Path: Supernews!supernews.com!daver!news.he.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!sprint!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!newshub.csu.net!news.Cerritos.edu!news.Arizona.EDU!aruba.u.arizona.edu!poseyj From: Jason!!! Newsgroups: alt.satanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: A Final Solution to Satanism Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:05:48 -0700 Organization: The University of Arizona Lines: 92 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: aruba.u.arizona.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: Xref: Supernews alt.satanism:66157 alt.religion.wicca:67737 alt.pagan:206352 talk.religion.misc:283669 On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Adam D. Willson wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Kerry Delf wrote: > > > "Within this climate many of the aspects of Set are symbolized in > > religious imagery by the /positive/ attributes of the J/C Satan. While > > Which aspects of Set correspond with Satan, either historically or modern? > Or any form of the Prince of Darkness. Within the Osirian cultus, Set was identified as the evil one, symbol of violence and power, and a lord of demons. Similar in some ways to "Satan." Though I agree that there are more genuinely "Satanic" deities and demons in Egyptian mythology (virtually any of the forms of the Serpent - Apep, Amon, Neheb-kau, Imy-Uhauf, Iru-to, Sito, etc.), and that Set, in many ways, is more similar to the Hebrew YHVH than to the Biblical "Primeval Serpent, Great Dragon," there's no denying that Set, from the Osirian point of view, was a "satan" figure. > > Judaism, Christianity, and Islam created their "Satan" distortion of the > > Set /neter/ of ancient Egypt in order to fashion an "evil scarecrow" to > > intimidate and control their societies, they could not help endowing > > "Satan" with such Setian attributes as independence, creativity, honesty, > > artistry, and intellectual genius -- as these /same/ attributes, except in > > severely controlled and approved forms, are "sins against God" in J/C/I > > culture. > > Note also that the name Set really didn't gain any popularity until the > Hebrews moved into Egypt, they specifically singled out the Hebrews as > descendants of Seth. So it is entirely possible to see that the > distinction of "other" was more racial, religious, & political, than > anything inherent in the concept of Set prior to the Jews arriving. In fact, Set was quite an important deity long before the arrival of the Hyksos, much less the Hebrews. He was patron god of Upper Egypt (the southern half of the country), much like YHVH, Baal, and Enlil, a god of storms and thunder and destroyer of the Serpent, associated with masculinity and war. He was the personal patron of a number of important kings, including the great rulers of the Ramesid dynasty ("Seti" means "beloved of Set"), but, strangely, was regarded from a very early time as the murderer of Osiris. In this regard, it is notable that Osiris was seen as lord of the Underworld, and often represented as an Ouroboros figure, encircling the world; in some sense the Osirian cycle could possibly be seen as a reversal of the traditional Warrior vs. Dragon story, in this case, with the serpent (Osiris) as a heroic figure and the Warrior (Set) as the villain; certainly, in at least one religious text, the high god Atum informs Osiris that at the end of the universe, they will merge back into the Old Serpent, the original form of absolute divinity and power: (Atum speaking)"You (Osiris) will live more than millions of years, an era of millions. But in the end I will destroy everything that I have created, the earth will become again part of the Primeval Ocean, like the Abyss of waters in their original state. Then I will be what will remain, just I and Osiris, when I will have changed myself back into the Old Serpent who knew no man and saw no god." -from Herakleopolis, taken from _Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt_ by RT Rundle Clark > > Like it or not, the Temple of Set is a Satanic organization. > > To whom? Not to LaVeyan Satanists. Compare the doctrines of LaVeyan > Satanism, the so called "root" of the ToS, with those of Setianism, & you > will find little if any similarities. With the rare exception of the > esthetics, namely the pentacle which is used inconsistently with the way > it has been used historically. I don't think it matters whether or not Laveyan Satanists think it's "Satanic" or not. The only official doctrines of Laveyan Satanism are those found in LaVey's books, and there's not too much disagreement between the CoS position and the ToS on those; arguably, Aquino's claim to have some sort of personal relationship with Satan/Set, but not much else. In what way does the ToS use the pentacle "inconsistently with the way it has been used historically?" Having read any number of occult texts with pentacles in them, from Egyptian hieroglyphs, where a star within a circle represents the underworld, to modern usages), there has never *been* a consistent manner in which it has been used. > Best regards, > Adam D. Willson > gs08adw@panther.gsu.edu -Jason *In the shadow of the Primeval Serpent* _______________________________________ University of Arizona poseyj@u.arizona.edu (520) 695-0419