Lucifer and Ahriman here sound suspiciously like “Joachim’ and ‘Boaz.’

No shit, I didn’t realize the pillars held the same connotations more or less. Actually, I don’t think I really and completely *understood* any of this until Channel Null just pointed out that I essentially just re-invented the Ahrimanic wheel with a recent post I did:

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/07/28/the-freedom-of-materialism/

yes i agree w. you about the ahrimanic lavey

RE: projecting Christ qualities on to lucifer

Its the responsibility of the person to bring what qualities they do to the spirit they work with IMHO

You still have to answer to God

if you want to be good, do good

if you want to be evil do evil

the spirits have functions but it is human who give them direction

you can use a good spirit to do evil or an evil spirit to do good

thus many Xians call upon Jesus to help them build closed system of authoritarian spiritual materialism – very ahrimanic projects

Jesus may act as an agent of temptation for some people the way lucifer does for others

——-

I’m sure we all know well how most people actually ‘do’ existentialism, and how it tends to be an excuse for amorality.

———

the same could be said for any system of enlightenment

but people have to crawl before they can walk

tough the stove and discover its hot

God does not want people calling upon his angels to do evil things but he will not stop them either

we still have free will

———–

I think we tend to introduce an element of christ consciousness as a balancing factor which brings out what we see as the ‘best’ in lucifer, which is not neccisarily waht that force is, in and of itself, or what it would be, left to it’s own ends, which is what steiner is talking about, insofar as these forces operate as aspects of Sorat, opponent of the christ consciousness.

existentialism remains a good example. I think max is right about what it means in it’s ideal form, and I think it’s pretty clear how Sarte, Kierkegardd etc meant it to be understood, but I’m sure we all know well how most people actually ‘do’ existentialism, and how it tends to be an excuse for amorality.

one need look no farther than laveyan satanism which is pretty much straight Ahriman worship as far as I can tell.

actually I’ve noticed that anytime someone claims to be worshipping satan, it’s usually a stand in for Ahriman.

satanic ritual abuse is about as Ahrimanic a practice as one can imagine. But I’m ahead of myself…

———-

That was how I read it as well

———–

think of something like existentialism, which denies higher causation, thus rendering us ‘free’ from a higher power, but rudderless and amoral.

——-

I’m reminded of the idea that if drugs were legal, everyone would automatically run out and become junkies – on a superficial level existentialism could (of course) be used to justify a sort of rudderless immorality but it still seems be that anyone who looked just a little deeper would find the assumption of an even greater burden – responsibility for their own actions and the pressing need to create their own values.

The switchover from the 10 commendments to the 2 greatest commandments didn’t exactly create a planet full of enlightened beings either but that’s because many people still can’t grasp the implicit spirit or essence of certain concepts and so require explicit formulations based on threats of punishment (e.g., don’t kill because I told you not to, don’t lie because I told you not to, etc.).

http://www.antroposofi.org/mellett/chiasma.htm

” What is the nature of the crossover or chiasma? Consider what Steiner tells us is Lucifer’s agenda. I’ve written it many times before:

Lucifer wishes to make us into “moral automatons.”
What is the “crossover” here? Well, it’s not the “moral” part, since that’s part and parcel of Lucifer’s spiritual realm. It’s the “automaton” part. But wait a minute! Is not “automation” or “mechanism” something that we normally think of as Ahrimanic? So Lucifer wants to employ an Ahrimanic tactic, i.e. mechanizing, but employ it for his own realm of morality, which has its source in the spiritual worlds.

On the other side, what is Ahriman’s agenda?

Ahriman wishes us to be “free but amoral beings.”
Since Ahriman wants us to deny that the spiritual world exists, he can best achieve that by getting us to deny morality— become amoral. But the “free” part— is not our freedom a gift of Lucifer? So that Ahriman “crosses over” and employs the gift of Lucifer, freedom, to get us to deny the spiritual. ”

it seems to go back to the idea that morality cannot originate in the purely material realm, thus making it the province of lucifer. think of something like existentialism, which denies higher causation, thus rendering us ‘free’ from a higher power, but rudderless and amoral.

From my understanding, then, the modern world is really characterized by two Sorathic extremes, a Luciferian decadent amorality brought about by the deadening of spirit characteristic of Ahrimannic materiality.