This is going to be slightly unusual in that I think it would be easier to address certain points you bring up without dissecing the entire post snip by snip. In other words I'm not quoting the entire post, but rather addressing the points you raise mostly by piecemeal.
In terms of angels and Satan etc, it's probably simple enough that we acknowledge where our religions depart on the matter. I wouldn't bring it up at all, except to mention that it may be helpful to understand "Lucifer" in terms of some context.
Lucifer has for at least several hundred years (not sure how long exactly) been used in the West as the proper name for the devil. I just wanted to address a few facts concerning that just for the sake of information.
The word "lucifer" is Latin, and it comes from the Latin translation found in Isaiah chapter 14. It means, roughly, "day-star" and is a reference to the planet Venus, the Hebrew text says "heylel" in Isaiah 14:12, it's the noun form of halal, meaning "to shine" and is used also to describe the act of praise (such as in the word hallelujah, Halal+Yah, "praise YAH[WEH]). Thus "shining (one)", a reference to the day star, Venus, the brightest "star" in the sky. The Greek text of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) translates it as heosphoros, which from what I can gather literally translated means "before-light", or more poetically dawn-bringer, that is the light that appears before the sunrise, morning star. Again, it refers to the planet Venus.
The text, in context, is part of a prophecy directed to the "king of Babylon", thus a human being is intended. However, at some point the passage came to be taken as a description of Satan's fall, thus the text was read anagogically, that is read to refer to metaphysical or more secret things than the simple "plain" reading itself. My guess is that this is a medieval circumstance, but I'm really not sure. In any event eventually the anagogical reading has taken over as the primary reading, and thus the term "lucifer" has been taken as the devil's proper name, particularly because of its inclusion as such in the King James Version of the Bible, the most popular English language Bible in the past four hundred years (modern translations typically render the original Hebrew text plainly, rather than appropriate from the Latin).
Again, just some information that I think is of interest.
---------
Now as far as Adam is concerned, this one gets trickier.
The most common view, I'd wager, with which you are familiar is some form of the doctrine of Original Sin. What makes this tricky is two-fold:
1) The doctrine of Original Sin is unique only to Western Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism, broadly speaking), Eastern Christianity (Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, including the Greek, Russian, Syriac, et al Churches) have never subscribed to the doctrine of Original Sin.
The reason for this is actually fairly simple, the basic formula of the doctrine Original Sin comes from the writings of St. Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century, Augustine became one of the most important (if not THE most important) theologians in the West. Augustine dominates the theological landscape of Western Christianity, not just as a theologian, but as a philosopher as well. So important has Augustine been in the West that in the middle ages the genius theologians and philosophers, most significantly St. Thomas Aquinas, had to be very careful not to ruffle any feathers by implying Augustine was wrong. Likewise, the Protestant Reformers, in particular Martin Luther and John Calvin, were strongly attached to St. Augustine, and saw their theology as distinctly Augustinian (especially John Calvin) and a revival of pre-medieval Christian teaching.
However, Augustine had no influence in the East. He is recognized as a Saint in the East, but his writings were never translated into Greek until the last several hundred years, as such the Eastern Churches were almost completely unfamiliar with his work for most of history, and he never had much influence if any at all.
Thus it's important to keep in mind that the doctrine of Original Sin, in and of itself, is distinctively Western, and only represents the theology of Catholicism and Protestantism, thus one shouldn't generalize all of Christianity by it.
2) This is perhaps the trickier part: The doctrine of Original Sin is, problematically, one of the least well explained teachings one may encounter when discussing Christianity. A reason for this is that it's usually pretty sloppily presented as "Adam messed up, so now God is punishing all of us for it." It's actually far more complex than that, and far more nuanced in many ways.
The best way I can think of, perhaps, to offer a more technical "official" explanation of Original Sin is to quote how the Roman Catholic Church teaches it, and thus I'll quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church (bear in mind that I'm not Roman Catholic):
"Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".
Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.
The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay". Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground", for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.
After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain's murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ's atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians. Scripture and the Church's Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man's history: What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.
All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."
Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul". Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.
How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act." - Catechism of the Catholic Church 397-404 (may be easier to read more here
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1 PARAGRAPH 7)
Thus we are not so much talking about being punished for Adam's transgressions, but rather inheriting Adam as a whole, as we are his offspring. Adam's brokenness is passed on to us. Western theology speaks of concupiscence, the inward-desires; that we inherit from Adam a state of being human weakened and broken driven toward selfish and self-directed lusts, desires; and this is the source of "personal sin", or actual acts of sin.
This is important to point out because, again, it's one of the most troublesome doctrines to try and properly communicate, again in part because it is often so sloppily communicated.
It is worth mentioning that I'm not wholly certain where I stand on the issue, I don't entirely disagree, but in many ways I probably side closer to the Eastern view, usually known as "Ancestral Sin", which departs in many significant ways.
------------
As for the Son, we keep in mind two things:
1) He was entirely human, and thus we confess He assumed the limitations and weaknesses that comes with being human. Jesus could say He didn't know the timing of the Parousia, not because He isn't by nature God, but simply because He willingly assumed the limitations of being human.
2) We confess that the Son always lovingly submits to the Father, not because the Son is less than the Father or subordinate to Him in nature; but rather because the Son loves the Father. The Father loves the Son and pours Himself out to the Son, and the Son likewise loves the Father and pours Himself back out to the Father. Thus the Son can lovingly submit to His Father, call Him greater, without at any point being less than Almighty God Himself. This demands a rather radical re-understanding of what we mean by Divinity itself; because Divinity becomes defined not by power but by love and servanthood. God displays His awesome Divinity, not by a show of power and might; but by revealing Himself as Servant, as One who lays Himself down, who pours Himself out, who gives freely of Himself out of unconditional love. God reveals Himself as being truly God, not in spite of the Cross,
but because of it.
This is not a theological bit tacked on because it gives theologians something to rack their brains over; it is rather the very heart and soul of the Christian religion. The entire Christian religion really hinges upon this radical, subversive, upside-down paradox of God-crucified. Jesus Christ crucified on the cross in weakness, as victim, as powerlessness is not antithesis to God as God is; but is rather the purest, most naked portrait of God as He eternally and truly is. It is everything God has ever tried to communicate to us, that He is the weak victim of Mt. Calvary; and paradoxically it is principally here that all salvation, all hope, all victory can be found. Life springs from Death, rendering Death impotent, violence is crushed, no sword, no weapon of man can prevail: the God of Peace has conquered, not by the brute force of sword or word; but by His full subsummation into Victimhood, as the Word made flesh, as God-with-us, here with us in all of our sin, all of our misery, all of our sufferings, all of our weakness and fragility. God is the One who offers Himself freely, gives Himself impartially, and suffers willingly with all.
Thus what we see in Christ, revealed in, through, and by Him; is nothing short of the Mystery of God Himself. God's love is always Other-love. Even from before all time, in eternity, God's love is an outpouring love. The Father loving the Son, pouring Himself out; the Son loving the Father, pouring Himself out; the Spirit breathing, loving, blowing, moving, proceeding. One God, Three Persons, Holy Trinity. In One Another, never separate, never parted, never divided, always One, Whole, Eternal, Almighty God.
-CryptoLutheran