[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Re: religion, good or bad? Lucifers role, debate question...

Jul 15, 2008 09:15 AM
by Antonio/Tony None

Hi Morten,

Thanks for your in depth reply, I appreciate that you took the time out to offer your jewels of wisdom. I will look into that literature you mention when i can and I am sure all the information you supplied will be very handy when writing my lyrics for my forth coming musical project. Just out of curiosity what is your position in the World of Theosophy. Do you lecture or write material or are you just an observer of the subject? I would be keen to know.
Dorp my a line when you can.

Peace and Blessings

--- On Sun, 13/7/08, Morten Nymann Olesen <> wrote:
From: Morten Nymann Olesen <>
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: religion, good or bad? Lucifers role, debate question...
Date: Sunday, 13 July, 2008, 8:01 AM


About Lucifer I would like to add the following showing the difference between the Christian view and the theosophical view...


The theosophical glossary compiled by Scott J. Osterhage says:

TG Lucifer (Lat.). The planet Venus, as the bright "Morning Star". Before Milton, Lucifer had never been a name of the Devil. Quite the reverse, since the Christian Saviour is made to say of himself in Revelations (xxii. 16.) "I am . . . the bright morning star" or Lucifer. One of the early Popes of Rome bore that name; and there was even a Christian sect in the fourth century which was called the Luciferians. (Theosophical Glossary - 1892 | H. P.. Blavatsky)

http://www.theosoph theosnw/ctg/ lo-lz.htm

So if Jesus is Satan according to the Christian it is their choice.

Interestingly the Catholic Church is not saying much about Lucifer:

"In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4)."

http://www.newadven 09410a.htm

Today the word Lucifer is among people equalled with words like "Satan" or more precisely the "The false God who leads people into temptation". The "tempting Deity". At Blavatsky's time the word "Lucifer" was most often used with the meaning "The tempting God/Deity".

Yet in reality Lucifer in the sense of the "false tempting God" is the same as what the Christians call God. Because their God is a personal God, a dualistic God, and therefore a false God, which in temptation disallows spiritual development and wisdom. A God which through its tempting "priests" craves rest of reason, and the promotion of fanatical religious views and emotional rituals.

H. P. Blavatsky no doubt deliberately sought to provoke the Christian priests and Christian's in general to recognise their false activities by using the word "Lucifer".


"No fitter symbol exists for the proposed work--that of throwing a ray of truth on everything hidden by the darkness of prejudice, by social or religious misconceptions; especially by that idiotic routine in life, which, once that a certain action, a thing, a name, has been branded by slanderous inventions, however unjust, makes respectable people, so called, turn away shiveringly, refusing to even look at it from any other aspect than the one sanctioned by public opinion. Such an endeavour then, to force the weak-hearted to look truth straight in the face, is helped most efficaciously by a title belonging to the category of branded names."

http://www.blavatsk arts/WhatsInANam e.htm

Alice A. Bailey's views upon Lucifer and Satan is a bit different than H. P.. Blavatsky's.

But the heart of Theosophy is a good word to use.

This aught to be clear by reading the following quote by H. P. Blavatsky. Alice A. Bailey belong to the camp of Neo-thesophy. Although some persons today would like her teaching to be viewed as a continuation of H. P. Blavatsky's I can only disagree with such a view. Alice A. Bailey's book "From Bethlehem to Calvary" is clearly an attempt to heavily water down H. P. Blavatsky's compassionate writings against the Christian's, their socalled infallible Pope, and the Jeusits. Their latest attempt being Opus Dei. And at the same time Alice A. Bailey introduced politics - within - theosophy without clearly explaining why H. P. Blavatsky and H. S. Olcott had a differnt view upon it. 


H. P. Blavatsky says in her Secret Doctrine vol. 1, p. 71:

"The devil is now called Darkness by the Church, whereas, in the Bible he is called the "Son of God" (see Job), the bright star of the early morning, Lucifer (see Isaiah). There is a whole philosophy of dogmatic craft in the reason why the first Archangel, who sprang from the depths of Chaos, was called Lux (Lucifer), the "Luminous Son of the Morning," or man-vantaric Dawn.. He was transformed by the Church into Lucifer or Satan, because he is higher and older than Jehovah, and had to be sacrificed to the new dogma. (See Book II.)"

http://www.phx- ult-lodge. org/SDVolume_ I.htm


H. P. Blavatsky says in her Secret Doctrine vol. 2, p. 29-30:

"The "double sign" is, as every student of Occultism knows, the symbol of the male and the female principles in Nature, of the positive and the negative, for the Svastica or  is all that and much more. All antiquity, ever since the birth of Astronomy - imparted to the Fourth Race by one of its divine kings of the Divine Dynasty - and also of Astrology, represented Venus in its astronomical tables as a Globe poised over a Cross, and the Earth, as a Globe under a Cross. The esoteric meaning of this is: "Earth fallen into generation, or into the production of its species through sexual union." But the later Western nations did not fail to give quite a different interpretation. They explained this sign through their mystics - guided by the light of the Latin Church - as meaning that our Earth and all on it were redeemed by the Cross, while Venus (otherwise Lucifer or Satan) was trampling upon it. Venus is the most occult, powerful, and mysterious of all the
 planets; the one whose influence upon, and relation to the Earth is most prominent. In exoteric Brahmanism, Venus or Sukra - a male deity * - is the son of Bhrigu, one of the Prajâpati and a Vedic sage, and is Daitya-Guru, or the priest-instructor of the primeval giants. The whole history of "Sukra" in the Purânas, refers to the Third and to the Fourth Races."

http://www.phx- ult-lodge. org/SDVolume2. htm


H. P. Blavatsky says in her Secret Doctrine vol. 1, p. 436:

"Kircher, quoting Mor Isaac, says that it is composed "of invisible stars that could be taken, they said, for clouds-so massed are they in the zone that we call Via Straminis, the Milky Way"; and he hastens to explain that "these are the stars of Lucifer, engulfed with him in his terrible shipwreck." 

(A. Kircher 1602-1680 was a Catholic Jesuit, who is praised by the today)

http://www.phx- ult-lodge. org/SDVolume_ I.htm

And I agree with H. P. Blavatsky.

I do hope, that my answer was helpful?

- - - - - - -

H. P. Blavatsky said: 

"The Society founded to remedy the glaring evils of Christianity, to shun bigotry and intolerance, cant and superstition and to cultivate real universal love extending even to the dumb brute". 

(The Collected Writings of H. P. Blavatsky, vol. 7, p.246)

How do you learn how to learn?

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 

  From: Anand 

  To: theos-talk@yahoogro 

  Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 3:52 PM

  Subject: Theos-World Re: religion, good or bad? Lucifers role, debate question...


  One dictionary meaning of occultism is witchcraft. Many of the terms

  presently used in Theosophy were chosen by Blavatsky. To my mind it

  appears strange why she used the word occultism, which is often

  associated with negative things like magic etc. 

  Similarly commonly known meaning of Lucifer is "a rebellious archangel

  who is usually held to be the same as Satan" It is not clear why

  Blavatsky glorified him by naming her magazine as Lucifer.

  Such misuse of terms has given rise to much confusion among readers.

  It is no wonder Christians were mad at Blavatsky.

Anand Gholap

--- In theos-talk@yahoogro, Antonio/Tony None

  <spirit777child@ ...> wrote:


  > I was hoping someone could answer this question for me please...


  > Is religion man made? If so is it inspired by god, or soley created

  by man? Satan/Lucifer is at the heart of theosphy according to

  a.bailey, is that a good thing or bad thing? 


  > Im trying to overstand this equation. For me religion is man made to

  control man, that there is absoloutly no truth in it what so ever,

  even so some of the words ring true, ultimatly it is a tool for

  control. Bu the i don't understand Lucifers role in this. Is he a good

  guy? The light bearer, illuminating the darkness and if so who has

  given him his bad reputation? could the son of lucifer, antichrist be

  a good thing also? Could it be that the roman catholic church have

  built him up to be a destroyer and untrustworthy to protect there

  empire? And what of the pagan religion and earth, moon and sun

  worship? was that not here before religion? is that not the true religion?


  > thoughts please...


  > Anton.




  > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

  > Not happy with your email address?.

  > Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses

  available now at Yahoo! ymail/new. html


  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application