Lucifer represents an angel (an idea or strategy) that is enlightening in a misleading way.
One of the misleading thoughts is that Lucifer represents false information. In reality, Lucifer represents true information that tempts one into false presumption and conclusion (also known as “sin”/“misjudgment”). The cure for which is to inspire people into not presuming/condemning/judging unless truly necessary. If truly needed, then it is truly needed, not an issue because such becomes less and less needed as others do less presuming.
The mortal mind has limits as to how much information it can process and thus naturally seeks to minimize and generalize so as to be more able to handle perhaps more relevant information. It is much easier for someone to just take it for granted that everyone else of a particular color, gender, ethnicity, or whatever is like some common feature of such a person. Of course that leads to prejudices of various sorts, all of which might or might not be accurate. Yet it is actually based on true information, a common feature of that type really is that way.
A common feature of people online is that they know very little of what they speak. Given that information, which is true, it is tempting to ignore what everyone online says in favor of what you want to say. But can you see the catch? Given such a truth and willing to make such a presumption, aren’t you going to be ignored as well?
What general truth could I make very clear to those other people that would cause them to falsely judge each other and condemn all of them into oblivion?
True general information that tempts false individual presumption - enlightenment into darkness.
“The Lord of Darkness”.
After reading this, what is there to know of Lucifer? What is true and what is false? The catch here is that these things revolve around the assumptions made in the argument itself.
People do believe these things…but they never really succeed in making me understand why they do. They “think” these things into existence. Or so it seems to me.
The why seems more reflective of how thinking things like this makes them feel grounded psychologically in some sort of “whole truth”.
Lucifer simply means light bringer, and was the name applied to the planet Venus in the morning, before it was realised that it was the same planet that appeared in the morning as in the evening. For the Christians to equate something that means “bringer of light” with evil says more about the Christians than it does about Lucifer.
I would say that the false information is implicit. IOW if you take the sentence, alone, out of context, it very likely is true in some way. But in the context all sort of implied and undercurrent meanings are false. This can be as simple as someone bemoaning a bad situation they are in and being told, well you were not nice to your sister when you were 15 on her birthday. And the truth is, you weren’t nice then. But this is not why you are in the bad situation. And it is not why you ‘deserve’ to be?
You presume that they ALL ALWAYS presume because they ALL OFTEN presume.
Thus why ever listen to anyone at all?
Why should anyone listen to you at all?
If it is true that “everyone is always wrong unless they all agree with what I already know to be true”, then why ever listen or speak at ALL?
There is a serious difference between someone who is telling you what is true and someone who is telling you how to find out what is true.
If the person telling you how to find out is false, you can pretty quickly know it, but you have at least learned more on that subject through the experience. Sometimes such experience can be misleading also, but if you don’t try, you are guaranteed to not succeed.
All I am saying is that if possible, try to not put everyone into a class of “everyone like them”. You will be wrong more often than right and worse, cause them to do the same to you.
It is more of the “first light” issue, the first impression.
A building gets blown up and the first you hear of it implies the Iraqis did it.
Most people will never change that first impression and will argue against any evidence to the contrary, even though they actually have no idea. Governments have been using what is called a “false flag” for centuries merely to utilize such a tendency.
Someone from your church suggests that some guy is a criminal of some kind. Everyone who heard that is tempted into a mindset that first presumes it to be probably true even if they might be willing to accept that maybe it isn’t. They want proof that it isn’t true (guilty until proven innocent).
OK. We are talking about different ‘things’. Members of the same family, perhaps, but not quite the same. I am giving Lucifer agency (of a sort), you are describing, it seems to me, a set of bad habits.(that sounds rather banal, the latter, but that’s not my intention in describing it so)
In any case, each situation has a truth surrounded by ‘something’ that makes it an untruth. Surrounded as in preexisting conceptions of the world or context where the truth seems to be a response to a question thus twisting it. The truth enters a situation ‘a mind’ that is ripe to misinterpret the application of that truth. This is something that can be used - my focus on agency - or is more shall we say inevitable given the state of people’s minds.
That Lucifer is considered Satan has a long tradition, going back to pre-Christian days. And it is said in the books of Enoch that it goes back to Noah’s great-grand-father.
Some myths are high impact memes with great success … for reasons that’s impossible to predict or fathom.
We still today can’t conclusively figure out how religions formed and prospered … coming out of animism ages.
And what’s with our obsession with Satan? fear? Even the morning star scares us?
If you look at what he defines Lucifer as, it is describing a phenomenon we can test. You could question his use of that word for the name, but it’s a rather mundane phenomenon, or better put, this comes up every day, and is fairly empirical.
No, that is your distinction. Or, rather, is to the extent I understand the distinction at all.
My distinction revolves more around the fact that Lucifer [or whatever you wish to call the Devil] is a character in the Bible. This is in fact true. And it is true for all of us even if all of us do not believe it. The only relevant distinction here is between those who already know this and those who can be shown it once they are familiar with the Bible.
Now, what is crucial here from my frame of reference, is how this in turn is distinguishable from an assertion that the characters in the Bible are in fact actual entities that can be demonstrated to exist phenomenally.
As usual in discussing things like THE God or Lucifer, we are clearly interested in different things.
From my vantage point both exist only in your head…and in your arguments. Your world of words.
Where and when have you ever demonstrated their existence otherwise?
It is not what people [a few, some, most, all] believe they know is true but what they can substantiate “out in the world” as true. Otherwise the arguments just go around and around in circles.
Yes, if it is as he defines it. But what does the definition have to do with the existence of Lucifer? I’ll admit I may be misconstruing his point, but I’m trying to nudge the point down to earth…to the general vicinity of a Lucifer that I might be able to know a bit more substantively.
Well, given that the OP was posted in the religion and spirituality forum rather than ST&M, I figured it might have at least something to do with that other Lucifer.
If not then, as Emily Litella might say, “never mind”.
You would have to read his various essays. I can only say from discussions here my sense is that anthropomorphization may not be one of the areas of disagreement between you two and he is in fact describing a phenomenon that you notice in your life.
I think you might be on to something. Maybe [ironically] I am reading him too literally.
But when he says something like…
"One of the misleading thoughts is that Lucifer represents false information. In reality, Lucifer represents true information that tempts one into false presumption and conclusion (also known as “sin”/“misjudgment”).
…the first thing that pops into my head is, ‘who does Lucifer represent here?’ And true or false information about what?
Sooner or later it has to be about a particular mortal mind processing information that results in behaviors either deemed or not deemed to be “sin.”
Again, it is always the behaviors we choose that lead to conflict. Why one set and not another? How does “I” decide that?
And [regarding “knowledge”] what limitations are we confronted with when choosing?
