Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!decwrl!decwrl!amd!netcomsv!sacbbx!astaroth!125-430!michael.aquino
From: Michael.Aquino@125-430.astaroth.sacbbx.com (Michael Aquino)
Date: 12 Nov 94 08:48:33 
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Difference between actual satanism and atheism
Message-ID: <241_9411130532@astaroth.sacbbx.com>
X-FTN-To: Mr.azazel
Lines: 25

M> Prove Set exists and then I MIGHT change my mind.  In fact, prove any god

You won't find "proof" of anything metaphysical, for the simple reason that
the laws of proof exist wholly within the physical. So the first question is:
Do you grant the existence of anything beyond the physical? If not, then that
is the limit of your perceptual universe, and the discussion grinds to a halt
right there.

"Gods" are active, or at least extant, features of the metaphysical, by
definition. In this sense any human may conceptualize, or perceive, or
influence/be influenced by any god to the degree that the human's
consciousness extends to the metaphysical. "All other gods of all other times
and nations have been created by men." - _Book of Coming Forth by Night

Set is something different. Set, as the "god" of isolate self-consciousness,
is what you might call the universal principle whose *particular* impression
on you is to accord you your sense of existence, individuality, personality.
This is your personal metaphysical element: the thing in you that is not a
function of your physical body - that is not indeed a function of anything in
the physical universe: the soul, the Greek _psyche_, the Egyptian _ba_.

The "proof" of the existence of Set is thus entwined with the "proof" of your
own existence as anything beyond a mere stimulus/response meat machine. One
presupposes, indeed *necessitates* the other. Or, as Walt Kelly's Pogo would
say in response to a query about the existence of Set: "Us is it."

Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!decwrl!amd!netcomsv!sacbbx!astaroth!125-430!michael.aquino
From: Michael.Aquino@125-430.astaroth.sacbbx.com (Michael Aquino)
Date: 24 Nov 94 08:23:18 
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: What does the Temple of Set have to offer?
Message-ID: <1fc_9411250312@astaroth.sacbbx.com>
X-FTN-To: Zorik Gelman
Lines: 28

ZG> Why would they feel a sense of "duty" to Set itself?  I can understand why
ZG> they might feel a sense of duty to the organization called the Temple of
ZG> Set, but a duty to Set seems to imply that Set is more than just a
ZG> concept to these priests.  I realize that you aren't a priest, but you
ZG> may still be able to answer this.
ZG> OK, it seems that the main goals that the Temple would help the individual
ZG> achieve are proficiency in the Black Arts and the improvement of the self.
ZG> Is only the understanding of Setian philosophy required, or must the
ZG> Setian also demonstrate that he abides by some "laws" (if any) which the
ZG> Setian philosophy advocates?  In other words, does the Temple of Set
ZG> require its members to abide by any particular rules?

Set is considered by his Priesthood to be a conscious, willful entity who has
consecrated the Priesthood and Temple of Set. Our apprehension of Set is
extremely subtle; compare the Forms of Plato & Pythagoras and the _neteru_ of
ancient Egypt. As the source of the human faculty of identity &
self-consciousness, Set is intrinsically involved in each individual's
awareness of the _psyche_/_ba_.

So the Priesthood would not use a word like "duty", although we might use
words like "trust", "responsibility", and "awareness".

There are no "laws" or "rules" that Setians are given. They are encouraged to
strengthen themselves in awareness of _Maat_, the _neter_ of abstract and
perfect justice, and to apply _Maat_ as best they are able in any given
situation. The _Crystal Tablet of Set_ does have a section on "Protocol",
which simply discusses various courtesies that Setians are expected to display 
towards one another for mutual benefit.