Am i the only one?

You're welcome OEM, I find it helps discussion to consider every angle.

I don't think there is any scriptural support for the concept of a female Lucifer, however if you look through history there were many female deities, not least of which was Ashtoreth, a goddess of fertility to whom the Israelites were known to dabble in worship to via use of sacred poles etc

I'm not one to over speculate, but perhaps you will find something in that?

What of the books of Judges, Kings, Chronicles etc that list the chronology of Gods people, do you consider these also to be allegory?

I would not suppose OneEye to have read any of those. He pretty much knows all that by superior intuitive intellect.

Of course, but these deities were stories created by other people. That's like taking someone's ghost story and connecting it to another ghost story - it will do **** all for your assessment.

I speak of the "holy book", hence the "major" religions of hate and corruption are based on this book and its slightly alternated appearances.

That is why I believe it is important to understand this book on a profound level so it gets people to think beyond "my beliefs", to "see" that they are completely missing the point.

Let's just again, question the possibility, Smiley. If Lucifer was a female, and the Bible is an allegory, then is it not logical to say that the relationship between god and lucifer, is the same relationship between a man and his serpent wife, which the "Medusa" is based upon?

I wrote a wise principle some time ago: "History is always being edited, changed and hidden from us people. To know history, is to remember the ideas of history, not Man, for Man can be manipulated - ideas are forever "implemented"".

There are names for your mental sojourn:
Re: Law
http://www.oginski-law.com/faqs/what-does--objection--assumes-facts-not-in-evidence--mean-.cfm
Re: Logic
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/107-hypothesis-contrary-to-fact
I'd rather accept a ride from a drunk driver

You are too quick to judge my intentions, Neo. I have this Universe cosmically broken down; I have people's brains cosmically broken down; I have an entire dichotomy laid out between what makes someone ignorant and what makes someone intelligent.

Do not tell me that I am doing as you say, when I am on the wise man's side and have demonstrated to a massive degree that is beyond average people's brains which are on Theta frequencies, that I know exactly what I am talking about, else I would not be able to establish a comprehensive assessment of BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME COIN.

I see.
It's a shame you lack the language skills to make your point.

Oh, I am just making a thousand points in one sentence; you cannot see the brilliance I have created like a young, naive social man who cares more about his stuff, having a girlfriend and a job, cannot see the thousands of words in Vincent Van Gogh's picture.

This just in:
http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/2014/09/17/hair-fire-crash/15794857/

Sorry OEM, I was trying to give you something to work with on the Ashtoreth reference.

For discussion sake, I shall entertain your theory that the bible is allegory and that lucifer is a female. Still I do not see a relationship that resembles that of a man and wife between God and Lucifer. Rather I see the relationship of a King and a usurper. Just a few instances in scripture...

God created Lucifer, or Satan, whatever you wish to call him as one of his angels, and granted him a degree of power. God then created man, with the intention of presiding over them as the "filled the earth and subdued it"
Lucifers first recorded action was to challenge that God was a) a liar b) was withholding something good from man and c) man could rule his self without God. (Genesis 3)
Lucifer challenged God over his servant Job, claiming that a) man would only serve God as long as it suited them, b) that man would abandon God if it meant his life. (job 2)
Lucifer also attempted to hijack Gods own son, offering Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth if he would do one act of obeisance to him instead of God. (Matthew 4)
Further Lucifer led as much as a third of Gods angels away after his self. (Revelation 12)

God promised to rid the world of Lucifer and his followers once the matter of his sovereignty has been settled. (Proverbs 2:22)

Consider perhaps this suggestion... The bible is an ink blot, one that draws out our very hearts intentions. Allegory or Literary, how we respond to what we read, how it changes us, tells God all he needs to know in order to judge us.

Women are constantly wanting power along with men in families. This is the "ruler" and the "usurper".

God never got "rid of" Lucifer - Lucifer worked for God. Giving Lucifer a home in hell, is not "eternal punishment", in fact, there's nothing about Lucifer "enjoying" any of it, neither anything about "not enjoying".

So Smiley, there's something to the picture that is not based on the general consensus established upon general ignorance of the book. There is something far more deeper to the allegory than what meets the eye. Do go on, Smiley.

BTW, there is no consciousness in hell. (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

Oh, will you look at that!

Another allegory of our society, Neo.

Beware that you do not get caught up too much in basing your theories upon doctrine over scripture. Many theologians have inducted many external theories into Christian doctrine. The platonic hell theory is one such doctrine that was inducted from Greek views.
So for a second ask yourself Which Hell did God give Lucifer a home in? Was it the common grave, Sh'eol or Hades, the final resting place of both the righteous and the unrighteous? or perhaps it was Ge'henna, the burning wasteland outside the walls of Jerusalem? or maybe it was Tartarus, the pit in which a number of angels are locked away awaiting judgement?

What of the lake of fire and sulphur that the devil and his angels, as well as death and Hades are to be thrown into? what do you suppose that represents? (rev 19, 20 and 21) perhaps this is divorce?

Always challenge what you think you know about the bible.

I will apply the entire scripture to how the Universe may have been interpreted by wise men who used symbols and parables to tell a story about what "is" allegorically.

So let's apply this on a universal level. Let's say "heaven" and "hell" are concepts based on how we choose to see this world's beauty and the ugly; how beauty creates a place like "heaven" and the ugly creates a place like "hell" on a metaphorical level.

Now apply that universal concept to my argument, Smiley.

Reality is art, the great entertainer.

Reality is art, the great entertainer. As much as reality is knowledge the great intuition.

Stories can have consequences within the story, which will not affect us.

Reality can have consequences within the reality, which will affect us.

If you are talking about qualities such as 'heavenly' or 'hellish', your argument makes sense. But if you are talking about literal places, you are introducing arguments contrary to fact. Smiley has already given you definitions of 'hell'. It may also interest you, since you appear to not have read it, the Bible does not support the concept of an immortal soul or any consciousness after death. The fact is when you're dead . . . . . . . you're dead. I can't guarantee it, but I think most of the non believers in these fora would agree, even if surprised by its scriptural basis.