Archive for devil

Lucifer Falsely Accused

Posted in agnoticism, Astronomy, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, Hebrew scripture, prehistory, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , on January 15, 2011 by chouck017894

In the misinformation passed off as holy word, a name used in the book of Isaiah (14:12, written in the 7th century BCE) was Lucifer, which acknowledged a troublesome comet that, after many generations, had recently attained an established orbital pattern among the other planets.  We know that awesome celestial object today as the planet Venus. (See related posts listed at end.) Faith merchants latched onto the comet/star’s alleged “fallen” status, reworking and personifying it into an archangel cast from heaven for leading a revolt of angels.  That 7th century BCE revisionist project is a prime example of the quality of interpretation that is honored as “revealed wisdom.”

Not much better, our encyclopedias assert that Lucifer was a name used in ancient astronomy for the  morning star, meaning Venus when it appears in the morning before sunrise.  But the reference to “ancient astronomy” is obviously calculated from the general period of Isaiah, which at best goes back no further than the 8th century BCE, for in authentic prehistory charts the planet Venus was not then included.

The general consensus among Bible scholars in regard to the Isaiah verse is that the “prophet” was referring to the king of Babylon.  That is a bit of a stretch to suggest that the Israel “prophet” would think of the king of Babylon as “…son of the morning.”  The early Christian fathers chose to interpret the Isaiah verse differently, saying the verse in question was a reference to Satan’s fall from Heaven!  Considering the name’s association with a comet’s transformation into a planet alluded to in Isaiah, the “fall from heaven” was an easy image to sell.  Thus did the name Lucifer become a Christian alias for the  imagined Satan/Devil, the “prince of darkness.”  This, we shall see, was a deliberate inversion of the original meaning in the name.

In the later Christian cult interpretation of Lucifer, we should take into account the timeframe in which the original verse and the Christian interpretation were presented.  The pre-Christian name is best understood from the Latin words lux or lucis, meaning “light,” and ferre, meaning “to bring.”  This attests to the more ancient meaning from the lessons on Creation that were once illustrated with constellation figures, and which explained the glowing life energy that scriptures say “shown in the darkness” of the Absolute. 

It is from the formation of pre-physical elements into visible matter that we received the scriptural fiction of the “chief angel,” Satan, falling from grace and who “…kept not his first estate.”  The “first estate” in the ancient teachings given with the astronomical figures referred to the pre-physical elements that energize into everything that manifests as matter form.  There could never be any advancement or evolutionary movement unless that “first estate” was discarded.  Priests in their cunning used this as their meal ticket by declaring that free will was used to “rebel,” and as a result all persons had to be saved from the “sins” of that imagined rebellion.  Their hobgoblin Satan-Devil-Lucifer was declared to have been the  first to rebel, and all this, it is avowed, accounts for original sin that was dumped upon Adam and Eve—and all the rest of us!

  • Related posts: Years of Heavenly Havoc, July 2010;  Threats From Heaven, September 2010.

Myths of Angel-Demon Warfare

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , , on January 1, 2011 by chouck017894

 According to priest-written texts, a state of war exists between “the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness.”  It is an alleged constant confrontation between light, said to represent God, and darkness, which therefore represents the imagined “Devil.”  Envisioning the interacting principles of polar activity which are necessary for generating energy-matter manifestations as constituting “kingdoms” once served as explanation to ease the uncertainties that confronted our primitive ancestors.  The notion of “spiritual warfare,” however, provides nothing coherent to open any real understanding of our personal connection with universal power that is refered to as each person’s “spirit.”

There is, of course, scriptural foundation for the notion that apparent conflicts of interest are messing around with God’s loving intentions for man.  In the opening book of Genesis, for example, that conflict of interest is presented in chapter three where Nachash (from Hebrew, translated as “serpent”) supposedly relayed to the naked man and woman who had already received domination over the earth (Genesis 1:26)  a different motive for God’s earlier instructions.

With this motivational theme set in place, spiritual warfare pops up a number of times in scripture, such as in the book of Psalms, the alleged poetic compositions of David.  Psalms 17:5, 140:4, and 149:6-9 touch upon the spiritual battle theme, but it is Psalms 18 that presents graphic references to battle equipment used in defeating the strategies that opposed God’s divine intent for man.  In this version, the spiritual realm is not much different from the physical realm as far as warfare is concerned.

The priest-authors of 2 Kings 6:15-18, writing in the 7th century BCE Jerusalem, fanned the scary concept of the “prophet” Elisha (story-setting 849-785 BCE) in confrontation with invisible dark forces; it was a feature calculated to inspire the “sheep” to knuckle-under to priestly authority.  And in the book of Isaiah 59:17 spiritual warfare is alluded to in the reference to the “breastplate of righteousness” and the “helmet of salvation.”

One of the more detailed biblical examples of imagined spiritual warfare is given in chapter 10 of the book of Daniel—a revised work which happens to be an elaboration borrowed from an older Babylonian poem.  The “prophet” Daniel, after three weeks of fasting and praying for understanding, was finally visited by an angel sent to deliver a message from the Lord.  The angel was too unfashionably late and explains that he had been sent out  immediately after Daniel had begun to pray, but “…the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days” (Daniel 10:13).  Apparently the omniscient Lord had not foreseen such a possibility, and the archangel Michael finally had to go forth and put down the prince from Persia so the angel could make contact with the “prophet.”

The Christian interpretation of demons who are led by the devil attempting to challenge the will of God has drawn their illusions from various older “faith” sources such as Babylonian, Assyrian lore and others as well as from Hebrew.  As a consequence, the major denominations of Christianity actually believe in the literal reality of—or at least a philosophical existence of—a “fallen angel” who is referred to as the Devil and/or Satan.  The principal features on the subject of demons are presented in the early book of the New Testament—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—which then get reworked in the Acts of the Apostles.  The epistles attributed to Paul labor to declare that it is only through Christ that mankind will attain victory over principalities and material powers.  Alas, those of other faiths are doomed forever.

The New Testament proves to be no better at enlightening seekers on how infinite creative power generates energy manifestations through a process of polar activity.  Instead, the superstition that light (good) and dark (evil) are engaged in battle is played upon in Acts of the Apostles 19:15-17 and is also implied in Corinthians 11:23 and 12:9.  Both of these books are also attributed to the self-proclaimed apostle Paul who alleges that the forces of darkness knew that Paul was God’s servant and attacked him.  How, exactly, he was attacked is vague.  In the timeframe of these New Testament writings (Acts c. 84-90 CE, and 1 Corinthians c.94-100 CE), the attempt to draw converts to the new faith was shifting from promotional focus on hoped for Jewish converts to concentration on the broader mass of lesser educated people that were being incorporated into the Roman Empire. 

Demonology interweaves throughout holy word from Genesis to Revelation, with “saints” such as John referring to Satan as “…the father of lies (John 8:44).  It is in the New Testament book of Revelations, however, where Satan and his demons really rip up the scenery before meeting their just deserts.  Up to this point the Bible paints numerous references to spiritual warfare that is being waged, but the details of those ceaseless battles are scarcer than hen’s teeth.  The general sidestepping, as in Revelations 12:7-9, tells only that Michael and his angels fought against Satan and his angels.  It is oddly similar in tone to that in Daniel 10:10-13.

The contention that angels and demons are engaged in an ongoing battle pretty much punctures the theological assertion that the Creator is omniscient (all-knowing), or that his manner of creating is through peace and love was foolproof.  No power could wage a continuous “war” upon an omniscient Source-power.

For thinking persons, not believing in priest fabricated stories of a petulant, pouty, and prejudiced God does not mean that recognition of a creative Source-power is denied.  Neither is that skepticism a sign that a rationalizing mind is under the influence of some “Devil.”

The “Original Sin” Scam

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, history, logic, Middle Ages,, random, religion with tags , , , , , , on July 13, 2009 by chouck017894

Some private response to the article “Born in Sin” (July 10, 2009), a theory which is also alluded to as “Inherited Sin” or “Original Sin,” has prompted a few more notes.  Specifically, attention is drawn to the eighteenth ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church that assembled in Trent, Italy on December 13, 1545.  It was a tiresome affair that lasted intermittently until 1563!  Eighteen years!  Indeed, three pontificates, Paul III, Julius III, and Pius IV would sit upon the papal throne before the council would finally fold up shop.

Hammered out among god’s alleged representatives were such things as disciplinary decrees regarding Episcopal duties, the religious orders of the church, the education of the priesthood, and the censorship of books.  Doctrinal decrees were also issued on the Mass, purgatory, the veneration of “saints,” and the doctrine of indulgences.  Thus the long, dragged-out “council” set the corporate standards of the Roman Catholic faith and for practices that remain to this day.  Of course decisions set in place by that council infected even the religious reformation blocs.

For starters, it was in the fourth session (1546) that sacred tradition was put on a par with Scripture, as were also all the books contained in the Vulgate (edited by “saint” Jerome c. 392).  This version of the scriptural presentation is known as the Vulgate because it employed the language of the common people in Jerome’s time.  It contains not only the sixty-six books of the Authorized Version but also eleven books of the Apocrypha, which the Catholic Church holds as being divinely inspired, but which most Protestants reject as not in keeping with the most ancient authority.  In other words, of doubtful religious significance.

At this overly long ecumenical council, there was much haggling whether the story of Susanna and the Elders belonged in Scripture, for example.  Ultimately it wound up as an apocryphal addition to the book  of Daniel (which happens to be a Hebrew retelling of a Babylonian tale).  The Vulgate was then declared to be “authentic,” and affirmed to be canonical.

Now, back to the main point: it was with this council that the no-escape clause of “Original Sin” was heartily embraced.  Dressed in holy phraseology the council announced, “From the fall of man until the hour of baptism the Devil has full power over him and possesses him.”  What a perfect scam: holding all mankind as hostage as blemished from Adam’s nibbling fruit from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Nothing much has been changed in the assessments made in the Middle Ages by the eighteenth council on what constitutes holy “truth.”  In the nineteenth century things were updated with insertion of clarifying additions: added were two definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the declaration of the infallibility of the pope.  It is on such authority that we are told that we can be cleansed of “sin” (life’s inevitable boo-boos) only by a religious business machine.

Born Again Secrets

Posted in Atheist, Bible, Christianity, culture, history, random, religion with tags , , , , , on April 13, 2009 by chouck017894

In Christian gospel there appears in one book, and one book only, a two-word phrase found nowhere else in biblical lore: born again. As is the habit of those who confuse their ego with divine worthiness, they have lifted the phrase out of context to use as a title of their self-proclaimed worthiness of heaven’s favoritism.

It is curcial, however, to understand when, where, and to whom Jesus supposedly said the phrase “born again.” The words are found in a brief scene in “St John’s” rendition of the Jesus story, and the words are said to a bit-player named Nicodemus, identified as “a ruler of the Jews,” who appears only twice in John’s storyline. It should be noted that the book of St John was written c.105-106 CE, when resistance to Roman rule was so sharp that the Pharisees actively discouraged Jews from travel in Italy and other parts of the Roman Empire declaring them to be “unclean.” But the John book was inserted later between Luke and Acts– both written c.84-90–to give the appearanace of event-continuity in Jewish resistance to the new cult movement.

The name given for the “ruler of the Jews” is a shrewd clue that passes along covert meaning only to those who were privileged to secret ancient teachings. The name is manufactured on neco-demon, loosely translated as “matter as devil.” This is Gnostic material, which the church fathers held to be heretical, but here it is so well reworked that it has become deeply rooted in some Christian sects, and the castoff line to a bit-player is taken as Jesus’ prime message to the world. But since the writer of the tale made a point in verse one of chapter three that Nicodemus was “a ruler of the Jews,” it is to the Jews that Jesus says, “You people must be born again.” (In many reworkings of this verse the word “people” has been edited out.) Then later, verse 10, Jesus asks, “…Art thou a master of Israel and knowest not these things?” The implication is that the Jews, whose alleged “ruler” was Nicodemus, epitomized matter as of the devil.

The single meeting of Jesus with the bit-player Nicodemus gives additional clue to the secret meaning in the name, for Nicodemus is portrayed as coming to Jesus “in the night” and just before Passover. With this single line there is cunningly welded together four approaches to “faith”: Jewish, Gnostic, the struggling Christian hybrid, and the suppressed ancient teachings that predated even the Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations.

Artfully admitted in St John 3:5-7, in the comment attributed to Jesus, is that ancient secret teachings are being referred to: “Most truly I say to you, Unless anyone is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. What has been born from the flesh is flesh, and what has been born from the spirit is spirit. Do not marvel because I told you, You [people] must be born again.” Thus ancient teachings on man’s energy composition, then known only to select persons, was reduced to political maneuvering. (See The Celestial Scriptures: Keys to the Suppressed Wisdom of the Ancients for original teachings on energy as matter, and what water, spirit, night, and pass-over meant.)

The second and last strange appearance of Nicodemus in 19:39 casts him as providing the material for the entombmentof Jesus’ mortal remains.

It should be noted that St John summed up his account of Jesus’ life in a statement that is illogical in regards to a mortal man–even a god-sired man. “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.”

This superfluous tidbit between narrator and audience was typical of all Pagan passion plays and was often employed in Roman presentation. (It is noted in Time Frames and Taboo Data that no one has ever provided authentication of John.)