The Devil who is or isn’t Lucifer

2-3 February 2024

Those of you who read my blog regularly know that I write on a number of subjects in different types of writing so you would find on my blog poetry in various forms from around the world, prose in the form of short stories / novels in the making and in the form of blogposts where I broach a large number of subjects that interest me. One subject that keeps me scratching my head and writing is that of my version of theology, philosophy or theosophy. My writings, made liberally in the domain of philosophy or theosophy are persistently in the domain of good and evil and thoughts around the archetypes of good and evil, more liberally on God versus Satan or Lucifer. This last opposition is one that has me fascinated, molded as I have been with a childhood in a multi-religious background and a later adulthood where the exploration of many religions has led me to become a believer of a universal system founded in the conviction that Love and Universal Consciousness is the only belief system that should prevail.



For years before reaching this conviction, I had battled internally with the idea of an almighty God, the God of the old Testament, so akin to us humans in our anger and pride opposed to a surreptitious and evil Devil who only had at heart the ruin of all humankind, leading them away from God and into sins of all kinds. It seemed to me superfluous that such two formidable adversaries could have at their heart the turning of humankind in their favour only, making them have to choose between one or the other party. Not content with the nature of such adversaries and seeking something that would satisfy my sense of logic, I became besotted with more of the Eastern philosophy, mixing it with more mystical discoveries and reaching a first stage of Universal Consciousness. I had a hard time trying, however, to attach that notion of Universal Consciousness that I was happy to attach the label of “Source” to, to a sensory perception or a feeling that I would find relatable. After a few experiences, I then became convinced that the “Source” of all that is or is not, should be impregnated with and emanate from what I found to be the purest of all perceptions, Love in its absolute form, not tainted by other unrelated notions that humans wrongly attributed to Love.



Recently, I witnessed a life event which left me pondering on Life and the Afterlife, taking me back again to the subject of my tribulations on God and Lucifer. I had written in the past directly on the subject of whether there is or should be a Devil in my blog which you can consult here (The Spirit Lovers – Chapter Seven: On Playgrounds and Kingdoms without a King | Geetha Balvannanathan's Blog - Isis Tratum (wordpress.com). One of the biggest problems I have is the issue of the opposition between God and Lucifer. While I have read several different depictions of the origin of the rift between God and Lucifer, I still do not understand how this could come by. In some religions, Lucifer is cast down as a fallen angel because he refuses to bow to Adam and then corrupts both Adam and Eve. 



The part that leaves me perplex is how God, after creating Adam and Eve (it is said in his image), chooses to cast them out of Paradise because they discovered knowledge (of their nudity as is said in some religions). If you take this down to the level of humans, it is like saying that a father casts his son and daughter out of the house into the streets because they looked into his secret book, exposing them to larger problems as he does so. That part of religion, amongst many others, made me more skeptical on the true nature of religious teachings in general although I continue to believe in the existence of a “Source” Creator. 



Another aspect of the origin story which keeps me thinking sometimes is the supposed birth of all mankind out of the coupling of Adam and Eve. At best we were the result of an original incest whether between a brother and a sister, a son and his mother or a daughter and her father. While I will not dwell on this aspect here, I am bemused at the strength of the church’s condemnation of incest if we must admit that the version of the origin of creation put forth by the church is true. This does not mean that I condone incest, it is just that I find there are double standards in embracing the origin story without dissecting the outcome which is the birth of humanity – at least the way it is told by religious organisations.



If you examine a bit more the punishment part of it, there seems to be quite a mismatch between the origin of the creation and, if you see the Devil as a disruptor, the disruption in that creation. When you think of it, it seems quite logical. Why would God shun one of his children just because he disobeyed him? If he did, then how would any of us sinners expect him to love us despite our sins?

The greater question then would be on the possibility and quality of forgiveness and redemption. Does God forgive selectively? Would he choose to forgive a human sinner but stay firm in his resolution to not forgive Lucifer? Is there a lighter scent and weight to human sins as compared to the sin or sins of Lucifer? Could Lucifer be redeemed if we were to accept that God forgives all his children’s sins when they seek redemption`? Do we know if Lucifer seeks redemption or if he chooses to stubbornly defy God and sin? What proof do we have that Lucifer has not already asked for redemption? 



Beyond the outcome and the tenacity of God in not forgiving Lucifer, there rises the problem of what came before. If God made Lucifer then could he not have made Lucifer obedient? Surely it would have been easy to do so for an almighty God. Was the purpose of allowing Lucifer to oppose God a matter of proving a point? Was God testing the love of Lucifer towards him? Was he testing his control over the angels? Was there a wager between God and Lucifer to see how many souls each could win over? This question in itself brings its own set of questions with it. Did God know that Lucifer would tempt Eve? Did God know that Eve would purportedly turn Adam against God by discovering and keeping the knowledge? Did God know that he would then have to damn both of them and send them to the Earth where they would then breed what is now known as Humanity? An all-knowing God would have had to know that. With that knowledge, surely all the pain and suffering could have been stopped before it even began?



Attached to the thought of a heavenly wager and the disobedience of Lucifer as well as that of Eve and Adam, is the excuse that many try to use to dismiss the whole series of tribulations, which is the never-ending issue of free will. That matter, in itself, is wrought with inequity or unfairness. If free will is granted, then it cannot be tarnished by a punishment against what is done with that free will because it would mean that the free will was not really free, in being conditional. Indeed, a free will that is linked to consequences is a weighted will and by definition not free. A free will is only free if there is no consequence attached to the way the free will is used. This then begs again a response to why anyone, whether a human or Lucifer would be punished for acting according to their free will. 



Some religions respond simply by saying both humans and Lucifer had the free will to make a choice and it is in making that choice which is bad that they get to be punished. That bad choice is of course a choice linked to some kind of temptation. Who created the temptation, however, is not a clear matter. If temptation is created by Lucifer and God knew beforehand that this temptation would exist, should he not again have stopped all of this at the level of Adam and Eve? Unless, of course, God or as I would like to see it, “Source” Creator, wanted humankind to exist as some sort of means of testing itself and not actually humans. The distinction being that the humans would have stayed an inherent part of the Creator who would actually be testing itself through projected parts of itself rather than a Creator who would have created beings in order to watch them suffer or give into temptation. I feel more acceptable that a “Source” Creator would have wanted to experiment within its remit the effects of free will and temptation on likeness that it shed from it to see how that would evolve. This would basically entail a vast multiverse with a point of origin within it and at the same time encompassing it shedding particles in various directions and experimenting everything through those particles. At least for now, that is something that I have less difficulty accepting. Indeed, it seems less unfair than an almighty being who could have spared elements it created but rather chose to have them suffer separately from it without help to save them from temptation and related bad choices. The overriding principle of being parts of the Creator testing itself is that we are truly One.



Rakesh Chaurasia & Talvin Singh - One World (Vira)