Laveyan Satanism v. Setianism

[EtuMalku]

.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { font-size: 10pt; font-family:Verdana } The word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Bible -- Isaiah 14:12 -- but only in the King James and related versions: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . . ." The New Revised Standard Version translates the same passage as "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, Son of Dawn!" In other translations we find: "O shining star of the dawn!" (Moffatt) or "O morning-star, son of the dawn!" (Hebrew Bible). The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as "lucifer," which was a reasonable Latin equivalent. And yet it is this lucifer, the bright one or lightbearer, that came to be understood by so many as the name for Satan, Lord of Darkness.

Lucifer is not an Adversary as the word Satan (Shaiten) describes
Lucifer is the 'Bringer of Light' in other words Lux Lucis (Lucifer) is gnosis, truth and Divine knowledge.
Lucifer makes His debut in the Testaments as the Serpent in the Garden of Eden pointing out to Eve that God is a liar and you will not die if you eat of the fruit of knowledge, which she did and did not die.
Lucifer brought us the Truth and our Free Will, showe us the way to either be One with God or to be a God ourself

Satan is a personification of the Judaic word al-satan (who borrowed it from the Persians 'Shaiten) meaning adversary. The word is used more as a descriptive noun or prono'un. A fallen tree preventing a husband from getting to his injured wife would be considered a tree of shaiten, more or less.
Shaiten did not become Satan until much later where Jewish sects / tribes such as the Essenes began referring to anyone not an Essene as a Shaiten. Still further the Roman Christian church decided it was time to personify shaiten into Satan and have Him become the scapegoat for all evil in the Christian world.
There is no Satan

Set is the brother of Osiris, the true Caine. Set is the losing Pharaoh and the evil of our world. Abrahamic religions are Sethian based.

 

[KHPR]

Lilith of the TOS said they were the COS "grown up".

Dr. Nosophoros,

That was a LOOOOONG time ago and the Temple has grown up as well. We don't spend time trashing the CoS anymore as it's pointless and keeps us from working on ourselves. They can do what they want and we just ignore them. I think they like it that way.

We've changed a lot over the years and if you or anyone else feels like it you can check out my podcast KHPR: The Voice of Darkness. We ain't your grandpappy's Temple of Set anymore.

Xeper,
Magister Robert Adams
Host, KHPR: The Voice of Darkness

 

[Adramelek]

On the subject of who's more arrogant, LaVeyian Satanists or Setians? I've spent a lot of time interacting with both, by correspondence and face to face, and in my experience LaVeyian Satanists are far more arrogant than Setians. I personally practice differing aspects of both philosophies though no one has ever accused me of being arrogant.

I must agree with Sireal - Xeper is good for you.

Got Xeper?
/Adramelek\

 

[Jeffery]

On the subject of who's more arrogant, LaVeyian Satanists or Setians? I've spent a lot of time interacting with both, by correspondence and face to face, and in my experience LaVeyian Satanists are far more arrogant than Setians. I personally practice differing aspects of both philosophies though no one has ever accused me of being arrogant.

I must agree with Sireal - Xeper is good for you.

Got Xeper?
/Adramelek\

I don't think you can base it on the specific religion/philosophy, but on the individual. However, I don't find anything wrong with egotism, or arrogance. I do however have a problem with those who fail to have any respect/manners. You can balance the two, I should know from experience too.

 

[Erebus]

I don't think you can base it on the specific religion/philosophy, but on the individual. However, I don't find anything wrong with egotism, or arrogance. I do however have a problem with those who fail to have any respect/manners. You can balance the two, I should know from experience too.

Very true. I think a certain amount of arrogance is healthy, but what I object to (and this doesn't only apply to LaVeyan Satanists) is when people fail to see the value in being likeable. The number of LHPers I've come across who have absolutely no people skills is staggering and is, in my opinion, highly detrimental.
People aren't particularly difficult to manipulate, but it's far easier to manipulate with a sweet smile than with a barrage of insults.

 

[Jeffery]

Very true. I think a certain amount of arrogance is healthy, but what I object to (and this doesn't only apply to LaVeyan Satanists) is when people fail to see the value in being likeable. The number of LHPers I've come across who have absolutely no people skills is staggering and is, in my opinion, highly detrimental.
People aren't particularly difficult to manipulate, but it's far easier to manipulate with a sweet smile than with a barrage of insults.

LHPers should not always be lumped into the same category as LaVeyan Satanists either. Sadly most have given us a bad name. Our brand of Satanism doesn't mean to walk around acting as if you're better than everyone else. Stupidity is a huge sin in our religion & to act in this manner would be pretty stupid. A huge portion of LaVeyan Satanists have very successful careers. I myself am currently going to the local police academy & I know many of the Church of Satan members are in law enforcement, as well as in the military.

I believe in thinking highly of yourself, priding yourself with/in intelligence, keeping a clear head/mind, I myself am VERY anti-drug & extremely right-wing in the majority of my political views too. I find that being informed & not being afraid to share your thoughts/opinions can sometimes be misconstrued to arrogance. I find that pretty pathetic & sad. Those who walk around with a chip on their shoulders & think they know what LaVey was trying to convey are delusional self-righteous morons too.

 

[Erebus]

Our brand of Satanism doesn't mean to walk around acting as if you're better than everyone else. Stupidity is a huge sin in our religion & to act in this manner would be pretty stupid.

I know and I agree. It's that sort of person my comment was directed at. Unfortunately this seems to be (in my experience anyway) a common failing amongst many LHPers of all varieties. It's good to be confident in yourself and to be well informed and opinionated, where many people trip up is in the application of these qualities. It's a very fine line between being opinionated and being a pain in the neck.

 

[Jeffery]

I know and I agree. It's that sort of person my comment was directed at. Unfortunately this seems to be (in my experience anyway) a common failing amongst many LHPers of all varieties. It's good to be confident in yourself and to be well informed and opinionated, where many people trip up is in the application of these qualities. It's a very fine line between being opinionated and being a pain in the neck.

That, we agree on.

 

[Satanix]

Google searches, and the actual websites as well as available interviews with Michael Aquino, the founder of the Temple of Set will sum up alot of assumptions and misinterpretations. I have spoken with Aquino before about the philosophy of Setianism, it is most certainly atheistic. It is similar to Luciferianism as that it goes beyond the basics of LaVeyan Satanism. Some people like the philosophy of Satanism, but don't like the stigma that has been branded of Satan by the Christian Church, even if the origins of the word have nothing to to with Judaism or Christianity.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I have spoken with Aquino before about the philosophy of Setianism, it is most certainly atheistic

HAH

Aquino has been very specific about his theistic beliefs, and recently, over at 600c.

To sum up, Set to him is the principle (or platonic form) of isolate self consciousness, but itself conscious. The book of coming forth by night, which is the corner stone of setian philosophy, entails a very serious claim that he communicated, directly, with set, and that set personally handed him the reigns of the 'true' Satanic religion.

He is not only a theist, but right up there with joseph smith and mohammed.

 

[blackout]

HAH

Aquino has been very specific about his theistic beliefs, and recently, over at 600c.

To sum up, Set to him is the principle (or platonic form) of isolate self consciousness, but itself conscious. The book of coming forth by night, which is the corner stone of setian philosophy, entails a very serious claim that he communicated, directly, with set, and that set personally handed him the reigns of the 'true' Satanic religion.

He is not only a theist, but right up there with joseph smith and mohammed.

Is it not possible for a principle to communicate itself to you?
Or for conscious consciousness to communicate itself to you?

I'm not speaking for Aquino,
I'm just sayin'.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No, it's not possible for a principle to say 'you are the rightful heir to the church of satan, go forth and create the temple of set'

Not without copious amounts of drugs being involved, anyhow.

 

[Tol]

SSE,

So your concept of consciousness is as some sort of mechanized device?

Doesn't running that software limit your self and your potential? Or does this view 'protect' you from something, falsehoods?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

SSE,

So your concept of consciousness is as some sort of mechanized device?

Doesn't running that software limit your self and your potential? Or does this view 'protect' you from something, falsehoods?

Where did you get THAT from?

 

[Tol]

Where did you get THAT from?

From your response and similar sentiments from atheistic Satanists; contrasted with my experiences with the 'The Holy Guardian' (ala Crowley) and The Prince of Darkness (ala the Prince of Darkness).

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Well, you seem to have missed the mark by a mile. You know what they say about assuming things.

This thread has nothing to do with consciousness. My comments had nothing to do with anything in your reply. Please try to stay focused...

 

[Tol]

Well, you seem to have missed the mark by a mile. You know what they say about assuming things.

This thread has nothing to do with consciousness. My comments had nothing to do with anything in your reply. Please try to stay focused...

Fair enough.

I can be abstract, vague in RF. I take it as seriously as it is.

 

[Daelach]

People aren't particularly difficult to manipulate, but it's far easier to manipulate with a sweet smile than with a barrage of insults.

Of course. The point is: why being nice to someone who does not have any value to me? Waste of time. Note that I define the meaning of "value" to be rather wide, not in terms of (maybe even short-sighted) usefulness. I have had contact with many people; some with an academic degree, others without. I just keep literally stumbling across them, and it is not some esoteric insignium I recognise them by. It is magic, or more rationally coined, it is strategic thinking. That is what most people lack, they have only tactics and wonder why things work out sometimes, but often not.

It boils down to the following: if you know where you want to get (which is where most people already fail), then you can walk on a path, and you will meet beings beside the path, beings who walk the same path, and others who are crossing it. If they cross your path and you meet them, this means that in a way, you share the coordinates of existence at that point. That is why exchange can be fruitful. A certain sense of curiosity is helpful, of course. I have been fooled and ripped off quite some times because I was too curious, but it's a price I have no problem to pay.

As for the initial question, even though the orininal poster does not seem to be part of RF anymore, I have written a little article:

Setianism vs. Satanism

 

[Jacksnyte]

Can someone explain to me the difference between the beliefs of Setianists as opposed to Satanists?
All I know about Setianism is that a group of disgruntled high-members of the Church of Satan decided they Lavey and his Church were corrupt or something like that and went off to form the Temple of Set.

I haven't been able to find much help on this subject, even on Xeper.org. As of now, it seems as if the Temple of Set is either overly secretive or simply a dieing movement... or both.

I would say that the ToS focuses more on specific projects (as in the various orders and lodges within the organization) and personal development with a specifically antinomian attitude. The CoS tends to be more focused on a specific type of pageantry and public image.

 

[Mindmaster]

I would say that the ToS focuses more on specific projects (as in the various orders and lodges within the organization) and personal development with a specifically antinomian attitude. The CoS tends to be more focused on a specific type of pageantry and public image.

I would say CoS is a front for ToV, but just my opinion. Since the 'atheists' in CoS don't believe anything they're actually free to believe whatever they want and still call themselves Satanists. This is not LaVey's CoS he'd never have it suckling from that teat.

ToS isn't Satanic... as far as I am concerned. Setians and Satanists might be kindred souls in philosophy but I think they are pursuing a much different path than a theistic Satanist like me would. Regardless of any ex-members affiliations in the past I think you have to be able to swallow a lot more of Egypt than the average Satanist will care for or put up with. I do however respect them much more than OTO or any other groups only because I know they aren't just posing around they're a very progressive left-hand path organization. I only share with them a theistic belief in a 'dark' force... only dark because it of course is at complete war with the orthodox forces which attempt to homogenize everything. I just have decided I don't need an organization, as I have been a Satanist proper for sixteen years already without. I really only make this distinction because a theist doesn't generally accept Satan = this notions, or whatever. That sounds like the silly crap Crowley used to do on the way back, and it's fine if you believe in nothing.... not so good if that doesn't float your boat or whatever.

LaVey didn't write the book on Satanism either he just wrote the popular one. There's a lot of stuff that's just making it to print now that has origins way before, and that stuff was mostly handed down through families and friends. I went Catholic->Atheist->Lavey->Theist. Most of that due to to the CoS model of reality not reflecting my personal experiences, but I still agree mostly with that philosophy. I still find the Alien Elite bits rather difficult to swallow mostly because it is completely unrealistic to me in present day society. Its really nothing more than fluffing your Satanic pillow, and it's one of the silly things Satanists talk about. All religions think they're better than all the others, so what if we admit it? Its silly to even make it a sticking point. Everyone else just assumes they're better.. so can we!