Critique of Balanones FAQ
- wolf -
Folks,
I'm forwarding this for Hr. Vad. I agree fully on his comments.
---
On alt.satanism Balanone, long time member of the Temple of Set (ToS) posted
his own personal FAQ, and I thought a few comments would be fitting. I am Hr.
Vad, Priest of the Church of Satan. You're welcome to visit my homepage at:
<http://www.slip.net/~wolf/vad/index.shtml>.
I'm sure I am to be found on Balanone's list of people "who are biased
against the Temple of Set for a variety of reasons." However, this is just a
cheap rethorical trick employed to summarily dismiss anything critics have to
say. Bias designates a systematic tendency to "go in one direction," e.g. pro
or con an issue, but "bias" is often used to give the reader the impression
that the "biased person" is UNREASONABLY for or against the issue. I'm sure
Balanone feels this way regarding me and others, but DO consider if our
unfavorable attitude towards the ToS isn't justified.
Among other things, Balanone wrote:
[...]
>"Left Hand Path" indicates that the path followed by Setians is one of
>concentration and refinement of the self, leading toward more and more
>individuality and more and more individualism, as opposed to the Right Hand
>Path goals of growing toward some outwardly determined standard.
[...]
>The Left Hand Path is the tradition of spiritual dissent. It is a process
>of using the ideas and actions of the Seeker to create or realize an
>immortal, individual, potent, and powerful essence that will survive death.
>The Left Hand Path is the quest for personal immortality, won by hard
>effort without grace of gods, even of our role model, Set.
Examining sources like _Hindu Polytheism_ by Alain Danielou, 1964, (re-issued
as _The Myths and Gods of India_ in the nineties by Bollinger Book
Foundation) one must conclude that the Temple of Set's definition of LHP and
RHP is highly idiomatic, or put bluntly: it's wrong. In its original meaning,
and as the Church of Satan uses the term, Left Hand Path (LHP) is strictly
"The CARNAL Path" (or "Tao"), and it refers to enlightenment coming from
indulging in worldly, physical pleasure, utilizing even "eroticism and
drunkenness as means of spiritual acheivement" as Danielou puts it. Right
Hand Path (RHP) is spiritual advancement by means of the mind alone, ie. by
supressing/ignoring our carnal desires in favor of "spiritual" or "psychic"
powers. Thus in every meaning of the word, the ToS qualifies as RIGHT HAND
PATH ONLY! To see the ToS INVENTING new meanings of the expression LHP should
not fool anyone: what the ToS is doing is CLINGING to a doctrine that never
was and never shall be theirs. ToS is NOT LHP!
Both LHP and RHP seeks a kind of "spiritual enlightenment", but the paths to
this end are very different and that is what is important, because it is the
PATH above anything else which determines what is Left or Right. The LHP is
also known as the Tantric way, as opposed to the RHP Vedic way, according to
the expert Danielou.
Actually, there are very good reasons to compare Setianism to fundamentalist
Xtianity rather than Satanism. Xtianity is also blatantly RHP. Anyone
interested in a lengthy argument are advised to visit:
<http://www.slip.net/~wolf/vad/satan/tani/cos-tos.txt>
Also, LHP has not really anything to do with "dissenting spirituality",
though in a predominantly Xtian world LHP will be understood as "rebellious"
(per default, because, in dualist eyes, LHP is the antagonistic opposite of
RHP). However, sticking to the "rebellious" aspects of LHP simply "because it
pisses Xtians off" is completely missing the point. ESSENTIALLY the LHP is
just: a PATH. It is not SPIRITUAL in nature, rather it emphasizes the
worldly, physical and materialistic aspects of existence. The emphasis found
in the ToS is, on the contrary, spiritual and this identifies it as a RHP
religion. It doesn't matter if you dress yourself in black robes, wear
pentagrams and shout Satan or Set from the rooftops: that is not what makes
Satanism!
Again I must stress that Dr. LaVey did NOT invent the meaning of LHP out of
thin air. His use of the word is consistent with how it's used by experts
like Alain Danielou. Right and Left Hand Path are ancient terms and have
ancient, specific meanings, and it is insane to invent new meanings as the
ToS has done.
I wouldn't be surprised if some readers out there were to think "come on, Hr.
Vad, you can't be serious, what you're saying is basically that EVERYTHING
Balanone has said is utterly wrong, if not a lie?" This may be hard to
believe, because Balanone has a "noble and respectable appearance" that
you've all learned to admire. But the FACTS of the case are: Balanone is
WRONG, and if it is an indication of general ToS attitude -- and a
twenty-years-plus member of the ToS would know -- the ToS doesn't know SHIT!
They are LYING to you, because they should KNOW BETTER. Don't mistake their
philosophy for anything NEAR Satanism. Black robes and medallions of Set
won't do it.
>Is the Temple of Set a Satanic organization?
>
>The Temple of Set as an organization was founded in 1975 by Dr. Michael
>Aquino, in San Francisco. Its initial membership came from the Church of
>Satan (that infamous "Satanic" organization of the carny Anton LaVey),
>composed of CoS members who felt there was something real and important
>about the magic they were exploring, and felt that Anton LaVey's antics of
>that year were in contradiction to their own experiences.
What happened was an inevitable break due to philosophical differences, but
that is probably what you get when you have some half-Satanic, half-Xtians
trying to make SATANISM. Looking back it is clear that the ToS chose to fully
embrace the XTOID aspects of the philosophy brewing in their minds, namely in
Michael Aquino's mind and the egyptoid Grotto Lilith ran at the time. That
they've continued to call themselves Satanists and their god The Prince of
Darkness is an INSULT to those who know and represent the Dark Doctrine.
That the ToS have chosen "psyche worship" and "spirituality" over the dark,
carnal truths of flesh, which Church of Satan LHP philosophy emphasizes, is
testimony to the fact that they're in no way Satanic -- despite efforts to
appear Satanic. In truth, some Setians do NOT consider themselves Satanists.
To them I say: "Right on folks! You got it RIGHT!"
The truth is that the Temple of Set has established its name and mandate by
riding on the coattails of the Church of Satan, and now that it is dawning
upon them that they may in fact NOT be a Satanic organization after all, it
is of course difficult to just forget the whole business of Satanism, because
that would expose them as liars and hypocrites. Michael Aquino's claim to
fame is solely through his claim that "Set, the prime intelligence in the
Universe, spoke directly to him in a revelation." Aquino furthermore claimed
Set was the REAL Prince of Darkness, and that Set had told him to take over
the Church of Satan from old, burned out Anton LaVey. Thus he tried to coup
the Church of Satan. The coup eventually failed and he left to start his own
religion, hence: The Temple of Set.
>"Satanism" is a term used by many to describe the Left Hand Path in the
>West. We are a proud part of the tradition of spiritual dissent, differing
>philosophically from the Church of Satan. Their take on the Left Hand Path
>is the Immanent Path wherein godhood is achieved by the worship of the
>carnal ego with no possibility of personal immortality save in some vague
>connection to the organic stream. We are followers of the Transcendental
>path, wherein person immortality is achievable by a strengthening of the
>idealized Self. In an increasingly post-Christian world, the term
>"Satanism" will become irrelevant.
The characterization of the CoS in this paragraph is largely correct. We do
worship our carnal nature, and it is true our conception of immortality is
"vaguely understood in connection with the organic stream". I guess we're
"vague" about the issue of immortality because no one CAN know if immortality
is possible in any way -- scientifically, however, the burden of proof of
immortality lies with those who claim it is possible. Although I have to say
our conceptions of "the organic stream" is by no means vague. We are physical
and biological beings, and as such we know what will happen to our atoms,
mass, and energy once we die. If we've procreated our genes will live on in
our children, and our own bodies will become food and fertilizer.
>Set is the most ancient name for the Prince of Darkness, given to the
>Prince of Darkness in ancient (pre-dynastic) Egypt. Whether Set exists as
>an independent metaphysical being, or whether he's a symbol for man's most
>individualistic attributes, is a topic always under discussion somewhere in
>the Temple of Set.
For a lengthy discussion of this I refer you to:
<http://www.slip.net/~wolf/vad/satan/tani/neter.txt>
>The Gift of Set means so many different things depending upon whom you
>speak to. To some it's the gift of Intelligence, to some it's
>Consciousness, to some it's the ability to step back from the current
>moment/place to see/think about what's happening. To some it's the ability
>to work (or at least conceive of) magic. etc. The Gift of Set is whatever
>happens to separate us (those with potential) from animals (those without
>quite as much potential), which is one of the grey areas that haven't been
>clarified very well (some of us not seeing very much difference between
>humans and "higher" animals).
1) That "some people in the ToS" are NOW "not seeing very much difference
between humans and higher animals" can only be attributted as so much
revisionistic hogwash. If there are such feelings stirring in the ToS it is
SINGULARLY because of ONE historic occurrence: The entry of Tani Jantsang on
alt.satanism. NO ONE came to the front BACK THEN defending any other animals
as being anywhere NEAR humans. But the ensuing DEVASTATING articles from Tani
Jantsang had the Setians scurry away in embarrasment. SO *NOW* THEY'RE
SUDDENLY INCLUDING ANIMALS AMONG THEIR RANKS. Rest assured this was NOT the
case before Tani got to them. Imagine that, the twenty years of growth and
maturation of the Temple of Set (as Balanone puts it elsewhere in his FAQ)
didn't accomplish what one Church of Satan Magistra did. What's next? Setians
talking favorably about ENTROPY? I'll BET it comes one day. Maybe even DARWIN
will get his heyday somewhere in the future.
2) Secondly, isn't the Gift of Set a result of "Set tampering with monkey
DNA" as Aquino put it? The ToS have spouted lots of CREATIONIST teaching
during the years, arguing that humans MUST be the result of someone's DESIGN.
See Philip Marsh's _Evolution, Christians, and Setians_ essay on my homepage
for further information on this embarrasing event. Before Tani and Phil had
the Setians reduced to a state of embarrasment the idea was more along the
lines that "Set bestowed SENTIENCE on humans" -- as if there was such a thing
as "sentience" -- and I've heard my share of high ranking Setians claim and
imply this sentience did NOT extend to "lower animals" -- but listen up
chaps, NOW the story is changing.
3) Thirdly, one of the greatest fallacies of Setian "thinking" is their
insistence on their "separation from nature". They really believe themselves
SEPARATE from Nature. How can you even BE THAT? Firstly it is of course not
theoretically possible to be "outside nature", however, secondly we must
contemplate where on earth the Setians GET this acute feeling of separation
and alienation from. Normal, healthy, animals DO NOT feel alienated as they
are immersed in vital existence, actually if they began to feel enstranged of
life itself they would surely perish or become unhappy. So why do Setians
FEEL ALIENATED/SEPARATE from nature? Well, as a scientific Satanist my guess
would be to look at how their feeling centers -- neurologically -- are wired
up, or just what centers they USE when thinking. Xtians, incidentally,
provide a clue to this problem: like Setians they feel a SPLIT between
"emotions/carnality/flesh" and their "minds, logic and souls". Also, both
camps can be heard saying the same things about "separate from nature" and
"how humans were designated by God/Set to rule the animals".
Well, perhaps their feeling centers aren't properly hooked up -- or they just
don't USE them when thinking. If this is anywhere NEAR the case we can
actually point to neurology for a clue to their State of Being: The top
neurologist Antonio Damasio have studied patients who have had their soma
sensoric centers (bodily feeling centers) cut off from their logical minds
(cortical structures). Those people disturbingly resembled IDEAL XTIANS, and
Damasio suggested that people with similar illnesses might be walking around
among us. Of course, the etiology/cause of the illness of Damasio's patients
and the "developmental versions" of same is different. For further
information see the articles about klippoths on my homepage.
I could continue at length with this subject, but as a closing remark I have
to mention that a lot of what you're seeing now is nothing but simple,
historical revisionism. I've talked about these in the above and I hope
you'll not fall prey to such blatant "psy-op" tactics. Hard as it may be to
believe -- mostly because Balanone and his ilk seem such "courteous and nice
people" -- you are dealing with an organization of theistic fruitcakes. They
are peddling a crackpot religion that's no better than Xtianity, and
Setianism SHARES a lot of things in common with that religion. The "flame
war" -- which was actually full of information -- with Tani Jantsang proved
that NO ONE in the Temple of Set knew squat about science or the REAL world,
not even their high priest of that time, Michael Aquino, professed any
knowledge above dictionary learning about the things he founded his religion
upon, nor did Balanone, who at that time hid under an anonymous remailer.
Under his alias Balanone claimed to be a chemistry major among other things,
hoping to avoid directly implicating the Temple of Set should he be caught as
the impostor and know-nothing he is on these subjects. Everthing he said on
the scientific subjects back then was thouroughly refuted, and eventually
Balanone was caught because he accidentally pushed the wrong button one day
and sent his reply directly from his domestic mailbox to mine (he forgot to
send it to the anon remailer). Shortly after I published his blooper he
disappeared from alt.satanism. To put it mildly their level of scientific
knowledge is HORRIBLE and they've based their religion of a number of
fallacies which Xtianity shares, namely creationism. I dare say these things
can be examined by any of you readers who might like to do so --
documentation is on my homepage, see the Tani Jantsang and Philip Marsh page.
Hail Satan!
Hr. Vad
- Wolf -
"The pigeon was chosen as a symbol of peace because it cannot
build a proper nest."--Jesper Klein
PGP fingerprint: 78E9 7734 EA98 AE02 2811 2E8D 3954 7867 4824 A6BE
James Foster
Just a few points I thought I might point out in "Hr."s critique of
Balanone's FAQ.
HR. claims that the definition of LHP is not consistant with the
definition given by some Vedic scholar. Their definition is therefore
wrong, and everything the ToS says and has to offer is worthless.
There are several problems with this, the first and most important being
that the conclusion simply *does not* follow from the premise. Second, in
just as venerable tradition as Hindu Tantra, the Vajrayana, or "Buddhist
Tantra"- the definition of LHP matches neither the Hindu, nor the ToS.
This shows that as new ideas emerge from old (i.e. Buddhism from Hinduism,
ToS from CoS) it is common and appropriate to take a common technical term
and reinterpret it in the light of new information.
The ToS uses the term LHP frequently, however it clearly defines what it
specifically means by "LHP" and its use within the Temple is entirely
consistant with that definition.
Hr. Also brings up a "Tani Jantsang" and mentions how her posts sent the
"Setians scrambling" etc. and then gives a link to her web-page.
Okay- get real. I remember the whole Tani episode, and there was no
scrambling of Setians involved, outside of Tani's mind (which, many will
note if they recall her posts, is fragile, paranoid and just plain silly).
If you have a LOT of time and even more patience, I highly recommend the
unfamiliar reader to hunt down her posts on Deja News, as they are at
times some of the most hilarious pseudo-eugenic-horror-movie tripe I've
read. To list her as a reference to your point is a poor choice, and does
nothing to bolster your argument.
James Foster
Bramin
Hmm James, I d like to refer you to a nice little text...
<A HREF="http://www.slip.net/~wolf/vad/satan/tani/cos-tos.txt">
CoS vs. Tos: a comparison and bottom line view -- by Tani Jantsang</A>
I think that should explain both why the ToS is not evolution of the CoS
why it dint come form the CoS and why "Satanists" dont put up with
setian bullshit spiritual ass kissing. Hardly a "fragile, paranoid and
just plain silly" post. Thanks much.
-Bramin
Kerry Delf
[posted and cc'd]
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Bramin wrote:
> James Foster wrote in response to Hr. Vad:
I repeat James's point: citing an article by Tani Jantsang merely damages
one's credibility. Jantsang is a loon -- as is patently obvious to every
sane reader.
The ToS did evolve from the CoS, but you're almost right on a very vague
level -- it is not the *same* as the CoS by any means. For starters,
Setians can usually write intelligibly... ;>
> -Bramin
-K.Delf
--
Kerry Delf | "Perhaps the meek will inherit the earth,
| but only when the rest of us are done
kd...@gladstone.uoregon.edu | with it." --Massad Ayoob
Xeper
>I'm forwarding this for Hr. Vad. I agree fully on his comments.
This post was forwarded to me by a visitor to alt.satanism, and I would like
to respond to it. "Wolf" is welcome to similarly forward a copy of the response
to "Hr. Vad" if desired. Because of the climate of alt.satanism, I will not
engage in nor follow any further discussion concerning this thread there.
>I'm sure I am to be found on Balanone's list of people "who are biased against
>the Temple of Set for a variety of reasons." However, this is just a cheap
>rethorical trick employed to summarily dismiss anything critics have to say.
One could reply that Vad's second sentence above is exactly what he criticizes.
Nevertheless there are indeed some persons who are biased against the Temple
of Set for a variety of reasons, and as Vad is a priest of the post-1975
"Church
of Satan", it is reasonable to assume that he endorses its well-known bias.
>I'm sure Balanone feels this way regarding me and others, but DO consider if
>our unfavorable attitude towards the ToS isn't justified.
I don't recall Balanone saying anything about Vad one way or the other, but I
think any comments of his would be supported by specific examples. Does
Vad, for instance, reproduce without permission any Temple of Set documents
on his web page? Does he reproduce _ad hominem_ attacks against Setians?
This is the kind of thing that would annoy the Temple of Set.
If Vad simply disagrees with Setian philosophy, or chooses to interpret the
significance of the Church of Satan in his own way, and does so factually and
courteously, that would not antagonize any Setian.
>Among other things, Balanone wrote:
>
>[...]
>>"Left Hand Path" indicates that the path followed by Setians is one of
>>concentration and refinement of the self, leading toward more and more
>>individuality and more and more individualism, as opposed to the Right Hand
>>Path goals of growing toward some outwardly determined standard.
>[...]
>>The Left Hand Path is the tradition of spiritual dissent. It is a process
>>of using the ideas and actions of the Seeker to create or realize an
>>immortal, individual, potent, and powerful essence that will survive death.
>>The Left Hand Path is the quest for personal immortality, won by hard
>>effort without grace of gods, even of our role model, Set.
>
>Examining sources like _Hindu Polytheism_ by Alain Danielou, 1964, (re-issued
>as _The Myths and Gods of India_ in the nineties by Bollinger Book
>Foundation) one must conclude that the Temple of Set's definition of LHP and
>RHP is highly idiomatic, or put bluntly: it's wrong.
From the _Crystal Tablet of Set_ ((c) 1975+: the introductory volume of
the _Jeweled
Tablets of Set_ series issued to new Setians I*) [The #s in the text
identify more
detailed background sources on the Temple's reading list]:
"The terms 'LHP' and 'RHP' are used in different and often incompatible ways
by various occultists. Reportedly the terms originated in Tantrism, a school of
Mahayana Buddhism in northern India which taught that Buddhahood can be
realized
through various theurgic practices. For mantra and mudra ceremonies the
female was
positioned on the right of the male; for erotic rites she was positioned
on the left. (#13C).
Theosophy's H.P. Blavatsky felt sex-magic to be immoral and perverse, so she
subsequently employed the term LHP to characterize the magical systems she
didn't like,
and the term RHP to characterize the ones she did, i.e. Theosophy.
Post-HPB the terms
have been expanded through popular usage to refer generally to what the
Temple of Set
defines as White Magic (RHP) and Black Magic (LHP).
"Most popular occult organizations, to be sure, use the terms simply to
identify their
moral biases. What they consider 'good' is RHP, 'evil' LHP. After Aleister
Crowley
left the Golden Dawn, he portrayed it as a 'Black Lodge' and his own
A.'.A.'. as 'the
Great White Brotherhood' (#9A, #9C); while on the other side of the fence
W.B. Yeats
and other G.'.D.'. leaders considered *Crowley* to be the Black Magician
(#10F, #10G).
"To further complicate the matter, there have been some deliberately
criminal 'Satanic'
organizations which have avowedly followed the LHP *as defined by those
who consider
it synonymous with degenerate and destructive practices* (#6A, #6B). Such
episodes have
of course served to reinforce the conventional religious image of Satanism
and the Black
Arts as nefarious practices.
"So enduring was this stereotype that the Church of Satan found it very
difficult to break
free from it during the entire decade of its existence. All sorts of
creeps, crackpots, criminals,
and cranks pounded on the door of the Church, assuming that it would
excuse and encourage
whatever social shortcomings they embraced. The Temple of Set has avoided
this problem,
presumably because 'Satan' is popularly associated with 'evil' while 'Set'
is largely unknown
outside of Egyptological circles.
"The Temple of Set's LHP orientation is, as noted above, a function of its
definition of Black
Magic. No moral or ethical stances are implied by the terms LHP/RHP _per
se_, since they
refer to *techniques* and *systems* rather than to the ends for which they
are applied. As
defined within the Temple:
" - The Left-Hand Path involves the conscious attempt to preserve and
strengthen one's isolate,
psychecentric existence against the objective universe (OU) while
apprehending, comprehending,
and influencing a varying number of subjective universes.
" - The Right-Hand Path involves the conscious attempt to dissolve or
merge the self with the OU."
[This section of the _CT_ continues on, and is part of a chapter dealing
with the concept of
"initiation" generally.]
>What happened was an inevitable break due to philosophical differences, but
>that is probably what you get when you have some half-Satanic, half-Xtians
>trying to make SATANISM. Looking back it is clear that the ToS chose to fully
>embrace the XTOID aspects of the philosophy brewing in their minds, namely in
>Michael Aquino's mind and the egyptoid Grotto Lilith ran at the time.
The events leading up to the 1975 disintegration of the original Church of
Satan
and the founding of the Temple of Set are detailed extensively, and supported
by full documentation of personal correspondence and Church papers, in my
_The Church of Satan_, a book available only to Setians and persons deemed
serious and responsible researchers by the Temple of Set. Anton LaVey has a
personal hardcover copy of the Second Edition of the book, so his present-day
followers can presumably ask to see it when visiting him. [I would not
recommend
relying on bootlegged "extracts" or "copies" for reliability.]
In a nutshell, Anton and I understood and interpreted the evolution of Satanism
similarly, if not identically, from 1970 to 1975. The destruction of the Church
in that year came from a sudden decision of his to sell its initiatory degrees,
including the Priesthood of Mendes - not from any theoretical or theological
differences. Again, _COS_ documents this series of events extensively.
>That they've continued to call themselves Satanists and their god The
Prince of
>Darkness is an INSULT to those who know and represent the Dark Doctrine.
Since 1975 we have referred to ourselves as Setians, and have routinely
clarified
this point when responding to interviews or inquiries stereotyping us as
"Satanists".
Set used the title "Prince of Darkness" in the _Book of Coming Forth by Night_
with reference to himself; thus we continue it as well. As he was a god of
the night
sky and the circumpolar stars, as opposed to Horus of the daylight and
Sun, this
is not an inappropriate honorific.
As is well-known, the Temple considers "Satan" as a Judaeo/Christian
perversion and
corruption of Set and his original (not Osirian) symbolism, so we would
scarcely
want to promote the J/C iconography.
As is also well-known, the original Church of Satan regarded Satan as a living
entity and held him in deep reverence, much as the hero of Milton's
_Paradise Lost_
or Anatole France's _The Angels_. We consider the use of his name, and that of
his Church, by Anton and his followers post-1975 as misrepresentative of a
social ideology that is simply atheistic hedonism.
>Michael Aquino's claim to fame is solely through his claim that "Set, the
prime
>intelligence in the Universe, spoke directly to him in a revelation."
Again from the _Crystal Tablet_:
"The result of the North Solstice Working was a document entitled _The Book of
Coming Forth by Night_, professing to be a communication from the Prince of
Darkness in his original semblance as the Egyptian god Set. The AEon of Horus
and the intermediary Age of Satan were at an end; the AEon of Set had now Come
Into Being as a catalyst for a new evolution of the Elect of mankind. We were
charged to form a Temple of Set to replace the Church of Satan, and I -
like Anton
LaVey before me - was Recognized to the degree of magus and directed to assume
the High Priesthood.
"As with any Greater Black Magic (GBM) working, the _Book of Coming Forth by
Night_ will assume different significance to different people. Skeptics
might consider
it a work of fantasy or self-delusion; religious fanatics a message from
the Judaeo/
Christian Devil; old-time occultists an imitation of Aleister Crowley's
_Book of the Law_.
"There is nothing to gain by debating such points of view. As is discussed
later in
_Black Magic_, any GBM working is necessarily a supra-rational experience,
not a
logical, scientific, or artistic exercise. It will be most meaningful to
its celebrant, and it
may or may not be meaningful or even intelligible to others.
"What I *will* assert is that, as far as I *myself* am concerned, the
_Book of Coming
Forth by Night_ was and remains authentic: the noetic apprehension of an
intelligence
'not myself' which reduced certain statements, judgments, principles, and
symbols to
a text.
"This text was so meaningful to me that I have since ordered my life and
philosophy by
its principles. The other founders of the Temple of Set accorded it a
similar trust and
respect. Even though they had not participated in the working itself, many
remarked,
they felt that the text itself carried its own aura of authenticity and
conviction. In the years
that followed, countless others have been moved by it in a similar fashion.
"When I accepted the _Book of Coming Forth by Night_, it was in a
deliberate, reflective
way - with a resolve to undertake the creation and care of the Temple
proper, and to patiently
allow history to validate or disprove any principles that the Temple might
propose or
practice. This has remained my attitude ever since that serene and sublime
experience. As
for the text itself, I am content to comment upon it as best I can
[extensively in the _Ruby
Tablet of Set_], then let others judge it as they will. For me it is now,
as then, a simple,
beautiful, and purposeful statement from the sentient being whom mankind
has loved,
hated, worshipped, cursed, praised, and reviled as the Prince of Darkness.
To echo the
words of G.B. Shaw in _The Devil's Disciple_: 'I promised him my soul, and
swore an
oath that I would stand up for him in this world and stand by him in the
next.'"
>I guess we're
>"vague" about the issue of immortality because no one CAN know if immortality
>is possible in any way -- scientifically, however, the burden of proof of
>immortality lies with those who claim it is possible. Although I have to say
>our conceptions of "the organic stream" is by no means vague. We are physical
>and biological beings, and as such we know what will happen to our atoms,
>mass, and energy once we die. If we've procreated our genes will live on in
>our children, and our own bodies will become food and fertilizer.
A discussion of this topic is beyond the space of an Internet post, and even
in the _CT_ takes up an extensive introductory section, with frequent literary
references [and indeed an entire category of the Temple reading list].
Speaking specifically to Vad's position above, I might quote Dietrich
Eckhart of the
Thule Gesellschaft:
"It is now evident that a people which completely denies the existence of
life after
death must limit all of its thoughts and endeavors to the present world,
to earthly
existence; it has no other choice. But a people can only grow up with such an
emphasis on worldly matters if it fundamentally lacks any need for immortality,
which in turn is possible only if there is no trace of feeling in its
basic character
for the *eternal* in mankind. Wherever the soul manifests itself, no matter how
faintly, a sense of immortality necessarily follows. The individual is not
always
consciously aware of this; indeed there are many who *refuse* to
understand it -
who are so ignorant concerning the nature of immortality that they habitually
denounce it, even while their unselfish actions clearly reveal that each
one of them
senses the soul and therefore eternity within himself."
>>The Gift of Set means so many different things depending upon whom you
>>speak to. To some it's the gift of Intelligence, to some it's
>>Consciousness, to some it's the ability to step back from the current
>>moment/place to see/think about what's happening. To some it's the ability
>>to work (or at least conceive of) magic. etc. The Gift of Set is whatever
>>happens to separate us (those with potential) from animals (those without
>>quite as much potential), which is one of the grey areas that haven't been
>>clarified very well (some of us not seeing very much difference between
>>humans and "higher" animals).
>
>1) That "some people in the ToS" are NOW "not seeing very much difference
>between humans and higher animals" can only be attributted as so much
>revisionistic hogwash. If there are such feelings stirring in the ToS it is
>SINGULARLY because of ONE historic occurrence: The entry of Tani Jantsang on
>alt.satanism. NO ONE came to the front BACK THEN defending any other animals
>as being anywhere NEAR humans. But the ensuing DEVASTATING articles from Tani
>Jantsang had the Setians scurry away in embarrasment. SO *NOW* THEY'RE
>SUDDENLY INCLUDING ANIMALS AMONG THEIR RANKS. Rest assured this was NOT the
>case before Tani got to them. Imagine that, the twenty years of growth and
>maturation of the Temple of Set (as Balanone puts it elsewhere in his FAQ)
>didn't accomplish what one Church of Satan Magistra did. What's next? Setians
>talking favorably about ENTROPY? I'll BET it comes one day. Maybe even DARWIN
>will get his heyday somewhere in the future.
As far as I know, Jantsang's writings have not been seriously regarded by
any Setian.
Vad confuses a sympathy for and empathy with the animal kingdom, which has
characterized the Temple of Set since its founding, with our position that the
intelligence and self-consciousness of humanity are significantly higher
than those
of non-human animals.
>2) Secondly, isn't the Gift of Set a result of "Set tampering with monkey
>DNA" as Aquino put it? The ToS have spouted lots of CREATIONIST teaching
>during the years, arguing that humans MUST be the result of someone's DESIGN.
>See Philip Marsh's _Evolution, Christians, and Setians_ essay on my homepage
>for further information on this embarrasing event. Before Tani and Phil had
>the Setians reduced to a state of embarrasment the idea was more along the
>lines that "Set bestowed SENTIENCE on humans" -- as if there was such a thing
>as "sentience" -- and I've heard my share of high ranking Setians claim and
>imply this sentience did NOT extend to "lower animals" -- but listen up
>chaps, NOW the story is changing.
I have never used the phrase "Set tampering with monkey DNA". Again the
past/present/future evolution of mankind is a vast and complex topic, treated
extensively in the _CT_ and our reading list, as well as in numerous _Scroll
of Set_ articles over the last two decades.
I will run the risk of [over]simplifying the two main points thus: that human
intelligence/self-consciousness is sharply different from that of any other
species on this planet, and that the normal processes of "natural selection"
(Darwinian evolution) do not support drastic evolution of the mind as opposed
to far less-dramatic physical adaptation. If normal natural selection processes
governed humanity, we would be simply another gorilla-like branch of the
primate tree. [Some human behavior supports this notion, I'll admit - but I
don't want to insult gorillas! Cf. R.A Wilson's _Schroedinger's Cat_ trilogy
for relevant meditations.]
>3) Thirdly, one of the greatest fallacies of Setian "thinking" is their
>insistence on their "separation from nature".
In terms of physical bodies, of course not. It is the _psyche_/_ba_/soul
that we apprehend as non-natural. Again there is considerable discussion
about this in the _CT_, reading list, and _Scroll_. A brief comment from
Dr. Franz Winkler's _For Freedom Destined_:
"In ancient times the secrets of man's true nature, and of the forces that
determine his fate, were contemplated in the great temple universities of
paganism all over the civilized world. Though men were fully aware of the
important role that heredity plays in the shaping of the physiological and
psychological organism of a human being, they did not think that the
innermost core of the human being was the product of purely biological
forces. This innermost core, called by the Greeks the _entelechy_ or
_daemon_ of man, was credited with qualities unique to the individual,
apart from the characteristics of the body he inhabited. The concept of
_entelechy_ corresponded roughly with the Judaeo/Christian concept of
an immortal soul."
For further information concerning the Temple of Set, see its web page at:
hhtp://www.calweb.com/~reshef/
Michael A. Aquino, Ph.D.
- wolf -
At discrete time "15 Oct 1997 00:57:23 GMT", an entity known as "Xeper"
scribbled:
>This post was forwarded to me by a visitor to alt.satanism, and I would like
>to respond to it. "Wolf" is welcome to similarly forward a copy of the response
>to "Hr. Vad" if desired. Because of the climate of alt.satanism, I will not
>engage in nor follow any further discussion concerning this thread there.
Yeah, I guess you had left alt.satanism "for good" for, let me see, the fourth
time or so?
Hail Satan!
- Wolf -
Jolly G. Giant
Bramin wrote:
>
> Kdelf wrote:
> > Bramin wrote:
<snip>
I did visit Tani's page, and read the CoS vs. ToS thing..and I'd be
talking out of my ass if I said anything about it. From reading the
rest of Tani's little essays, though, I can assert that she is a loon.
cm
Bramin
Kdelf wrote:
> Bramin wrote:
>> I think that should explain both why the ToS is not evolution of the CoS
>> why it dint come form the CoS and why "Satanists" dont put up with
>> setian bullshit spiritual ass kissing. Hardly a "fragile, paranoid and
>> just plain silly" post. Thanks much.
>
>I repeat James's point: citing an article by Tani Jantsang merely damages
>one's credibility. Jantsang is a loon -- as is patently obvious to every
>sane reader.
>
>The ToS did evolve from the CoS, but you're almost right on a very vague
>level -- it is not the *same* as the CoS by any means. For starters,
>Setians can usually write intelligibly... ;>
Ok, let me restate MY point. Theism does not evolve from atheism. The
ToS did not evolve from the CoS. If Jantsang is a loon I fear to think
what Aquino is. If you read Tani's article you would see that there is
little that can be denied. The writing was not at all lunacy, it was
perfectly sane AND credible as well as being correct. Take Aquino's
"The Book of Coming Forth by Night" that is a work of lunacy. Setian
theists are just as stupid as any other theists. If I was trying to win
brownie points for grammer maybe I would edit my posts, or even fix
typos and sticky keys.. but you know what? I dont give a fuck. It takes
a mindless fool to think that Aquino's fantasy is reality and Tani's
reality is fantasy. Then again theists are brainwashed morons anyhow, I
guess that explains it. So hold tight to your theism little lamb, for
that is all that keeps you from commiting suicide. Reality too tough
for you? Leave than, reality doesnt want you in it either. Dont pollute
reality with your feeble minded theism, just leave. Thats right, grab
the gun, stick it in your mouth and pull the trigger. I know I wont
miss you. Oh by the way, have a nice day.
-Bramin, the incoherant one.
Kerry Delf
[posted and cc'd]
(A) I am not a Setian.
(B) I am not a theist.
(C) Tani Jantsang is still a high-priced psychopathologist's wet dream.
> -Bramin, the incoherant one.
And a duped twit besides.
James Foster
On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Bramin wrote:
> the gun, stick it in your mouth and pull the trigger. I know I wont
> miss you. Oh by the way, have a nice day.
Did your mother not hold you enough as an infant?
ondr...@genco.com
Is ba-i seb ankh!
> I'm forwarding this for Hr. Vad. I agree fully on his comments.
Then I should appreciate it if you would forward this response *to* Hr.
Vad.
> ---
>
> On alt.satanism Balanone, long time member of the Temple of Set (ToS) posted
> his own personal FAQ, and I thought a few comments would be fitting. I am Hr.
> Vad, Priest of the Church of Satan. You're welcome to visit my homepage at:
> <http://www.slip.net/~wolf/vad/index.shtml>.
Thanks for letting Me know where it's got to; there is some interesting
information on it, and My current links are invalid.
> <semantic argument regarding RHP/LHP snipped)
Yes, I *DO* consider it little more than a trivial semantic point. If
the "original" meanings were different from the Temple's current
meanings...so what? Refining the meaning of terms to suit your purposes
is nothing new. Like taking "Satanism" and making it into little more
than ritualized hedonistic atheism.
Try arguing that with a Xian. They'll tell you what Satanists do, and
they know they're right because they read it in a book. They'll tell you
that you aren't a "REAL" Satanist, just as you are telling Us that We are
not "REAL" LHP'ers.
The Temple adopts certain meanings of words so that it can concisely
explain the tenets it has. If you want to understand those tenets, then
you must adopt those meanings for the discussion. If you want to quibble
of the meanings of words, then I, at least, will ignore you.
> What happened was an inevitable break due to philosophical differences, but
> that is probably what you get when you have some half-Satanic, half-Xtians
> trying to make SATANISM.
Are you using Xtian as a snarl-word, or are there some ideas within the
Temple that you care to point out that is *specifically* Christian?
> That they've continued to call themselves Satanists and their god The Prince
> of Darkness is an INSULT to those who know and represent the Dark Doctrine.
The dark doctrine...as promulgated by the CoS and yourself, I assume?
> That the ToS have chosen "psyche worship" and "spirituality" over the dark,
> carnal truths of flesh, which Church of Satan LHP philosophy emphasizes, is
> testimony to the fact that they're in no way Satanic -- despite efforts to
> appear Satanic. In truth, some Setians do NOT consider themselves Satanists.
> To them I say: "Right on folks! You got it RIGHT!"
Actually, you have a point here. I consider Myself both a Setian and a
Satanist but I certainly do not consider them both the same thing. There
are some points that they have in common, such as antinomianism and bad
PR, but on many they are widely divergent. In a Venn diagram they are
two seperate sets with an area of intersection. I think it's a small
area; others' opinions may differ.
> The truth is that the Temple of Set has established its name and mandate by
> riding on the coattails of the Church of Satan, and now that it is dawning
> upon them that they may in fact NOT be a Satanic organization after all, it
> is of course difficult to just forget the whole business of Satanism, because
> that would expose them as liars and hypocrites.
I think the ToS's success did have, at least in the early years, a bit to
do with the Church of Satan. Even today, interest in TSB influenced at
least some of the new Setians. If you want to call that "riding on your
coattails," that's fine with Me.
> Michael Aquino's claim to fame is solely through his claim that "Set, the
> prime intelligence in the Universe, spoke directly to him in a revelation."
> Aquino furthermore claimed Set was the REAL Prince of Darkness, and that Set
> had told him to take over the Church of Satan from old, burned out Anton
> LaVey. Thus he tried to coup the Church of Satan. The coup eventually failed
> and he left to start his own religion, hence: The Temple of Set.
I've not heard that story. At what point and in what way do you claim
that Aquino attempted to take over the CoS? My information is just that
He left.
> The characterization of the CoS in this paragraph is largely correct. We do
> worship our carnal nature, and it is true our conception of immortality is
> "vaguely understood in connection with the organic stream".
At least he got something right, eh? ;-)
> >Set is the most ancient name for the Prince of Darkness, given to the
> >Prince of Darkness in ancient (pre-dynastic) Egypt. Whether Set exists as
> >an independent metaphysical being, or whether he's a symbol for man's most
> >individualistic attributes, is a topic always under discussion somewhere in
> >the Temple of Set.
>
> For a lengthy discussion of this I refer you to:
> <http://www.slip.net/~wolf/vad/satan/tani/neter.txt>
When I have a chance, I may examine this. I would have appreciated at
least a synopsis on your part, since frankly I find your writings to be
more intelligent and comprehensible than Tani's.
> 1) That "some people in the ToS" are NOW "not seeing very much difference
> between humans and higher animals" can only be attributted as so much
> revisionistic hogwash. If there are such feelings stirring in the ToS it is
> SINGULARLY because of ONE historic occurrence: The entry of Tani Jantsang on
> alt.satanism.
Nonsense. I certainly do see more people with more holding that opinion
in the Temple nowadays than I did when I was a member several years ago,
but I think that the difference is due primarily to better research, a
wider knowledge base and open discussion. It is rare that I could sit
through a reading of Ms. Jantsang's diatribes and rantings. MAYBE it was
BECAUSE of her RANDOM AND FREQUENT use of CAPITALIZATION, but only
partially.
> NO ONE came to the front BACK THEN defending any other animals as being
> anywhere NEAR humans. But the ensuing DEVASTATING articles from Tani Jantsang
> had the Setians scurry away in embarrasment. SO *NOW* THEY'RE SUDDENLY
> INCLUDING ANIMALS AMONG THEIR RANKS. Rest assured this was NOT the case before
> Tani got to them.
I still don't think it's a widespread opinion among Setians, though it is
growing. Perhaps the recent upsurge in animal rights activity in the
Temple has something to do with it.
> Imagine that, the twenty years of growth and maturation of the Temple of Set
> (as Balanone puts it elsewhere in his FAQ) didn't accomplish what one Church
> of Satan Magistra did. What's next? Setians talking favorably about ENTROPY?
If We do, We'll probably understand it better. Lupo's critique of Tani's
outpouring on the subject was...to coin a phrase..."devastating." And HE
is someone that really knows his shit.
> 2) Secondly, isn't the Gift of Set a result of "Set tampering with monkey
> DNA" as Aquino put it?
I dunno; is that what it is? If Dr. Aquino thinks that it is, that in no
way obliges anyone else in the Temple to accept His opinion. Setians
have a lot of different ideas about Set and His Gift; some of them are,
in My own estimation, rather kooky. That doesn't mean that they're
necessarily wrong, just that I don't see it. I'm sure that some of My
own ideas are equally as "kooky."
> The ToS have spouted lots of CREATIONIST teaching during the years, arguing
> that humans MUST be the result of someone's DESIGN.
I haven't necessarily heard that from the Temple. Some individual
Setians, yes, but it's never been a "this is the way it is" doctrine.
That's one of the "kooky" ideas I was referring to, actually. :-)
> See Philip Marsh's _Evolution, Christians, and Setians_ essay on my homepage
> for further information on this embarrasing event.
Haven't seen that one; must check it out one of these days.
> Before Tani and Phil had the Setians reduced to a state of embarrasment the
> idea was more along the lines that "Set bestowed SENTIENCE on humans" -- as if
> there was such a thing as "sentience" -- and I've heard my share of high
> ranking Setians claim and imply this sentience did NOT extend to "lower
> animals" -- but listen up chaps, NOW the story is changing.
I can't speak for anyone else in the Temple, but more reading and
research along these lines *has* caused My opinion to change. UNLIKE the
Christans, Our members are usually willing to change their opinions if
presented with adequate evidence to the contrary. We haven't many ideas
that aren't subject to revision.
> 3) Thirdly, one of the greatest fallacies of Setian "thinking" is their
> insistence on their "separation from nature". They really believe themselves
> SEPARATE from Nature. How can you even BE THAT?
I'll refer you to Eric Hoffer's essay, "The Unnaturalness of Human
Nature," for a better answer than I could give.
> Firstly it is of course not theoretically possible to be "outside nature",
Granted; that was one of My biggest sticking points with the Temple.
When We speak of being "unnatural" though, being "outside nature" isn't a
good definition of what We mean.
> <snip>
> Xtians, incidentally, provide a clue to this problem: like Setians they feel a
> SPLIT between "emotions/carnality/flesh" and their "minds, logic and souls".
Again, while I can't speak for all Setians, I don't see the SPLIT you are
referring to. Having worked closely with head injury patients for a
short time, I would find such a distinction very untenable.
> Also, both camps can be heard saying the same things about "separate from
> nature" and "how humans were designated by God/Set to rule the animals".
I've never heard that within the Temple. If anything, there are a few
animal rights activists who speak out strongly on that subject.
> I could continue at length with this subject, but as a closing remark I have
> to mention that a lot of what you're seeing now is nothing but simple,
> historical revisionism. I've talked about these in the above
I must have missed those parts.
> Hard as it may be to believe -- mostly because Balanone and his ilk seem such
> "courteous and nice people" -- you are dealing with an organization of
> theistic fruitcakes.
Personally, I'm an atheist...of course, "fruitcake" is a matter of
opinion! :)
> They are peddling a crackpot religion that's no better than Xtianity, and
> Setianism SHARES a lot of things in common with that religion.
I'd say it's a lot better. There's no insititutional sexual restrictions
(aside from a restriction on pedophilia), no "thou shalt" and "thou shalt
not"'s that have been the cause of so much repression and guilt in
Christians, no "believe or be damned" mentality, etc. Do you disagree?
And I've not seen much that Setianism shares with Christianity. There
certainly are a few things. Some Setians believe in a form of
creationism, some Christians believe in a form of creationism. Setians
have priests, Christians have priests. Many Setians take some ideas from
Plato, many Christians take some ideas from Plato. Umm...anything else?
> The "flame war" -- which was actually full of information -- with Tani
> Jantsang proved that NO ONE in the Temple of Set knew squat about science or
> the REAL world,
Apparantly proved that she didn't either. I again defer to Lupo's
expertise on many of the subjects discussed. I any case, the *best* you
could hope for is an indication that no Setians at that time who chose to
participate in the debate knew much about science, though I rather doubt
that. However, I didn't see the flame war, I don't know.
> To put it mildly their level of scientific knowledge is HORRIBLE and they've
> based their religion of a number of fallacies which Xtianity shares, namely
> creationism.
Well yes, one IS "a number." :) I would hardly say that all Setians
believe in creationism; neither, for that matter, do many Christians.
And the ideas behind them are somewhat different, anyhow...I don't know
any Setian who would accept the Christian idea of creationism, or vice
versa.
In any case, Hr. Vad, I'd just like to say that it's nice to see a
coherent post from the CoS. I've always respected your thoughts and
opinions, even when I've disagreed with them.
En Nefer-en-Ka,
VonDraco
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Bramin
Balanone wrote:
> wo...@slip.net (- wolf -) posted on behalf of Hr. Vad, to alt.satanism,
> HV> The truth is that the Temple of Set has established its name and
> mandate by riding on the coattails of the Church of Satan, .and now that
> it is dawning upon them that they may in fact NOT be a Satanic
> organization after all, it is of course difficult to just forget the
> whole business of Satanism, because that would expose them as liars and
> that "Set, the prime intelligence in the Universe, spoke directly to him
> in a revelation." Aquino furthermore claimed Set was the REAL Prince of
> Darkness, and that Set had told him to take over the Church of Satan
> from old, burned out Anton LaVey. Thus he tried to coup the Church of
> Satan. The coup eventually failed and he left to start his own religion,
> hence: The Temple of Set.
>
> of the Church of Satan. I've never even seen such a claim made by
> anyone. (Of course, the Church of Satan recently has been very
> unimportant to me, so I haven't been paying that much attention.) Does
> anyone have any contemporaneous evidence to support Hr. Vad's claim?
> Lacking such, I consider the claims "that Set had told him to take over
> the Church of Satan from old, burned out Anton LaVey. Thus he tried to
> Y> The Temple has been actively and openly considering this for years
> (certainly long before Tani et al were around). We've also been
> discussing it publically for years (I have addressed this issue directly
> in numerous usenet posts, again, long before Tani was around). This has
> been an internal process, based on the development of our own thinking,
> rather than a response to the CoS, Tani, or anyone/anything else.
>
> The Usenet echoes of this process have simply been the honest discussion
> of the various reasons why this topic is being explored within the
> Temple of Set.
>
> B>Set is the most ancient name for the Prince of Darkness, given to the
> B>Prince of Darkness in ancient (pre-dynastic) Egypt. Whether Set exists
> as
> B>an independent metaphysical being, or whether he's a symbol for man's
> most
> B>individualistic attributes, is a topic always under discussion
> somewhere in
> B>the Temple of Set.
> Balanone
> PP
Okay this post was way to large, but to address a few things..
"I consider the claims "that Set had told him to take over
the Church of Satan from old, burned out Anton LaVey. Thus he tried to
coup the Church of Satan" to be fantasy."
-Balanone
"...Upon the ninth Solstice, therefore, I destroyed my pact with Anton
Szandor LaVey,
and I raised him to the Will of a Daimon, unbounded by the material
dimensions.
And so I thought to honour him beyond other men. But it may have been
this act of
mine that ordained his fall...
...I cannot undo the hurt that has come of this, but I shall restore to
Anton Szandor LaVey
his human aspect and his degree of Magus in my Order. Thus all may
understand that he is
dearly held by me, and that the end of the Church of Satan is not a
thing of shame to him.
But a new Aeon is now to begin, and the work of Anton Szandor LaVey is
done. Let him be at
ease, for no other man has ever seen with his eyes...
...'Destined First Century heir - Aquino - breaking Keys by doctrines
Anton LaVey - great Magus
of reconsecration coming Year Xeper - founding his rightful Priesthood -
Set - true origin
Volume AL'
Michael Aquino, you are become Magus V* of the Aeon of Set."
-Michael Aquino
Alright, if that doesnt imply exactly what Vad said I dont know what
does, and why do you say
that the ToS doesnt believe in Set as a literal entity, it is obvious
your founder does. Or
do you follow the christian path of saying everything was "metaphorical"
even though the text
claims to be the truth? Why can theists not read their own scriptures?
I have to teach the
bible to christians and TBoCFbN to Setians. It is insane, Aquino likes
to fantasize that LeVay
believed in and got powers from Set? That is fantasy, the fact that you
people cant read makes me
ill. Wake up to reality people, its waiting.
-Bramin
VonDraco
Is ba-i seb ankh!
Bramin <mind...@mindless.com> wrote:
> Ok, let me restate MY point. Theism does not evolve from atheism. The
> ToS did not evolve from the CoS.
Perhaps you'd like to suggest another word? I think that "evolve" is a
fairly accurate one; the basic structure of the CoS was adapted to meet
the introduction of a different basic concept.
> If Jantsang is a loon I fear to think what Aquino is.
Of course you do. If you admit that Jantsang is a loon, then you might
have to admit that Dr. Aquino is *right* -- or at least had a point. (No,
I'm not speaking of his eyebrows, either!)
> If you read Tani's article you would see that there is little that can
> be denied.
There is little than can be *understood*, at least without access to
massive quantities of better psychedelic drugs than any supplier I know
has access to.
> The writing was not at all lunacy, it was perfectly sane AND credible
> as well as being correct.
Cool! Can I have the name of YOUR supplier?? :)
> Take Aquino's "The Book of Coming Forth by Night" that is a work of
> lunacy.
That is, of course, possible. However, HE wasn't PRONE to the USE OF
idiosyncratic PATTERNS OF CAPS in ALL of His POSTS!!!! And from what
I've seen, He knows how to spell. I think Aquino's lunacy is somewhat
preferable, actually.
> Setian theists are just as stupid as any other theists.
Are you going to throw around snarl-words, or try to engage in real
discussion?
> If I was trying to win brownie points for grammer maybe I would edit
> my posts, or even fix typos and sticky keys.. but you know what? I
> dont give a fuck.
Oh, it isn't just grammar; your spelling sucks too. And if you would
actually go out and GET a fuck, maybe your keys wouldn't be so sticky!
> It takes a mindless fool to think that Aquino's fantasy is reality
> and Tani's reality is fantasy.
So what you're saying is that since it only takes a mindless fool to see
that Aquino is right and Tani is bonkers, that you aren't even up to that
level yet? I might suggest professional help for someone in your
desperate situation.
<snip pointless drivel>
> Bramin, the incoherent one
No argument there.
-- En Nefer-en-Ka,
VonDraco
--
All the questions come with answers / All your wishes can come true
There is such comfort in the music / And in knowing just what to do
MANINBLACK
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Kerry Delf wrote:
>
> I repeat James's point: citing an article by Tani Jantsang merely damages
> one's credibility. Jantsang is a loon -- as is patently obvious to every
> sane reader.
A hint of jealousy here? What's the matter Missy Delf, no one
willing to publish you "stuff?" Oh, you mean to say that you have not
actually written anything worth publishing? Well that is a different story.
>
> The ToS did evolve from the CoS, but you're almost right on a very vague
> level -- it is not the *same* as the CoS by any means. For starters,
> Setians can usually write intelligibly... ;>
>
Yeah, and we all know that Setters just write. Harmless scribes
of second rate satanism.
Hail the Citizens of the Infernal Empire!
Hail Satan!
Reverend Andre Schlesinger, GM
MIB Grotto/Church Of Satan/NYC