Page 3 of 7 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#11827 - 09/25/08 06:22 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: MaggotFaceMoe]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
There's a huge difference between theism and fundamentalism.

Theism simply means you believe in a higher power- but nowhere in there does it say that this higher power is a bossy Yahweh-like god that demands you convert or die, or any of that nonsense.

Fundamentalism means strictly adhering to your religion as absolute dogma.

Heck, most "Satanic Fundamentalists" I've met have been atheistic Satanists. The really stereotypical, arrogant sort of wanker. I'm sure you've talked to them before.


Edited by The Zebu (09/25/08 06:23 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#11885 - 09/26/08 08:26 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: MaggotFaceMoe]
Asmodeus Xaxam Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/08/07
Posts: 17
Loc: Somerville TX. USA
Satanists are Athiests first. You cannot be both Satanist, and a god believer. Satanists are logical beings. We don't believe that some magical thing in the sky controls our destiny. (or under the earth for that matter.) If we want something. We dont pray for it. We get up off our asses and make it happen ourselves. We are our own gods. If you believe in a god. Your not a Satanist. And if you believe that Satan is some red guy in hell who tortures souls, that makes you a Christian. NOT a Satanist.
_________________________
-X

Top
#11906 - 09/27/08 09:47 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Asmodeus Xaxam]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3119
 Quote:
Satanists are Athiests first. You cannot be both Satanist, and a god believer.

This is if you aren't a teenage cocksucker who gets teased for being a wussy and is trying to get some respect for being "evil".
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#11969 - 09/28/08 10:22 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Seraphyim]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2524
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
During the 1966-75 Church of Satan there was constant discussion as to what "Satan" and "Satanism" were/are/should be. What in 1966 seemed a fairly simple style of "Devil worship" soon became more subtle and multifaceted as the Church discarded its "anti-" justification in favor of a positive identity of its own.

Those with a historical interest in this odyssey may wish to download my Church of Satan ebook from my webpage. Also on that page is the current in-progress edition of the companion ebook Temple of Set, the initial chapters of which touch upon these same issues of definition and theology.

In 2008 "Satanism" has become a term which people use in many different ways - from the strictly metaphysical to the loosely metaphorical. This is convenient for champions of individualism, but it also means the continuation of confusion: endless forum-areas and threads like this one. If it's any consolation, the world's other religions, philosophies, and ideologies whirl merrily along on the same Great Mandala.

I think that most Setians would not consider themselves "Satanists", because that term is to us inexorably tied/limited to a Judæo-Christian perspective, whether literal or metaphorical. We feel now, as in 1975, that we have [to borrow a phrase from Obi-wan Kenobi] stepped into a larger universe, of which Judæo-Christian symbolism is but one of many pale shadows. The commensurate problem, of course, is that Setian metaphysics are extraordinarily abstract. Set is not just Satan trading a red union-suit for ancient Egyptian drag; he is the neter (Platonic Form, universal principle) of isolate self consciousness - the individual awareness of being from which all intelligent life proceeds. There is no social or moral dimension to this, obviously, and therefore Setian philosophy per se cannot be used to excuse, prescribe, condemn, or glamorize any kind of human behavior. To us these are ethical and artistic questions at a much more rational and discretionary level of decision-making.

This is probably a good point to shut up before I send everyone into MEGO overload, or just put you to sleep.

This is my first post here ... Just wandered curiously over from the link on Karla LaVey's website, which I think is the most true to her father's original romantic vision. "600" looks like a nice forum environment for this ever-tantalizing topic.


_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#11978 - 09/29/08 01:25 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
I think that most Setians would not consider themselves "Satanists", because that term is to us inexorably tied/limited to a Judæo-Christian perspective, whether literal or metaphorical.


Well said, Sir...

In general, the new practitioner spends far too much time dealing in semantics. The Left Hand Path is to be lived - a vital existence.

With any luck, you will find the time to further contribute to our little club.

Welcome...
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#12024 - 09/30/08 05:04 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
But then aren't we back to the whole "God" idea? Perhaps I didn't read well enough, forgive?

(By the way, I love the Cheshire Cat, my wife would be proud. Alice in Wonderland is most absolutely fitting.)

Good words, sir, but more information is necessary here. Forums "don't sleep", and I don't think anyone that matters will be in danger of an "overload".

Go ahead, make my day.
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#12026 - 09/30/08 06:48 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
Thank you Michael, it is indeed good to have you here. I think we all appreciate having an authoritative ambassador from the Temple of Set who can answer any questions we have and put any misconceptions to rest.

Does the ToS make any reference to the ancient embodiment of chaos and opposition to the gods of light that was known as Apep? Since he was usually depicted as a serpent being destroyed by Horus, Bast, and several other prominent neteru. Or would Apep be closer in characterization to the Christian Satan and thus have no real meaning for Setians?
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#12049 - 09/30/08 11:53 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Nemesis]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
Yeah, that's one thing that I always found interesting...

Apep is the closest egyptian equivalent to Satan, as he is the scapegoated embodiment of darkness, chaos, and areligion... yet is opposed by Set, who has also been compared to Satan because of his demonization in late egyptian mythology.

However, as far as I know, Apep has never represented things like individualism and questioning the norm like the symbol of Satan has. It wouldn't make much sense to worship Apep.

I don't think the ToS has that kind of dualism though, so Apep would be meaningless to Setians, or perhaps allegorical at best.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#12082 - 10/01/08 06:21 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Fist]
Impius Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 60
Loc: Lille, France
 Quote:
I think that most Setians would not consider themselves "Satanists", because that term is to us inexorably tied/limited to a Judæo-Christian perspective, whether literal or metaphorical.


Well, it's obvious that Christian religion isn't really dangerous anymore to humanity, because most of them review their principles to suit people's needs better.

Don't mistake me (I respect anyone's beliefs since he is OK to have some chat about it), to me the most "dangerous" religion today is Islam (because of its power growing in countries while extremists are still active undercover). In it, the Devil (they have one too) is called "Shaytan" (just googled "Islam devil"). So it's a global term to define the devil of any "revealed" religion.

And as for getting "inexorably tied/limited" to something, what about the fact that Set is an Egyptian pagan god ? Aren't you limited to it yet ?

I can't end this post without saying I'm honored to have some chat with you, Mr Aquino. You were one of the founding members of the CoS, and that's something I respect a lot, even if you went away from it later.
_________________________
In the end everyone dies...

Top
#12088 - 10/01/08 09:01 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Impius]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
The point is that a student of the Left Hand Path limits himself by simply viewing his 'way' (in the Japanese sense) through the Xtian lens.

Largely, Xtians are irrelevant.

Of course, I would agree that Islam is a true threat to the western world. And, I like to think I am doing my small part to both directly rid the world of the immediate threat of Islam, as well as raising consciousness among others who do not fully understand Islam.

Not to take to large of a tangent, but, a bit of a correction is in order. I am a bit of a student of Arabic although my current assignment requires me to have greater competency in Pashtun. In the Qur'an, Iblis is the proper name of The Devil. Shaitan would be the term more correctly applied to a mortal Statanist. It implies one who is distant from Allah - it is generally used as an adjective. For our purposes, it is also worth noting that Iblis is most powerful of all the Jinn. Jinn are a class of supernatural being with powers and rights much like Angels (who also exist in Islamic mythology) and would generally be more analogous to demons in Xtian myth. However Jinn, unlike Angels and demons, have free will and act more like free agents.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#12091 - 10/01/08 10:36 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374

Hi Michael,

When you say :
 Quote:
he is the neter (Platonic Form, universal principle) of isolate self consciousness - the individual awareness of being from which all intelligent life proceeds.


Can this be assimilated to what the buddhists call the "Clear Light mind" ?

 Quote:
In Tibetan Buddhism, often the so-called 'clear-light mind' is mentioned. This is the most subtle level of mind (see also death & rebirth), which we are normally not even aware of. It appears to the very advanced meditator and during the death process, but in this case, also only advanced meditators will be able to notice it. It is a non-conceptual, 'primordial' state of mind.
Source : Clear-light Mind

Could it be "the same thing" but described differently (by ToS & Buddhists) ?


Fabiano

Top
#12126 - 10/02/08 03:08 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Fist]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
 Quote:
Shaitan would be the term more correctly applied to a mortal Statanist. It implies one who is distant from Allah - it is generally used as an adjective.


Fist, I think for "practical" purposes, that's exactly what "we" are. You most often cannot "mince" words with fanatics, of any sort, more so when "religion" or "faith" is involved. I think it would imply directly to "us"... and I don't mean the USA.

Satanist (blatant), Atheist, Setian (watch out now), Capitalist, Fascist... the great Shaitan is alive and well...

Somehow "Christian" has become evil to them as well, though their own prophet (and his book) has told us all that we are "brethren". Islam as an ideology, and Christianity as the same, are not the things put into actual practice - I don't fault these religions necessarily, or outright, however, the practitioners, if you could call them that...

Or maybe I'm just trying to be nice.

Nice is my "Vice".
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#12163 - 10/02/08 11:16 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: daevid777]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2524
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: daevid777
But then aren't we back to the whole "God" idea?

What do you mean by "the whole 'God' idea"?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#12164 - 10/02/08 11:44 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Nemesis]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2524
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Nemesis
Does the ToS make any reference to the ancient embodiment of chaos and opposition to the gods of light that was known as Apep? Since he was usually depicted as a serpent being destroyed by Horus, Bast, and several other prominent neteru. Or would Apep be closer in characterization to the Christian Satan and thus have no real meaning for Setians?

Ancient Egyptian religion is a very complex and confusing area of study. For one thing, it was not homogenous: There were several different, and often competing cult centers throughout the nation, and these also changed in various respects throughout recorded-Egypt's 3,000+ year history.

Additionally later interpreters (such as Herodotus) tended to simplify Egyptian metaphysics to fit their own cultural mythologies. And more recently ancient Egyptian romantics & enthusiasts have been accused of reading more into the ancient ideas than were actually there. So it is very difficult to "see through ancient Egyptian eyes", as it were. This is something the Temple of Set deliberately does not pretend to do.

Our view of Egyptian metaphysics comes from a synthesis of many different sources, from the conservatively academic to the intuitive (for instance the Symbolique theories of R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz). Our focus in all of this is a very simple one: Does it help us to comprehend and interrelate the mysteries of the universes, and of isolate consciousness in contrast and opposition to these, better?

Hence any single Egyptian neter (such as Apep) is at first significant as a concept that is in some ways different from the other neteru, yet fulfills a role in concert with them. Even Set - the neter apart from the neters - needs this relationship of distinction and opposition to apprehend, to define himself.

Enthusiasts of Tolkien may wish to take a look at the Morlindalë here, wherein Melkor and Sauron both exemplify and confront many of these issues.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#12165 - 10/03/08 12:11 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Impius]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2524
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Impius
And as for getting "inexorably tied/limited" to something, what about the fact that Set is an Egyptian pagan god ? Aren't you limited to it yet ?

We would be if we attempted to constrain ourselves within the worldview of the ancient Egyptians 5,000 years ago. However our intuition and extrapolation of the neteru bring that worldview forward to our own time, and into interplay with other cultural concepts as well. So the ancient Egyptian understanding of things serves us as a "starting point" which we feel was remarkably insightful, and we generally use its terminlogy in recognition of and tribute to that. But it is not a restriction, limitation, or dogma.

 Quote:
I can't end this post without saying I'm honored to have some chat with you, Mr Aquino. You were one of the founding members of the CoS, and that's something I respect a lot, even if you went away from it later.

Thank you. I wasn't one of the founding members of the Church; it was started in 1966 and I joined in 1969. But I do think I was there for its most electrifying and exhilarating times. In a recent post within the Temple of Set's private forums, I wrote:

 Quote:
The 1966-75 Church of Satan was an absolute freaking blast. We were unquestionably the closest thing in those days to having the Universe by the nuts, and we had the planet's way-coolest High Priest too.

From our point of view, I and the other founders of the Temple didn't leave it - Anton did. This was a great tragedy for him and the Church in my opinion. As I quote from John Fowles' The Magus in the Introduction of my The Church of Satan history:

 Quote:
Whenever I see a photograph of a teeming horde of Chinese peasants, or of some military procession, whenever I see a cheap newspaper crammed with advertisements for mass-produced rubbish. Or the rubbish itself that large stores sell. Whenever I see the horrors of the pax Americana, of civilizations condemned to century after century of mediocrity because of over-population and under-education, I see also de Deukans. Whenever I see lack of space and lack of grace, I think of him. One day, many millennia from now, there will perhaps be a world in which there are only such châteaux, or their equivalents, and such men and women. And instead of their having to grow, like mushrooms, from a putrescent compost of inequality and exploitation, they will come from an evolution as controlled and ordered as de Deukans’ tiny world at Givray-le-Duc. Apollo will reign again. And Dionysus will return to the shadows from which he came.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
Page 3 of 7 <12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.028 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.