New Post
Search
HelpLucifer
Is it usable?
(Question is just for fun, I'm not seriously considering it for a child.)
(Question is just for fun, I'm not seriously considering it for a child.)
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
No!
Do you know that there is a devil named that and he did something bad with God? He controls the underground (or hell) which we do not want to go to.
If you are Christian, dont use this name. If you aren't, feel free to use it.
Do you know that there is a devil named that and he did something bad with God? He controls the underground (or hell) which we do not want to go to.
If you are Christian, dont use this name. If you aren't, feel free to use it.
1
Actually the devil was never named Lucifer in the Bible. The name arose as a result of a misinterpretation of a Bible passage referring to the death of a king, comparing his death to the fall of the morning star ("lucifer" is the name for the morning star in Latin). The passage was later misinterpreted as referring to Satan.
Read this carefully for more detail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
And as far as I know, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that Satan controls hell.
Read this carefully for more detail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
And as far as I know, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that Satan controls hell.
1
If only someone had the
backbone to rename himself that at the beginning of a successful entertainment career. Someone young and handsome, doing stuff with near-universal appeal. That would be the end of all this stupid squeamishness.
I even think it'd be fine if someone had the backbone to name a baby that - someone living in a mostly liberal areligious neighborhood. He could go by Luke. If people just met other humans with the name they'd recondition easily IMO.
Wish we could gtf over the devil's-name BS. It's a nice name and should be usable. Fearing to use Lucifer is almost, but not quite, worse than fearing to use Adolph. It's like an inherited disease. I can see why people don't want to use, say, Sandy for a while - but to have this "ancient taboo" thing going on is ridic.
backbone to rename himself that at the beginning of a successful entertainment career. Someone young and handsome, doing stuff with near-universal appeal. That would be the end of all this stupid squeamishness.
I even think it'd be fine if someone had the backbone to name a baby that - someone living in a mostly liberal areligious neighborhood. He could go by Luke. If people just met other humans with the name they'd recondition easily IMO.
Wish we could gtf over the devil's-name BS. It's a nice name and should be usable. Fearing to use Lucifer is almost, but not quite, worse than fearing to use Adolph. It's like an inherited disease. I can see why people don't want to use, say, Sandy for a while - but to have this "ancient taboo" thing going on is ridic.
This message was edited 1/20/2013, 10:12 AM
1
No, though it means 'Matchstick' in Dutch, I'm afraid our culture is too Christianity based for it to be anything other the Devil's name.
1
Wonderful for a cartoon cat!
I suspect that the main problem IRL would be the likelihood of confusion with Lucy. Might have a female vibe instead of a diabolical one. Of course, the meaning is gorgeous and the name itself could just as well be unisex as male, the 3rd declension being what it is.
I suspect that the main problem IRL would be the likelihood of confusion with Lucy. Might have a female vibe instead of a diabolical one. Of course, the meaning is gorgeous and the name itself could just as well be unisex as male, the 3rd declension being what it is.
1
No effing way. I think this is one of those names where the parents think they're being quite edgy and clever, and forget all about the kid who has to live with it day in and day out.
1
I personally wouldn't mind the use of the name at all (because I love the look and meaning of the name), but I do believe that some caution is needed in predominantly Christian countries. I would therefore recommend to use the name as a middle name only.
That said, I would love to meet a Lucifer someday, though! :)
That said, I would love to meet a Lucifer someday, though! :)
This message was edited 1/18/2013, 1:53 PM
1
No, not anywhere that consists of predominantly Christian people at least. It might be usable in another culture that isn't as familiar with Christianity.
1
I can see the appeal of the sound...it's kind of fun to say. But the connotations are just too dark to use it on a person, I think. On an animal? Absolutely.
1
No!
:)
:)
1
Maaaybe for a big, fat cat (not necessarily mean, though, like in "Cinderella"), but definitely not for a human, not even in the middle.
1
No way, but honestly I kind of like it.
1
Yeah...
...for a dog. Or a cat. Or something other than human.
I personally wouldn't think twice about Lucifer. I'm not religious in any way and I would just think that it was a cool and unusual name, but I think it would be hard for a little guy to live with. In that case, Lucas, Lucius or Lucian are better options.
...for a dog. Or a cat. Or something other than human.
I personally wouldn't think twice about Lucifer. I'm not religious in any way and I would just think that it was a cool and unusual name, but I think it would be hard for a little guy to live with. In that case, Lucas, Lucius or Lucian are better options.
1
I'm on the fence about Lucius. It was the name of a prominent Death Eater/ father of the bully in Harry Potter series, but that doesn't mean that it won't rise because more people are familiar with it. But any Luci- name seems kinda feminine to me. Probably because I'm so much more familiar with people named Lucy.
This message was edited 1/18/2013, 5:16 PM
1
I agree with this too. I think it would be good for a mean cat, or for a badly-behaved horse.
1
Agreed. I don't think it matters whether you're religious or not, the name has such overwhelmingly bad connotations in Western society. It'd be too tough to use for a real person. Especially since there are many more palatable alternatives with similar sounds/meanings.
1
Sorry, but... no.
Even if it was the "angelic" name (as in, before he fell from heaven), Lucifer is just too intertwined with the modern Western (influenced by Christianity) idea of the Devil and ultimate evil. So... no.
Even if it was the "angelic" name (as in, before he fell from heaven), Lucifer is just too intertwined with the modern Western (influenced by Christianity) idea of the Devil and ultimate evil. So... no.
1
No, unless you're naming a cat.
1
no
nada
nada
1
Yes. It was a part of Roman mythology long before it became part of the Judeo-Christian legend.
1