Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!not-for-mail From: rakshasa@panix.com (Kevin Filan) Newsgroups: alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan Subject: Re: Org Satanism/Christianity (was Re: Shared Mythos (was Re: ...)) Date: 15 Jun 1996 19:22:45 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 138 Message-ID: <4pvgk5$fus@panix2.panix.com> References: <4naih2$nab@a3bsrv.nai.net> <577_9606130410@gigo.com> <199606131350.JAA07781@panix2.panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com Xref: shell.portal.com alt.satanism:45454 alt.magick.tyagi:8674 alt.pagan:163020 In article , Balanone wrote: *note* I'm going to snip the ToS/CoS questions. I think the ToS/CoS bickering has gotten a tiny bit old. The similarities/differences between Setianism and Christianity are a more interesting topic, at least to me. And so, while I _do_ have an opinion on the whole ToS/CoS fight (and I'm sure everyone here has heard it already), please forgive me for keeping it to myself. I want to emphasize this comment from my earlier post. >r@p> Here are some comparisons I would draw between Setianism and >r@p> Christianity. (Note to Balanone and to everyone else: I am _not_ >r@p> condemning Setianism out of hand by drawing these parallels ... >r@p> merely "calling a spade a spade" ... and I am _not_ equating >r@p> Setianism with "fundamentalist Christianity," a modern aberrant >r@p> form of Christianity). In the occult community, it seems to me that Christ has become the new Satan and Christianity the new "devil worship." As the early Christians declared the Pagan deities "demons" and accused their worshippers of all sorts of foul atrocities, so too do we scorn the "Pallid incompetence hanging on a tree." The worst accusation which Pagans can bring against Satanists in an attempt to distance themselves is this; "They're not pagans, they're really Christians." The classic Satanist accusation against Pagans (other than the ill-spelt "WIKANS ARE PUSSIES, SATAN RULEZ" crossposted to 30 or so newsgroups) is that their religion is merely "Christianity in drag." And yet, of course, BOTH our religions and our worldviews show a strong Judeochristian slant! There's no way we could possibly avoid it, growing up as we have in a Judeochristian culture. I'd also point out that the J/C tradition isn't entirely a bad thing. Sure, it brought us the Inquisition. It also brought us Gothic cathedrals, most of the major European universities, and a whole host of great writers and artists. We could stick our heads in the sand, and say "no, no, NO, we have NOTHING in common with CHRISTIANS, NO NO NO!" Or we can examine the similarities and differences in our worldview, and act accordingly. >You're an intelligent, educated, and creative person. Therefore you >have the ability to draw comparisons between /any/ two movements. >You should also therefore know that simply drawing comparisons does >not demonstrate any point except perhaps by analogy. It can shed light on both religions, if it's done honestly. If it's done in an attempt to smear either religion, it's probably not going to be very useful. (I suppose I could draw "TEN PARALLELS BETWEEN WICCA AND NAZISM." While it would probably be welcomed at many Fundie publications, I don't think it would be very helpful to a serious scholar of either Nazism or Wicca). >r@p> 1. Both Christianity and Setianism are strongly influenced by >r@p> Platonic philosophy. This is seen in the common Setian definition >r@p> of Set as the "_Form_ of Isolate Intelligence" ... Form, of course, >r@p> being a term from Plato. > >Many modern movements are strongly influenced by Platonic >philosophy. Setianism is more openly knowledgeable about this than >most, and credits Plato frequently. But modern scientific philosophy is >strongly Platonic, as is the modern democratic movement (at least >within Republics, where the people would theoretically elect >representatives they've determined are best able to lead the republic). I should have been more clear here; let's say that Setianism's interest in the concept of Platonic "Forms" (an idea which is not particularly influential in modern scientific philosophy, most of which is far more Aristotelian in nature) is very similar to Christianity's idea of the Higher Power ala the "First Cause" of Aquinas and the "Ontological God" of St. Anselm. This may or may not be correct (I was never Recognized to the Third Degree), but I was led to believe that one of the defining characteristics of a Priest of Set was that he had a "direct experience" of Set. This would be similar to Christian mysticism, true; one could also draw a comparison between Setianism and Sufi Islam. A study of the similarities between various mystical traditions, including Setianism, could prove illuminating. (Some Satanists reject mysticism out of hand; neither Balanone nor myself are among this group). >Setians don't concern themselves at all with "man in his natural state" >and don't consider that state as "needing redemption." There's nothing >to redeem such man from. We don't expend any time, effort, nor >attention at any general redemption, nor complaining about man's >"natural" state. I will defer to you, as you are the residing expert on Setianism. Still, don't you list Ouspensky's _Psychology of the Possible Evolution of Man_ as a TS-1 in your reading list? (i.e. as one of the books which explain Setianism and which had a great influence on Setian philosophy). That deals with man as "asleep" and needing to be made "awake" with the help of a "school?" Don't you attempt to emphasize your "separateness" and to remanifest as "the Highest of Life?" (To use a quote from Aquino's interesting take on the "Enochian Keys"). If you accentuate the positive, don't you by definition have to "eliminate the negative." (Again: not picking on Setians in particular. I'd say any Thelemic/Aquarian religion -- that is, any religion primarily concerned with the Self and Self-development -- would have to draw a distinction between the unenlightened man and the Higher Man). >We focus on our individual states of being, whatever they are. Looking >at myself, I see that there are many ways in which I can grow, in >which I can become "better" than I am, using my own scale of >judgment. I choose to become better than I am. This is Xeper. Again, the major difference between Christianity and Setianism. Christianity offers "redemption" through the intercession of Christ. Most (although not all) branches of Christianity explicitly _deny_ any connection between one's works and one's redemption. Actions by God are required; actions by man are not. Setianism, on the other hand, is explicit in stating that "Xeper" is a product of one's _works_. The opposite of Xeper is presented as stagnation and sinking into the "inertia of Nuit." (See Aquino's study of Crowley's _Book of the Law_). I'm not sure if I'm disagreeing with you or not. I _do_ think that Setianism has among its preconceptions the idea not only that man _can be_ better than he is as a result of _Xeper_, but that life without _xeper_ is unacceptable and something to be avoided. If you want to say that that is not a distinction analogous to "Sinful" and "Saved," I suppose you can. I would admit that it's not an exact comparison, but I do think "Xepering/Stagnant" is treated similarly to "Sinful/Saved" by many Setians. >I thought you knew us better than that; I'd not have expected you to >make such a simple error in comparison. Again, not so sure that I was making such an error. See above. (to be continued) Peace Kevin Filan