THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.satanism,alt.pagan
From: ondrejkd@genco.com
Subject: Re: [Question] Is Satanism Pagan? What is Satanism?....
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 23:01:13 -0600

> Agreed. However, how can someone who pays homage to deities/entities
> other than Satan call themselves a Satanist? For instance, someone who
> worships Ahriman instead of Ahura Mazda would be in a sect of Zoroaster,
> not Xtainity/Satanism.

That's a tricky question, and not nearly as straightforward as you might
imagine.  Personally, I'd be shy of calling anyone who "worshipped" an
entity a Satanist.  But, be that as it will.

A person who chooses Ahriman as the symbol with which they most easily
identify and emote, and uses "him" as the central figure in their
self-work and magical rituals, could certainly choose to be identified as
a Satanist if they so desired.	Like Kerry, I think that the idea that a
person chooses to label themselves such is an important factor.

Don't get hung up on what a person "is" or "is not" -- we're not talking
about what they *really* are, just what labels to hang on them.  If
someone wants to call themselves a Satanist, and you insist that they
aren't one, then what you're really saying is that you don't think enough
of that person to accept their own self-definition as valid, or that you
think more highly enough of yourself to want to impose your own
definitions on them.

> I quote the Temple of Set's FAQ:
>
> 

Yes, and that is one of the ToS's FQA (Frequently Questioned Answers).	I
for one disagree with it, though I am a Setian.  Letting all words have
their "generally-accepted meanings" is pointless, in My mind, especially
where questions of religion and metaphysics are concerned.  The generally
accepted meaning of such words as the Temple uses freely are rather
different than what the Temple redefines them as.

At the point that this FAQ came out, I believe that the Temple was
contrasting itself with the Church of Satan and claiming that since the
Temple really believed in Set/Satan and the Church did not, then the
Setians were the only *REAL* Satanists here.

The problem that I see is that the "Satan" that Setians (Myself included)
believe in is not the Satan of generally-accepted beliefs.  I do not
think that most Setians "believe in" Set in the same way that Christians,
for example, "believe in" Jesus.  The distinction drawn in Temple
writings between LHP and RHP is rather different from the origins of the
terms as well.	Hence, I see no need to insist on "believing in Satan" as
a requirement to be a "Satanist," at least according to the
generally-accepted definition of ALL those words.

> In effect these people are practicing Egyptian flavoured Satanism as much as
> a self-styled "Kemetic Wiccan" is not practicing Kemetic religion, but instead
> is practicing the same Wicca as a Gardnerian, but using Isis and Osirus as the
> names of the Deities.

Again, that's a matter of opinion.  If by "Kemetic religion" you mean
religion as practiced in ancient Khem, then no -- of course you'd be
right.	If you're willing to accept their own self-definition of Kemetic
religion as "my own interpretation of what I believe Wicca to be through
what I know of Egyptian folklore," then I think that's an acceptable
label.

What it boils down to a personal level is that I really don't give a damn
(sic) whether you accept My labels of Myself.  You can make up whatever
labels for Me that you want, including but by no means restricted to
genius, asshole, dork, demigod, or lord.  I don't really care.	It's only
when you start trying to convince *ME* that your labels are "really true"
and that I *am* your labels, that I get a bit miffed.

> Um...no, to my knowledge DePaul has no courses dealing with Satanism,
> and I've never met Bob Larson. See below.

Perhaps they should.  Convey My offer to teach a course in Modern
Occultism in America (for a modest fee) to the administration at DePaul.

> Actually, I drew my information from the conversations I had with an old
> friend of mine who had been a Satanist for many years (though I didn't
> find this out until the last year or so that I knew him). We discussed
> religion at length, both before and after I knew of his beliefs, and
> helped eachother with various reasearch projects. Idiologically he fits
> into the Church of Satan/Temple of Set crowd. We did not often agree :)

I'm going to grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume that
"idiologically" was an unintentional misspelling.  ;-)	But seriously,
the CoS and ToS do have some rather serious differences in their
ideologies, and probably wouldn't be happy being classed as being in the
same crowd.

In any case, thank you for your input.

-- Regards,

VonDraco

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet