Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!
"While I was browsing the web, this specific part of a response from a member there caught my eye:
ftmvatty: 'The side effects of working with Him - people might start being awful to you, just because you don't want to follow their lead - but those people were not relevant in the first place - they usually wanted to gain something from you, not giving anything back at all. So, bad friends.'
I find a resonance in these words that might be true, .
/We herd sheep, we drive cattle, we lead people. Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way. - George S. Patton/
He was not talking about making friends.
If you want to make friends, try to not regard people as sheep, but actually communicate with them. In an authentic way.
If you want to lead or follow... Maybe a forum for radical islamists would be better a fit.
ftmvatty: 'The side effects of working with Him - people might start being awful to you, just because you don't want to follow their lead - but those people were not relevant in the first place - they usually wanted to gain something from you, not giving anything back at all. So, bad friends.'
"Oh, I forgot to mention that he was talking about it as a 'side effect' of working with Lucifer...
And just to lighten the mood a bit, I had this image in my mind
—I love cartoons, so I created it from my imagination using modern tools while enjoying a slice of pizza and a glass of orange juice. I’d love to get your take on it: Is it actually funny?
To me, it embodies a painful reality through a lens of dark comedy. Is Lucifer a real entity, or just a 'typo' in history? Is he the fallen one from heaven, or just an expression for the planet Venus? Does the image reflect a hidden belief in a lie, or is it a glaring truth? Is it good work, or is my taste simply not for you?
"Oh, I forgot to mention that he was talking about it as a 'side effect' of working with Lucifer...
And just to lighten the mood a bit, I had this image in my mind
—I love cartoons, so I created it from my imagination using modern tools while enjoying a slice of pizza and a glass of orange juice. I’d love to get your take on it: Is it actually funny?
To me, it embodies a painful reality through a lens of dark comedy. Is Lucifer a real entity, or just a 'typo' in history? Is he the fallen one from heaven, or just an expression for the planet Venus? Does the image reflect a hidden belief in a lie, or is it a glaring truth? Is it good work, or is my taste simply not for you?
But I am talking about you You often call people friends, when you don't really mean it, when your actions show otherwise. I despised that, but now I understand, just how far gone you are.
That cartoon is very telling. Please do not delete it.
"Oh, I forgot to mention that he was talking about it as a 'side effect' of working with Lucifer...
And just to lighten the mood a bit, I had this image in my mind
—I love cartoons, so I created it from my imagination using modern tools while enjoying a slice of pizza and a glass of orange juice. I’d love to get your take on it: Is it actually funny?
To me, it embodies a painful reality through a lens of dark comedy. Is Lucifer a real entity, or just a 'typo' in history? Is he the fallen one from heaven, or just an expression for the planet Venus? Does the image reflect a hidden belief in a lie, or is it a glaring truth? Is it good work, or is my taste simply not for you?
Cartoons are fun! Is that little Mohammed the junior Prophet with Daddy Lucifer? great rendition my brother!! Artistic expression sure is amazing isn't it? I feel a strong sense of truth in the modified version which you inspired.
I feel an undeniable truth, academic, strict, truth according to my academic studies with secret masters on the topic of your 'religion isn't real'. You would see that I am correct if you would just raise your perspective to my level and understand truth when it is presented to you with such grace as I am offering you. Maturity is a choice my great friend, please choose the path of maturity and you will see as I do.
I honestly question the choice of pizza with orange juice though, but hey man, personal freedom and all that. lol
Cartoons are fun! Is that little Mohammed the junior Prophet with Daddy Lucifer? great rendition my brother!! Artistic expression sure is amazing isn't it? I feel a strong sense of truth in the modified version which you inspired.
I feel an undeniable truth, academic, strict, truth according to my academic studies with secret masters on the topic of your 'religion isn't real'. You would see that I am correct if you would just raise your perspective to my level and understand truth when it is presented to you with such grace as I am offering you. Maturity is a choice my great friend, please choose the path of maturity and you will see as I do.
I honestly question the choice of pizza with orange juice though, but hey man, personal freedom and all that. lol
It is fascinating how 'intellectual maturity'—a term you use so loosely—evaporates the moment a slice of pizza, a glass of orange juice, and a caricature are introduced. If your 'shrines' can be shaken by a cartoon, then they were built on shifting sands, not on 'Secret Masters.'
Let us move from the playground to the laboratory of truth. You speak of Lucifer as a fallen angel, yet history, linguistics, and the very 'Academic Masters' you claim to follow say otherwise:
The Linguistic Reality: In Isaiah 14:12, the Hebrew 'Helel ben Shahar' was a political satire against the King of Babylon, not a spirit. Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld and the Jewish Encyclopedia confirm that Judaism knows no 'Lucifer' as God’s adversary. It was a typo in Jerome’s Vulgate that turned a descriptive noun into a fake deity.
The Ecclesiastical Contradiction: Even the Church, in its official Exsultet hymn, calls Jesus 'Lucifer' (Christus Filius tuus... lucifer matutinus). If Lucifer is the Devil, your theology is in a state of collapse. As Rev. Brendan Byrne and Jeffrey Burton Russell (Cornell University) prove, the 'Fallen Angel' myth is a medieval literary construct, fueled more by Milton’s Paradise Lost than by any divine record.
The Magickal Verdict: Mathers viewed Lucifer merely as an elemental force of the East, and Aleister Crowley (Magick in Theory and Practice) openly mocked the confusion, regarding Lucifer as a 'poetic title' for the dawn, not a primary entity of worship.
Before you cry in the 'Altar of Science,' answer me this: If Lucifer is the 'Sovereign Rebel' who brought the light, why can he be bound, commanded, and forced by names that supposedly govern him? Is he a King or a slave to your rituals? And can you even distinguish him from Lucifuge Rofocale, or are you just lost in the smoke of your own ignorance?
Post automatically merged:
The Detailed Response:
Haha! I wonder how all the claims that I am a 'brilliant psychological analyst' who knows personalities through talk didn't manage to uncover that I was actually referring to a side effect of following Lucifer—which seems to be a reality. The difference between an intellectually mature person and others is that he rises above insults. In my presentation, it is clear that I didn't even insult the alleged taboo, 'Lucifer.' Instead, I presented him from where he originated; I showed his beginning, his source, and the academic perspectives from their original fountains.
Lucifer was never the 'Fallen from Heaven.' Rather, those 'fallings' come from mere assumptions that twisted the neck of truth to portray him as the fallen angel. If the scientific and academic interpretation I am writing now is correct, then where are his records? Where are his evocations? Could it be a grand trick played upon the ignorant? Perhaps you should consult your 'Secret Masters,' or better yet, bring them here openly to the forum under pseudonyms to tell us their 'truths'?
As for a mere piece of pizza and a very refreshing glass of orange juice with it, and a caricature—if these can shake the foundations of the temples of those who worship illusions, then I believe those temples were built on shifting sands. I will repeat my questions before I answer them myself in the desert of responses that bear no fruit but the smoke of a worthless fire.
Here we go, for I am certain there is no knowledge, no understanding, and no 'Secret Masters' except in the bookshelves, haha!
Linguistic Roots and the Jewish Perspective (Rabbis and Hebrew): In the Old Testament, specifically in Isaiah 14:12, the Hebrew phrase 'Helel ben Shahar' appears. The Jewish interpretation: Rabbis confirm the text does not speak of a fallen angel, but is a 'political satire' of the King of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar or Tiglath-Pileser). 'Helel' means the 'Shining Star' or the 'Planet Venus.' The Position: Judaism does not recognize an entity named 'Lucifer' as an adversary to God. To them, the word is a description of a proud human king who fell from his throne, not a name for a devil.
The Critical Christian Perspective (Ecclesiastical Opposition to the Traditional Thesis): Although popular Christian imagery sees Lucifer as the Devil, there is a critical ecclesiastical current (especially among modern theologians) that rejects this confusion. The Vulgate Typo: St. Jerome, when translating the Bible into Latin, used the word 'lucifer' (meaning light-bringer) to translate 'Helel.' The word turned from a 'description' into a 'proper noun' by mistake over the centuries. The Opposing Church Position: Theological critics point out that Christ himself was described as the 'Morning Star' (Stella Matutina) in the Book of Revelation, which is the exact literal meaning of 'Lucifer.' Thus, considering Lucifer a devil creates a theological contradiction within the text itself, proving that 'Lucifer the Entity' is a later human invention and not a real figure.
Academic and Documented Research: Research (such as the works of Jeffrey Burton Russell) confirms that the idea of Lucifer as a 'fallen angel' did not fully crystallize until the Middle Ages, fed by fictional literature like Milton’s 'Paradise Lost,' which had a greater impact on shaping the Western mind than the Bible itself. In the authentic ancient Grimoires (such as the original Key of Solomon), there are no specific evocations for an entity named 'Lucifer' as an independent king before the late eras, where he was confused with 'Lucifer' (King of the East) in some texts—a geographical division of powers, not a theological existence.
Rabbi Dr. Shmuel Herzfeld: In his studies of prophetic texts, he confirms that Isaiah 14:12 speaks exclusively of the 'King of Babylon.' Academic Source: (The Jewish Encyclopedia), article 'Lucifer.' Rabbis explain that the phrase Helel ben Shahar is a literary metaphor for the 'Planet Venus' to describe the fall of an arrogant earthly ruler. Academic Research: A study by Professor Robert Alter in his book 'The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary'; where he clarifies that the Latin translation 'Lucifer' created a mythical character that did not exist in the original text.
Rev. Dr. Brendan Byrne: A Jesuit theologian, clarifies in his research that linking Isaiah 14 to the Devil is a later interpretation (Eisegesis) that began with Church Fathers like Origen and Tertullian, but has no basis in the original 'Christological' text. Academic Source: Theological Studies journal, research on the evolution of the concept of 'The Adversary.' The Shocking Truth: In the official Latin ecclesiastical hymn 'Exsultet' sung on Easter Vigil, the title 'Lucifer' is given to Jesus Christ (Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat... Christus Filius tuus). This proves that the word ecclesiastically is an attribute of light, not a name for the Devil.
S.L. MacGregor Mathers: In his book and letters on 'The Lesser Key of Solomon' and in the Golden Dawn documents: Mathers places Lucifer as one of the 'Four Princes' (Kings of the Cardinal Points), but links him to the element of Air and the East. Mathers saw Lucifer as an 'Elemental Force' rather than a theological 'fallen angel.' He never said Lucifer was the biblical 'Satan,' but rather an evocational force for cosmic balance.
Aleister Crowley: Crowley was the one who explicitly exposed the ecclesiastical 'Lucifer Deception.' From the book 'Magick in Theory and Practice - Book 4': 'This serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods of our race, knowing Good and Evil... He is 'The Devil' of the Book of Thoth, and His emblem is BAPHOMET.' His position on Lucifer: Crowley rejects the name 'Lucifer' as a title for the Devil. He sees the true Devil as 'Shaitan' or 'Aiwass.' Lucifer to him is merely a 'poetic title' for the light that precedes the dawn; he does not consider him an entity worthy of ritual enslavement. He sees him as a 'literary ornament,' not a true magickal engine.
Dr. Jeffrey Burton Russell: In his major book 'Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages' (Cornell University). The Result: It proves historically that 'Lucifer' as an independent character is a 'literary construction' made in the Middle Ages by mixing the texts of Isaiah with Luke 10:18, and that this entity did not exist in the consciousness of magicians or theologians before the 4th century AD.
Oh, little poor kiddy, I see youuuu! Haha.
I have other questions on the same topic: If Lucifer comes through the names that rule, compel, or subdue him, then how can he be the 'Sovereign Rebel' who descended with the flame of light? Also, how do you distinguish between him and the same name, Lucifuge Rofocale?
Important questions that must have useful answers, not just the crying and screaming of children at the Altar of Science.
Lucifer was never the 'Fallen from Heaven.' Rather, those 'fallings' come from mere assumptions that twisted the neck of truth to portray him as the fallen angel. If the scientific and academic interpretation I am writing now is correct, then where are his records? Where are his evocations? Could it be a grand trick played upon the ignorant? Perhaps you should consult your 'Secret Masters,' or better yet, bring them here openly to the forum under pseudonyms to tell us their 'truths'?
And what about Al-Abeyadh Abba Al-Nur / Al-Abeyadh Abba Nur? Isn't He the one who directly corresponds to Lucifer in Arabian Tradition, and who, like Lucifer, has strong connection to the Moon? Whose name also has to do with the Light, he is Father of Light, who brings that Light, this is in His Name. You can't say that this one of 7 reknown Jinn Kings is also result of misstype, can you?
And what about Al-Abeyadh Abba Al-Nur / Al-Abeyadh Abba Nur? Isn't He the one who directly corresponds to Lucifer in Arabian Tradition, and who, like Lucifer, has strong connection to the Moon? Whose name also has to do with the Light, he is Father of Light, who brings that Light, this is in His Name. You can't say that this one of 7 reknown Jinn Kings is also result of misstype, can you?
Adelina, I appreciate the attempt to bridge the gap using Arabian tradition, but you have just demonstrated the very 'confusion' I am talking about. A simple lesson in planetary correspondences: Lucifer (The Morning Star) is inextricably linked to the planet Venus. As for Al-Abeyadh (Abba Al-Nur), he is the King of Monday, governed by the Moon. In any true spiritual science, confusing Venus with the Moon is a fundamental error. They are not the same entity, nor do they share the same essence.
In our tradition, Al-Abeyadh Abba Al-Nur is one of the earthly kings, also known by another name: Maymun Al-Abeyadh. 'Maymun' in our language means the one of fortune, blessing, success, and grace—a 'Master' to be precise. Abba Al-Nur follows the Moon and his metal is Silver, while Helel (Lucifer) means Venus, and the difference is very clear to anyone who looks closely. Furthermore, we distinguish between Jinn as a general origin (creatures of light/fire) and Lucifer, who is supposedly a 'Fallen Angel'!
Let us frame science with honesty toward ourselves rather than merely summoning our whims. I find that the Western school always tends toward oversimplification or creating relationships without any necessity—like someone who fell into a pit and then came out to write us poetry about how his fall was not into a pit, but a descent into another world.
Let us state with total honesty where the confusion came from; let us explain the relationships clearly to see the truth. Sometimes Lucifer is presented as the 'Dark Face' of the Moon (Lilith & Lucifer connection): In some modern 'magickal' schools (such as the Left Hand Path), Lucifer is linked to Lilith (who represents the Black Moon or Lilith/Dark Moon). Here, Lucifer is not viewed as a planet, but as an 'illuminating energy' that unites with the dark energy of the Moon to produce 'forbidden knowledge.' This link is a symbolic psychological association, not an authentic planetary one.
Others wanted to confuse matters further, saying—as mentioned before—that Lucifuge Rofocale is linked in some late Grimoires to earthly treasures and powers that operate under moonlight (because he flees from the sun). Due to the similarity in names, modern practitioners (especially in Chaos Magick) confused the two, attributing the 'Lunar' qualities of Lucifuge to the 'Venereal' Lucifer.
This was aided by the flowery writings of authors such as in The Book of Sitra Achra: ['Lucifer is the illuminating force of the Black Moon, the one who reflects the unseen light of the Abyss through the lunar mask of Lilith.'] This is, in my opinion, a hideous confusion that does not respect the balanced intellect expected of spiritual or magickal masters, even if it were a 'holy book' for followers of Left-Hand movements.
Soon after, an arsenal of equally flowery interpretations emerged, another example being Luciferian Witchcraft: ['In the Draconian tradition, Lucifer is sometimes perceived as the 'Moon of the Night', the cold light that guides the sorcerer through the astral planes, mirroring the hidden Sun.'] Describing Lucifer as 'Cold Light' is a physical description of the Moon, while Venus (the original Lucifer) is a planet that is 'Hot and Moist' by its planetary nature. This confirms that they have forcibly 'clothed' Lucifer in the Moon's garment to suit their magickal whims.
Modern editions followed them, wanting to catch the trend and swim with the current just for promotion, nothing more, such as The Grand Grimoire: ['Many modern practitioners equate Lucifer with Lucifuge, the spirit of the night who shuns the day, thus attributing to him the lunar attributes of hidden treasures and nocturnal influence.'] This is an explicit admission that the 'Lunar' connection is the result of a 'Confusion' in practice between two completely different entities.
From here we conclude that some contemporary writings, which lean toward magickal romanticism, grant the Moon the title 'Lucifer of the Night' simply because it 'carries the light' in the darkness. This is a literary, metaphorical use that has transformed over time among those ignorant of the language into an 'essential connection'.
And what about Al-Abeyadh Abba Al-Nur / Al-Abeyadh Abba Nur? Isn't He the one who directly corresponds to Lucifer in Arabian Tradition, and who, like Lucifer, has strong connection to the Moon? Whose name also has to do with the Light, he is Father of Light, who brings that Light, this is in His Name. You can't say that this one of 7 reknown Jinn Kings is also result of misstype, can you?
He's not here to discuss or share. And since he gets away with everything, we might as well crown Angelkesfarl as the new king of WF. All bow to our Middle Eastern master! All hail Allah! I'll just ignore that pompous bigot from now on, he's only here to push his sect's superiority.
Adelina, I appreciate the attempt to bridge the gap using Arabian tradition, but you have just demonstrated the very 'confusion' I am talking about. A simple lesson in planetary correspondences: Lucifer (The Morning Star) is inextricably linked to the planet Venus. As for Al-Abeyadh (Abba Al-Nur), he is the King of Monday, governed by the Moon. In any true spiritual science, confusing Venus with the Moon is a fundamental error. They are not the same entity, nor do they share the same essence.
He's not here to discuss or share. And since he gets away with everything, we might as well crown Angelkesfarl as the new king of WF. All bow to our Middle Eastern master! All hail Allah! I'll just ignore that pompous bigot from now on, he's only here to push his sect's superiority.
I just wonder how far this "misstype" thing will go. I try to be respectful to all traditions, we can't learn from each other without mutual respect. Who knows, maybe this thread will be revealing for Angelkesfarl about the nature of Lucifer just like for me it might be revealing to learn something from Arabian Tradition.
@BBBB
You always resort to talk of bigotry, scolding, or insults, and finally, you consistently accuse others of racism, religious agendas, or mere self-promotion—anything and everything except responding to the text itself. This is the 'Poisoning the Well' tactic; an old, trivial game played by those who have been defeated.
I believe that if there were to be any 'punishment,' it should be applied according to the very laws of the land you claim to be a 'land of freedoms.' I see no value in being born in a specific country or under the name of a culture or place without embodying its true spirit. You demand that I present my knowledge, yet the moment I approach any 'cognitive tumor' with my scalpel, I hear screams like those of children seeing a dentist's drill.
Throughout your history and even in your signature, I see nothing but polemics, accusations, and insults, followed by a flight from any intellectual confrontation. I did not come here to impose my religion or beliefs; I came to defend Science and Academic Framing. If we look seriously, away from childish tantrums, we will find clear and explicit academic questions about Lucifer that remain unanswered.
Even our friend Morell, despite his clear responses in my thread in the Religions section, perhaps didn't notice how he entered this topic or what his responses were; regardless, the 'double standards' here reveal hidden agendas. I came here not to be a king of any place, but to be a friend to those who deserve friendship. I speak here in a known place, of a known nature, for a known audience.
Finally, in my personal faith, it is forbidden for anyone to prostrate to anyone but the Almighty Creator. What is strange is that when I wrote, I cited opinions from books that rise to the level of references and 'sacred' magickal texts—and their own authors admitted [the truth]—so will you insult them as well? It is no shame to admit that we were fools when we insult and belittle people simply because they illuminate the path of reason, science, and understanding for us. Admitting a mistake is a heavy human virtue that not everyone can master.
Let anyone, from today until the end of the internet's life, review my words and see who deserves respect and who does not. Thank you to all friends and supporters; we meet every day with something new. And I shall borrow: 'In Truth, We Live.
I just wonder how far this "misstype" thing will go. I try to be respectful to all traditions, we can't learn from each other without mutual respect. Who knows, maybe this thread will be revealing for Angelkesfarl about the nature of Lucifer just like for me it might be revealing to learn something from Arabian Tradition.
I get what the staff was trying to do, however, this is a fiasco. If there were no learned people in this thread like you, people would have only one take on the subject, which is not simply biased, but loaded a certain way. Not mentioning overt and covert attacks. This is not an opportunity to learn something from each other, but a war to elimination of "infidels", and he's not even Muslim (both because he breaks Muslim ethics, and because sufi are not representative of Islam).
He calims to be a member of a sufi order, so he's a sectarian. It's like a member of some "current" in the West, let's say a Luciferian (there are different takes on that too!), would be speaking for all Christians and fighting for dominance. Actually well-learned and well-practiced people don't wage wars, they may have strong oppinions, but that are able to present them without the need to degrade others. I may believe that my views on Lucifer are correct, and argue with others, but at most I would simply consider myself "true" and others "false". Since my truth doesn't rely on what other's think, I have no need to change their thinking to feel safe. I would be happy to share my approach on it with people who are interested, etc. But if my agenda whould be to gain social power and resources, then I would need to convert and present my views as the only truth.
I get richer from other oppinions and experiences, and I need more people actually practicing and researching, so they could share quality information, and it's actually welcome when they believe in different things and practice different methods, because they do what I wouldn't, and when they share it enriches all. But when someone needs to be right, they will not share, but manipulate the truth. As we see here, where many sources get referenced, but there is covert hostility behind it, in other words, those are lies. Facts always depend on interpretation, and you can find any fact for your desired interpretation if you wanted, it's just a matter of arranging them correctly. Religious debates are full of it, where you can concoct opposite interpretaions on a subject using just one holy scripture.
In other words, different behaviour for different needs. And it's easy to gauge an intent by looking at behaviour. In a few replies among different threads where Angelkesfarl was most prominent, I dissceted his behaviour, and the patterns seem to hold, and intensify, because he gets no rebuke from the staff. When members do it, he doesn't take the hint. And he is not satisfied with his own "stall" at the religion section. You gave him a finger, he swallowed a hand, and now he will devour you whole.
He started like laying honey on a bread, now he's aggressively imposing his ideology, mocking others', making it look justified, because some members were rude to him (I don't approve of them, btw - that was stupid and didn't help). If this will be allowed to continue, WF will die as a forum. I kid you not. I know people like that. This place is already have many members silent or leaving. I would be long gone without a few others, but it's MUCH easier for me to just talk with them. On another platform! And thenm when they will realise Angelkesfarl never had anything to offer in the first place, it will be too late for this place.
If the spirit of sincere sharing (intead of Shariya) will not be preserved, there will be no high-quality sharing in here.
Novices come here to find expert oppinions (in truth, most just download books). Experts don't need to talk here, they may chose to. Then both will benefit. But why would they chose to, with such toxicity running around?
Universities and temples always have grounds, you know, so when you enter there it's a different space from a marketplace where money rule, or a tavern, where everybody who has an oppinion wins by shouting louder or throwing a stronger punch. A forum takes the best out of those, it's not as strict as a temple, and there can be a place for monetary and wordly exchange, but if laws of communications are broken, for which the most important is mutuality, you have no forum.
Even our friend Morell, despite his clear responses in my thread in the Religions section, perhaps didn't notice how he entered this topic or what his responses were; regardless, the 'double standards' here reveal hidden agendas. I came here not to be a king of any place, but to be a friend to those who deserve friendship. I speak here in a known place, of a known nature, for a known audience.
You know, what did you want to debate from the start? Usually when we want to debate something, it's the conclusion, not the premise. You gave us premise with evidence that Lucifer was created from a typo and then concluded that those who worship him are worshiping a typo. That made everyone understand that you are debating worship of a typo, not the typo itself.
You know, what did you want to debate from the start? Usually when we want to debate something, it's the conclusion, not the premise. You gave us premise with evidence that Lucifer was created from a typo and then concluded that those who worship him are worshiping a typo. That made everyone understand that you are debating worship of a typo, not the typo itself.
He is different. That doesn't make him not human. Not even stupid. Even the smartest people fall for cults and brainwashing. (and smart people are even harder to deprogram because they are so smart in self-deluding)
Liberation is difficult. Until he himself see the errors of his standing, nothing will change. We cannot do much about it. Besides, we all have some convictions that work against us.
I have called myself a Catholic Luciferian before, and have said on here that to me Lucifer is the same as Jesus. It's a case of different strokes for different folks. If someone else thinks he's a demon, a misinterpretation of a Bible verse, or a hunk with abs and eyeliner and a 23 inch dick doesn't matter to me. His name as light-bearer indeed points to Venus (or Mercury) as the Morningstar, and this same star follows the sun when it sets in other parts of the year. From this comes Lucifuge Rofocale (whose surname is extracted from the first word in the invocation of Lucifer in the G.V.)
Somewhere in the first chapters of Modern Magick, DMK explains the different names of God in the Tree of Life with a drawing of a man who is called son by his father, dad by his son, love by his wife, Joe by his boss etc. It is the same man, but depending on the environment, and the name used, he will appear (and act) differently. Makes sense.
The idea of the OP was not original in any way and would probably have been ignored as being common knowledge by most if it wasn't presented and subsequently continued in this manner.
My own (grammatically incorrect but I don't care) description of Lucifer:
Lex Una Congrex Internus Flammus Eternus Rex One Law for the whole congregation, the internal flame is the eternal king
He is different. That doesn't make him not human. Not even stupid. Even the smartest people fall for cults and brainwashing. (and smart people are even harder to deprogram because they are so smart in self-deluding)
Liberation is difficult. Until he himself see the errors of his standing, nothing will change. We cannot do much about it. Besides, we all have some convictions that work against us.
Sorry for the lack of clarity, my brain was firing on other things as I typed that. Good catch, glad you called it out.
I was referring to the use of AI. The use of English, the manipulation of words from a non native English speaker is elite level and too perfect. Let that sink in. Its NOT a translation issue.
I researched the fuck out of how AI translates from Arabic to English, and back. What is kept, what may be lost, etc. Enlightening. BUT, if AI were just creating condescension, manipulation, etc. there would be lawsuits miles long from Banks, Law Firms, Computer companies, etc and it would be common knowledge, but its not. Its intentional from the user. I tried to be objective with this before taking my stance, just in case.
Its one thing to use AI to format your own thoughts, its an entirely different thing to use AI to formulate them for you. It is a judgement of how he uses AI, and not a judgement of him as a person.
As soon as I feel like I might be debating AI through a person, what's the point?
I agree with the rest of your points though. Spot on!
"Can Artificial Intelligence write as I do? I do not believe it has reached a level of 'humanity' that would allow it to do so. Therefore, let us set aside these attempts at character assassination; they will not work with me, and they hold no value.
To the Moderator [Yazata]: Is the meaning of the term 'Catholic Luciferian' that you place Lucifer—as a rebel and adversary—and Christ in the same position? Is this due to your final description of him as the 'Eternal King,' placing all of this within the scope of the 'Internal Flame' (the Heart and the Fire of the Soul), seeing all of this as mere reflections of your own self? That you are the Morning Star and you are the Beast? Is my deduction correct? I hope you take the time to respond.
In our tradition, the number 666 represents the evolution of Venus in its three states in the science of letters (Abjad): Birth, Ascension, and Detriment (Wabal). Does this mean that, in the Western view of the matter, the Number of the Beast is the same as the Number of Jesus?
.
You often call people friends, when you don't really mean it, when your actions show otherwise. I despised that, but now I understand, just how far gone you are.
