Page all of 7 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#8442 - 05/06/08 07:05 PM Temple of Set...Satanists?
Seraphyim Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/05/08
Posts: 11
Loc: Fort Carson, Colorado
I myself am inclined to think not. Originally they were unquestioningly satanic but they have metamorphosed into something that is no longer satanic. Left Hand Path, yes. But Satanic, no.

That being said, I am a little bit surprised that there is still so much talk about them amongst Satanists. Why is that? Do some of you disagree with me and believe that the members of the Temple of Set are Satanists?
_________________________
Di Liberatus!

Top
#8444 - 05/06/08 07:20 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Seraphyim]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Well...

Most of us here are not card carrying CoS members. Some (I think) still are, and others have been. This site has some affiliation with the First Church. Others here (like myself) are unaffiliated devotees of the LHP, like minds, fellow travellers, and kindred spirits.

I think... we run more of a 'big tent' operation here. Feel free to express your views, just be mentally prepared to defend your position. I personally would love to attract some TOS members because I think they would have something to contribute.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#8469 - 05/07/08 05:20 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Fist]
Seraphyim Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/05/08
Posts: 11
Loc: Fort Carson, Colorado
Thanks. Tell me, if you will, a little about the First Church of Satan.

There are at least two schools of thought on Anton LaVey (probably many more) Obviously the idea perpetrated by the CoS..that being that Anton LaVey never believed in Satan as a literally being, and the alternate idea of Michael Aquino that LaVey privately believed in a literal being known to him as Satan.

Which of those beliefs is true could be debated till the end of time. That is NOT the purpose of this thread.

What I am curious to know is which track the First Church of Satan takes..and Karla LaVey herself.
_________________________
Di Liberatus!

Top
#8473 - 05/07/08 05:49 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Seraphyim]
Xaulamyn Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/03/08
Posts: 32
Loc: Indiana
 Originally Posted By: Seraphyim
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 Posted By: Seraphyim
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.


 Originally Posted By: Seraphyim
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?

 Originally Posted By: Seraphyim
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.

 Originally Posted By: Seraphyim
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.


 Originally Posted By: Seraphyim
Why is that?


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?


 Originally Posted By: Seraphyim
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
#8482 - 05/07/08 07:28 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Xaulamyn]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
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....
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#8483 - 05/07/08 07:34 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Morgan]
Xaulamyn Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/03/08
Posts: 32
Loc: Indiana
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
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
#8484 - 05/07/08 07:42 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Xaulamyn]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
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.....

That being said...
Serap, please give us your definition of "left hand path" verses "Satanism".
That way we can understand the context of where you are coming from.
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#8485 - 05/07/08 07:45 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Morgan]
Xaulamyn Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/03/08
Posts: 32
Loc: Indiana
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
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
#8514 - 05/08/08 05:50 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Xaulamyn]
Seraphyim Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/05/08
Posts: 11
Loc: Fort Carson, Colorado
And as the op...I agree that I gave no answer..simply an opinion.

I have tried to research the ToS. I do not expect others to do my work for me. However, information about the Temple on the internet is hard to come by and even harder to come by if you prefer information of the unbiased type.

Most of my information I have gotten from the Temple of Set website. Other information has come from the Church of Satan website and the Balanone's Temple of Set information page, Wikipedia, an old interview with Priestess Oz Set. Lilith Aquino did write a good article on the subject. But while the Temple spoke often about being the spiritual successor to The CoS but under the administration of Don Webb the Temple seemed to distance itself from it'd link to Satanism.

Either way it does not bother me. But, in the Book of The Coming Forth By Night, Set seemed to want to distance himself from the erroneous theologies that preceeded the remanifesting of his Temple.
_________________________
Di Liberatus!

Top
#8515 - 05/08/08 05:56 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Seraphyim]
Seraphyim Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/05/08
Posts: 11
Loc: Fort Carson, Colorado
Not so much hot air. The most effective and efficient way to join the Temple is to meet and get to know someone who is a priest or priestess in the Temple. Then they can get to know you and if they decide that you and the Temple are a good fit for each other they can sponser your membership. That is much better I think than writing blindly to the temple and trying to convince someone there that I am worthy of membership.
_________________________
Di Liberatus!

Top
#8520 - 05/08/08 07:10 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Seraphyim]
Xaulamyn Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/03/08
Posts: 32
Loc: Indiana
It's OzTech, not Oz Set.
_________________________
Xaulamyn A'Baddruh

Top
#8522 - 05/08/08 08:48 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Xaulamyn]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

Those who try to make themselves seem in the know usually are the furthest from knowing... Those who bitch about something usually complain about it because they themselves do it...

[Xaulamyn] It's the first installment of Gary Pullman's children's fantasy trilogy _His Dark Materials_.
[ta2zz] oh
[Mequa] I have that trilogy, the first book is called Northern Lights.
[Xaulamyn] An atheistic (and Satanic I must say) take on _Lord of the Rings_ and _Chronicles of Narnia_.
[ta2zz] I didnt know lord of the rings was very religious
[Mequa] And His Dark Materials is by Philip Pullman
[Xaulamyn] Yes, I meant Philip, thank you.

Now would you like to go on playing Mr. Knowitall?

~T~

I think you are a troll nothing more...
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#8523 - 05/08/08 09:01 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: ta2zz]
Xaulamyn Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/03/08
Posts: 32
Loc: Indiana
Your obsession with me continues.

Oh, yes! I don't know Gary Pullman's name!? Bullshit.

It's called a typo.

And you know, every once in a while I do that in person. You know, kind of like our grandmas do - get names confused.

Anyway, I'm responding only because how funny you are.

This is an unhealthy obsession you have with me - to go through such logs and look for every tiny little stupid thing and - ugh. I am vexed.

I've come to the conclusion you're a senile retard. As far as Satanism is concerned though - you, Ta2zz - ARE NOT a Satanist.

You're a piece of shit and a waste of time. A fucking freak, a geek, and a silly creep.

You fucking wastrel. Quit annoying the fuck out of me - constantly. You're just like a Christian. Next thing you know you'll be outside my window stalking me.

I assume next you'll be looking though my preschool files looking for where I spelled a word wrong.

What a little bitch.

I grow impatient with your harassment.

Quit trolling me, troll.

I know your game. To try to do everything you can to piss me off in an attempt to get me banned.


Edited by Xaulamyn (05/08/08 09:05 PM)
_________________________
Xaulamyn A'Baddruh

Top
#8552 - 05/09/08 05:06 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Xaulamyn]
Seraphyim Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/05/08
Posts: 11
Loc: Fort Carson, Colorado
My apologies to Oz Tech. I knew that..but I hadn't watched the video recently and I made a mistake.
_________________________
Di Liberatus!

Top
#9376 - 06/03/08 10:25 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Seraphyim]
97and107 Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 268
Loc: New Mexico
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
#9457 - 06/09/08 11:43 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Seraphyim]
Matt Massacre Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/09/08
Posts: 18
Loc: Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
the german religious science called the temple of set as "gnostic converted Satanism", sometimes as "spiritual Satanism" or "traditional Satanism". Today the member and followers of the temple of set preferred the word "Setians" to show the differences between Satanism and setianism, but this is my view (and what i read on the tos-homepage), and im not a tos-member or spokesperson!

Edited by Matt Massacre (06/09/08 11:43 AM)

Top
#9534 - 06/11/08 11:50 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Seraphyim]
It'sJustMe Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/30/08
Posts: 14
Rather than debate this until the end of time…..


“Is it necessary for a Priest or Priestess of the Temple to believe in the existence of Set? In one sense the answer must be Yes. Simply put: If you are a member of the Priesthood and your answer is no, than I ask you who in the hell are you a Priest of. If you do not recognize Set. You cannot truly belong to the Priesthood of Set.

The next tricky question there presents itself – Who is Set? Set is whatever you, as a member of the Priesthood define/or determine this principle to be. Once you have recognized/acknowledged this principle, Set does exist.”

-Onyx Tablet of Set


This is the same stance taken by the Church of Satan. That Satan is a subjective metaphor defined by the Satanist. For clarification see the “Grotto Masters Handbook”.

Top
#9539 - 06/12/08 06:04 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: It'sJustMe]
Matt Massacre Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/09/08
Posts: 18
Loc: Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
Yes the Satanic Bible said that the view of the gods have so much changed in history that the satanist use the view of a god (or satan) he means is the beast view for him or her. in my views of the Satanic Bible it means that a satanist can believe in satan as real existent beeing, or belive in satan like an non-exist archtype or an morphic energy field or as the power of nature (included animals and humans). the daily leader of the CoS proclaimed Satan doesnt exist and everyone who believe in satan as a real deity isnt (for Gilmore and a lot of his gilmore girls) a real satanist for the leaders and member and they called him "pseudo-satanists". The Church of Satan under the leading of Peter H. Gilmore promote an extreme atheistic and materialistic philosophy. I never meet Anton LaVey and didnt know him private, but I believe LaVeys ideology of the Church of Satan was never the CoS from today!

i hope everyone understand what i mean.

Top
#9585 - 06/14/08 03:20 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Matt Massacre]
It'sJustMe Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/30/08
Posts: 14
The difference is a matter of philosophy. In the example of Peter Gilmore, we are looking at a case of materialism which is a form of monism, meaning the body and mind are of the same stuff. For example in “The God You Save May Be Yourself” chapter of the SB LaVey writes,

“He no longer can view himself in two parts, the carnal and the spiritual, but sees them merge as one, and then to his abysmal horror, discovers that they are only the carnal-AND ALWAYS WERE!”

This is monist materialism.

The perspective of the ToS is that of Substance Dualism, which views the body and mind as two completely different substances. They separate this as the Objective Universe and the Subjective Universe, claiming that any construct of the mind thus exists as a component of the SU. So the ToS is not saying that the devil exists as an objectively quantifiable substance, but as an existence of the mind. Materialism calls this a concept.

Let’s use Santa Clause as an example. The materialist views Santa as “Christmas spirit”, a mental construct that influences humans in the same sense as beauty or justice are concepts that affect human behaviour. We may see people dressed as Santa, who exhibit a personification of “what Christmas is all about”, but in the end anyone who tells their children that Santa is a real person, is a liar.

The Substance Dualist says that Santa exists in the realm of thought. That Santa, being a construct of the conscious mind, exists as a “neter” in the universe of things that are not material.

In effect both sides are saying the exact same thing, that Santa is make-believe. The only difference is that the materialist considers the “subjective universe” as either the function of the brain, (like the calculations made by a calculator), or as a brain state arising from the neurological effects of a material body.

The ToS priesthood no more believes in an objective red, horned, fork-tailed evil beast than Peter Gilmore does. Think about it. The ToS was formed by ex-members of the CoS. Do you think these folks were suddenly awakened to the objective existence of the devil because Aquino sent them a copy of the “Book of Coming forth by Night”?

At this point I may as well go off on a rant over this retarded “intuitive communication”.

The ToS is a rip off of the A:.A:., (as well as the CoS and the Fourth Way), and while Crowley wrote the Book of the Law, it was an expression of a poet. Crowley was a poet, thus when he expressed his self, it came out in the form that would be expected of a poet. Aquino was an army commissioned political scientist, so can we expect him to express his true self as a poet, (or the Charles Dexter Ward bullshit he presents in the BoCFbN), or as a politician?

The ToS is a political, (mans relationship to his fellow man), expression. It is an attempt to manipulate the creations of men far greater than its founder, as a means to make a god out of its founder.

Here is a nice little quote from L. Dale Seago. Seago was appointed as the first ToS Chairman of the Council of Nine and Treasurer (see The Scroll of Set issue 1, September 1975).

“Dr. Aquino has made much of LaVey's perspective becoming such that he could no
longer distinguish between his personal will, that of the true founder of his
Organization, and that Organization itself. In accordance with his own Oath
as an Ipsissimus ("I promise to perceive every phenomenon as Set, that is, as
myself"), sworn before Lilith Sinclair, Dr. Aquino has come to the same end of
his Initiatory Quest. This, I think, explains how he can be so Absolutely
certain that Set -- whom I have always, perhaps erroneously, perceived as a
source of inspiration and _initiatory_ guidance -- is so humanly childish that
he is throwing emotional tantrums out there in the Aether about Affronts and
Abominations. "As above, so below" -- _and_ vice versa! This is how he can
be so Absolutely certain that this entity wishes to control our lives, our
personal and social ethics, and our interactive associations through his High
Priest. Michael Aquino has simply placed Set upon God's throne, and then sat
down upon it himself.”

-letter from L. Dale Seago to the Priesthood of Set, 26 July XVII*

Top
#10367 - 07/29/08 02:31 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Matt Massacre]
Samuel Satanas Offline
lurker


Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 2
 Originally Posted By: Matt Massacre
I never meet Anton LaVey and didnt know him private, but I believe LaVeys ideology of the Church of Satan was never the CoS from today!

i hope everyone understand what i mean.


Agreed. Lavey was far deeper than Gilmore with his simple athesism under a black mask. The CoS seem to have morphed into something else now which seems ironic considering they bash on about over groups evolving from them. hmm.

Anyhow on the temple of set. As another religion that employs the use of magic of BECOMING and of being of the left hand path I'd say that is Satanic by nature. Remember that Satan is the personification of the left hand path.
_________________________
I'm not a believer... I'm an explorer.

Top
#10372 - 07/29/08 08:27 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: 97and107]
diabolus_rob Offline
lurker


Registered: 07/08/08
Posts: 4
Loc: Texas
I have tried to research the ToS. I do not expect others to do my work for me. However, information about the Temple on the internet is hard to come by and even harder to come by if you prefer information of the unbiased type.

I have a copy of the crystal tablet of set,i'd be willing to trade it for some other rare literature on Satanism.

Top
#10409 - 07/31/08 12:48 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Seraphyim]
coelentrate Offline
member


Registered: 07/07/08
Posts: 164
Loc: Dundee, Scotland
 Originally Posted By: Seraphyim
I myself am inclined to think not.


I'm under the same impression. You're not alone.

Top
#10444 - 08/02/08 12:08 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: diabolus_rob]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Originally Posted By: diabolus_rob
I have tried to research the ToS. I do not expect others to do my work for me. However, information about the Temple on the internet is hard to come by and even harder to come by if you prefer information of the unbiased type.

I have a copy of the crystal tablet of set,I'd be willing to trade it for some other rare literature on Satanism.

Are you sure about the crystal tablet of Set?
Can you send me that document or type it even so? Because I got the slight impression you are talking about Alchemy.

To even say more, I think we are talking about alchemy. As I have read in another reply next words were quoted: "As above so as below". In this case, it isn't the tablet of Set, but the Emerald table of Hermes.
In this case, the temple of set can be based on the Alchemical philosophy.

For the emerald table history and translations see: http://www.levity.com/alchemy/emerald.html
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#10454 - 08/03/08 05:39 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Dimitri]
diabolus_rob Offline
lurker


Registered: 07/08/08
Posts: 4
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Originally Posted By: diabolus_rob
I have tried to research the ToS. I do not expect others to do my work for me. However, information about the Temple on the internet is hard to come by and even harder to come by if you prefer information of the unbiased type.

I have a copy of the crystal tablet of set,I'd be willing to trade it for some other rare literature on Satanism.

Are you sure about the crystal tablet of Set?
Can you send me that document or type it even so? Because I got the slight impression you are talking about Alchemy.

To even say more, I think we are talking about alchemy. As I have read in another reply next words were quoted: "As above so as below". In this case, it isn't the tablet of Set, but the Emerald table of Hermes.
In this case, the temple of set can be based on the Alchemical philosophy.

For the emerald table history and translations see: http://www.levity.com/alchemy/emerald.html


Wut the hell r u talking about?I'm speaking of Michael Aquinos essay on black magic.Its issued to members only.

Top
#10536 - 08/07/08 09:33 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: diabolus_rob]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Originally Posted By: diabolus_rob
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Originally Posted By: diabolus_rob
I have tried to research the ToS. I do not expect others to do my work for me. However, information about the Temple on the internet is hard to come by and even harder to come by if you prefer information of the unbiased type.

I have a copy of the crystal tablet of set,I'd be willing to trade it for some other rare literature on Satanism.

Are you sure about the crystal tablet of Set?
Can you send me that document or type it even so? Because I got the slight impression you are talking about Alchemy.

To even say more, I think we are talking about alchemy. As I have read in another reply next words were quoted: "As above so as below". In this case, it isn't the tablet of Set, but the Emerald table of Hermes.
In this case, the temple of set can be based on the Alchemical philosophy.

For the emerald table history and translations see: http://www.levity.com/alchemy/emerald.html


Wut the hell r u talking about?I'm speaking of Michael Aquinos essay on black magic.Its issued to members only.


At first: spellcheck please it is not because you are from texas and they speak english in a different way that you have to type the dialect.

And I'm just saying that some ideas within the temple of Set has similarities with alchemical ideas/philosophy. Perhaps I wasn't clear about that.


Edited by Dimitri (08/07/08 09:49 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#10653 - 08/13/08 02:32 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Samuel Satanas]
Matt Massacre Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/09/08
Posts: 18
Loc: Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Samuel Satanas
 Originally Posted By: Matt Massacre
I never meet Anton LaVey and didnt know him private, but I believe LaVeys ideology of the Church of Satan was never the CoS from today!

i hope everyone understand what i mean.


Agreed. Lavey was far deeper than Gilmore with his simple athesism under a black mask. The CoS seem to have morphed into something else now which seems ironic considering they bash on about over groups evolving from them. hmm.

Anyhow on the temple of set. As another religion that employs the use of magic of BECOMING and of being of the left hand path I'd say that is Satanic by nature. Remember that Satan is the personification of the left hand path.


In shorts words: The daily CoS under the leadership of Peter H. Gilmore and Peggy Nadramia is an extremly atheistic group and had nothing to do with the Satanism codiefied by LaVey....in my view.

Top
#11778 - 09/23/08 07:25 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Matt Massacre]
Impius Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 60
Loc: Lille, France
It seems that topic has been a little inactive last days... I hope I'm not wrong by posting in it.

I was curious about the Temple of Set and went on their website. Let's just read the very first lines of their "general information letter" : to them, human race is superior to any other known form of life because of a "sense of self-consciousness" (sic) only holded by it.

LaVeyan Satanism considers humans as nothing more than biped animals, "sometimes better, often worse than the ones walking on all fours", because human race had (and still has) such an high opinion of itself that our ancestors thought they could live without nature, and went apart (and were obviously wrong, y'all know). Well, the quoted sentence is not precisely what LaVey wrote but you know which sentence of TSB I'm talking about, and noone gives a damn about the precise quote anyway ;\)

So ToS are NOT LaVeyan satanists. That's a point. Well, you're going to tell me that all I wrote before was useless because if ToS were LaVeyan satanists, in fact Aquino would probably not have left CoS. But whatever.

What about saying whether ToS are satanists (in general meaning of the term) or not ? Anywho can call himself satanist. Theists, traditionnals, LaVeyans... that question can't be answered. If you call yourself satanist, you ARE satanist. What matters is WHICH Satanism. To me, the true one is LaVeyan, to other people it'll be another one... case made
_________________________
In the end everyone dies...

Top
#11783 - 09/24/08 07:01 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Impius]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
Satanic paths bear a resemblance to the various denominations of Christianity--Episcopilian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. Different methods of worship/practice, yet they all call themselves Christians.

I'm not sure why some have such difficulty reconciling this concept. Perhaps because it bears a little too much resemblance to Christianity?
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#11788 - 09/24/08 02:30 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Nemesis]
Asmodeus Xaxam Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/08/07
Posts: 17
Loc: Somerville TX. USA
I don't believe Setians can consider themselves Satanists. Satanists are anti-fundamentalists. Once you start believing in a higher power or a god. Be it Set or ortherwise, you become a fundamentalist. As Satanists we are our own gods. It's a pretty clear line. You cannot be both a Satanist and a fundamentalist. It's two opposites.
_________________________
-X

Top
#11807 - 09/25/08 05:52 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Asmodeus Xaxam]
MaggotFaceMoe Offline
member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 164
Loc: Finland
WTF? "Once you start believing in a higher power or a god you become a fundamentalist."

There's a definite distinction between a moderate and fundamentalist believer.

So yes, you can be a Satanist and also a fundamentalist.

Definition of the word 'fundamentalist' for you: strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.

Top
#11827 - 09/25/08 06:22 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: MaggotFaceMoe]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
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: 3139
 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: 2573
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: 1646
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: 2573
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: 2573
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: 2573
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
#12166 - 10/03/08 12:35 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Fabiano]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
[quote=Fabiano]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" ?

No, I think that what you are referring to here is the Buddhist nirvana, which represents an individual's mind or consciousness cleared of all junk [to put it simply]. This is one of the main explanations of/justifications for initiation. It is also, in Setian philosophy, an impossibility. The junk is just as necessary as the sublime purity. What's important is to realize each as such, and to utilize it wisely. [This happened to be another one of Anton's insights; he was passionately interested in personal deification, but always with an eye to the "monsters of the id" accompanying such a quest.]

Set is the neter of the isolate consciousness of self, of unique, aware existence. This is the beginning of the quest, not its end. Indeed we would say that there is no final end [and certainly not a common one] - there is rather Xeper, a continuous evolution of deification. Hegel's "dialectic idealism" is sometimes described as "the mind of God seeking to fully understand itself through the unfolding of universal history". We'd say that is each of us.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#12169 - 10/03/08 04:07 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
Welcome!

How wonderfully lucky we are to have you contribute to 'our' forum.

I personally have read and enjoyed your book on the Church of Satan and will definately download and read you book on the Temple of Set.

I'm sure you'll enjoy this forum. There are some great minds here and for the most part, interesting discussion. This is little more than a 'hello', but I do hope to learn much from your presence here. I hope that I also have something to offer you also.

The Temple of Set was actually the first internet page I found on Satanism when I starting looking into it a scant 2 odd years ago. Then I found this site and was immediately hooked, unfortunately that was the old forum and all that wonderful information was lost, however this one is starting to grow and develope again.

Anyway enough garrulous chit chat.

I can totally relate to what you are saying about the beginning of the quest as apposed to the end, or a set end or outcome. I can't imagine that there is a final end other than the permenant one of death.

It's a point that LUX was totally not getting. Focusing on the self isn't just about selfishness and bad behaviour and an excuse to be rude and an arsehole.

Zeph
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#12175 - 10/03/08 07:23 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
I've been deeply interested in Egyptian mythology for at least the past 10 years, starting in high school. My interest has waned in it a bit over the recent years and I haven't kept up my studies, but I still retained quite a lot of information about the complexities of their pantheons. As well as the manner in which the major gods tended to absorb the personalities and attributes of the many locals gods worshipped in various regions throughout Egypt.

I know I'm not the only one who wishes the Greeks had never meddled with their religion and traditions, bastardizing and corrupting much of the information. Egyptian scholars themselves warned against the Greeks and their tendency to distort information on their behalf.

Had you heard of the possibility that the great interpretative works done by Budge were incorrect? That his interpretation of the more advanced hieroglyphs were off, thereby rendering our understanding of the Egyptian culture inaccurate? After having studied hieroglyphs on my own for some time, I was none too pleased to hear about this. I never researched it further, as this was the time I started to lose interest.

Apep is considered to be more of an elemental god, such as Nut and Geb, even Ma'at, yes? Not to be worshipped, yet remains a personification of "enemy" for both the gods and humans to continually battle.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#12209 - 10/04/08 09:12 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Thanks a lot for the time you spent for answering me, I appreciate!

Indeed, according to the buddhist, the "Clear Light Mind" cannot be seen as long as there are "raw feelings/mindstates" (as opposite to "subtile") . Through meditation, you stop the "raw" feelings (the junk as you named them) and step into more and more subtile mindstates. The most subtile being the "Clear Light Mind".
I think LHP religions & philosophies share the approach of "stripping the junk for keeping only the purest". The LHP doesn't do it this way. It considers the Junk is part of us. We just have to accept it and plainly live with it.

But do you think that it's really impossible to realise the "Clear Light Mind" through meditation ? (even if useless)

However, I still have the feeling that the Clear Light Mind is close to "the individual awareness of being from which all intelligent life proceeds".
Usually, we're "lost in our thoughts". At work thinking about what we do, or about our next vacations,... If we "step back" and look at our thoughts, we obseve that there are our thoughts and "me" looking at my thoughts" This isthe very first step of introspective meditation. By training, one can "step back" more and more, The Clear Light Mind is the most subtile mindstate, the one who is aware of being and from which all of the other "mindstates" derives (aka "from which all intelligent life proceeds" ?).

Another parallelism might be that the Clear Light Mind is also called "the nature of Buddha". Buddha play here the role of the neter.

Thanks again for having read me till here.

Fabiano

Top
#12257 - 10/06/08 04:36 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Fabiano]
diabolus_rob Offline
lurker


Registered: 07/08/08
Posts: 4
Loc: Texas
Still nobody interested in obtaining my copy of the crystal tablet of set?I'd be willing to trade it for a hardbound copy of the Satanic Bible or The Satanic Rituals,or perhaps a leatherbound copy like the ones that used to be sold on satanicbibles.com

This is a rare text that is issued to members only,i'm sure any occultist or researcher on the black arts would love to have this among their collection.

I rarely login,if anyone is interested email me @ robthezombiemma@gmail.com

Top
#12258 - 10/06/08 06:58 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: diabolus_rob]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
Somehow I don't think that the founder of the Temple of Set, Michael Aquino, would appreciate you hawking his goods to the highest bidder like a man with fake Rolexes in his trenchcoat.

Besides, it is available online .
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#12277 - 10/06/08 02:30 PM The Crystal Tablet and the Satanic Bible/Rituals [Re: diabolus_rob]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: diabolus_rob
Still nobody interested in obtaining my copy of the crystal tablet of set?I'd be willing to trade it for a hardbound copy of the Satanic Bible or The Satanic Rituals,or perhaps a leatherbound copy like the ones that used to be sold on satanicbibles.com

This is a rare text that is issued to members only,i'm sure any occultist or researcher on the black arts would love to have this among their collection.

The Crystal Tablet of Set is the first volume of the Jeweled Tablets of Set (Crystal, Ruby, Onyx, Sapphire, Amethyst, Topaz) available to Setians of related initiatory degrees. They are all worthless or priceless depending upon the reader's point of view. They are also constantly-updated publications, such that a CT over a year or so old will be obsolete in many respects. [This is why we maintain the JTs in our private website.] So I wouldn't recommend anyone buying an old copy.

The hardcover Satanic Bible (containing my Introduction) and Rituals came out only briefly in 1972, at about the time the paperback SR was issued. They were not re-typeset - just photo blow-ups of the paperbacks. Despite the fact that they sell on the collector market for astonishing sums, you might as well just pick up the paperbacks. If you can find early edition paperbacks, they'll have the very interesting dedication pages eliminated from the current ones. Or just download my Church of Satan here and read the background chapters on the books, including the dedication details.

One of my daydreams is to do a really nicely-reformatted SB edition combining the two books, with all of the text perfected, footnoted, annotated, and appendixed. When and if I ever get through with my current TOS ebook, I may play around with this idea [more, since I've already done a bit of it]. But then it would just have to snooze in electronic limbo until the books turn public-domain.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#12279 - 10/06/08 03:32 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: The Zebu]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
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.

HOW AN ECLIPSE HAPPENS
(as related by Bast to her kittens)
- by Margaret Wendall IV°
Scroll of Set #III-3, November 1977

Once upon a time Sekhmet was awakened from her noon nap by all the living things on Earth and by all the gods and goddesses, because Apep was daring to eat Ra in front of them, and they were all frightened.

But all the gods and goddesses knew that Sekhmet could save Ra. Sekhmet got up, snarling at being so rudely awakened. Like all felines she enjoys her noon naps in little patches of sunlight under big trees. But the other gods and goddesses prevailed and calmed Sekhmet as they explained the seriousness of the situation.
Sekhmet is used to that upstart Apep trying to eat Ra each afternoon and causing it to get dark all over the Earth. Even though she enjoys the darkness of night, when she can hunt under the gem-like stars strewn on the soft darkness, she also knows that if she doesn’t save Ra, all life will perish. If she doesn’t save Ra, her own existence is in peril, so every night, Sekhmet scares Apep and makes him vomit Ra up and put him back together again, just in time for Ra to get into the barque that carries him across the daytime sky.

This day, however, Apep must have slithered into Ra’s barque, hiding until the dastardly deed was to be done. Sekhmet cast aside her fear of swimming and set out for the barque. The fight for Ra had begun. Luckily for all living things, and for all the gods and goddesses, Apep had only begun to eat Ra when Sekhmet climbed into the barque.

She pounced on Apep, roaring and with claws and fangs bared, and scared Apep so much that he let go of Ra after only one bite. Apep spat that up and, with a paw on Apep, Sekhmet herself put Ra back together again. Then she took Apep in her mouth, jumped back into the sky, and returned to Earth.

The wily Apep slithered out of her mouth and got away, but Sekhmet knew he’d be back later in the afternoon, just when Ra’s barque would be landing. So she lay down to wait for him, purring at her great accomplishment. All the living things and gods and goddesses gave loud cheers of thanks to Sekhmet for saving Ra, and for saving them.

And this is why you don’t ever need to worry about Ra. As long as Sekhmet is here, waiting for his barque, she will protect him from Apep, and we’ll have our little patches of sunlight to keep warm in, while we wait for the darkness and the good hunting it brings.

Curl up, my kittens, and go back to sleep. You’re safe.


_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#12290 - 10/06/08 06:29 PM Re: The Crystal Tablet and the Satanic Bible/Rituals [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Greg Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/12/08
Posts: 25
Loc: France, Paris
At least if you wish to edit in French the CoS, I know an interested publisher...

To return to Set, researchers demonstrated links between the Hebraic alpahabet and the hyéroglyphs, Satan in Hebrew ( stn ) being a deformation of the ideogram Set, Champollion had already had the intuition of it. It seems that during the period of hyksos, there was a fusion between Set and Apep. It is the transition which announces the monotheism where all which symbolizes the darkness, the chaos, the contradiction, the violence is not multiple any more and not differentiated but one.
_________________________
A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval.
Mark Twain

http://www.facebook.com/diableries

Top
#12292 - 10/06/08 07:08 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Greg Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/12/08
Posts: 25
Loc: France, Paris
Could the Xeper get closer to existentialist concepts such as Dasein (Heidegger) or Existenz (Jaspers)?
_________________________
A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval.
Mark Twain

http://www.facebook.com/diableries

Top
#12651 - 10/14/08 04:31 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: 97and107]
AnOpenHand Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/30/08
Posts: 32
Loc: England
I agree I wholeheartedly with you 97and107, the more I observe the more I see the 'I'm far better/more intellectual/I was bullied at school' mentaltity emerging with certain people who would join a red paper hat church if they thought it would give them a higher horse and more stones to throw at their own glass houses. The size of the egos these forums attract -actually I'll correct myself its not just Satanism forums it's anything that is an "alternative" (I hate that word) its like flies to shit.
Theres good folks to with good heads on their shoulders but it's a shame about the morons who fail to perform in their existences so they trawl the net 24hrs a day looking for people to torment.
Popularity is overrated, but in the cases of some wankers any attention is better then none. Anyone can cut and paste parts of peoples posts make a few very poor vague assasinations then sit and jerk off over how smart they are. Xaulamyn you only let people acheive their goals if you allow the response they desire.
_________________________
ASSHOLES AND ELBOWS YOU KNOW THE DRILL!!!

Top
#14182 - 11/11/08 04:01 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: AnOpenHand]
Magus Masonica Offline
Banned
stranger


Registered: 11/03/08
Posts: 14
Loc: WA
Thank you for posing Dr.Aquino. I am very interested in the Temple. I am currently reading and absorbing all that I can. If the path takes me where I see it progressing, I will be contacting the Temple of Set to hopefully become a member very soon.

Xeper resonates very strongly with me. It feels very natural.
Regards,
BC
_________________________
BC 96°
National Head Of Washington State
M.E.A.P.R.M.M.

Top
#36144 - 03/07/10 07:41 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Greg]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: Greg
Could the Xeper get closer to existentialist concepts such as Dasein (Heidegger) or Existenz (Jaspers)?

If I may resurrect an old thread... I was also wondering if the concept of Xeper has much of a connection with Carl Gustav Jung's concept of Individuation. (The latter is of importance to many Satanists.)

Top
#36146 - 03/07/10 11:51 PM Jung's "Individuation" [Re: Meq]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Meq
I was also wondering if the concept of Xeper has much of a connection with Carl Gustav Jung's concept of Individuation. (The latter is of importance to many Satanists.)

No, Jung's "individuation" involves getting in touch with unrecognized parts of your personality as it is animalistically (which is presumably how you relate/limit the concept to Satanic-theme Atheism). Xeper, on the other hand, refers to the evolutionary, transformative process by which the Setian dispenses with an animal existence to assume a divine one.

I might add as a historical note that, while both of these approaches were implicit, and not necessarily perceived as mutually-exclusive in the original Church of Satan, by 1975 we really had not come to grips with either of them. Our work with Black Magic, for instance, was essentially action-objective or illustrative, not self-transformative or -investigative. [Did you ever see so many "-ives" in one sentence?]
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36178 - 03/09/10 12:40 PM Morbius, something is approaching the perimeter. [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
I would be curious regarding how you exclude the bestial aspects of the initiation process and how these are perceived by the ToS today.

As the consciousness and will are strengthened, and as one progressively replaces nonconscious acceptance of & compliance with mass standards of morality and behavior, there is the simultaneous danger of what in the 1960s was usually called "inflation of the ego" (a sort of Caligula approach to all of one's whims and desires). By the Temple of Set we often called it "the id-monster" - not because we were Freudians, but rather with reference to Forbidden Planet. Because it is frequently a non-self-consciously-perceived phenomenon.

There is no easy or universal answer. An initiatory environment helps, because others around you, who are familiar with both the Xeper process and you, can sometimes see the monster developing and stand by with a super soaker. But ultimately what is required is, during initiation, a constant attention to the full range of one's consciousness, not just the Will To Power aspect. Takes a bit longer and is not as much Marvel Comics fun, but you don't wreck spaceships.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36526 - 03/16/10 08:58 AM Re: Morbius, something is approaching the perimeter. [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
Dr. Aquino and the Temple of Set are now and always have been an important part of the Satanic Community. He was there in the early years and has been a loyal, outspoken and committed voice for decades.

I think that sometimes he is at a bit of a disadvantage here, as the majority of the board is from a CoS/LaVey point of view and is often unfamiliar with the exact nature and views of the TOS. But make no mistake, even if the TOS downplays the actual word "Satan" sometimes, they are still part of the same overall community.

Top
#36531 - 03/16/10 09:18 AM Re: Morbius, something is approaching the perimeter. [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
Touche!!!

Yes this is a LaVeyan site and yes Dr. Aquino is here by choice. My point was and is, that a lot of people simply do not have much information about the TOS and their views. A lot of that is from the years of bad blood between LaVey and Aquino and from the fact that during those years.... the unofficial CoS position was that Aquino was scum and everything he said was garbage! ha ha ha

So a lot of LaVeyan satanists simply wrote him off. We have to remember that "Satanists" were around for thousands of years before Dr. LaVey put pen to paper, and that there are many in the community who have different interpretations.

As for Dr. Aquino? I wont get into the whole split, as I am sure that all parties could have and should have dealt with things better and I am sure there is blame to be shared, but I do commend him for his work.

Top
#36557 - 03/16/10 01:17 PM A duck by any other name ... [Re: 111Cal]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: 111Cal
Dr. Aquino and the Temple of Set are now and always have been an important part of the Satanic Community. He was there in the early years and has been a loyal, outspoken and committed voice for decades.

I think that sometimes he is at a bit of a disadvantage here, as the majority of the board is from a COS/LaVey point of view and is often unfamiliar with the exact nature and views of the TOS. But make no mistake, even if the TOS downplays the actual word "Satan" sometimes, they are still part of the same overall community.

I don't feel "at disadvantage" in 600C, for the simple reason that I am not here to seek any "advantage". As previously noted, I am here primarily for historical (to explain what and how the Church of Satan actually was 1966-75) and sentimental (to uphold the honor of the Prince of Darkness as I was ordained to his Priesthood 1970-75) reasons. Both of these I regard matter-of-factly; if others wish to disagree with either, that's entirely their affair.

I have been principled on one self-evident count: that "Satanist" is properly used to identify someone who believes in the existence of Satan as a sentient entity, and who owns allegiance to him sincerely and formally, as per the Oath in the "Satanic Baptism" of the Satanic Rituals, and within the Priesthood of Mendes as per the Oath in the ceremony of that ordination. I assert that the Church of Satan had the exclusive and authentic authority to administer both Oaths 1966-75, but not thereafter. Hence sincere Satanists post-1975 are on their own concerning the first Oath, and in the absence of the true Church the second is extinct as well.

Atheists are atheists, not "Satanists"; and an Atheist who likes to affect Satanic imagery for its glamour [because Atheism by itself is dull] is doing just that.

The Temple of Set is not properly "part of the Satanic community", since it considers "Satan" simply an imperfect, propagandized, Judæo/Christian caricature of Set. So I suppose you could call Satanism a superficial, still-J/C-conditioned "part of the Setian community". ;\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36560 - 03/16/10 01:22 PM Re: A duck by any other name ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
Ha Ha Ha

Dr. Aquino, I like how you put a spin on it like that. And I respect your views, opinions and insight.

My point was simply that many "Satanists" view the TOS as some sort of odd "New Age Occult" beatnik group, or some odd mix of Nazi Germany and Black Magic, without having any idea of what they are talking about. That is a real shame.

Maybe its because you can join the CoS with a check and no effort, while the TOS requires a more active and committed interest.... and some are not willing to take the time to learn more. I dont know.

Top
#36569 - 03/16/10 02:05 PM Re: A duck by any other name ... [Re: 111Cal]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Honestly 111Cal, I am getting tired of you talking down to the members of this board in general. On matters ranging from our manners to intelligence.

So you are older and claim membership CoS for 35 years, big deal. Jake and Aquino have never taken the attitude that you show, and I believe they are both older than you. I'm in this a long ass time too, a lot of the members here are in their 30's and 40's. Most of us don't feel the need to bandy numbers around about how long we have been Satanist's. Numbers don't prove anything, it is thoughts, words, and deeds that show what is inside your mind and heart.

I doubt anyone here considers the TOS a beatnik or Nazi group. Hell, if anyone has any questions in regards to the TOS, they can google it or just ask Aquino here. Granted it's a Satanism site, but IMO, no one really minds the occasional TOS question mainly because Aquino is such a font of information, and generally a nice guy.

If you find us so lacking. Plus aside from your gossiping and previous lack of respect towards the privacy of the finances of Karla and the rest of the Lavey family why do you come here?

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#36571 - 03/16/10 02:13 PM Re: A duck by any other name ... [Re: Morgan]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
Gee Morgan.... I thought that the difference between THIS site and the CoS puppet sites... was that UNLIKE THEM, we dont stop members from discussing LaVey, or his family, or personal things that the CoS wants to pretend doesnt exist? hmmmmmm....

As for those financial issues... they are all common knowledge! You can google it and get 100X more info than I have put forth. When you become a PUBLIC person, and have a Public based career, you can no longer make claims to privacy.... Anton, Karla, Zeena, Stanton are all public people... and Stanton himself (and his grandmother Diane) have spoken on these matters and written about them publicly many times... so its not like im "Outing" someone here! The LaVey family themselves ALL made choices to be public people... Its not like Karla wanted to have a quiet life away from the camera eye. They ALL made that choice and along with that, they give up part of their "private" life...
just the same as Elvis, Obama, Madonna or Liberace did... and since the LaVey family has allready said the same things I have said (on many occasions) its not some "secret!"

And I would put forth that if you want the topic dropped, then maybe you should stop bringing it up when you dont like a post I make? It wasnt me that brought it back up again.

and I am not talking down to the community at all. I am honest, and if people are showing bad manners and talking in a way that reflects badly on Satanists in general, I will speak out. As for those who have that negative view of the TOS??? I can tell you firsthand that many people do have those views. Not so much on this site, but google other sites and u will see that a lot of Satanists have a warped view of what the TOS is about.

By in large the Satanic community is far more intelligent and courteous than most all others... however, I am sorry if I am blunt with my views sometimes. ( I will say that most of those I have had disagreements on this site with, have since PMd or emailed me direct with a much nicer direct resolution!)


Edited by 111Cal (03/16/10 02:15 PM)

Top
#36574 - 03/16/10 02:21 PM Sieg Heil Cats 'n' Chicks! [Re: 111Cal]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: 111Cal
... many "Satanists" view the TOS as some sort of odd "New Age Occult" beatnik group, or some odd mix of Nazi Germany and Black Magic

Well yes, that's why we sell those "Beatnik Nazis for Set" T-shirts and bumper stickers.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36576 - 03/16/10 02:24 PM Re: A duck by any other name ... [Re: 111Cal]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
It's not a matter of discussing things. It's a matter that you seem to get off on gossiping about LaVey and his family.

Back to gossip, until you brought up questions as to who gets a cut of the Satanic Bible, no one thought the need to be rude and nosey into a family/business situation that doesn't benefit or matter to 99 3/4% of the members here.

Back to you speaking about members here who have bad manners in regards to the 3 main religions, do you have any examples off hand? I am not just talking about when Xitian's come here and ask for a rebuke. Do you have examples of Jew or Muslim bashing by members since you are using a wide brush. I see you backed down on saying members of this site have no clue about the TOS.

Okay, accepted.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#36577 - 03/16/10 02:25 PM Re: Sieg Heil Cats 'n' Chicks! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: 111Cal
... many "Satanists" view the TOS as some sort of odd "New Age Occult" beatnik group, or some odd mix of Nazi Germany and Black Magic

Well yes, that's why we sell those "Beatnik Nazis for Set" T-shirts and bumper stickers.


Ha ha ha

A simple google search of the TOS will reveal a whole onslaught of odd claims.... sites that make ridiculous and untrue claims about Dr. Aquinos involvement in Child murders, claims of neo nazi fascinations, and all sorts of stupid claims that are factually wrong and offensive to me to read!

The CoS has long since had a smear campaign against the TOS and Barton and Gilmore have made personal comments and attacks that were untrue and have pretty much banned discussion of the TOS or any ideas of the group for years.

My point was that many people dont know enough about the TOS to really form an informed opinion.

Top
#36578 - 03/16/10 02:33 PM Re: A duck by any other name ... [Re: Morgan]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
It's not a matter of discussing things. It's a matter that you seem to get off on gossiping about LaVey and his family.

Back to gossip, until you brought up questions as to who gets a cut of the Satanic Bible, no one thought the need to be rude and nosey into a family/business situation that doesn't benefit or matter to 99 3/4% of the members here.

Back to you speaking about members here who have bad manners in regards to the 3 main religions, do you have any examples off hand? I am not just talking about when Xitian's come here and ask for a rebuke. Do you have examples of Jew or Muslim bashing by members since you are using a wide brush. I see you backed down on saying members of this site have no clue about the TOS.



Morgan, I will reply here since you asked... however I think that in the future, it would better serve the site to PM one another with such questions because it is counterproductive to take threads off track like this.

1. The financial issue over royalties IS enough of an issue that Stanton LaVey and Diane LaVey/Hegarty have both commented many times in letters and interviews about it. Major news agencies covered the settlement. Countless news articles detailed the settlement in detail. Zeena commented on it. You keep talking about "being nosey"? How can it be called that when the info has been out there for years and Millions have read these articles? These are PUBLIC People, with PUBLIC articles and interviews covering all this material. You cannot want to be a public person and write books, or lead organizations and then claim "Privacy" when people ask about the finances of those same public groups. You give up that right. And if 99% of the people dont care, then they do not have to read or comment on these issues at all.

2. As for those being rude and offensive? I would direct you to the thread you are allready well aware of and have taken part in. To me, it doesnt matter if a Christian starts the thread and stars it off rudely or not... bad manners is bad manners. LaVey himself had to deal with Christian bigotry and ignorance on a semi-constant basis and never resorted to screaming F*** You and cussing them out and hurling insults. He handled himself maturefly (at least publicly) and fought them with his Mind and his intelligence, and debated his views where he could or ignored them if he could not.... he never sunk to the "schoolyard name calling mentality".

As for the misconceptions of the TOS--- would u like me to post links??? a simple google search will reveal all sorts of insanity about them! NONE of which is true and all of which is simply offensive!

Top
#36579 - 03/16/10 02:34 PM Re: Sieg Heil Cats 'n' Chicks! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
So you are older and claim membership CoS for 35 years, big deal. Jake and Aquino have never taken the attitude that you show, and I believe they are both older than you.

Well age doesn't neccesarily imply higher experience/intelligence on a matter.
Agreed however anyone in blue deserved their title.

 Originally Posted By: 111Cal
Gee Morgan.... I thought that the difference between THIS site and the CoS puppet sites... was that UNLIKE THEM, we dont stop members from discussing LaVey, or his family, or personal things that the CoS wants to pretend doesnt exist? hmmmmmm....

There is a difference between discussing LaVey (pointless) and discussing his ideas and views (not pointless).

 Originally Posted By: Whiney bitch
As for those who have that negative view of the TOS??? I can tell you firsthand that many people do have those views. Not so much on this site, but google other sites and u will see that a lot of Satanists have a warped view of what the TOS is about.

And there are people who have a negative view of Satanism and of Christianity and of Odinism and of....
In the end: who cares? As long as you know what you believe in I don't see any problems.
Quit whining!


Edited by Dimitri (03/16/10 02:36 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#36580 - 03/16/10 02:39 PM Re: Sieg Heil Cats 'n' Chicks! [Re: Dimitri]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
If I make an comment or thread that you find "pointless" then I truly apologize for having wasted your time. However, I would suggest you simply not read it. The fact is that a lot of these threads that you may find pointless, are not viewed that way by some as they have comments and views and have resulted in many off-site discussions as well.

I understand that there may be some topics you find to be pointless or dull or tiresome and that is your right to view them as such... however there are those who do have an interest in the life of LaVey or others in addition to their philosophies.


Edited by 111Cal (03/16/10 02:39 PM)

Top
#36581 - 03/16/10 02:43 PM Re: Sieg Heil Cats 'n' Chicks! [Re: 111Cal]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:
However, I would suggest you simply not read it. The fact is that a lot of these threads that you may find pointless, are not viewed that way by some as they have comments and views and have resulted in many off-site discussions as well.

If things are not of my interest I do not read them.
But your manners and behavior are a pain in the ass, you come across as a whiny bastard whose so-called experience is doubtful and seemingly limited towards adoration of a long-passed person.

Your meddling with matters whom are none of your business show a lack of decency and respect. You might be fascinated, but you should have figured out already your fanaticism isn't shared nor do you bring out any useful debate.

Watch it gramps, I bite before I bark.


Edited by Dimitri (03/16/10 02:46 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#36584 - 03/16/10 02:50 PM Re: Sieg Heil Cats 'n' Chicks! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
AMEN Brother!
Anyone who has any issues/comments/questions towards me (aside from the posted thread topic) lets take it to PMs and discuss them directly!

Top
#36588 - 03/16/10 03:45 PM Re: A duck by any other name ... [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
OK, who's up for rebelling against the Setian community?


I would be, if it weren't for that fact that there isn't much to rebel against; aside from a handful of people whom are jacking (or jilling) off to Egyptian mythology.

Everyone has the right to state their opinion concerning anything, whether or not that opinion is valid is another matter. You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own reality.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#36595 - 03/16/10 05:24 PM Re: A duck by any other name ... [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
... to claim that your portrayal of Satanism is superior to my own personal convictions is pushing it. You're going against the grain of my character. No one gets to tell me that.

You are certainly at liberty to call yourself whatever pleases you. \:\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36606 - 03/16/10 06:31 PM Re: A duck by any other name ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
CanisMajor Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/17/10
Posts: 49
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

I have been principled on one self-evident count: that "Satanist" is properly used to identify someone who believes in the existence of Satan as a sentient entity, and who owns allegiance to him sincerely and formally, as per the Oath in the "Satanic Baptism" of the Satanic Rituals, and within the Priesthood of Mendes as per the Oath in the ceremony of that ordination...

Atheists are atheists, not "Satanists"; and an Atheist who likes to affect Satanic imagery for its glamour [because Atheism by itself is dull] is doing just that...

The Temple of Set is not properly "part of the Satanic community", since it considers "Satan" simply an imperfect, propagandized, Judæo/Christian caricature of Set...


I have always regarded Satan as symbolic and metaphorical.A rebellious character that thumbed his nose at conformity,convention,and orthodoxy.The rare champion of individuality,cunning,and intellect.A perfect form of adversary as archetype.

...And the congregation says,"No shit,Sherlock!"

It appears that with Satanism with Setianism the largest issue is the juxtaposition of theism and Atheism.

You have always made the argument that your theism is somehow different,and that you are a diabolical prophet who was spoken to by a deity. (Shades of Crowley, Aiwass,and The Book of the Law?)

Not to be disrespectful,but when you start waxing poetic about entities,oaths,ordinations...well...it just feels like I have seen this masquerade ball before(ad infinitum,ad nauseum,etc.).

Yogi Berra:"It's 'deja vu' all over again!"

Per Satanism,the semantic origins of Satan are irrelevant minutae best left to Qabalists.

It matters little whether or not you choose to attire an anthropomorphic devil in Egyptian lenins. He will still resemble YHWH in drag.


Edited by CanisMajor (03/16/10 06:53 PM)
_________________________
For every complex problem,there is a solution that is simple,neat,and wrong.
H.L Mencken

Top
#36610 - 03/16/10 08:57 PM "Yes, my son, I am only a magician." [Re: CanisMajor]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: CanisMajor
It matters little whether or not you choose to attire an anthropomorphic devil in Egyptian lenins. He will still resemble YHWH in drag.

I agree that you will continue to find life much more comfortable, reassuring, and uncomplicated in disregard of the Temple of Set. \:\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36615 - 03/16/10 11:33 PM Re: "Yes, my son, I am only a magician." [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
Honestly, I must confess that while I admire the Temple of Set's practical philosophies, I'm not too impressed with their first-hand "scriptural material". The Book of Coming forth by Night comes off as being a bland and petty quarrel, making more dated references to Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan rather than any grand Aeonic declarations or profound mystical revelations, or anything else you'd expect from an ancient god of darkness who hasn't had the chance to speak his mind unhindered for the past few dozen centuries. The "Word of Set" isn't much better, itself being a liberal translation of the Enochian Calls rather than anything original. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're hiding the good stuff from us behind the closed doors of the Temple, but I'm too lazy to seek initiation if curiosity is my only reason.

(Sorry, that was a little rant I've had brewing inside me for the past few years. I'll move on to more serious ramblings.)

But, admittedly, in contrast to how much fun we seem to be having making fun of the "different" kid on the block, I find myself wondering something, Dr. Aquino, and I hope you'll respond, as it is in regards to the "ultimate" nature of Set and Satan (should I dare to use such heavy labels).

A feature of my interpretation of Satanism is that Satan, despite the popular notion of the whole "eternal Good versus eternal Evil" conflict, represents foremost individualism and independence. Other devil-figures, such as Ahriman, notably lack this trait-- they are starkly dualistic and thus eternally bound to the God-figure which they oppose. Satan, on the other hand, strives not merely to overthrow the YHWH/Demiurgos, but to establish his own nature apart from God. He rebels against the norm not for the sake of rebelling, but for the purpose of separating and elevating himself above the spheres of heaven.

Keeping this in mind, you have often (most recently in this thread) stated that Satan is a Judeo-Christian caricature of Set, derived in turn from a Late Egyptian caricature of an earlier, cosmic Set-- in contrast to the diabolic "bad guy" role he plays in Osirian drama.

However from what I've researched, the "pre-Osirian" Set represents an even greater dualism. While not being especially villainous, he seems to have less of an independent presence, instead being viewed as the "Left Hand of Ra" as the cosmic counterpart to Horus, representing darkness and light, respectively. He is almost always invariably depicted alongside Horus, portrayed as an important part of the cosmos, but not the be-all-and-end-all, and certainly not a balanced principle on his own. (Satan, it should be noticed, represents both darkness and light, with his Luciferian aspects taken into account.)

This is why, in my own quasi-theological musings, I have determined the cosmic Set to not be a suitable figurehead for a complete religious philosophy. (His "diabolic" side, on the other hand, could be more useful, but I have yet to explore this framework)

What are your thoughts on the matter, and how do you interpret a pre-Osirian Set as an individual principle?
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#36616 - 03/17/10 12:09 AM Setian Metaphysics [Re: The Zebu]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Honestly, I must confess that while I admire the Temple of Set's practical philosophies, I'm not too impressed with their first-hand "scriptural material". The Book of Coming forth by Night comes off as being a bland and petty quarrel, making more dated references to Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan rather than any grand Aeonic declarations or profound mystical revelations, or anything else you'd expect from an ancient god of darkness who hasn't had the chance to speak his mind unhindered for the past few dozen centuries.

The record of any GBM working will have a very direct, personal meaning for the magician and a necessarily different one for anyone else (who did not experience it firsthand). I quite understand and accept this where the Book of Coming Forth by Night is concerned. If you have not already done so, I recommend that you read Chapter #2 "The North Soistice Working" concerning it in my Temple of Set ebook, as well as Appendix #3 (my analysis of it).

 Quote:
The "Word of Set" isn't much better, itself being a liberal translation of the Enochian Calls rather than anything original. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're hiding the good stuff from us behind the closed doors of the Temple, but I'm too lazy to seek initiation if curiosity is my only reason.

The Word of Set is also discussed in TOS, but it is indeed the significance of its translation content that is pertinent to Setian initiation. You would probably have to do a great deal of Dee reading, as well as that concerning the Enochian system by a number of magicians and scholars over the years, for it to make sense. I don't say this to be either patronizing or deflective; it's just the essence of the thing. And yes, various Setians have studied & written about it extensively over the decades.

 Quote:
(Sorry, that was a little rant I've had brewing inside me for the past few years. I'll move on to more serious ramblings.)

Be my guest. Both of the above workings have not only been studied positively by persons who found them meaningful, but also been denounced and attacked [along with myself] by persons for all sorts of reasons. That's to be expected. I would be more upset if they were admired for the wrong reasons than condemned for the wrong ones.

 Quote:
... This is why, in my own quasi-theological musings, I have determined the cosmic Set to not be a suitable figurehead for a complete religious philosophy. (His "diabolic" side, on the other hand, could be more useful, but I have yet to explore this framework) What are your thoughts on the matter, and how do you interpret a pre-Osirian Set as an individual principle?

Please see Chapter #3 "Khemistry" in TOS.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#66374 - 04/24/12 08:19 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: 97and107]
riasb Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/24/12
Posts: 18
Loc: New Hampshire
My lifes conversion has been on the Left Path, and all of the Left path is of Satan, or Lucifier he rules the demons and other spirits of Earth and Hell. I am God and I can see it all.
_________________________
May Darkness comfort you. Hail Satan.

Top
#66378 - 04/24/12 10:38 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: riasb]
Erich Zann Offline
member


Registered: 02/01/12
Posts: 193
Loc: Germany
Yeah, we already know...
Are you able to make different posts than "Hey, I needed several decades to realize that I think I'm a Satanist and even if I don't seem to really understand it I tell everyone about it in every discussion regardless of the question if it fits or not"?

If you really joined the discussions or posted more constructive things I wouldn't care at all, but about 80% of your 18 posts deal with this. It's getting lame.
_________________________
The Pledge of Allegiance does not end with "Hail Satan!".

-Bart Simpson

Top
#66406 - 04/26/12 08:25 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Seraphyim]
Frumious Offline
member


Registered: 03/13/12
Posts: 102
Loc: New Jersey
I give Dr. Aquino more credit than some might, but he may not like what I'm giving. I name him carnie and his followers rubes - just bear in mind that from me that's a compliment to him, though not to his followers, except the ones who know the score, if any do. He set out to build a temple, and a temple did he build, a con for his bricks, and a swindle for his mortrar. To him I say, and mean whole-heartedly, "Bravo! Well played, O Trickster. At the banquet table of Loki you surely have a seat. By your hand may a dozen truth-sticklers fall, when Ragnarok dawns."
_________________________
Would I lie to you?

Top
#66420 - 04/26/12 08:21 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Frumious]
Oxus Offline
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 510
 Originally Posted By: Frumious
I give Dr. Aquino more credit than some might, but he may not like what I'm giving. I name him carnie and his followers rubes - just bear in mind that from me that's a compliment to him, though not to his followers, except the ones who know the score, if any do. He set out to build a temple, and a temple did he build, a con for his bricks, and a swindle for his mortrar. To him I say, and mean whole-heartedly, "Bravo! Well played, O Trickster. At the banquet table of Loki you surely have a seat. By your hand may a dozen truth-sticklers fall, when Ragnarok dawns."
WTF did you just say? LOL!! The pseudo-vernacular verbosity ASSide, what do you actually know about the ToS and Dr. Aquino that would lead you to these 'poetic' statements?

Top
#66422 - 04/26/12 08:27 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Oxus]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3888
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
You sir are evidence enough of his statements I would say.

Don't you ever get tired of swinging on those dusty old things?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#66423 - 04/26/12 08:59 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Liane Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/21/11
Posts: 29
Loc: Germany
To be a setian, you don't have to be a member of some organization!
Xeper and everything involved with it can be found in the "real world". Where the fuck do "you" think the ToS has its knowledge from? \:D Xeper is about DOING anyway and not about thinking or to have conclaves with people who are already of the same type of thinking. How lame.

I don't need some postmarks from some occultniks or priests.
How unsetian is this?

Kindship of Set means how Set is in his nature, to be alone!

Sorry for my bad english.


Edited by Liane (04/26/12 09:22 PM)
_________________________
:) Autonomy without the State

Top
#66426 - 04/27/12 12:15 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Liane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3888
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
"Where the fuck do "you" think the ToS has its knowledge from? "

I'd be hesitant to call it 'knowledge', but from what I can tell most of it was pulled fully formed from aquinos posterior.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#66451 - 04/28/12 04:02 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Oxus Offline
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 510
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
You sir are evidence enough of his statements I would say.

Don't you ever get tired of swinging on those dusty old things?
Dan, I asked a simple question . . . and it wasn't to you.
We ALL know your distemper towards the ToS and Dr. Aquino, it doesn't mean you need to shout it out at every given opportunity . . . unless of course this juvenile behavior helps you to confirm your misunderstandings?

Top
#66452 - 04/28/12 04:38 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Oxus]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3888
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Oh but I will 'shout' (however that is done in text) at whatever or whoever I like, young nutswinger.

In this particular instance, the bullshit is so robust I find it needs to be thinned out, I'm doing a public service. If weeds grow in your garden, do you not pull them out?

The fact is the bullshit yarn spun by aquino and co is of the same stuff as any other superstitious faith belief..why should it receive any special consideration here?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#66454 - 04/28/12 06:00 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Oxus Offline
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 510
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Oh but I will 'shout' (however that is done in text) at whatever or whoever I like, young nutswinger.

In this particular instance, the bullshit is so robust I find it needs to be thinned out, I'm doing a public service. If weeds grow in your garden, do you not pull them out?

The fact is the bullshit yarn spun by aquino and co is of the same stuff as any other superstitious faith belief..why should it receive any special consideration here?
And what would that 'superstitious faith belief' be exactly?

Top
#66455 - 04/28/12 06:26 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Oxus]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3888
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Oh, you know..the usual. Continuation of consciousness after death, the existence of some supernatural entity (neter if you like) that cares enough to interfere with mankind for some reason, mans special position in the universe, etc.

Nothing exceptional.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#66471 - 04/30/12 12:48 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Frumious]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Frumious
I give Dr. Aquino more credit than some might, but he may not like what I'm giving. I name him carnie and his followers rubes - just bear in mind that from me that's a compliment to him, though not to his followers, except the ones who know the score, if any do. He set out to build a temple, and a temple did he build, a con for his bricks, and a swindle for his mortrar. To him I say, and mean whole-heartedly, "Bravo! Well played, O Trickster. At the banquet table of Loki you surely have a seat. By your hand may a dozen truth-sticklers fall, when Ragnarok dawns."

Upon reading it, which I just did today, I don't much give a damn for it one way or another, since it's just another water-balloon.

What gets my attention and interest are thoughtful questions about or objections to Setian philosophy, or negative experiences that someone's had with the Temple of Set's structure/environment, etc. Over the course of my 600C visit several such questions have been raised, to which I have attempted to respond appropriately.

Water-balloons, like whoopie-cushions, are a whole different affair.

As a postscript, in 1972 Anton LaVey gave me a copy of Roger Price's The Great Roob Revolution, to which Roger added a sketch at his home in 1975. It's a charming [and very Satanic] book, within which [during Nixonia] Roger correctly predicted the Neocon future.

I am probably an "avant roob", though with lapses to "sub" when I visit Vegas ...

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#67633 - 06/22/12 10:12 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Woodey Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/25/12
Posts: 16
Dr. Aquino I have been reading this thread and find what you have to say both thought provoking and insightful. The Temple of Set is a group that I know nothing about, which is why I went to this thread. I have been studying Satanism for about a year and I am ravenous to learn more. I recently read the Emperor's New Religion on John Allee's site and told him that I was greatly interested to learn more about what happened to the CoS in 1975 and its overall history; he recommended I read your e-book The Church of Satan. I will read the Temple of Set after that.

One thing that is hard for me is my strict Atheist nature, one that is bound to science and the use of evidence for support. It is very challenging for me to immerse myself in the occult and surround myself with people who are Wiccan, or have a belief in a higher power (good or evil). I’m very quick to dismiss or write something off as “preposterous or absurd”, where’s the proof? No proof, then f*ck off!” Sometimes that is a good mindset to have and it does at times keep me from giving away my money and time (something that people have little of, but are quick to give away). However, there are times that I find it constraining and it limits me in my pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

I constantly want to challenge my way of thinking and internal belief system, I feel that the worst thing a human can do to one’s self is become complacent. To be stuck in one’s ways is the equivalent of prison; I/we mock people who we view as “time passing them by”. I’m hoping that my continued reading in the occult will help me evolve and question myself and rethink my position on things. Not to sound overly profound, I feel that it is only by questioning that a solid foundation of conviction can be built, a conviction that can be built upon and not easily shaken. Perhaps reading the Temple of Set will help me in that regards…..maybe not, but I will find out.
_________________________
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Hitchens

Top
#76545 - 05/21/13 03:01 PM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Woodey]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6789
Loc: Virginia
I would say, yes. And this is based from personal experience with the Organization and Members. While that affiliation was short-lived, it was well worth the investigation.

I was most interested in how Xeper is achieved, at least ideologically. Added to that, cultural studies have always been a hobby of mine, and the idea that Set was demonized due to Romanization of Egypt has always been a fascinating subject. Romanized Isis is gravely different than the Egyptian Aset. Likewise, Set as a warrior for RA later becoming the diabolical bad guy, seemed fitting for the cultural shift.

At any rate, I went through all the necessary channels to become sponsored and allowed entry. I was most interested in the Library and the Tablets, which I attained fairly quickly perusing the Library.

I was communicating with my sponsor regarding a sort of curriculum of study. There was a metric ton of content to sift through, so that seemed to be a project they were interested in when I inquired about it and recommended it. Not sure if they ever implemented it.

After roughly a year, there was a communication regarding my Yahoo 360 page. One of the upper echelon misread something on one of my pages, but wasn't willing to own up to his error. I held him accountable for his rather pretentious and rude email inquiry. Rather than apologizing and taking up responsibility for his error, he instead decided to threaten me with proverbial boogeymen. Pretty funny story actually. I understand that there's a sort of grandfathered paranoia between the CoS and ToS due to its history; however these are not my problems. I was blatantly accused of being a spy for the CoS. Little ole me? Heh.

The entire exchange was so comical, I printed it out and have it archived in a binder along with other relevant ToS material. I hold no animosity towards the Org or the contacts I was in touch with (nor my accusers). It was all rather silly. I admit I had a bit of fun with it once I started receiving threats. I was kind of hoping for a personal visit from ToS henchmen.

That said. I'd say the handling of the whole thing was rather 'Satanic' in tone. I mean, they were protecting their territory, and were prepared for any conflict to the likeness of the hounds of Anubis *snark* I can handle my own, so I wasn't really concerned with it. My time there had taken its course, no big deal.

I did find the reading material useful, though all the institutional stuff isn't really my cup of tea. I was really just interested in a more hands-on review of the material, and you are required to apply in order to attain most of it. This was prior to a lot of that material being hosted on various websites/torrents.

The plastic membership card is far better than the little paper one you get from the CoS. I like to collect these little artifacts as a hobby. The entry-level medallion is really plain, just a white enameled Pentagram. No less fancy than the white one you get from the CoS.

There's always a debate over whether or not this guy or the next qualifies as a 'Satanist' or at the very least a hard-core LHPr. It's all a dick measuring contest, and most people end up coming up short. That's my opinion anyway.


_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110762 - 12/06/16 07:20 AM Re: Temple of Set...Satanists? [Re: Seraphyim]
satan.edu Offline
Perm. Ban.
pledge


Registered: 07/17/15
Posts: 54
Loc: �
ToS are Satanist because here we are 2016 and people are still using and discussing the structure of thought as Initiated by Dr. Aquino. Who cares what he is doing now. All I ask is that he enjoy time(off topic). The reason TOS is a Satanist is because people that are not its creator are using what they have now.

Who cares about individuals when selecting a walk.

Top
Page all of 7 12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.102 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 108 queries. Zlib compression disabled.