From: Dirge Area: Base of Set To: Azrael 5 Apr 92 18:30:04 Subject: ENLIGHTENMENT UpdReq Quoting Azrael to Lady Byron (27-Mar-92): Excuse me for I degress, I wish to be enlightened by someone w/ the "faithfulness" to enlighten me by thier beliefs, not beliefs that they belive someone else has. TELL ME WHAT IT IS FOR YOU.!.! OR DON'T AS YOU SEE FIT. Don't taunt me for my lack of knowlege in this area just enlighten me, and let me decide. --- If you have been here for any time at all, you should know better than to demand that someone "enlighten" you. Merely coming in with an empty cup and insisting that it be filled is not the way to learn anything. If you were to ask specific questions, then I am certain you would receive specific answers. But merely asking for a quickie description of their entire belief system is beyond the scope of computer messages! I, for one, promise not to taunt you. If I can answer your questions, then I certainly will, and if I can't, then I hope someone else around here can. By the way, it may interest you to know that there is more than one flavor of Satanist here, and the answer you get will vary according to which group the answerer belongs. Most people here belong to the Temple of Set, and so most of the discussions you see will be from the TOS point of view. There are one or two Church of Satan members around, and a handful of Ordo Templi Satanis members (such as myself). So, if you get answers that don't exactly mesh, that's the reason. Of course, it is also true to say that there are as many different kinds of Satanism as there are Satanists, but that is hopefully self-evident. Hail Satan! -Dirge 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Dirge Area: Base of Set To: Pale Rider 5 Apr 92 18:31:10 Subject: YOUR BIBLE UpdReq Quoting Pale Rider to Templeton Hyde (30-Mar-92)- You are wrong. You have know idea what you are talking about. Problems with interpretation is with some of the lesser doctrines among the Protestant churches. The RCC, JW, and LDS teach doctrines that aren't even in the Bible, and that usually conflict with the Bible. I go strictly by the Bible. I look for what the Bible says. --- Don't you see that that is exactly the question? How do you know "what the Bible says" when there are so MANY Bibles running around? How can you know for certain which one is the closest translation? Unless you go back to the original Greek and Hebrew, you have no way of figuring which is the closest translation to the original. From what I have seen, people will choose that translation which most closely fits their preconceptions of what christianity is, rather than the other way around. Who are you to say that the KJV (for example) is less accurate than the NIV? And, lest we forget, the original manuscripts come in several different versions as well. So you may cease this stuff about yours being the one true vision of the bible. That doesn't even get into the question of the bible being the work of men, rather than a "divine pronouncement". I'll save that for another day. Hail Satan! -Dirge 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Dirge Area: Base of Set To: Diane Vera 5 Apr 92 18:32:12 Subject: "GAY RIGHTS" Rec'd UpdReq Sorry to interject on this, hope you don't mind. Quoting Diane Vera to Ammond Shadowcraft (29-Mar-92): Do you think lesbians and gay men are actually seeking any rights that would "exceed the rights granted *every* citizen *equally*"? (Fundamentalist anti-gay activists will sometimes claim this; but it is a completely specious accusation as far as I can tell, at least regarding the vast majority of lesbian and gay activists.) --- The mere fact that homosexuals seek a special recognition of *their* rights as homosexuals indicates that they are seeking rights that would exceed those guaranteed to all citizens. If not, why would they need such special recognition in the first place? I refer you to the recently voted-upon bill here in California regarding gay rights. Quoting Diane Vera to Ammond Shadowcraft (29-Mar-92): I'm not asking you to put energy into the fight for lesbian and gay rights. However, when you do have occasion to discuss the issue (and remember, *you* decided to jump into my conversation with Frc), could you please avoid ignorant-sounding put-downs of the sort that are typical of oppressor groups on the defensive (such as your seeming paranoia about lesbians and gay men oppressing straights, which I discussed in the message I just now posted above, "'Breeders' and 'illusions of union with the Universe'")? --- I believe you are engaging in a little hypocricy here, Diane. What could be more of an "ignorant-sounding put-down" than the term "oppressor group"??? It implies a conspiracy (tacit or implicit) to deprive the "oppressed group" of certain rights. I think what we've managed to discover over the last few months of this "gay bashing" debate is that Satanism is a big enough house to contain people on both sides of the issue of gay rights. More generally, there are left-wing Satanists, right-wing Satanists, and middle-road Satanists. Of course, if you really want to get into the debate about gay rights from a Satanic perspective (and I think we'd fall squarely on opposite sides of the issue) then I would be happy to oblige. Hail Satan! -Dirge 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Dirge Area: Base of Set To: Diane Vera 5 Apr 92 18:32:56 Subject: FEMINISM Rec'd UpdReq Quoting Diane Vera to Ammond Shadowcraft (29-Mar-92): I also feel that, with *very rare* exceptions, a *MAN* is simply not qualified to advise women on how to deal with problems which (because he is not a woman) he has not experienced. To qualify as one of those very rare exceptions, a man would have to be willing to study women's situation *in depth*. He would need to *listen*, with the nondefensive objectivity of the ideal anthropologist, to women's -- especially feminist women's -- own understanding of their own situation. Most men simply have no motivation to do this. And by your own admission, you don't put effort into political causes other than your own -- which is fine with me, as long as you don't consider yourself an authority on causes that are unimportant to you. --- May I ask if you consider the reverse to be true? Can a woman be qualified to advise men on their gender-specific problems merely because she has never experienced them? Can book-study replace experience in such matters? And let us not forget that sexuality is, in most instances, not merely a single-gender issue. Things such as rape, childbearing, intercourse, etc. are not merely "women's issues"; they are issues that affect men just as much as women. I refer you to the chapter of the Book of Darkness entitled "Satanic Feminism". Hail Satan! -Dirge 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Frc Area: Base of Set To: Pale Rider 4 Apr 92 05:47:00 Subject: Re: Christian Crime UpdReq PR> I realize that. That is the reason that I want you to be able to PR> see a little taste of real love through me. It is you that I am PR> trying to get through too. It is you that I care about. Save these posts to read in five or ten years. I promise you it will be a _real_ enlightening experience. I don't think your passion is such a bad thing. You only need to harness it properly and concentrate on focus and direction. The first thing you should scrutinize is your own core beliefs; but you already know this much and are beginning that process. Xeper! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Triple Six Area: Base of Set To: Pale Rider 3 Apr 92 17:54:26 Subject: Christian Crime UpdReq In a message to Triple Six <03 Apr 92 14:15> Pale Rider wrote: >TS> That's not the kind of "love" I know. PR> I realize that. That is the reason that I want you to be able PR> to see a little taste of real love through me. It is you that I PR> am trying to get through too. It is you that I care about. I love you too PR.... };->> All the Beast! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Almighty God Area: Base of Set To: Triple Six 4 Apr 92 19:57:00 Subject: ... UpdReq You seem to spend a lot of time with Pale Rider. What do you find so interesting about him/her that you care what he thinks about you? Just wondering... Almighty! / // \\ 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Azrael Area: Base of Set To: Lady Byron 4 Apr 92 23:48:00 Subject: Re: left-hand? UpdReq As you're more than likely aware, I am almost completely uninformed as to what your beliefs are. I have done some reading (mostly books obtained at local bookstores for the open minded) but other than that I have not had a chance to openly discuss this topic/area of study with anyone that was informed. I found that the diversity involved in this area confusing and without anyone knowlegeable to speak with, I admit that I took it to be a fadish type of intrest. Those that I found which seemed to truly have an understanding of this area did not seem comfortable discussing it. As to my being able to ask straight forward questions, I fear that my like of information keeps me from being able to do this. So I would ask you to give me a breif over view of your belifs (just basics please) and I will be able to start asking questions of a more direct nature. What I seek is understanding. One of the writings that I downloaded, stated that "Satanism" used Satan as only a "figurehead" for a set of ideals. Why chose a figurehead that is so negitively recieved by the masses, if indeed all you what is a figurehead for a set of ideals? Enlighten me. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Azrael Area: Base of Set To: Frater Almost 4 Apr 92 23:52:00 Subject: Re: left-hand? UpdReq Thanks, think I will. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Frc Area: Base of Set To: Triple Six 5 Apr 92 11:02:00 Subject: Re: Christian Crime UpdReq TS> >TS> That's not the kind of "love" I know. TS> I love you too PR.... };->> Well, in Greek (no jokes, please) there is agape, philios and eros. Which one do you suppose he means? 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Almighty God Area: Base of Set To: Azrael 5 Apr 92 14:06:00 Subject: Re: left-hand? UpdReq The thing about the "figure-head" is this. Those who are "in the know" regard Satan as just that; a figure-head. Perhaps they do not directly worship "some being called Satan" (perhaps they do), but the problem is that all those who are not "in the know" regard them as people who DO directly worship Satan "without knowing it". This is really a Christian catch-all. If you are not worshipping God, then you ARE woshipping Satan, WHETHER YOU KNOW IT OR NOT. Whether this is true or not, in it's deepest implications, I am not even remotely qualified to say, but I can say that those who are "in" consider themselves in an entirely different light than those who are "out". This makes discussion between each other very difficult because both sides make wild assumptions about the intentions of the other. Pale Rider thinks Astral is a devil-worshipper but covers it up by saying "I care about you, that's why I talk to you". Astral thinks Rider is dogmatic twit who spouts before he thinks. So neither of them can talk openly with the other for all the preconceptions. Rider, thinking as he does about Astral, cannot take anything that he says at face value. There MUST be some hidden motive or hidden meaning in whatever he says. And Astral regards Rider with the same deliberate contempt ("contempt" is all I can think of at the moment to describe it. Perhaps you can get the drift of what I am saying and supply the word I need there). All in all, it is a Tradgedy in the truest sense of the word. Both Astral and Rider epitomize the two major sides here, and both feel a deep sense of noble cause that will ultimately end in ruin because neither can do the one thing that needs to be done: get through to the other through all the superficial dribble that goes on here from both sides. Well, speaking of babble, I am beginning to myself... Later... Almighty! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Almighty God Area: Base of Set To: Frc 5 Apr 92 14:08:00 Subject: Re: Christian Crime UpdReq Oooooh! Let's imagine Eros!!! That would be interesting wouldn't it? Actually, you can bet your eye teeth, Rider means Agape. AG! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Astral Invader Area: Base of Set To: Triple Six 5 Apr 92 22:18:00 Subject: Re: Christian Crime UpdReq TS> I love you too PR.... };->> 'Jump for Jesus' (Guitar solo)....}:) Xeper, /Astral/ 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Astral Invader Area: Base of Set To: Almighty God 5 Apr 92 22:31:00 Subject: Re: left-hand? UpdReq AG> Rider thinks Astral is a devil-worshipper but covers it up by saying AG> "I care about you, that's why I talk to you". Astral thinks Rider is Actually Triple Six and Pale are the ones carrying on this discussion, but I suppose you simply enjoy using our names interchangeably.... I have no emotional impression of Mr. Rider....I have long ago abandoned those ideas, as I deemed them inappropriate....The extent of my involvement is concerned with answering questions and hoping that he has the objectivity to take what I say into consideration....I realize I am not going to 'turn him to the dark side of the force' as it were, nor do I see that as any major concern.... I don't want your souls....just your women.... /Astral/ 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Lewis Stead 5 Apr 92 16:59:16 Subject: Thorsson (1 of 2) UpdReq * Original to Lewis Stead at 1:343/56 in "RUNES_AND_ASATRU" * Forwarded Sun Apr 05 1992 16:59:17 by Grendel at 1:343/56@fidonet Your March 26 message to Grendel "RE: Asatru / Troth / Other Words..." recently got re-posted in BASE OF SET. . G > "...found out about Thorsson...?" Found out what? Are you refering to his membership in the Temple of Set? Why is it that everyone but me seems to have some hang up about this? I don't get it. . LS > Part of it is the whole idea of troth to the Gods. I'm sorry, but if you're running around with the Prince of Darkness in Nazi castles, you aren't being true to the Gods. That may sound "oppressive" "judgemental" and all those nasty buzz-words, but that's the way Asatru is. We know who we are and what it is that we do. .Three points: .(1) You refer to "Nazi castles", insinuating that the magic(k)al use of certain castles implies an endorsement of Nazism. It does not; and you really ought to be more careful about such smears, given that Asatru itself is often subject to similar smears. .(2) Are you saying that to be "true to the Gods", one must not venerate any Gods other than the Norse/Germanic Gods? So it would seem, judging by other recent messages of yours I've glanced at. Is this attitude historically justified? Did the ancient Northern tribes have this attitude? After all, the Norse/Germanic pantheon itself was a merger between two originally-hostile pantheons: the Aesir and the Vanir. Being "true to the Aesir" does not exclude worship of the Vanir, as you yourself recently pointed out to Gaffer Maccluiunn. I don't know enough about Asatru to know whether there are, in fact, any serious incompatibilities between Asatru and Setianism. But I strongly question your assertion that the veneration of any other deity is ipso facto incompatible with Asatru, since that doesn't seem to me like a characteristic attitude of most ancient religions. Are there any actual *incompatibilities* between Asatru and Setianism, besides this? .(3) You refer to Thorsson as a "Satanist"; but it's debatable whether Setianism is, properly speaking, a form of Satanism. The Temple of Set is a split-off from the Church of Satan, but Set is not Satan; and Setians have a variety of attitudes toward Satanism. Set is an ancient Egyptian God who was once venerated and later demonized. Set is best known as the enemy of Osiris, a myth which developed after the worshippers of Set were conquered by the worshippers of Osiris. ToS venerates the pre-Osirian Set, who was worshipped by Egypt's earliest civilizations and thus is seen by ToS as an entity who helps human progress. As for Satanism, Setians believe that in today's world, Set has used Satanism as a first step in helping people break away from "the ideas of the death gods" (i.e. those religions, including Christianity and most other religions, which discourage human individuality). .There is a possible historical link between Set and Satan, in that some linguists believe the Hebrew word "Satan" is a corruption of the name Set. But as Balanone, a long-time ToS member, said to me in BASE OF SET on March 24, "I consider myself a Setian first and foremost, and a Satanist only because most of society makes that connection. Christianity's 'Satan' is a horrendous perversion of the Prince of Darkness, and I'd be very happy indeed if all of society would forget that name was ever mentioned." ("Prince of Darkness" is one of Set's titles in ToS literature, but Set also has other titles as well. One of them in "Highest of Life".) .(continued next message) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Lewis Stead 5 Apr 92 16:59:42 Subject: Thorsson (2 of 2) UpdReq * Original to Lewis Stead at 1:343/56 in "RUNES_AND_ASATRU" * Forwarded Sun Apr 05 1992 16:59:42 by Grendel at 1:343/56@fidonet (part 2 of 2) .Thus, the relationship between Satan and Set is a little like the relationship between Satan and the Wiccan Horned God: Wiccans regard the medieval image of "Satan" as a corruption of the Horned God -- who is actually a modern-day composite of several distinct ancient horned Gods, but be that as it may .... Moreover, Wicca too is, historically, partly an outgrowth of Satanism, as even some Wiccan scholars are finally starting to admit. (See CRAFTING THE ART OF MAGIC by Aidan Kelly, pp. 21-22, 25-26, and 176. Victor Anderson, founder of the "Fairy Tradition" (into which Starhawk was initiated) was originally into an early 20th-century form of Satanism. Gerald Gardner drew some key concepts from the description of folk Satanism in OZARK SUPERSTITION by Vance Randolph (1947). Many of Gardner's rituals are based on Aleister Crowley's rituals, which contained an eclectic mix of imagery and ideas from many religions, prominently including Satanism. And feminist neo- Wicca draws much of its imagery, notably the image of the Witch as a rebellious healer, from 19th-century Satanic philosophy a la Jules Michelet, as acknowledged in the bibliographies of some feminist writers on witchcraft. Feminist Goddess religion in general has a lot in common with Satanism; see Mary Daly's books for some obvious examples.) In short, Setianism is arguably neither more nor less "Satanic" than Wicca, feminist Goddess religion, or Thelema -- except that Setianism emphasizes the individual human psyche more consistently than the others do, and Setians -- unlike most Wiccans -- do not deny their Satanic roots. .I don't know whether Setianism is more or less compatible with Asatru than Satanism itself would be. However, if the above info about ToS is news to you, perhaps you should re-consider your feelings about ToS and avoid making judgments about ToS until you know more about it. I also suspect that your feelings about Satanism, too, may be based on premature overgeneralizations. (For example, in the PAGAN echo you once referred to Satanism as "nihilistic social Darwinism". Satanists don't necessarily agree with Anton LaVey's political views, any more than Wiccans necessarily agree with Starhawk's political views. I am not a "nihilistic social Darwinist".) . LS > I've spent a good part of the last 6 years doing lectures, interviews, etc in the local area for public relations purposes. One of the things we tell them is that there is a difference between Satanism and Paganism. So now I'm supposed to accept a Pagan group that is led by a number of Satanists. Oh right. Great PR there. .You remind me of the gays who used to be embarrassed about transvestites, or the feminists who used to be embarrassed about lesbians. Every unpopular minority goes through a similar phase regarding other unpopular minorities with which it intersects. I wish neo-Pagans would learn, as quickly as the feminist and gay rights movements did, that to give in to such embarrassment is to be divided and conquered. .[Note to other readers: If anyone wants to discuss the historical links between Satanism and Wicca, let's talk about it in either the NIGHT_SIDE or BASE OF SET echoes. Or, if you don't have access to those, an alternative would be MAGICKNET or PAGAN (not to be confused with PAGAN CHAT, which I don't have access to). Please do *NOT* post messages to me in WICCA, since that echo is too voluminous for me to follow, and I'm likely to miss messages to me there, since I usually log on only on weekends.] 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Lewis Stead 5 Apr 92 17:00:32 Subject: More on Thorsson UpdReq * Original to Lewis Stead at 1:343/56 in "RUNES_AND_ASATRU" * Forwarded Sun Apr 05 1992 17:00:33 by Grendel at 1:343/56@fidonet On March 4, you wrote to Grendel "RE: Bad Reps....": . G > Within a few weeks we won't have as much of a problem with people saying we are under the saw of the Temple of Set (though it is pretty stupid to think that in the first place) . LS > I'm glad to hear that. I had a suspicion something was going on from the last few issues of Idunna, which lacked Edred's crazed rantings so prevelent in the first few issues I saw. As far as believing it was Setian controlled, all I can say is that on GEnie a Satanist approached me and came to the same conclusion. .Could you please give some examples of what you mean by "Edred's crazed rantings"? Perhaps this might shed some light on the question of whether Setianism is, in fact, compatible with Asatru. .By the way, was this "Satanist" on GEnie a Setian? Some (non- Setian) Satanists might be inclined to make unfounded nasty accusations against Thorsson, since there has been a longstanding feud between the Temple of Set and the Church of Satan. .(I myself am more inclined to sympathize with ToS's side in this never-ending squabble. I have stronger philosophical disagreements with CoS than with ToS, though I identify as a Satanist and not as a Setian. I *really* dislike the way CoS has become, primarily, a vehicle for the promulgation of Anton LaVey's extreme right-wing economic and political views.) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Balanone 5 Apr 92 17:01:14 Subject: Re: Lewis Stead's view of Thorsson (and possibly the ToS)UpdReq * Original to Balanone at 1:203/444 in "RUNES_AND_ASATRU" * Forwarded Sun Apr 05 1992 17:01:14 by Grendel at 1:343/56@fidonet On April 2, your April 1 BASE OF SET message to Grendel "Re: Lewis Stead's view of Thorsson (and possibly the ToS)" was re-posted here: . B > It seems he feels the important reasons is that Edred Thorsson et al does not fit his (LS') definition of Asatru. That's an explanation I can accept, not knowing much about Asatru, and not caring much about what Asatru "really" is. (I view that question like I do that of "What is Wicca" or "What is Paganism", questions that probably won't be answered this century.) .Personally, I think the questions "What is Wicca?" and "What is Paganism?" will be answered a lot sooner than "What is Satanism?" :-) . LS > But wait there's more: I've spent a good part of the last 6 years doing lectures, interviews, etc in the local area for public relations purposes. One of the things we tell them is that there is a difference between Satanism and Paganism. So now I'm supposed to accept a Pagan group that is led by a number of Satanists. Oh right. Great PR there. . B > That sounds a little self-serving, ."Self-serving" only from a very short-sighted point of view. See the messages I posted above to Lewis Stead, especially "Thorsson (2 of 2)". . B > but the more important question is, "Is Satanism a form of Paganism?" While I find very significant differences between Setianism as I practice it, I suspect Diane Vera would claim that Satanism as she practices it is as valid a subgroup of Paganism as Asatru. .No, I wouldn't, at least not anymore. When you first encountered me in the PAGAN echo, I was in a state of transition. At that time, I *was* primarily a neo-Pagan -- not quite a Wiccan, but strongly Wicca-influenced -- who had just recently acknowledged my attraction to Satanism. Since then, I've come to identify more as a Satanist and less as a "neo-Pagan", especially since I've begun to distance myself from some of the Wicca-derived beliefs I previously held. .Satanism per se is not a form of neo-Paganism. But I see no reason why a Satanist *couldn't* be a neo-Pagan as well as a Satanist. "Neo-Pagan" is a much broader term than any of its subcategories (such as Wicca or Asatru, though some Wiccans use the term "neo- Pagan" as if it were synonymous with eco-feminist neo-Wiccan). To me, a "neo-Pagan" is anyone who venerates pre-Christian European or middle-Eastern deities (or composites thereof). And there's no reason why a Satanist can't venerate pre-Christian European or middle-Eastern deities, because Satanism is not monotheistic. .(Most modern Satanists do not "worship" *any* deity, including Satan, as a literal entity, but regard deities as human-created thoughtforms through which magic(k)al energies can manifest. However, quite a few neo-Pagans, especially quite a few Wiccans, have a similar view of who/what their deities are. Hence this theory about the nature of deity does *not* disqualify a Satanist from also being a neo-Pagan.) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Lady Byron Area: Base of Set To: Star Hawley 5 Apr 92 13:10:42 Subject: seconds... UpdReq SH> Tell you what, you find a sugar-daddy too and we'll just trade...;) Well ... I'll have to think about that. All I wanted was to see Boleskine! I wonder how long it will take if I start walking now? Lady Byron :)= 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Lady Byron Area: Base of Set To: Vitriol 5 Apr 92 13:33:10 Subject: Yuk UpdReq PR> Wrong! I have a very low opinion of myself. I have very low PR> self-esteem. I am a nobody without God! V> Liber AL II:58 "...the slaves shall serve." Boy, is that disgusting or what? Why even bother to live? *sheesh* Lady Byron 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Lady Byron Area: Base of Set To: Vitriol 5 Apr 92 13:34:44 Subject: Re: Christian Crime UpdReq F> And I've often wondered why there aren't funerals for miscarriages. V> Coz it's a BITCH to fish 'em outa the shitter, of course. Was that necessary? Lady Byron 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718