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

[Desert Snake]

I had to choose 'Other / Explain' because I am Mercuræn (so is Crossfire but she doesn't like to admit it )
By the way, the Temple of Set refer to it as Setian philosophy

People can define themselves, thanks.

That's nice that the TOS do such, however, as a group that one must join, etc., I am not simply going to consider it a philosophy only group.

 

[Desert Snake]

You are wrong, in Luciferianism from which I have gathered and applied to my practice, they do primarily snchronize various pantheons whether it is Egyptian or Babylonian etc. This includes perhaps Satanism as well, I have heard that some Satanists may perhaps snchronize as well such as Enki etc.

I am not 'wrong', if the ''synchronization'', makes no sense, and isn't compatible with known aspects of the deities.

 

[1137]

The highest class academic works on Satanism coming out recognize that none of the above would exist with LaVey and his satanic movement. From their perspective we are all within the "satanic milieu", and I have no problem with that. The WLHP began in the 1900s if not the 1960s.

 

[crossfire]

People can define themselves, thanks.

That's nice that the TOS do such, however, as a group that one must join, etc., I am not simply going to consider it a philosophy only group.

I am Mercurean in my Luciferianism, as that is how Luciferianism (at least my understanding of it) works.

 

[EtuMalku]

People can define themselves, thanks.

That's nice that the TOS do such, however, as a group that one must join, etc., I am not simply going to consider it a philosophy only group.

You are aware what this thread is about, right?

You can refer to Setian philosophy however you want, that is how they refer to it.

 

[Desert Snake]

You are aware what this thread is about, right?

Why don't you tell us what you think this thread is about?

You can refer to Setian philosophy however you want, that is how they refer to it.

That's great, however 'Set', is a historical deity, it isn't just about how various groups define their religion

 

[Desert Snake]

The highest class academic works on Satanism coming out recognize that none of the above would exist with LaVey and his satanic movement. From their perspective we are all within the "satanic milieu", and I have no problem with that. The WLHP began in the 1900s if not the 1960s.

Could be. That's sort of speculative. Any theistic Satanist group is going to be essentially a very different religious perspective, though.

 

[1137]

Could be. That's sort of speculative. Any theistic Satanist group is going to be essentially a very different religious perspective, though.

Blame the academics

 

[crossfire]

Hm What doesn't the thread topic have to do with theological concepts?

How does this thread address theological concepts such as theism, non-theism, polytheism, pantheism, deism, panentheism, panendeism, transtheism, monism, and such? I'm wondering how you are going to tie these concepts into the poll?

 

[Desert Snake]

How does this thread address theological concepts such as theism, non-theism, polytheism, pantheism, deism, panentheism, panendeism, transtheism, monism, and such? I'm wondering how you are going to tie these concepts into the poll?

The poll doesn't address those specifics, however, the religious nature of Satanists who are theists, Setians who are theists, so forth, is part of the thread topic, by default.

 

[crossfire]

The poll doesn't address those specifics, however, the religious nature of Satanists who are theists, Setians who are theists, so forth, is part of the thread topic, by default.

I'm not seeing it.

 

[Aštra’el]

Among many other things, I could accurately be described as Satanist as well as Luciferian. However, I do not limit my Weltanschauung and spiritual-religious system to any one religion or culture. I find strength, power, wisdom and beauty wherever I can find it. I have incorporated elements of various forms of Satanism and Luciferianism as well as elements from various ancient and modern Abrahamic religions, ancient and modern "pagan" religions, O9A, Thelema, ceremonial and traditional witchcraft, Theravada Buddhism, ancient Mesopotamian mythology, and more.

I would not include Setianism as I have not yet immersed myself in it in depth to acquire a genuine understanding of it. Perhaps because the most prominent aspects of Set are already represented by other deific archetypes within my pantheon. Still, from reading what various Setians have had to say about themselves, I have become well aware that there are a great many parallels between their spiritual-religious systems and my own.

 

[Sutekh]

The WLHP began in the 1900s if not the 1960s.

Speaking of the histories of Satanism and the WLHP itself, their is this one particular organization that I find to be interesting "Our Lady of Endor Coven," they may not perhaps be added into the category as WLHP. But I find their beliefs interesting in particular of the founder. I have been starting to come into questioning of various views from other individuals who are on the WLHP. For example many of us may not perhaps bow down to any deities, we may perhaps have the typical closed mind of various sorts of views that we hold. For example while some Satanists who may perhaps worship or bow down to a "Satan," and many of you may consider them "RHP Satanists," aren't those RHP Satanists are worshipping something perhaps antinomian or heterodox in general? I have recently wanted to start a debate on this, pardon me if I go off subject.

 

[Sutekh]

That's great, however 'Set', is a historical deity, it isn't just about how various groups define their religion

Again you are making misconceptions, Various groups of the WLHP or even the Temple of Set knows who Seth is and the history of Seth. Many groups of the WLHP would not define their religion with a closed mind, as a WLHPER I tend to grab the traits of the various historical deities such as Set. I would merely consider him to be a model or archetype who may perhaps exist but within ones self. From my own understanding some organizations of the WLHP would study perhaps the histories of the methodology and deties using their traits as such.

 

[1137]

Speaking of the histories of Satanism and the WLHP itself, their is this one particular organization that I find to be interesting "Our Lady of Endor Coven," they may not perhaps be added into the category as WLHP. But I find their beliefs interesting in particular of the founder. I have been starting to come into questioning of various views from other individuals who are on the WLHP. For example many of us may not perhaps bow down to any deities, we may perhaps have the typical closed mind of various sorts of views that we hold. For example while some Satanists who may perhaps worship or bow down to a "Satan," and many of you may consider them "RHP Satanists," aren't those RHP Satanists are worshipping something perhaps antinomian or heterodox in general? I have recently wanted to start a debate on this, pardon me if I go off subject.

You may also be interested in the Fraternitas Saturni.

 

[1137]

That's great, however 'Set', is a historical deity, it isn't just about how various groups define their religion

Hmmmmm, the Set I believe in is mostly historically accurate, simply with more information from modern knowledge.

 

[Desert Snake]

Again you are making misconceptions, Various groups of the WLHP or even the Temple of Set knows who Seth is and the history of Seth. Many groups of the WLHP would not define their religion with a closed mind, as a WLHPER I tend to grab the traits of the various historical deities such as Set. I would merely consider him to be a model or archetype who may perhaps exist but within ones self. From my own understanding some organizations of the WLHP would study perhaps the histories of the methodology and deties using their traits as such.

Actually I stated a fact. Therefore, that would seem to be a misconception on your part. As far as the Setian relation to the ''WLHP'' /I don't like these general labels, but that aside,, obviously the ''WLHP'', would be related to Setian or Egyptian religion from a perspective that isn't ''western''. Or it could be. Depending on how your defining 'western''. Are you defining Setian religion by TOS?

 

[1137]

Actually I stated a fact. Therefore, that would seem to be a misconception on your part. As far as the Setian relation to the ''WLHP'' /I don't like these general labels, but that aside,, obviously the ''WLHP'', would be related to Setian or Egyptian religion from a perspective that isn't ''western''. Or it could be. Depending on how your defining 'western''. Are you defining Setian religion by TOS?

The WLHP simply describes an overarching set of religious ideologies that came to popularity with LaVey. As these groups evolved some engaged in historical research and discovered many similarities in old religions that had been suppressed to to being at odds with the overall cultures. Setian religion is one of these. Sure a priest of Set from predynastic Egypt might not agree with everything we think of Set today, but we have a whole lot more information to go on than them as well. An evolution does not imply a perversion. Ancient to modern Setianism is an evolution, Judaism to Christianity is a perversion.

 

[EtuMalku]

Why don't you tell us what you think this thread is about?



That's great, however 'Set', is a historical deity, it isn't just about how various groups define their religion

I am aware what the thread is about, but from your comments it didn't seem like you were.
I'm assuming you're as confused about the term 'Setian Philosophy' as you were about the subject of this thread?
Quite simply, the Temple of Set use the term 'Setian Philosophy' as opposed to Setianism or Setian Religion or what have you..
It's not a difficult concept to wrap one's head around for most.

 

[EtuMalku]

People can define themselves, thanks.

In case you still don't understand what the thread is about; It is not about people defining themselves and/or those who oppose their definitions, it's a 'question / poll' regarding 'how each of us identify as'

That's nice that the TOS do such, however, as a group that one must join, etc., I am not simply going to consider it a philosophy only group.

Being an ex-member of the ToS I can attest that it is indeed a 'philosophy', it is also an organization not really a group, but I suppose one could call them that as well.