Set/Satan

[Naillosotarrain]

An interesting site for you to check out if you want or feel brave is http://www.xeper.org/ This is the "Temple of Set" official web site. Those blasphemous pigs! :mad: Oh, did I say that, oops, I should watch myself a little more carefully. :D Anyway, as I have said before, the Roman Catholic church adopted Set as their "Satan", and all the Satan worshipers out there who saw this connection, decided to found a "false" temple that was in the name of Set, yet was devoted to satanic worshiping. The reason they probably did this was that it was a major sin to worship Satan, punishable by death and excommunication. Back when all this took place, the founding of this temple and all, the worship of a different god was looked down upon yes, but still slightly understood; therefor, the founders of this so called "temple" decided to name it after Set, planning that the Church will not prosecute them as Satan worshipers, only Pagans. They were right, and that is what gave us Pagans a bad name, and considered to be Satan worshipers, but I don't think the Church still has ever put two and two together .

[Naillosotarrain]

bump

[Melysande]

**snorts derisively at this "temple of Set(h)"**

[Xander67]

:rotfl:

tell me they arent serious LOL

[Chibi-Fallon]

But how cool would it be to say “I’m in the Order of the Trapezoid” :D I don't know if I'd be able to keep from laughing.

[Xander67]

sounds like a circus act LOL


:) me will stay square ;)

[manstranger]

I like the graphics.

[Naillosotarrain]

Originally posted by Xander67
tell me they arent serious LOL

Actually, quite serious. Although that site does have some useful information, but only some and only if you know how to look at it.

[Danustouch]

Remember respect :) Never know...there may be some TOS members around here. I don't personally agree with much that the TOS does/says/believes, however, I know that TOS members take it VERY seriously. And if I recall correctly, there are all sorts of tests/requirements that one has to meet before becoming a member. I've even heard, though I am not sure, that they give an IQ test to interested potential members, and that if your IQ isn't a certain percent (which i think was MENSA score) you can't get in.

[widukind]

So is their aim below or above that percentage? :D Just kidding though, but here are a few things that bug me about their superior ways:


Black Magic is shunned and feared because to do Black Magic is to take full responsibility for one's actions, evolution, and effectiveness.
How is this any different from, say, the Wiccan Rede?

Secondly, they don't claim to be religious, but why then do they name their group the Temple of Set? Why must they insist on using an image so often 'misunderstood' as they claim it? Why don't they call themselves responsible adults instead of Setians? They probably aim to shock, from what I can see, and they themselves do not claim to be tolerant either:


The Temple of Set evaluates conventional religions as erroneous in principle and therefore unworthy of peer status. We feel no need to concern ourselves with their activities, nor for that matter to maintain any sort of "diplomatic relations" with them [as in councils of churches]. Our position is that they may serve a useful social function as purveyors of soothing myths and fantasies to humans unable to attain Setian levels of self-consciousness. Hence we ignore conventional religious organizations unless they intrude upon our affairs.

I've seen these kind of sites before, and they all say the same. They refuse all labels, but label themselves with a term that shocks anyway. They claim to be responsible, but see no need to respect another's views. They say they are a-religious, but worship the prince of darkness as the "Divine Origin of the Word" They are the sheep they claim to dispise.
They even charge $80 for application ! Not only that, but you have to pay each year, as if you can't be a responsible adult and appreciate gothic art without their help! Whoever thought it up is a criminal genius who can consider himself the peer of the inventor of the pyramid system! A cheap sham if you ask me.

I know we're supposed to respect all views, but respect is a two-way street. If they can't respect religious people, why should they count on our respect? They see the world as cruel already, they even have to see the world that way to be considered for application.
[edited for a typo]

[mol]

I know a few folks in the ToS. Good people. Just like you.

Please refrain from 'bashing' their Ways. Thanks.

[Illuminatus]

Yes, and if you think the Order of the Trapezoid is weird, you should see some of the internal order we Discordians have. I am a Keeper of the Sacred Chao, Legionaire Extroidanaire of Dischord, as well as a member of the Golden Apple Corps, among others.

- Illuminatus!

[Xander67]

Golden Apple Corps? hmmm

the term Golden Apple makes me think of Qaballistic :)

I am curious now, i think i will do some research :)

[Myst]

Secondly, they don't claim to be religious, but why then do they name their group the Temple of Set? Why must they insist on using an image so often 'misunderstood' as they claim it? Why don't they call themselves responsible adults instead of Setians? They probably aim to shock, from what I can see, and they themselves do not claim to be tolerant either:

Presumably because 'responsible adults' don't necessarily work with Seth? As far as 'using a misunderstood image', I have news for you - I worked with Hekate for over a year, and she is also one of those 'misunderstood images', as are many of the darker deities. This includes Kali, the Morrigan, the Norse gods, Anpu, Ares and Hades, and Satan. This doesn't mean they don't have qualities we need to explore, it doesn't mean they have nothing to teach, and it doesn't mean people who work with them do it 'just for shock factor'.


They claim to be responsible, but see no need to respect another's views. They say they are a-religious, but worship the prince of darkness as the "Divine Origin of the Word"

Responsible does not mean respectful, for one thing. For another, there's nothing in the definition of religion that says you can't work with a 'prince of darkness'.


I know we're supposed to respect all views, but respect is a two-way street. If they can't respect religious people, why should they count on our respect?

That's easy - we're at MW and that's the rule. They don't come here? Then they don't need to worry about our rule. You do? Then you have to follow it.

[widukind]

I'm short-fused and what I read on that site did upset me. Not because they have different beliefs than I do, but because they cannot respect others who have their respective beliefs. I respect their views in the sense that I will allow them to have their own opinion on things, but I cannot respect them in the full sense of the word because I dislike groups that claim a certain extent of exclusivity.
I could ramble on about what exactly I meant by what I posted, and I'd better not written the last paragraph, or perhaps anything in that post at all. I never claimed to be perfect and for me to claim it so now would just be plain silly, wouldn't it? :eyebrow:

I apologize to anyone I may have offended and I won't do it again.

[Twig]

Went to the first page and immediatly got stomach cramps. Hee, Someone (thing?) doesn't want me there and I can take a hint. ;)

Peace,
Twig
:elf:

ps- I went there 3 days ago with no ill effects. Strange!!

[Theres]

personally, the only problem i have with this or any other version of 'Satanism', is that it seems to be making dogma out of selfism, and that bothers me.
perhaps it's a compensatory thing, the need to work so much magickal energy toward 'power'. at the risk of sounding egotistical, it's not an area i've ever felt deficient in. maybe that's why i don't understand.
as far as respect goes, well i feel that respect is something to be earned. until then the best i can offer anybody is the promise of a level playing field, and the benefit of the doubt. but if i don't see the same courtesy being shown to me, then please excuse my contempt.

[Ravens_Tears]

What I would like to know is if this is the same Set(h) that channelled through Janes Roberts..... If so, I have had dealings that way (as I previously mentioned in a past life thread) and it is an entity that I personally cannot trust. As for what I have explored thus far or this SET website, seems very elitist to me. That and I find it ironic for them to target an individual with the... do you wanna be a follower.. just a part of the herd... arguement, then wanting you to consider following them...., but only if you're good enough.. and if you're not intelligent enough; to have the common sense to go find something else?? How ignorant is that? I find that very rude

[mol]

Originally posted by Greenman
personally, the only problem i have with this or any other version of 'Satanism', is that it seems to be making dogma out of selfism, and that bothers me.

There is nothing wrong with a Path that glorifies the Self. (imo)

[Journeyman]

RE: The first post in this thread -

The Temple of Set was founded by Michael Aquino after a very public split with Anton LaVey. LaVey was a huckster, and Aquino wanted a more serious Order.

"There is no god but man." - Uncle Al

[Raevyn]

Originally posted by Ravens_Tears
same Set(h) that channelled through Janes Roberts..

No. Set(h) here is a Kemetic (Ancient Egyptian) deity. And incidentally, he and Satan are not the same entity by different names.

[canarycrane]

I think some people are just too miseducated about our religion. Like what Mother Aradia said once, "Strive to be at peace with those who differ from us."

But those ****!!!!

[mol]

Originally posted by canarycrane
I think some people are just too miseducated about our religion. Like what Mother Aradia said once, "Strive to be at peace with those who differ from us."

But those ****!!!!

Exactly.

[Darth Brooks]

personally, the only problem i have with this or any other version of 'Satanism', is that it seems to be making dogma out of selfism, and that bothers me.

I can agree with that. I consider myself a Setian, and I don't like the Temple of Set's emphasis on selfism either. I should point out that I am not a member of the Temple, nor do I speak for it or anyone affiliated with it. I'm a strictly independent Setian, and I tend to just be more interested in worshiping Set. However, I regard the Temple's emphasis on selfism as a matter of perspective, not necessarily a matter of ethics.


No. Set(h) here is a Kemetic (Ancient Egyptian) deity. And incidentally, he and Satan are not the same entity by different names.

That is a matter of opinion. Contrary to what many Kemetics would suggest, there is quite a bit of evidence that "Satan" came from Set - but there is also evidence that Yahweh might have come from, or been related to Set as well. This is most interesting when we remember that Anton LaVey ended all his rituals by chanting, "Shemhamforash," which is actually another Hebrew name for Yahweh. I think that, to a certain extent, the attempt among Kemetics to divorce Set from any Judeo-Christian connections - which are established in the Typhonian mysticism of the Greco-Roman magical papyri - is really more of an attempt to whitewash Set more than anything else.

However, I will agree that there is no evidence to corroborate Aquino's theory that the word "Satan" is etymologically derived from the name "Set-hen."


An interesting site for you to check out if you want or feel brave is http://www.xeper.org/ This is the "Temple of Set" official web site. Those blasphemous pigs! :mad: Oh, did I say that, oops, I should watch myself a little more carefully. :D Anyway, as I have said before, the Roman Catholic church adopted Set as their "Satan", and all the Satan worshipers out there who saw this connection, decided to found a "false" temple that was in the name of Set, yet was devoted to satanic worshiping. The reason they probably did this was that it was a major sin to worship Satan, punishable by death and excommunication. Back when all this took place, the founding of this temple and all, the worship of a different god was looked down upon yes, but still slightly understood; therefor, the founders of this so called "temple" decided to name it after Set, planning that the Church will not prosecute them as Satan worshipers, only Pagans. They were right, and that is what gave us Pagans a bad name, and considered to be Satan worshipers, but I don't think the Church still has ever put two and two together .

The Temple of Set is not responsible for Pagans receiving a bad name. Honestly, that's one of the most foolish allegations I've ever heard. The word "Pagan" had already been well-tainted in the eyes of the general public long before the Temple of Set came along.


**snorts derisively at this "temple of Set(h)"**


:rotfl:

tell me they arent serious LOL


sounds like a circus act LOL


:) me will stay square ;)

I'm actually surprised that this rather snobbish sort of attitude was ever tolerated on this board. And here I was thinking that all Neopagans are supposed to at least pay lip service to the idea of religious tolerance.

[Avlyn]

Weird:giggle:

[David19]

An interesting site for you to check out if you want or feel brave is http://www.xeper.org/ This is the "Temple of Set" official web site. Those blasphemous pigs! :mad: Oh, did I say that, oops, I should watch myself a little more carefully. :D Anyway, as I have said before, the Roman Catholic church adopted Set as their "Satan", and all the Satan worshipers out there who saw this connection, decided to found a "false" temple that was in the name of Set, yet was devoted to satanic worshiping. The reason they probably did this was that it was a major sin to worship Satan, punishable by death and excommunication. Back when all this took place, the founding of this temple and all, the worship of a different god was looked down upon yes, but still slightly understood; therefor, the founders of this so called "temple" decided to name it after Set, planning that the Church will not prosecute them as Satan worshipers, only Pagans. They were right, and that is what gave us Pagans a bad name, and considered to be Satan worshipers, but I don't think the Church still has ever put two and two together .


**snorts derisively at this "temple of Set(h)"**


:rotfl:

tell me they arent serious LOL


But how cool would it be to say “I’m in the Order of the Trapezoid” :D I don't know if I'd be able to keep from laughing.

I don't see why you all seem to have a problem with the Temple of Set (http://www.xeper.org/), I, personally, like it, even though I'm a Sumerian Recon, to me, the Temple of Set is one of the best Satanist organisations out there, they also have a lot of good things, and impressive members, some of their members are authors I really like, such as Stephen E. Flowers/Edred Thorson (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Stephen+E.+Flowers&meta=), who's actually a Heathen, and has a lot books I want to get ('Hermetic Magic: The Postmodern Magical Papyrus of Abaris' (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0877288283/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top) being the one I will be getting in the next few months), Zeena and Nikolas Schreck (Zeena is daughter of Anton LaVey (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Anton+Lavey&meta=), founder of the Church of Satan (http://www.churchofsatan.com/), although she is no longer part of that organisation), they are authors of 'Demons of the Flesh: The Complete Guide to Left-Hand Path Sex Magic' (http://www.amazon.com/Demons-Flesh-Complete-Guide-Left-Hand/dp/184068061X), an amazing book which I'd definitely recommend (you can download it too), and they are authors of other books too (which you can see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolas_Schreck), again, some of them I definitely will get, like 'Flowers from Hell: A Satanic Reader' (http://www.amazon.com/Flowers-Hell-Satanic-Nikolas-Schreck/dp/1840680245), 'The Satanic Screen: An illustrated guide to the Devil in cinema' (http://www.amazon.com/Satanic-Screen-Illustrated-Guide-Cinema/dp/1840680431)), and there are many more good things about the Temple of Set. IMO, I like the way, when they talk about magic, they put things in language you can understand, without all the talk of "spiritual enlightenment", "God", "spirituality", etc. Personally, I also like their aims of becoming a God.

[David19]

I know a few folks in the ToS. Good people. Just like you.

Please refrain from 'bashing' their Ways. Thanks.

Glad someone said that :thumbsup:.

[David19]

Yes, and if you think the Order of the Trapezoid is weird, you should see some of the internal order we Discordians have. I am a Keeper of the Sacred Chao, Legionaire Extroidanaire of Dischord, as well as a member of the Golden Apple Corps, among others.

- Illuminatus!

What would I have to do to join one of them? ;)!.

[David19]

I can agree with that. I consider myself a Setian, and I don't like the Temple of Set's emphasis on selfism either. I should point out that I am not a member of the Temple, nor do I speak for it or anyone affiliated with it. I'm a strictly independent Setian, and I tend to just be more interested in worshiping Set. However, I regard the Temple's emphasis on selfism as a matter of perspective, not necessarily a matter of ethics.



That is a matter of opinion. Contrary to what many Kemetics would suggest, there is quite a bit of evidence that "Satan" came from Set - but there is also evidence that Yahweh might have come from, or been related to Set as well. This is most interesting when we remember that Anton LaVey ended all his rituals by chanting, "Shemhamforash," which is actually another Hebrew name for Yahweh. I think that, to a certain extent, the attempt among Kemetics to divorce Set from any Judeo-Christian connections - which are established in the Typhonian mysticism of the Greco-Roman magical papyri - is really more of an attempt to whitewash Set more than anything else.

However, I will agree that there is no evidence to corroborate Aquino's theory that the word "Satan" is etymologically derived from the name "Set-hen."



The Temple of Set is not responsible for Pagans receiving a bad name. Honestly, that's one of the most foolish allegations I've ever heard. The word "Pagan" had already been well-tainted in the eyes of the general public long before the Temple of Set came along.







I'm actually surprised that this rather snobbish sort of attitude was ever tolerated on this board. And here I was thinking that all Neopagans are supposed to at least pay lip service to the idea of religious tolerance.


QFT, and great post. I, personally, don't believe that YHWH and Set are the same, but, I think, there are some connections, I'm not sure, but, I think YHWH was equated with Seth-Typhoon in Greco-Egypt, and was seen as the ruler of the world (although, I don't think he was seen in a positive "all loving" way).

Personally, I think some Pagans need a scape goat, they can say the Temple of Set, or other Satanists "give Pagans, and Paganism, a bad name", but, that's not true, if anything, New Agers are responsible for a lot of the images, and stereotypes, a lot of people have of Pagans, and Paganism. Also, some fundamentalists will think what they want, regardless of the Temple of Set, or other Satanists.

Personally, I respect some forms of Satanism, and Satanists (the only ones I don't are the Joy of Satan (http://www.joyofsatan.org/), 'cause the owner is a neo-Nazi (see her other site (http://www.666blacksun.com/)), then, again, Andrea Herrington/"Maxine Dietrich" (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Andrea+Herrington&meta=) (the founder), wife of Cliff Herrington, a neo-Nazi leader in Tulsa, (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Cliff+Herrington&meta=), probably, wouldn't like me, considering I'm gay, and 1/2 Jewish). Diane Vera's (http://www.theisticsatanism.com/) site is another Satanist I really like.

[GEBS]

I consider myself a Setian

:thumbsup: Nice to have you here.




The Temple of Set is not responsible for Pagans receiving a bad name. Honestly, that's one of the most foolish allegations I've ever heard. The word "Pagan" had already been well-tainted in the eyes of the general public long before the Temple of Set came along.


I couldn't agree more.



I'm actually surprised that this rather snobbish sort of attitude was ever tolerated on this board. And here I was thinking that all Neopagans are supposed to at least pay lip service to the idea of religious tolerance.


That post is more than 7 years old. I can assure you that I would have adminned this thread if it had been posted today.

[Darth Brooks]

QFT, and great post. I, personally, don't believe that YHWH and Set are the same, but, I think, there are some connections, I'm not sure, but, I think YHWH was equated with Seth-Typhoon in Greco-Egypt, and was seen as the ruler of the world (although, I don't think he was seen in a positive "all loving" way).

You are spot-on, my friend. In the Greco-Roman magical paypri there are numerous invocations to Set-Typhon which use Hebrew god names like Sabaoth ("Lord of Hosts") and Io (a Hellenization of Iah, as in Iahveh). Set is is seen as the highest God and the ruler of the world, and He is like Yahweh and Satan wrapped together in the same person. He is also identified with the Gnostic Abrasax and the unnamed deity in the "Rite of the Holy Headless One" (acccording to Jeu). He is both a demiurge (creator/ruler of the material world) and a chaos dragon (destroyer/devourer of the material world), who has one foot in Ma'at and the other in Isfet, who can make people love each other and who can make people hate each other, and who was said to have been "cast out" from Egypt. Here's an example of a typical Typhonian invocation:


I call you who did first control gods' wrath,
You who hold royal scepter o'er the heavens,
Yho who are midpoint of the stars above,
You, master Typhon, you I call, who are
The dreaded soverign o'er the firmament,
You who are fearful, awesome, threatening,
You who're obscure and irresistible
And hater of the wicked, you I call,
Typhon, in hours unlawful and unmeasured,
You who've walked on unquenched, clear-crackling fire,
You who are over snows, below dark ice,
You who hold sovereignty over the Moirai,
I invoked you in pray'r, I call, almighty one.
That you perform for me whate'er I ask
Of you, and that you nod assent at once
To me and grant that what I ask be mine
Because I adjure you
GAR THALA BAUZAU THORTHOR KATHAUKAH IATHIN NA BORKAKAR BORBA KARBORBOCH MO ZAU OUZONZ ON YABITH
Mighty Typhon, hear me, [name of magician],
And perform for me [insert short description of desired result].
For I speak your true names,
IO ERBETH IO PAKERBETH IO BOLCHOSETH OEN TYPHON ASBARABO BIEAISE ME NERO MARAMO TAUER CHTHENTHONIE ALAM BETOR MENKECHRA SAUEIOR RESEIODOTA ABRESIOA PHOTHER THERTHONAX NERDOMEU AMORES MEEME OIES SYSCHIE ANTHONIE PHRA;
Listen to me and perform [repeat the description].(This is taken from Don Webb's The Seven Faces Of Darkness: Practical Typhonian Magic, which is one of the absolute best sources for information I've ever found about this subject. If you've never read it, I highly recommend it. It has a HUGE bibliography, as well.)

Note that the reference to Set-Typhon as "the midpoint of the stars above" is a reference to the North Star and the Bull's Thigh constellation, which is known to us today as the Big Dipper. (The two stars on the front side of the dipper point directly to the North Star.) The identification of Set with the Big Dipper actually started in Old Kingdom Egypt, back when the original stellar cult of Set was still in power and reasonably popular. And I've mentioned before that when we remember that Set's color was red, that He was eventually identified by the Egyptians with Apep (as opposed to battling Apep), and that the Big Dipper is composed of seven stars, the description of "Satan" in the Christian book of Revelation as a "seven-headed red dragon" makes a lot more sense than it used to. My feeling is that Satan is like a highly warped bastardization of Set's negative side.

Furthermore, it's interesting to note that during medieval times, when Christians first began to develop their myths about what ReligiousTolerance.org calls "Gothic Satanism," many of the myths and legends about Gothic Satanists were based on Jewish customs, traditions, and stigmas. For instance, Satan-worshiping congregants were believed to attend a "synagogue of Satan." The fact that Satanist revelries were called "sabbaths" is also telling, since "sabbath" was originally a Jewish word. The allegation that "witches" were supposed to cannibalize babies came from an earlier allegation that Jews were supposed to cannibalize babies - which is what we now know as the "blood libel myth." Anton LaVey made a good point in one of his books - I think it might have been The Devil's Notebook - that Jews have always been given "the Devil's name." And yet, as mentioned earlier, LaVey chose to end all of his Satanist rituals by saying the word "Shemhamforash," which is yet another Hebrew name for Yahweh. Something tells me that LaVey knew what he was doing when he did that - either that, or something greater than himself was moving him to make these decisions.

So Set was identified with Baal by the Hyskos (who were Semites), was eventually identified with Apep by the Egyptians, and was later identified with the Jewish God and the Jewish people by the Greeks; Jews worship Yahweh, Jews go to synagogue and rest on the sabbath, Jews are called "the children of your father, the devil" in the New Testament, Jews later become one of the major inspirations for Christian ideas about satanic witchcraft, and modern Satanists use a Jewish name for Yahweh as the closing for their Satanist rituals. On top of all that, LaVey himself was Jewish. Now none of this necessarily proves anything theologically (nothing can be proven theologically), and I don't think that Set's Typhonian connections to the Jews are so important as to eclipse everything else about Him (no pun intended), but it does all add up to paint a rather curious picture, don't you think?

Now there is very little similarity between Set and the original Hebrew idea of "Satan," which was called ha-satan in the book of Job. But the word "satan" was later used to describe many different things. It wasn't until the Second Temple era of Judaism that the word "satan" was used to describe an enemy of Yahweh, and it is from the small pockets of Jews who believed in this idea that Christianity would come to develop. The later development of "Satan" into a red guy with long things sticking out of his head, who incites cosmic rebellion against the divine hierarchy, who has "followers" - real or imagined - that are organized into "synagogues" and who celebrate "sabbaths" - most likely does come from Set, in my opinion. It is also interesting to note that, for the most part, Judaism has never officially accepted the existence of a Devil, since Yahweh is viewed as being kind of like a god and a devil at the same time - quite like Set-Typhon was in the Greek Typhonian tradition.


That post is more than 7 years old. I can assure you that I would have adminned this thread if it had been posted today.

Well, I thank you in any case. And thank you for the warm welcome as well. :)

[David19]

You are spot-on, my friend. In the Greco-Roman magical paypri there are numerous invocations to Set-Typhon which use Hebrew god names like Sabaoth ("Lord of Hosts") and Io (a Hellenization of Iah, as in Iahveh). Set is is seen as the highest God and the ruler of the world, and He is like Yahweh and Satan wrapped together in the same person. He is also identified with the Gnostic Abrasax and the unnamed deity in the "Rite of the Holy Headless One" (acccording to Jeu). He is both a demiurge (creator/ruler of the material world) and a chaos dragon (destroyer/devourer of the material world), who has one foot in Ma'at and the other in Isfet, who can make people love each other and who can make people hate each other, and who was said to have been "cast out" from Egypt. Here's an example of a typical Typhonian invocation:

(This is taken from Don Webb's The Seven Faces Of Darkness: Practical Typhonian Magic, which is one of the absolute best sources for information I've ever found about this subject. If you've never read it, I highly recommend it. It has a HUGE bibliography, as well.)

Note that the reference to Set-Typhon as "the midpoint of the stars above" is a reference to the North Star and the Bull's Thigh constellation, which is known to us today as the Big Dipper. (The two stars on the front side of the dipper point directly to the North Star.) The identification of Set with the Big Dipper actually started in Old Kingdom Egypt, back when the original stellar cult of Set was still in power and reasonably popular. And I've mentioned before that when we remember that Set's color was red, that He was eventually identified by the Egyptians with Apep (as opposed to battling Apep), and that the Big Dipper is composed of seven stars, the description of "Satan" in the Christian book of Revelation as a "seven-headed red dragon" makes a lot more sense than it used to. My feeling is that Satan is like a highly warped bastardization of Set's negative side.

Furthermore, it's interesting to note that during medieval times, when Christians first began to develop their myths about what ReligiousTolerance.org calls "Gothic Satanism," many of the myths and legends about Gothic Satanists were based on Jewish customs, traditions, and stigmas. For instance, Satan-worshiping congregants were believed to attend a "synagogue of Satan." The fact that Satanist revelries were called "sabbaths" is also telling, since "sabbath" was originally a Jewish word. The allegation that "witches" were supposed to cannibalize babies came from an earlier allegation that Jews were supposed to cannibalize babies - which is what we now know as the "blood libel myth." Anton LaVey made a good point in one of his books - I think it might have been The Devil's Notebook - that Jews have always been given "the Devil's name." And yet, as mentioned earlier, LaVey chose to end all of his Satanist rituals by saying the word "Shemhamforash," which is yet another Hebrew name for Yahweh. Something tells me that LaVey knew what he was doing when he did that - either that, or something greater than himself was moving him to make these decisions.

So Set was identified with Baal by the Hyskos (who were Semites), was eventually identified with Apep by the Egyptians, and was later identified with the Jewish God and the Jewish people by the Greeks; Jews worship Yahweh, Jews go to synagogue and rest on the sabbath, Jews are called "the children of your father, the devil" in the New Testament, Jews later become one of the major inspirations for Christian ideas about satanic witchcraft, and modern Satanists use a Jewish name for Yahweh as the closing for their Satanist rituals. On top of all that, LaVey himself was Jewish. Now none of this necessarily proves anything theologically (nothing can be proven theologically), and I don't think that Set's Typhonian connections to the Jews are so important as to eclipse everything else about Him (no pun intended), but it does all add up to paint a rather curious picture, don't you think?

Now there is very little similarity between Set and the original Hebrew idea of "Satan," which was called ha-satan in the book of Job. But the word "satan" was later used to describe many different things. It wasn't until the Second Temple era of Judaism that the word "satan" was used to describe an enemy of Yahweh, and it is from the small pockets of Jews who believed in this idea that Christianity would come to develop. The later development of "Satan" into a red guy with long things sticking out of his head, who incites cosmic rebellion against the divine hierarchy, who has "followers" - real or imagined - that are organized into "synagogues" and who celebrate "sabbaths" - most likely does come from Set, in my opinion. It is also interesting to note that, for the most part, Judaism has never officially accepted the existence of a Devil, since Yahweh is viewed as being kind of like a god and a devil at the same time - quite like Set-Typhon was in the Greek Typhonian tradition.

Thanks for that great info, and I will definitely get that book you recommended, I'm very interested in learning more about Greco-Egyptian magic (like I said earlier, I intend to get 'Hermetic Magic' by Stephen E. Flowers soon, which, I think, tells you how to use the Greco-Egyptian magical Papyri (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Greco-Egyptian+Magical+Papyri&meta=), I'm not sure if you've read it, if you have, do you recommend it?).

I think the connections between Set, or Typhoon, and YHWH are quite interesting, and I'd like to learn more about it, who knows, maybe, all the connections that people made between the Jews and the similarities to Seth-Typhoon were being guided by some kind of Power (although, the people, themselves, cloaked it in anti-Semitism).


Well, I thank you in any case. And thank you for the warm welcome as well. :)

BTW, like GEBS, :welcome: to MW :).

[Darth Brooks]

Thanks for that great info, and I will definitely get that book you recommended, I'm very interested in learning more about Greco-Egyptian magic (like I said earlier, I intend to get 'Hermetic Magic' by Stephen E. Flowers soon, which, I think, tells you how to use the Greco-Egyptian magical Papyri (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Greco-Egyptian+Magical+Papyri&meta=), I'm not sure if you've read it, if you have, do you recommend it?).

I think the connections between Set, or Typhoon, and YHWH are quite interesting, and I'd like to learn more about it, who knows, maybe, all the connections that people made between the Jews and the similarities to Seth-Typhoon were being guided by some kind of Power (although, the people, themselves, cloaked it in anti-Semitism).



BTW, like GEBS, :welcome: to MW :).

Thank you for the warm welcome. :)

If you're talking about Stephen Flowers' Hermetic Magic: The Postmodern Papyrus of Abaris (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rvGTcg-30pEC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=Stephen+Flowers+Greco-Roman+magic&source=web&ots=YimS5b00qn&sig=4pdSFwXlChWm3g_zieDNfCJ0DLU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result), then yes, I've read it. And I find it extremely helpful in my own work. I definitely recommend it. Dr. Flowers is a good researcher, I am particularly fond of his work with the Norse Futhark traditions (under the pen name of Edred Thorsson), even though that's not really my area.

I definitely believe that the connections between the Jews and Set were guided by Set somehow, but this of course is subjective, which is to say that I respect Kemeticists who think differently. However, I will say that in my spiritual growth as a Setian, I've become very sensitive to anti-Semitism. Although Dr. Aquino has never been a racist to my knowledge (despite what Isaac Bonewits has said about him), his work with Nazi occultism in the Temple of Set sort of makes me uncomfortable. I recognize it's important for someone to study that stuff and find out what's what about it, and perhaps it was an important stepping stone in Aquino's initiatory quest. And I also realize that a person can study Nazi occultism without actually being a Nazi. But at least for me, Setianity and Nazi occultism don't mix at all.

[David19]

Thank you for the warm welcome. :)

If you're talking about Stephen Flowers' Hermetic Magic: The Postmodern Papyrus of Abaris (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rvGTcg-30pEC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=Stephen+Flowers+Greco-Roman+magic&source=web&ots=YimS5b00qn&sig=4pdSFwXlChWm3g_zieDNfCJ0DLU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result), then yes, I've read it. And I find it extremely helpful in my own work. I definitely recommend it. Dr. Flowers is a good researcher, I am particularly fond of his work with the Norse Futhark traditions (under the pen name of Edred Thorsson), even though that's not really my area.

I definitely believe that the connections between the Jews and Set were guided by Set somehow, but this of course is subjective, which is to say that I respect Kemeticists who think differently. However, I will say that in my spiritual growth as a Setian, I've become very sensitive to anti-Semitism. Although Dr. Aquino has never been a racist to my knowledge (despite what Isaac Bonewits has said about him), his work with Nazi occultism in the Temple of Set sort of makes me uncomfortable. I recognize it's important for someone to study that stuff and find out what's what about it, and perhaps it was an important stepping stone in Aquino's initiatory quest. And I also realize that a person can study Nazi occultism without actually being a Nazi. But at least for me, Setianity and Nazi occultism don't mix at all.

Thanks, I definitely like what I've read of Stephen Flower's works so far, so I think I will really like 'Hermetic Magic', and his other books.

The connections between the Jews and Set are interesting, IMO, and I know what you mean about Nazi occultism, I know Michael Aquino isn't a racist, or anti-Semitic at all (I think there are some Jewish members of the Temple of Set, correct me if I'm wrong, but, I think I remember reading awhile ago that the order Stephen Flowers/Edred Thorson was/is a part of, and in charge of, he passed the leadership role onto a Jewish man, who then passed it on to a black woman, and, apparantly, Stephen Flowers was very impressed with the work they did with it).

Part of me is interested in Nazi occultism, but, I don't think it's something I'd feel comfortable practicing, but, that's just me, I can see why maybe some, non-Nazi, people, like Aquino, Stephen Flowers (I think he's interested in it, isn't he?), etc might be interested in it.

[Darth Brooks]

Thanks, I definitely like what I've read of Stephen Flower's works so far, so I think I will really like 'Hermetic Magic', and his other books.

The connections between the Jews and Set are interesting, IMO, and I know what you mean about Nazi occultism, I know Michael Aquino isn't a racist, or anti-Semitic at all (I think there are some Jewish members of the Temple of Set, correct me if I'm wrong, but, I think I remember reading awhile ago that the order Stephen Flowers/Edred Thorson was/is a part of, and in charge of, he passed the leadership role onto a Jewish man, who then passed it on to a black woman, and, apparantly, Stephen Flowers was very impressed with the work they did with it).

Well, I know for a fact there was once a black woman in the Temple of Set, I believe her name was Oz Tech, but that's about all I know about her. So that story is very probably true. I have to confess though, I'm not all that knowledgeable about what goes on among Temple members, being that I've never been a member and have no interest in becoming one.


Part of me is interested in Nazi occultism, but, I don't think it's something I'd feel comfortable practicing, but, that's just me, I can see why maybe some, non-Nazi, people, like Aquino, Stephen Flowers (I think he's interested in it, isn't he?), etc might be interested in it.

Well I'm sure there's a wealth of useful information in the subject. I just tend to stay away from it myself because Set seems to want me to focus on other areas.

BTW, it took me a while to figure out where this thread had been moved...I have to admit, I was scratching my head as to why it was started in the History section. I'm happy that it wasn't put in the Satanism section, though. Although there does seem to be a bit of a "gray area" between Satanism and Setianity (thanks to Aquino), I don't think of them as being the same thing at all. I'm sure the resident Satanists would probably agree.

[mol]

I know a few folks in the ToS. Good people. Just like you.

Please refrain from 'bashing' their Ways. Thanks.
You dumbass.

[FaePrincessCynthia]

I dont really know what to say about this Temple or its history or anything.

I just figured that the Egyptian god Apophis would make a better comparison to Satan then Set(h) does.

Oh well thats just my 2 cents.

[Meadhbh]

I dont really know what to say about this Temple or its history or anything.

I just figured that the Egyptian god Apophis would make a better comparison to Satan then Set(h) does.

Oh well thats just my 2 cents.

I was just about to say that. But please feel free to correct me if I'm horribly wrong.

[Carri]

Anyway, as I have said before, the Roman Catholic church adopted Set as their "Satan", and all the Satan worshipers out there who saw this connection, decided to found a "false" temple that was in the name of Set, yet was devoted to satanic worshiping. The reason they probably did this was that it was a major sin to worship Satan, punishable by death and excommunication. Back when all this took place, the founding of this temple and all, the worship of a different god was looked down upon yes, but still slightly understood; therefor, the founders of this so called "temple" decided to name it after Set, planning that the Church will not prosecute them as Satan worshipers, only Pagans.
I find this very interseting. Where can I read more about this, not so much the temple?