblical references are used correctly, just that some Luciferians use them. You wouldn't ask a Christian for proof that their beliefs are correct, do us the same service.
#The sentence structure is poor.  Example: "The name "Lucifer" was given to the first angel - and while commonly associated with the being known as Satan in the Christian tradition - is not the same spiritual being."  This says, therefore, that the first angel was not the same spiritual being.  What does that mean?
#The implied sources are misused.  The previous sentence quoted says something that the Bible, the supposed source, does not say.
#Other articles are already using this one as a reference.  Articles with less inacuracies have been reworked completely or simply banned.  Why is this one still here?
Thanks for considering this.  - KitchM (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is a badly written article and requires major revision from a neutral POV. There are, however, a certain number of scholars who study (or in some cases debunk) the existence of these religious phenomena, which may be numerically minor, but which examined collectively have interesting things to say about how people express the religious impulse. I've linked to this article because books on contemporary Luciferianism turn up in a Google search when I've researched belief systems of antiquity and the early Christian era — which means they've used rather specific terminology or nomenclature that has a scholarly history. For me, this is an interesting fact in the history of religion, even if it involves a small number of people. But as is pointed out, what the article says about contemporary Luciferianism ought to be carefully sourced from books on the subject. Currently that isn't the case. The sections on historical Luciferianism would be interesting, if they were written properly. It does seem to be very difficult for people who are involved in a religion to write about it objectively; there are a number of articles on Christian subjects right now that are nearly as badly written and sourced. I say this as a secularist who has just gone through a period of writing on topics related to religious practice; it's been an illuminating experience. People tend to argue about meaning rather than how to present the sources accurately — that is, they seek to control a doctrinal message. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy Problems 

message: I would agree that this definitely needs a cleanup from an objective POV.  For instance, this sentence:
As testament to the intact and thriving systems of initiation in the Order of Phosphorus, the Ordo Luciferis graciously dissolved its own organization to honor and best contribute to the emminence of this Luciferian Current.
Graciously?  Emminence?  How about just "The Ordo Luciferis was dissolved in (year)", since all the rest is subjective flattery and what exactly "this Luciferian Current" is, is completely undefined.
81.83.135.173 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The language in this article is entirely inappropriate to an encyclopedia article. "The Neo-Luciferian Church is an outer school, a preparation of the individual in his or her aspiration towards The Inner Sanctuary, that inner order which has no name among men." Give me a break. User:PurpleChez 6/13/2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.154.254.115 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: It seems like the books by Michael W. Ford are overrepresented. He did not single-handedly found the school of Luciferianism, so why are many of his books listed here? Wikipedia is NOT a place to promote a writer. That's why I have removed most books, and brought this back to three.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.205.134 (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading list 

message: Luciferianism is an ideology. Philosophy isn't a horrible way to describe it but it lacks the implied context ideology brings. Luciferianism is a view of life and a code which one lives by if he/she follows the school of thought. It's for the individual but also a movement with in society that encompasses a vast numbers of fields and studies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.102.209 (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luciferianism Is An Ideology  

message: I would submit, just something to keep in mind, that the popularity of Lucifer seems to just be something that naturally bubbles up in the milieu of the the western literary tradition. It's a kind of dualism like Zoroastrianism, where there basically a good guy and a bad guy, and if you accept that mythological literary deities are their name, or are an extended metaphor, then Lucifer is the obvious good one, and Satan, or challenger, however that is interpreted, the obvious counterpart.
You must also accept that if the good guy had their way, then the world would be ultra straightforward and a little bit boring, so then you add the monotheistic god to the mix, that is a god of novelty or balance. It's pretty easy to arrive at this perspective if you grow up playing video games and reading the Western literary canon. 
Furthermore there is a strong desire for karma, or justice in the afterlife, so its very easy for hell to become the most desirous aspect of religion. To the person bent on realizing justice in the world, the executioner of hell is an easy figure to admire. You can't imagine the monotheistic god being interested in that job. And Lucifer takes on the mystique of the whistle-blower, the revolutionary, the ideal for the future. 
And finally there is the tradition that Lucifer is god's most beloved. So its easy to assume god instilled Lucifer with justice and goodness to do what god cannot. And god installs Satan to keep creation on its toes. Or to challenge the reality of morality. Ultimately the point is, its very easy to find your way to this perspective, and it doesn't require any kind of organized religion. And quietly many literary minded folks probably privately venerate this character of Lucifer.  
Is it possible the character of Lucifer/Satan is possibly the two top angels of Zoroastrianism bent to meet the demands of monotheism? Who knows. But the modern world, free to organize their thoughts however the hell they like, doesn't seem to care.--172.243.161.115 (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Luciferianism is a literary belief system that emerges largely independently in the modern Western world 

message: I just like to add agnostism on the list MrSuicideSheep (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do's luciferianism allow agnosticism ?  

message: Following the example of the Satanism entry on Wikipedia I have added an Organizations section to Luciferianism.  I consider based upon notability only those organizations that have been mentioned in sources such as newspapers be included in this section, which can be cited in references.  I have added the Greater Church of Lucifer to this list.
LiberatedWay (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it here because that organizations has its own article. If you think it's not notable enough for Wikipedia then you're gonna have to take it to AfD (or maybe try a PROD first). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizations 

message: Someone should explain the difference. ZFT (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luciferianism vs. Satanism 

message: I see a new user has blanked large sections of this article and replaced them with less well-sourced WP:Original Synthesis. After reversion and appropriate templating by User:Donner60, the user has performed essentially the same blanking and OR, then made some explanatory comments on Donner60's talk, to which Donner60 has appropriately replied. Seeing that many sources have been lost in the blanking, and that Mcuthbert21 seems to believe their expertise and synthesis is superior to that of the well-cited text removed, I have again restored the blanked text. I invite any editor to discuss the situation here. I have never edited this page before and have no opinion one way or the other. However, the new user's behavior is a bit troubling, and I want to provide a thread where consensus can be reached. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the blanking removes other sourced content and the revised text amounts to original research and synthesis. It is unsourced and seems to be written to show there is only one interpretation or explanation and to bolster that view by eliminating other information that may either support alternate views or lessen the point being made. As noted, I explained this at greater length on my talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section blanking by [[User:Mcuthbert21]] 

message: I do not know who changed the introduction but for some reason it seems some editors are purposefully trying to make Luciferianism look bad or evil. As a fellow Luciferian Gnostic, it really insults me to see it like that. Please explain yourselves.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christeos Luciftias (talk • contribs) 09:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the introduction and negative portrayal 

message: ===If there is a "Luciferianism", where are the Luciferianists?===
In googling "Luciferianism" to try to find sources for some of the claims in the article, I found only one website by self proclaimed Luciferianists -- luciferchurch.org. It's very short, a few paragraphs and has only two links -- https://twitter.com/lucifer_church , and "More About Luciferianism" -- (the second link leads to this article).
Surely if a religious movement had any  significant number of followers or energy it would have more content online.
===What is "Luciferianism"?===
There are several mentions of cultists worshiping or referencing lucifer in the article -- Helena Blavatsky, Moses Harman, Léo Taxil, Madeline Montalban, etc. --
but no explanation of how they differ from those doing the same thing to Satan, no indication they followed anything like a consistent philosophy or movement of "Luciferianism", no indication they called themselves Luciferian. 
===Luciferianism vs. Satanism===
What, if any, is the difference is between Lucifer and Satan and between Luciferianism and Satanism? I took the trouble to go to a big library and check out religious/occult reference books to try to find out. Short answer is there doesn't seem to be any. Lucifer and Satan have different etymologies ("bringer of dawn",  morning star vs. "accuser" or "adversary"), but both refer to the devil in Christianity. Some literature, such as Paradise Lost, depicts them as different figures, but there's no religious significance that I could find.
Catholic Bible Dictionary
According to the Catholic Bible Dictionary, "Lucifer was a name commonly given to Satan, leader of the fallen angels who were expelled from Heaven" (Luke 10:18, Rev 12:9).P.555)
Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft 
According to the Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft “there is nothing in Roman Mythology to indicate that the nature of Lucifer [as the god of the morning star] was evil.” 
(Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft by Raven Grimassi 2002 Llewellyn Publications, St. Paul, MN, under the entry for Lucifer)
The New Encyclopedia of the Occult
According to The New Encyclopedia of the Occult, the word Lucifer was “mistakenly applied to the Christian Devil as a result of a misunderstood biblical verse (Issaih 14:12) that referred to a king of Babylon. It is one of many names assigned to the Prince of Darkness.
(The New Encyclopedia of the Occult, John Michael Greer 2003 Llewellyn Publications, St. Paul, MN, under the entry for Lucifer)
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion
According to the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, “As a proper noun” Lucifer “is most commonly used as a name for the devil or Satan. This usage is based on the patristic interpretation of the morning star mentioned in IS 14:12, “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Sar [in the Vulg. Lucifer] Son of Dawn!” The Fathers took this to mean the devil. The Lucifer of the Vulg survived in all English versions down to 1611, and the word has passed into wide use in English and in other languages as a synonym for Satan.” 
(Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, Sisters of St. Joseph of Philadelphia, Corpus Publications, Washington, DC, 1979, p.2172)
Encyclopedia of Religion Second Edition
According to the Encyclopedia of Religion Second Edition, the Christian heresy of the Middle Age known as Cathari believed that “God created everything good, including Satan who had been his eldest son Lucifer before he rebelled against his father. Satan had therefore corrupted himself by his own free will …”
Lucifer (Volume 3 of the Encyclopedia of Religion Second Edition, entry under “Cathari”) 
===Proposal===
I propose we trim down the article and add it as a section to Lucifer, Devil or Satan articles. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of article 

message: I propose we trim down the article and add it as a section to Lucifer, Devil or Satan articles. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal