This is going to be another one of those annoying “controversial” posts I write from time to time. Oh well. Best get used to it, because I’ve had a taste of writing controversial stuff and now I want more! MORE! BWAHAHA!!
Um, hem. Sorry about that.
Basically, I’m writing today because I feel there is a ton of confusion out there on the topic of luciferianism and what it is, and I wanted to “shine a little light” (I know terrible pun) on things for people a bit. Know now that what I’m writing probably isn’t what you may expect it to be.
First, when you ask what luciferianism is, you have to understand that it means different things to different groups of people. Most Christians for example, would probably equate luciferianism with satanism, which from a philosophical perspective, actually isn’t very far off, but for different reasons. I think most people who describe themselves as “luciferian” would not say they are satan worshippers, or even that they “worship” lucifer (to luciferians there is a difference between lucifer and the devil). If they worship anything, they worship mankind and the potential of individual people. In other words, they believe man to be god, or each individual person to be a kind of god of his or her own universe, or at the very least, gods in training.
Taking luciferian beliefs into this perspective definitely changes things, and it does make the belief system more attractive, but I would like to warn people that a very big danger lies embedded within it. More on that in a moment. First, let’s talk about the origins of the belief and how it has changed in recent times.
In essence, luciferians turn modern monotheistic beliefs in god on their heads by saying that since lucifer/enki/prometheus/hermes/thoth/any other trickster figure or assisted humanity in gaining knowledge, that because of this, lucifer is actually the good guy in all of this, a kind of savior of humanity from the control of a violent, jealous, and tyrannical god. It is from this belief that stems the idea of “humanity, save yourself.” where reliance on technology and the growth of civilization is needed to solve humankind’s most perplexing and dangerous problems.
I don’t know enough to tell you the exact origins of the idea, but it’s been with humanity for a really long time. Take for example the biblical story of the Tower of Babylon. According to the story, mankind decided it didn’t need God, so they built a tower that attempted to reach to the heavens itself. God promptly destroyed it and confused humanity by spreading people far and wide and creating language barriers. While you could say the tower of Babylon is “just a story” from the Bible, that story still illustrates that even during those ancient biblical times, people were willing to cast away the idea of an outside God and worship themselves.
To be fair, there is a lot of positive things that can come from thinking that humanity is completely responsible for its own fate and thus “God” so to speak. In a generalized sense, we can say that atheistic beliefs, humanistic beliefs, and many brands of new age thinking stem from the idea that humanity (or the individual) is God. These diverse fates often share the same trait. They treat humanity as empowered and responsible for its own problems. So the next time you meet a die-hard fundamaterialist, go ahead and call him a luciferian. It’s sort of technically true.
A quick aside: Why I left Christianity
When I first dared to venture outside my Christian roots, it was because of two reasons, (and no neither one was related to evolution). The first reason is more technical and completely irrelevant to this discussion. The second reason is that the Christian God struck me as a jealous, tyrannical, judgmental being that punished people merely for making the choice not to worship him (some not even aware that they had a choice to begin with). I didn’t want to worship a wrathful creator like that, regardless of the talks I heard of “law and gospel”.
I tried for the longest time to deal with the cognitive dissonance that came up. I told myself that God wasn’t really like that, that God was more true to himself during the Gospel, that the real God is completely different than the church, mere men, could ever depict Him, but the fact is that as long as I was involved in that religion I had it held over my head that not worshiping meant going to hell.
One Christian tried to explain it to me this way: “
When you go to hell, it’s not that God is punishing you, it’s just that you are experiencing eternity outside the presence of God.”
But even that explanation didn’t suffice for me. If it’s merely being outside the presence of God, then why can’t you change your mind? With Christianity, all decisions are final after you die. Otherwise, what’s the point of Jesus saving you? If you didn’t believe when you died, then too late. I thought, what if I just dispensed with the whole permanent damnation idea, and denied that the real God would ever do to people the terrible things the Old Testament claims He did? Well, then at that point I would have to stop calling myself Christian and start calling myself something different, like a spiritualist.
Let me explain why this relates to luciferianism, and, it’s not what you think I might say. While luciferiansim accurately points out the flaws and inherent tyranny of a monotheistic god, whether its biblical or from elsewhere, it in my opinion, wrongly states that people should step up and fill the void, that people should try to become god, or become powerful like god(s), or that we are actually gods or gods-in-training.
Why the luciferian idea is flawed
It isn’t that humans don’t have the power, potential, or ability to become god-like in nature. With all our technology and knowledge, there’s a good chance that over time, humanity will only become more and more powerful, more and –more “god-like”.
Rather, the questions I’m concerned with are:
1) Should we become more powerful, ie try to be more like God?
2) Will being more powerful actually solve the problems we want solved?
On the topic of 1, we have to take an honest look at what technology has yielded for us and at what cost. The discovery of nuclear fission led to both the creation of a new efficient energy source as well as the atomic bomb. With each new discovery we make, the potential for positive and negative uses is staggering. Imagine if a time machine was invented. Imagine all the problems we could both solve, and create, if that technology fell into the wrong hands. Now, realize that anybody’s hands are the wrong hands. Even if you gave Ghandi a time machine and he used it, he would screw up history because of the butterfly effect.
We have to ask, what is the nature of power? The nature of power is such that those who have power, abuse it. Some abuses may be slight. Others may be lower, but all abuses are abuses, even well-intentioned ones. Ultimately, the big ironic downfall of mankind being god, is that he steps into God’s shoes.
It is like the king’s son who, disgusted with the tyranny of his father, overthrows him, only to become him years down the road. It is the nature of power. If humanity desires this power, then humanity will abuse it, no matter how well-intentioned the struggle for power may be. If we choose to be god, then we choose to be tyrants. It is not something that can be avoided in this reality.
On the topic of 2, understand that there’s a little law I made up called the “conservation of problems”. I discovered this little law of the universe when I was on my college debate team and realized that every good idea is a bad idea to somebody else.
For every problem that is solved for someone, a new problem is created somewhere else. Thus, the net total of problems in the universe never changes. Let’s pretend, for example, that cancer is cured. On the surface, this seems like is is merely a solution to a problem. But of course, all the people that would have been dieing from cancer now live longer, and have more of an opportunity to reproduce. This means a contribution in overpopulation, which leads to different diseases, economic problems, waste management, starvation, thirst, and other related problems.
What if we tried, on the other hand to solve the problem of population control? What does that mean for us? The creation of new diseases to kill off our own people? Forced birth control? Fluoridated water (for conspiracy theorists). And suppose we did manage to control our numbers? Would that not make us more ripe for control from an elite? I’m not saying one way trumps the other. I’m saying that no matter what decision we make, we’re screwed somehow. It’s just a matter of the nature of our reality. The deception of a luciferian worldview is that with enough technology and power we can progress and solve our problems. That worldview is simply not true.
The “other” category
I once read an article about a Buddhist monk who spent so much time praying and meditating in one spot of a wooden floor that after 20 years, his feet had actually left imprints in the wood! One of the comments on the blog was along the line of “What wasted years. He could have spent his time curing cancer.”
Yes, he could have, and as I mentioned before, doing so would solve a problem and create new ones. Instead, this man chose not to play that game. That’s not an easy thing to do, and it is why I have a great respect for Buddhist belief systems. Is it the only way? Certainly not, but it is a great path to wisdom. Both monotheistic religions and luciferian religions focus on trying to change the world. For luciferians, it’s a matter of self and societal development that will save the world. For monotheists, it’s a matter of giving that power away to others. For Buddhists, on the other hand, it seems to be more about accepting reality as it is. Since luciferianism requires a person to have an ego to an extent (changing the world is in my hands) and since monotheism requires a person have an ego in a different way (It is up to me to spread the word of God/Allah/Yahweh or else my friends will go to hell! I must save them) Buddhism seems like a good third option.
I also still hold an interest in Keylontic sciences since they don’t seem to describe a luciferian philosophy. It is one thing to say we are God/gods in training. It is something entirely different to claim that we are an aspect of God, to claim that we are a small part of what you can say “God” is. That’s an important distinction to make. If you have any other ideas for “third” options, sound out on the comments or forums! Until next time, know where your beliefs are leading you.
Livewithwonder can be contacted through email at email@example.com, on his blog at livewithwonder.wordpress.com, or on twitter at @Livewithwonder