#8473 - 05/07/08 05:49 PM
Re: Temple of Set...Satanists?
[Re: Seraphyim]
|
Xaulamyn
stranger
Registered: 05/03/08
Posts: 32
Loc: Indiana
|
I myself am inclined to think not.
You're inclined to think whatever you want, and if that's the reality that you wish to live in, then that is your reality, but that, however, doesn't make it the reality for everyone else. What is real in your mind I can assure you is not what's real outside of your mind. You just THINK it is. That's the point. Thinking ISN'T the point. I'm sure there are others outside of the Temple of Set such as yourself who believe the same thing, but that just doesn't make it so for everyone else, and I'm sure there are those within the Temple of Set who would beg to differ, and I'm sure they know a bit more about themselves than you do about them. If you wish to deny them the slightest chance of thinking of themselves in a Satanic manner, then I'm sure they'd be just as comfortable with denying you the chance of thinking of yourself as, indeed, a "Satanist." Nevertheless, my point is basically . . . who cares what you think? And I can assure you that pretty much nobody does, particularly the Temple of Set and the individuals within it.
I would, however, make the suggestion to you that you refrain from making such general statements in such a fashion as this, if not for the most part because you've offered absolutely no evidence that the Temple of Set is not "Satanists." Which, by the way the Temple of Set cannot be a "Satanists", but it can be possibly "Satanic", but I assume you mean the individuals within it are not Satanists. And so, where is the evidence that all of those individuals within any such organization are not Satanists?
I know that this is simply what you "think", but if you're going to "think" then it helps to actually be able to THINK first. I hope that you're aware that that of which can be claimed or proved without evidence can also be disclaimed or disproved without evidence. That making such tautological statements as this absolutely contributed nothing to anything, and is a total waste of time. Oh, wow! You've thought! You've decided something! How grand! Why do we care? Why do I care? Especially since you seem to have pulled such a conclusion out your ass! How did you arrive at this grand hypothesis? Please enlighten me, because I'd really like to know!
Why would I like to know? Well, you know it has been such an impossible and pointless thing for all these years and as far as I can tell for the foreseeable future - to determine JUST WHAT a "real" Satanist is, that is. You know, it's the exact same debate Christians have, or Muslims, or Jews, and all of the followers of all those religions and all the rest and everyone else. Finally, someone has the end-all, be-all answer to WHO IS WHO and WHY IS WHY and you've got the supreme answer as to who qualifies as what and who! Oh, supreme arbiter of who is truly a Satanist!
I am "inclined to think" that your "theory" isn't going to stand the test of time. We're going to have to just see about that, aren't we? Only time can tell. We'll start with the process of dialectics, and of course we'll look at actual evidence, perhaps?
Some of the first questions I'd pose to you is thus, "What IS a "Satanist" to begin with, how did you arrive at that conclusion as to what is a Satanist, can you prove it, is it objective, is it subjectively objective, is it purely subjective? Who? What? When? Where? Why? How?. Etc." You know, Christians and just about everyone else have been speculating about what a "Satanist" is exactly for centuries.
Originally they were unquestioningly satanic
Unquestionably? Well, what if someone wants to question that? I sure as Hell just did. Again, how did you come to this conclusion? Do you have any evidence to support this? What if someone begs to differ? What is "Satanic", anyway? What's that mean? That's kind of vague isn't it? And, being "Satanic" is a lot different from being a "Satanist", isn't it? Well, in what way were they "unquestionably Satanic"? How has that changed? Those things that made them "unquestionably Satanic" are no longer there? Where did those "Satanic" qualities go to? Did they disappear? Did they just up one day and vanish? How did it go from "Satanic" to "[un]Satanic"? I'm just asking.
but they have metamorphosed into something that is no longer satanic.
According to whom? You? Again, what proof do you have of this? I mean, you have your tautological, straw-man statements, but what do they mean? What's the point in making them? In what way did they "metamorphose", who "metamorphosed", what do you mean "metamorphosed"? I assume you mean the WHOLE organization "metamorphosed", and that all of the individuals within did as well, that all of their so-called "teachings" did? How do you know this? What makes you say this? Where did you get your information? You know an "awful lot" about an organization that you're not in, that is so secretive and clandestine. What are you, psychic?
Left Hand Path, yes. But Satanic, no.
What's the Left Hand Path? How did you arrive at that conclusion, how do you know that they're LHP? Again, how come they're not "Satanic"? EXPLAIN, EXPLAIN, AND EXPLAIN! DEFEND YOUR THESIS! I seriously want to know.
That being said, I am a little bit surprised that there is still so much talk about them amongst Satanists.
And why are you surprised? I assume you also surprise yourself, since you're talking about the same damn thing? I dare not consider the ramifications that must have for you to be surprising yourself in such a fashion, but the answers as to that are for your shrink, and I dare not take a peek inside.
WHY IS THAT!? Why don't you tell me? I mean, you make a great case-study. I mean, you're the one talking about it and you're the one so surprised about what you're talking about. You don't know why you do what you do? Methinks you should address your shrink about that and I don't think it's a good idea to expose such a flaw to everyone else, especially on this forum. Why is it anymore surprising that Satanists would talk about it than it would be surprising that you would? You can, but Satanists can't? What, then?
Do some of you disagree with me and believe that the members of the Temple of Set are Satanists?
What's to disagree with? I mean, it isn't a matter of disagreement, is it? I mean, if someone were going to disagree with you it would be more like IGNORING you. You've said nothing of consequence. Supposing that A is A and facts are facts, then I would say that you've stated nothing but baseless, inept opinions of no importance and IF they are not just opinions, but are facts then you've sure made an unimpressive show of making that clear.
I'll just end this like this - that I'm so glad that there's finally someone like you to speak on behalf of ALL SETIANS as well as the Temple of Set. I mean, who would of thought that, especially being the case that no Setian speaks for any other Setian as such, and especially since even the Temple of Set itself DOESN'T speak for all Setians in such regards, that they've finally found someone of a caliber such as yourself to do all the thinking and talking and speaking on their behalf in such a way as you have presented here.
You've hinted at the fact elsewhere that you consider yourself a "future" Setian, that you'd maybe like to become a member and join the Temple of Set? As a matter of fact, since you call yourself a "future" Setian, then I assume that you think that you're INDEED a Setian? That you just haven't got credit as one yet? That it is inevitable? Maybe even that it's owed to you?
Well, in my opinion, and JUST maybe it's my opinion, you'd better disabuse yourself of the way you have been presenting yourself and behaving. How presumptuous and ridiculous you are. Mr. "Future" Setian, eh?
I, on the other hand speak for no one but myself. I think it wise for you to do the same, and for you to get control of yourself in these regards. Make sure to speak for yourself.
That being said, everyone makes mistakes.
As for me - I enjoy playing Devil's advocate pro bono.
Edited by Xaulamyn (05/07/08 06:08 PM)
_________________________
Xaulamyn A'Baddruh
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#8483 - 05/07/08 07:34 PM
Re: Temple of Set...Satanists?
[Re: Morgan]
|
Xaulamyn
stranger
Registered: 05/03/08
Posts: 32
Loc: Indiana
|
Just what did you add to the conversation?
Someone asked a question...
You didn't answer it, you just mocked his questions.
He is looking to learn and find out new information.
Granted some of the answers could be found just by using google or reading other posts here.
Its not a matter of being a devils advocate, its a matter of being an unnecessary ass.
Morg
Next, try again....
If he had simply asked a question, then that would be fine. But, he didn't just ask a question. It was also accompanied with an answer, and I just think he should back it up.
I'm sure I wouldn't of "been an ass" about it if it weren't for the fact that, and maybe it's just me, this guy seems to think he is "entitled" to be a Setian, that he is "meant" to be one. He gives the impression that the Temple of Set "owes" him something, while he gives "nothing" in return.
That's all.
Edited by Xaulamyn (05/07/08 07:40 PM)
_________________________
Xaulamyn A'Baddruh
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8485 - 05/07/08 07:45 PM
Re: Temple of Set...Satanists?
[Re: Morgan]
|
Xaulamyn
stranger
Registered: 05/03/08
Posts: 32
Loc: Indiana
|
Hey,
I think it was accompanied by his opinion.
I dont think his opinions are the be all of everything, but this is a forum where various opinions are discussed.
One of the things is to strive to accomplish and be what you want if you have the inner force of will and ability to achieve your desires.
He wants to join, then he should contact them, read the books, do the work. He is never going to get a straight answer from anyone other than a member who deals with prospectives member.
quoting Yoda
" Do or Do not, there is no try.."
otherwise, its all hot air.....
I agree with you, Morgan.
_________________________
Xaulamyn A'Baddruh
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9376 - 06/03/08 10:25 PM
Re: Temple of Set...Satanists?
[Re: Seraphyim]
|
97and107
member
Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 196
Loc: Olympia, WA. USA
|
He used to hang out at occultforums.com a few years ago before it went belly up...trapezoid...
Him, meaning, the current head of Temple of Set. He struck me as a bit of a preacher and I ignored him mostly.
Any kind of organization rubs me the wrong way most of the time. I have a loose affiliation with one Satanic organization but I keep it to myself. It's not a bloody popularity club...
Temple of Set...hard to say...mostly it just seems like a drinking club or a moneymaker, nothing special really. they have their little handshakes and odd g reetings, the little boy's secret clubhouse all over again. Nothing real special.
Satanists don't belong to any extremist organization, that's for sure. We're loners through and through....we come together only for the sake of our own idiosyncracies and for the mating game, generally...I like to think there's a lot of love involved, too. It seems so...well, illogical, grouping together like this. Love is the only thing I can imagine that is so blatantly and obscenely insane as to encourage that. Or perhaps we're all just scoundrels plotting to take over the world as the xians would have everyone believe.
edit:
okay not the head, i just looked it up, "assistant director"
Edited by 97and107 (06/03/08 10:37 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Woland, Mercury_Templar, fakepropht, Nemesis, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Morgan, Bacchae, Diavolo, Asmedious, Fist
|
|
