prometheus stealing fire and art of hand craft from hephaistos and athene.

with fire it means the fire of enlightment or enlightment at all: meaning brightness of the brain for exploration of the world. from athene he steals the hand craft means the ability to create something technical to emprove his life.

In conclusion the light of the brain the ability to think and the ability to create something with his hand together enable the human to be creative: necessary to his survival – since as the legend goes every animal got something for his well being by epimetheus (the one who thinks afterwards : learn from experience) – prometheus (the one who thinks before : learn by design a think ahead) gave the human a bright brain and the ability to create creative.

clauserat hippotades aeterno carcere ventos,

admonitorque operum caelo clarissimus alto

lucifer ortus erat:

[ovid, metamorphosis, 663-665, liber IV]

goes the verses of ovid. our interest contains the character of lucifer and his apearance in years: comparing ancient roman view and christian.

in ovid´s work (metamorphosis) he is called: Lucifer the demander (reminder, urge, admonish etc) for work (labor). As well as: last visible star on daybreak. Also the bringer of light, as morning star bringer of day, as brightest and most beautiful star, as star who leaves the guard of the sky as last person, as a rider on a white horse, [...]

Ovid must have used the common view of the god in his literature: so we can assume that these characteristics are well known in roman society – as usual in ancient roman and greek societies the subject is common the style is copyright protected.

In all Lucifer calls the day and reminds people of work: he urges them to wake up and be prepared for the labor of the day: a close call to the christian ora et labora.

Besides that as bringer of light he calls the day in and reminds the end of the night: the star of twighlight (daybreak). As someone who brightens the world by calling in the light (morning) and ending the darkness of night.

As we all know his name has a different view in christian literature: christians usually name the devil Lucifer. However christians usually join in the characteristics of ancient lucifer: name his work and they agree name his name and they disagree.

However this leads us to our main question: why did the christians demonize the name of lucifer – and in return take over his work in their religious teaching: waking up early in daybreak and be prepared for work – do not sleep through daylight as well as enlightment: refusing the dark.

All we know the romans viewed the chrisitans as we view the moslems today: misanthropic – however that did not answer our question. Why did christianity choose lucifer as personification of evil?

seneca writes (letter to marcia) “some established the cruzifiction in that way that the head is turned down to earth, others let the stake run through the genitals others let the arms spread during hanging …” [20] further down he writes “for ever arm/leg for ever ankle, they invented another contraption …” [20]

the most striking spot in this quote lies in the words cruzifiction and head turned down to earth. we have mentioned the cruzifiction, from a non christian source, which is very important to avoid propagandistic rhetoric, and we have the head turned down to earth, which is important to discuss an issue with paul or paulus which ever definition you take.

since there is no proof of feeding people to lions, other than the regular games for gladiators, where people and animal fight, we have one source that proof one part of the christian story.

back to our main research. paulus as well known wished to be cruzified with the head down because he did not desire to die in a way known for christ.

well we don´t know if paulus and christ ever lived: however a non christian source tells us of cruzifiction and a practise of hanging people head down during cruzifiction.

from this source we can tell there were different forms of cruzifiction in practise whichever way told or mentioned in the bible may be a local or bound to that governor pilatus a practise he prefered and ordered.

reading plato nomoi stumbled upon following phrase . Nomoi book X 15 last sentense . “if he left children that can be useful for the state so shall the government agancy responsible for care of orhphans also take care of these orphans as like other orphans from the day on their father has been sentensed”

of course plato talking in this discourse about bigotery how people questioning the gods should be sentensed and put to death and how it should be dealt with their remaining children. however the point of interest for us is here the words orphans and government agency responsible for care of orphans.

unfortunately plato did not mention or write more about the subject for us to figure out if there is already an agency for taking care of orphans or wheter it should be established in his utopia. however the taking care of orphans after the execution of their father due to blashpemy or questioning gods is an interesting point. it already talks about an issue that is established in our modern society with the establishemnt of social services previous times under the care of the churches. however a secular government agency taking care of social services in ancient greek seems a very modern thought (service).

lately i painted all my wood panels white. can´t tell where the urge came from. however it enlightend my my perceiption of the world completely. previously all wood panels where in their original natural state. unpainted unglased. it gave me a warm fuzzy feeling however never had the pleasure to feel modern. it was always natural. feel like lifted into a new century part of the modern world. i got rid of every natural place in my house painted everything plain wood with white paint and never want to go back to the natural look again.

Plato Nomoi book X last sentence: “let´s aks us if we have done enough to explain the deniers of gods that there are gods or if our explanaition was not enough.”

a simple sentence from plato within the platonic dialogue a common phrase nothing unusual but for the exploration of the ancient world a huge treasure.

it is the simple phrase “to explain the deniers of gods” what bothers us. he says the deniers of gods and by that he gives us great information about the ancient world. there were deniers of god. at last when plato lived. plato knew deniers of god. he doesn´t tell us if they were public like today or hidden only talking in closed groups like the symposion plato often attented to. he doesn´t tell if the deniers of gods were able to speak publicly about their deniyal or have to be a secret society like in most islamic or catholic societies today.

however the statement alone gives us a very important hint. questioning the existence of gods is not an issue of secular modernity it was a topic of dispute in early times already.

Some laws of state aimed at curbing crime are even more criminal. ~ Friedrich Engels

at first sight you might agree. it gives you that warm fuzzy feeling. you have that bad state that wants to do some good and makes bad. however at a close look it seems different.

primarily the word crime is misused in this statement. it works with a generally accepted concept of crime and goes on. after that he says the state is more criminal than the crime it wants to curbe. and with that it uses a second time a generally accepted concept of crime to accuse the state to violate in order to fight the first concept.

however that´s the point where we disagree. the concept of law and crime. crime as a behavior opposing a behavior statet in a script defined as law. or better behavior described in a script as violation of law or as not accepted behavior. punishment given for behavior described in law or behavior opposed described in law. both ways acceptable for our concept.

our point starts with the description of law. history of law shows a permanent change of accepted behavior and punished bavior.

even in time we contradict the concept of law. what is lawful in this country is unlawful in that country.

we see that that concept above stated by engels can´t stand a trial of critical overview.

if we turn to non written law, the codex generally accepted by humans in time as acceptable and unacceptable we come to the same conclusion.

who defines written law and who defines unwritten law. that is a very complex issue. generally law is given by a parliament a tribal leader a religious leader or a similar council be it elected or not however stated and undisputed or marginally disputed but generally holding the power and rule of the state or similar organisation. they write down a law or similar statements oral or formal in a written codex however they define law in our description above.

so if the state writes the law the statement “Some laws of state aimed at curbing crime are even more criminal.” looses it´s intention. since law is something by description and not by itself a behavior can´t be called criminal. this statement based on the concept of immanuel kant: categorical imperativ. he takes morality and ethics as a undisputed concept a priori before every experience. concept questioned by nietzsche and will not be further disputed in this script. i refer to that author to question the categorical imperativ concept. since law and morality is a posteriori we can take the behavior of state curbing crime as more criminal only in a concept of written down law that is violated by organisations of state during curbing crime.

can a law be criminal that is our next point. a law can only oppose a already written law. in that statement it will become unlawful. depending on the existing legal codex. most constitutions have a law preventing opposing of a new law an already existing. mostly they have constituitonal courts covering these events where these laws can questioned and disabled without a new parlamentary hearing and sitting. unless in our case laws curbing crime don´t oppose already written down existing law a law can´t be criminal be it cruel as it might be or be it a limitation of private property or freedom as it might be. law becomes criminal only by violation of written down law.