• 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!

Satanists who aren't Setians, Luciferians who aren't Satanists, etc.

satanist, luciferian, or setian


  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .

Liu

Well-Known Member
Religions often stray away from their founder's intentions, and I've read often enough, by Setians and otherwise, that they consider it a kind of Satanism, even if just because it is inspired by LaVeyen Satanism and acknowledges the same deity (either literally or symbolically), but with different interpretations.
I mean, afaik Setians normally believe that the Judeo-Christian concept of Satan is a reflection, even if quite a distorted one, of their Prince of Darkness, and many other Satanists basically do the same.
We could also simply say it's all LHP (instead of all Satanism), but there were enough threads on that to see that this term isn't used coherently either.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Religions often stray away from their founder's intentions, and I've read often enough, by Setians and otherwise, that they consider it a kind of Satanism, even if just because it is inspired by LaVeyen Satanism and acknowledges the same deity (either literally or symbolically), but with different interpretations.
I mean, afaik Setians normally believe that the Judeo-Christian concept of Satan is a reflection, even if quite a distorted one, of their Prince of Darkness, and many other Satanists basically do the same.
We could also simply say it's all LHP (instead of all Satanism), but there were enough threads on that to see that this term isn't used coherently either.
That seems very broad. In fact, unless someone could prove that they are the 'same', I am not going to consider them to be anything more than coincidentally related by word similarity.
 
Last edited:

Ahanit

Active Member
We are all LHP But I have nothing to do with satanism. The Mythological Concept of Set is different of that of Satan.
Both let the being the Ability to choose if he/she wants to try the path in that point they are one but not in the Details:

Satan brings the Wisdom equal how far the one has gone and if he is ready for it. The consequences for the Individual does not interest him
Set is a Teacher a tester. He looks whom he give the gift of Wisdom and if the one is ready not only to understand but also to use it. It has no meaning for him to give his gift to people not able to use it.

Both let the being the Ability to choose if he/she wants to try the path

My Opinion based on Studiying both Mythological contexts ;)
 

Liu

Well-Known Member
@syncretic: It is very broad, but that's because Satanism is a pretty broad (or rather, pretty flexible) religion - it doesn't need to be confined to merely the judeo-christian myths; the central god/s or concept can be taken from any mythology, from none at all, or be a mix of several. As long as one considers at least one of the traditional concepts of Satan to be a reflection of one's god/s or concept, one can call oneself a Satanist in my opinion.

But if Setians don't want to call themselves Satanists, so be it - it's only a matter of word definition anyway.

@Ahanit:
Satan as a bringer of wisdom is only one aspect, and I have read theistic, pretty traditional Satanists describing their relationship to him quite like what you describe one one would have to Set. On the other hand, Set is believed to have already given his gift to quite a ton of people (all humans and probably a couple other species as well) and in most cases leaves it to us what we'll do with it. Also, the gift of Set isn't anywhere in the original Egyptian myths, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), so you Setians don't follow such myths strictly either.

And, we all are LHP? At least some in this forum probably wouldn't consider me a (western) LHPer since I consider it possible that the way to self-deification leads to a merge with one's deity (or a realization of one's already extant oneness with it) and since I actually like submitting to and worshiping my deity. I do consider myself a LHPer.

However you might not even consider me a Satanist as I neither give the judeo-christian myths much relevance (they are among those I take inspiration from, but I don't base my worldview on them) nor am I much of a LaVeyan. I think I'm not significantly closer to LaVeyan Satanism or to Inverse Christianity than a Setian.

So, maybe I should just go ahead and call myself a Dark Agnostic Pantheist - for whatever that means. I'll continue calling my deity Satan (besides a bunch of other names), though, as I still consider myself to have the same religion as others who call it that and since It is the lord of this world, the tempter who shows us the truth about good and evil, the adversary to all dogmatism.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
@syncretic: It is very broad, but that's because Satanism is a pretty broad (or rather, pretty flexible) religion - it doesn't need to be confined to merely the judeo-christian myths; the central god/s or concept can be taken from any mythology, from none at all, or be a mix of several. As long as one considers at least one of the traditional concepts of Satan to be a reflection of one's god/s or concept, one can call oneself a Satanist in my opinion.

But if Setians don't want to call themselves Satanists, so be it - it's only a matter of word definition anyway.
I don't have a problem with your perspective on your religion. It is too vague and subjective for me, though, generally.

Yeah about the Setians, that goes back to actually proving that they should also call themselves Satanists. If they state that Set isn't Satan, then one is really going to have to present evidence to contradict that.
 

Sutekh

Priest of Odin
Premium Member
@syncretic:

@Ahanit:
Also, the gift of Set isn't anywhere in the original Egyptian myths, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), so you Setians don't follow such myths strictly either.

I do not know a lot about the Setians view of the gift of Set, but the Temple of Set is not a neo Egyptian Religion at all. The gift of Set is perhaps an invention from the Temple of Set? I am not so sure but this is just my guess.
 

Sutekh

Priest of Odin
Premium Member
Yeah about the Setians, that goes back to actually proving that they should also call themselves Satanists. If they state that Set isn't Satan, then one is really going to have to present evidence to contradict that.

Well I tend to consider Setians, Setians. I would not exactly consider them Satanists. It's just my opinion. Of course the Temple of Set was originally going to become another Church of Satan under Michael Aquino during his departure and thoughts. The Temple of Set have also copied some things from the Church of Satan which I noticed such as LBM- Lesser Black Magic where you change the Objective Universe. In the Church of Satan it is known as Lesser Magic. Those are just my thoughts about it.
 
Last edited:

Sutekh

Priest of Odin
Premium Member
Many Setians and also Luciferians seem to consider themselves Satanists - and I would agree with that.

But wouldn't it cause confusion? I may perhaps have a little bit of a disagreement. I think that both should remain separate.
 

Sutekh

Priest of Odin
Premium Member
'copied', is a pretty strong word.

I wouldn't really consider the Temple of Set to be copy cats entirely, those were just a few things that I tend to notice a bit. Many Setians from what I have heard would improvise and create their Rites independently instead of following a persons rites or being the "consumer" of the person.
 

Ahanit

Active Member
Maybe you misunderstood what I wanted to say...
First, I said in my Opinion that means not all Setian are the Same opinion
Second I know that I have shortend the Context because this special point was one of the Main differences why i do not call me Satanist

The gift of Set in the Mythology Context: (My Explains worked out with a friend of mine beeing Egyptologist, For those have not read until now, I came from the Egypt path in Whole before I choose Set, That means I learnd Hieroglyphes and Grammar and so on and allways tried to translate Texts myself for Find the Key's. Before Entering ToS I have gone through all Mythological texts about Set and also make a deeper Translation of Xeper for my own to look if this path could be mine )

Maybe not named in the Same way the Temple of Set and the Setians are naming it, but the gift exists in the old Mythologie.

I will try to explain:
Set is the god of the Outer lands, the dessert and also the protector of the Paths of the dead. To Understand the Gift of Set how it is used and Explained today, we need to know more about the paths of the dead. This paths lay in the Darkness, they are a Labyinth with many dangers (Like the LHP ;) ) The one who died needs different Claims and Rituals to go forward and reach the Gates of Duat or to remanifest at the Gates of Amduat.
Interesting to know is that there are also Ritualfragments where Priest go a path into the self, discribed like the path of the dead. It stands to reason to interpret that this Rituals where under Potection of Set like the Paths of the Dead. In Egypt Mythologie the Self , Unknown self is the immortal Ka. The Ka includes all Knowledge and wisdom of all morttal lifes we had lived. The mortal parts are not able to deal with all of it at one time, so the mortal Existance can not remember what is within the Ka. It is the "Outer Land" of the self, where you can only go with many risks.

Knowing this, the modern Term of the Gift of Set became a lower Maintenance in Mythologie.

The Second Mythologie Point is the Dessert and his Mother Nut. In the Book of Coming Forth by night she is not named as herself but the discription of her Soul only can be seen in the full Darkness of the monless dessert night is clear for someone who knows Egypt Mythologie. In older Times the gift of the Darkness was not so present like today because, there where no Electric light, no horrible Light Emmission of Towns and Villiges which block the darkness and do not allow us to view the Soul of the Sky Goddess any longer in her full beauty. With the Light Emission we bring so much Light in the Darkness that Set's Gift became a "must" for those who wanted to understand the real Nature of the paths into the self and the nature of the soul. THe desserts of the world fare away from all artificially light are the last places where we can see the truth. It is best seen when it is a Moonless night.

The gift was allways there but today it has more power more existance because of our Isolation from the Natural Darkness. You can only really Appreciate something when you where isolated from it for a long time ;)

End of the Mythologie Lection for today, maybe more later ;) :D
 

Ahanit

Active Member
About Mythologie within ToS

Every Setian has the Right to choose his Path within the Aeon for himself. If some one wants to go the Path in a Satanistic manner he can do it, If someone wants to study Gnosticism or Agnosticism for the Use within his Path through the Aeon he can do it...

I came from the Mythologie And I walk with the Mytholgie, It is mypath. Setians, equal if members of ToS or not are going their path in the way they choose. There is no big you must do it that or that way. The only question is,are they successful with the way of going forward or not.
 

Liu

Well-Known Member
Thank you for that lesson on mythology; most of that was new to me.
But I still don't see what these myths have to do with the gift of individuated self-awareness. Even if we assume that Set is the god who leads towards the Ka, that doesn't mean that the Ka is the same as the black flame, nor does it mean that he is the source of the Ka.
If you want to interpret the myths that way, then do so, but I wouldn't have seen that in them.
And what does the nightsky have to do with all this?
With the Light Emission we bring so much Light in the Darkness that Set's Gift became a "must" for those who wanted to understand the real Nature of the paths into the self and the nature of the soul. THe desserts of the world fare away from all artificially light are the last places where we can see the truth. It is best seen when it is a Moonless night.
Are you saying that in times past the gift of Set was not necessary for understanding the self?
 

Ahanit

Active Member
But I still don't see what these myths have to do with the gift of individuated self-awareness. Even if we assume that Set is the god who leads towards the Ka, that doesn't mean that the Ka is the same as the black flame, nor does it mean that he is the source of the Ka.
If you want to interpret the myths that way, then do so, but I wouldn't have seen that in them.
And what does the nightsky have to do with all this?

Please excuse me sometimes I forgett points which are logical to me because I thought they are logical for others to. I am Asperger Autist... Its a Bad habit, I think i try to kill it in the next turn of Xepher ;)

The goddess of the Skys, Set's mother Nut has another Name that gives more clarity:
Chabas - Thousand(s of) stars are her soul....

When you look into her soul, you are able to understand how your soul looks like, how it works that one ability is stronger the other only instinctiv.
When you learn how your soul looks and how it "works" you can go into and begin to change, at first only a bit with the position you choose within. So that some "Stars" came near to the mortal existance and others go a little bit deeper into the soul. So you can choose what abilities you want to be present and what you not want to be shown.
When you have learned to change your life with only changing the position, you can begin to take place within the all and nothing, the Dark matter. You can begin to find what influences you but not be seen as clear as the stars. You collect, you feel, you let the unaware Dark Matter flown through you aware self.
When you reach this stadium, you are on a point with enormous creativity. You collect, you find and at the end of this step you are not able to write down, or Paint or... as fast as the ideas came into your mind. The problem of this stadium is, that your mortal parts are not able to deal with this amount of Energy for longer time. It can cause mental and or Physical illness.
Than you have reached the point of, end the flow of the Dark matter through your self and rekapitulate what you have found, to give it an Anchor in your aware existance. and than remanifest at the beginning of the path, to start a new turn.

Are you saying that in times past the gift of Set was not necessary for understanding the self?
There are other ways for understanding the self, many other ways found in the older times. My favorite is the Ritual of Königsberg 15-16 century. I have studied it and the keys you can find there, I use today for my path as I use knowledge about Egypt Mythologie :) It has a sense why the Aeon of Set is know. Because since last century the humans go faster in the future than ever before, and at the same time we lost much more of our instinct and Intuition, because of an education which denies the existence of a higher self. They try to force us in a belief of science. only what can be seen is truth. the educational system of most countries try to make us t obedient sheep, only good for working, for making money, no time for other things... They do not want us to think, they do not want us to study the unaware... this is also artificial light they plant within our aware self to keep us from looking at our soul. That is why it is today harder to understand the self, to study our soul and our higher self. That is why we needed the Aeon of Set and his gift now and not in older times....

Again my opinion and my conviction
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I put all three but also Setian only. Imo opinion satanists grow into Luciferian, who then grow into Setians. Growth implies that the Satanism and Luciferianism stay with you and build into the Setianism though.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Michael Aquino..you might know him as the fella that claims set came to him in a vision and told him to create a temple of set, which he did, would (and has) argue at length that setians are anything but satanists. Since he invented the thing, it would be hard to overrule for the 'official line ' of 'setianism. Also, he gets right pissed when you call it 'setianism' but idgaf. :)

Actually the separation was never a big deal until Webb. Aquino still constantly ties the ToS to CoS in his works.
 
Actually the separation was never a big deal until Webb. Aquino still constantly ties the ToS to CoS in his works.

I'm going by the conversations, many hundreds of pages, he has had with myself and others at the club. I can't be assed to read his retcon biographies.

The ties are of the vein of 'I used to believe X but it was primitive and stupid but now I believe Y'

He still posts over there, why don't you go ask him yourself.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I'm going by the conversations, many hundreds of pages, he has had with myself and others at the club. I can't be assed to read his retcon biographies.

The ties are of the vein of 'I used to believe X but it was primitive and stupid but now I believe Y'

He still posts over there, why don't you go ask him yourself.

Well yeah,LaVey selling priesthoods and the joke that is the CoS is super primitive, and the ToS grew out of it.
 
Well, accounts certainly with regards to the reasons for the split. I've talked to plenty of old timers, some that even broke bread at 6114 California Street, that will swear up and down that it was a result of LaVey having irreconcilable differences with the 'devil worshipper' contingent vis a vis their more literal take on the devil, as opposed to the 'selling priesthoods' spin put forth by Aquino and company post split.

Me, I wasn't there, but there is a pretty big hole in Aquino's version. He recounts that the CoS was always theistic, and only in 1975 did LaVey 'lose the faith ' as it were, yet LaVey did an interview in a 1972 film called 'occult explosion' where he explicitly states the opposite; that the CoS tolerated theism in those that had trouble visualizing without a literal interpretation, but he held no such views himself.

Who knows really, the truth might be somewhere in the middle.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Well, accounts certainly with regards to the reasons for the split. I've talked to plenty of old timers, some that even broke bread at 6114 California Street, that will swear up and down that it was a result of LaVey having irreconcilable differences with the 'devil worshipper' contingent vis a vis their more literal take on the devil, as opposed to the 'selling priesthoods' spin put forth by Aquino and company post split.

Me, I wasn't there, but there is a pretty big hole in Aquino's version. He recounts that the CoS was always theistic, and only in 1975 did LaVey 'lose the faith ' as it were, yet LaVey did an interview in a 1972 film called 'occult explosion' where he explicitly states the opposite; that the CoS tolerated theism in those that had trouble visualizing without a literal interpretation, but he held no such views himself.

Who knows really, the truth might be somewhere in the middle.

You're pretty obsessed with Aquino. Maybe you should look for ideologies rather than for role models.
 
Hardly lol. I am merely a student of the game.

I am no fan of Aquino to be sure, but credit where it is due - the man invented the thing you now follow.
 
Top