Ive been doing a bit of reading about the origin of Satan/Lucifer/The morning star
mostly in the context of early modern England where he is mostly portrayed as the trickster of folklore stories.Sell me your soul and you can have anything you desire.

I am bit confused as to his origin in the bible and his status in christianity, I know he was one of the angels who rebelled against god and according to the bible he roams in heaven and hell and has dominion over the earth.It seems some biblical literalists think he is a real being,satanists think that he doesn't exist and just represents man's struggle with his own desires and sane christians seem to agree with satanists in that regard.

So anyway I think I quite like him he seems much maligned, I get the impression that he would be very charming.
So what are your thoughts, is he as bad as he is painted? what is his status in modern christianity?
Interesting thing,before his rebelion he was the bringer of light, the morning star and is associated with venus.

Views: 20

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The book i was reading called 'the devil in early modern England' by Darren Oldridge ISBN 0-7509-2092-0 is interesting because the author is clearly writting from a christian perspective and he acknowledges that the idea of a physically real hell or devil would be laughable to modern christians and it made me think that maybe some fundies should have a read of it because they do seem to think its real.
The one idea that you come away with having read it is that the idea of the devil is far older than christianity but its an idea that was used by protestants and puritans as a anti-catholic propaganda tool in an age when very few people where literate so you got some very odd images trying to show protestants why the pope was the anti-christ. i am attracted to the idea of satan being a metaphore for freewill being lord of the earth and so on.
1) The devil and Lucifer are not the same
2) This is most likely because during the times of the Inquisition, they had to find a reason as to why they could burn people on sticks
3) The confusion over Lucifer/devil is because of a misstranslation in King James' version
4) Originally, Lucifer was considered an adversary of god
5) The whole Pan thing was most likely a means for Christians (read the Inquisition) to personify Lucifer as well as black-mailing the original deity of Pan, who was pretty much known for his promiscuity among other things, hence, a perfect symbol for what would later be known as Satan (It's easier to be afraid of something when you know what you are afraid OF, and because we all know that sex is such a BAD thing)
6) Finally, there is no conclusive evidence as I am aware of, that Satan and Lucifer would be the one and the same at all, and what really happened to Lucifer (aka Samael) after his fall is a mystery
7) There might also be more confusion as to whether Lucifer is referred to a king, "In the latter passage the title of "Morning Star" is given to the tyrannous Babylonian king, who the prophet says is destined to fall"

Wikipedia has some interesting information about the origin of the mythos of Lucifer, I highly recommend people to read it.

8) One can be either a theistic or a Laveyan Satanist (the former actually believe bathing in goat blood and having sex with virgins is a good thing)
9) I personally believe LaVey read too H. P. Lovecraft books and the works of Aleister Crowley

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service