-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
How much are the fees in the Temple of Set? I went on their website and saw they charge to progress through the levels.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How much does it cost to enter the Temple?
- Thread starter -Peacemaker-
- Start date
Daelach
Setian
$80 per year, independently of any rank achievements.
You'll pay more for any local e.g. chess club or football club membership, so what..
Source: http://www.xeper.org/pub/pub_gil.html
You'll pay more for any local e.g. chess club or football club membership, so what..
Source: http://www.xeper.org/pub/pub_gil.html
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
How much does it cost to "level up"?
blackout
Violet.
What does that mean?
It's $80 per year regardless of your degree.
That's it. Period. No hidden costs or agendas.
Far less than most people stick in the collection plate per year
to keep their church building mortgage paid for and operating,
not to mention their pastors salaries.
The Temple of Set Priesthood is ALL voluntary and unpaid.
They all give of their time and efforts freely.
Xeper is the primary requirment in order to aquire the State of Being that will get you Recognized to a higher Degree within the ToS. Within the ToS you cannot buy your way through the Degree system. The Temple of Set is an Initiatory School of the Black Arts, not a social club.
Xeper.
/Adramelek\
Xeper.
/Adramelek\
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
So ranking achievements cost nothing?
blackout
Violet.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
It's important to remember that the Church has a much different goals however as far as the people they're trying to reach. Their mission is to spread God's love to the world by mobilizing it's members to feed the poor, preach the Gospel here and abroad, as well as perform all kinds of other good deeds. That takes full time ministries in order to implement. From what I can see Satanism is more about individualism. I mean this is in the least offensive way possible but it seems like Satanists could care less about spreading their Satanism. It does not seem like they have a worldwide agenda like the Church therefore it certainly must take less resources to implement their goals.
blackout
Violet.
Note that in my post I was only including the operating costs of the church itself,
the mortgage and salaries.
I was not including missionary work and collections for the poor and all.
Just basic church/building expenses.
A reminder...
This thread is not about Satanism,
it's about the ToS.
It was your thread after all.
Christianity seems to gravitate to a large group "overhead".
The ToS does not.
It is interesting though, that the early christian church
met at people's homes.
Thus, no extra overhead costs.
Not that I really care though.
People pay for what they want.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
A reminder...
This thread is not about Satanism,
it's about the ToS.
It was your thread after all.
.
I thought the ToS was a branch of Satanism
Last edited:
It is also interesting to note that in the early days of the Church those who did not succumb to conversion techniques were tortured and murdered. The early Catholic Church has a lot of crusted blood-stains on its hands. We will never forget, neither shall we ever forgive!
Xeper.
/Adramelek\
Xeper.
/Adramelek\
Last edited:
Sireal
Setian
Sireal
Setian
L.Keane
Master Cosmonaut~EoB
And that is certainly enough to keep one busy for....well.....Eternity. :yes:
theirreverentconcubine
Member
Silly mortal.
Now that the local intelligentsia has answered that question, how about another? Daelach refers to Set as a "neter" without individuality, that Setianism is amoral, that the goal is zero...
Having just resurrected the thought of Set from an atheism thread querying religious alternative; there were suddenly two Sets, the empty set from set theory being the other...
Now I'm wondering if there's some kind of relevance; if any Setian here had such a consideration?
And if "without individuality" means "without agency," then what would be the conflict of an atheist going to the Temple of Set?
I mean, didn't really seem worthy of starting another thread when I'm an atheist and certain enough that will not change.
Daelach
Setian
While I don't speak for the ToS (since I've never been a member), I can contribute some Setian thoughts..
You could regard Set as a symbol, a concept, a Jungian archetype, a kind of specific system dynamics (or more esoteric: a "force" or "energy"). None of them requires "believing" in Set's existence in the sense that atheists deny. The only thing that will be hard then are communication rituals - if you don't believe that someone is there to answer, how would you communicate?
Another possibility is to dive into radical constructivism. In this case, the theists/atheists discussion about "does Set exist?" will offer a third perspective: a different understanding of what existence means. IMO, this is quite a good approach for a psyche-centered path anyway.
The difference atheists and theists are discussing then flattens to a purely descriptional difference. Or, if you like tech-speak, the pointers are different, but that doesn't say anything about the thing pointed to. It's like if you regard different maps of your country. A geographical one, an economical one, and maybe a political one. The maps are different, but the country they are describing still is the same.
"the map is not the territory".
What does that have to do with Set? The categories people are describing him in are a part of their consciousness. We need them because of the way OUR mind is working. That's why we are using categories familiar to us. Describing Set as a kind of person is familiar to us because WE are persons. If the only tool you got is a hammer, then EVERY problem will look like a nail.
I guess despite all the differences in our views, we can agree on that Set isn't human (whatever he may be). But in this case, describing him in human categories will rather lead to handle Set as a mirror, reflecting ourselves and the way our consciousness works. That means that categories like "individuality" or "agenda" must be used with care. These are our thoughts, not his ones.
Using this approach, I neither "believe" in Set nor I don't (in the sense of the theism/atheism discussion). If need be, I can act as if I were believing, and I can get results. But that doesn't prove the "existence" (in the said meaning) since I can get also results with disbelieving. Again, this doesn't prove anything. The concept of "temporary belief" is not new, it's a basic concept in chaos magic. Quite useful, IMO.
Temporary means that I can shift the context at will, according to what I want to do. Polycontextuality, so to say. I am not forced to always use a hammer just because it worked once. Why would I if I can have a whole toolbox? And of course, this box also includes reason - because it can be useful.
Now I feel that I didn't really answer your question.. but since the context you are asking in tends to limit and predetermine the possible answers, I think it's OK to break lose from the predefined context. This way, you can get new ideas, no matter whether you will accept them or not. The point isn't acceptance, the point is to have thought them
Last edited:
Jacksnyte
Reverend
Daelach
Setian
Redefined not to be degrees. Rather jokes. (;
Kori Houghton
Restricted
I think they are still there, along with the V* and VI*.The way the TOS interfaces with the outside public about its grades, the books on its Reading List, Its influential members, or its internal conflicts, has changed over the decades. Entirely as one would expect.
Recently I was cleaning out an old file cabinet, and discovered a thick (like 6-8 inches) printout (impact printer -- ancient tech
) of forum posts that were made on FidoNet during the early 1990s. From the old MagickNet and Base of Set. I am sure when I get around to reading through them, I will find posts by Dr. Aquino and other then TOS members about the subjects discussed on REF, but presenting the Temple somewhat differently from the way members post here today. Point being, the Temple is still around, 20 years later. How much does the morphing of church buzz word meanings, and grade qualifications and distinguishing characteristics matter, either in the TOS or to us outside of the Temple? Not so much, I think, unless you are an historian.