kaliyuga
49960617 AA1 (newsgroup header re-expanded)


jk1604@hdc.hha.dk (Hr. Vad) posts:
|>COS versus TOS? A hard look comparison and bottom line view. 
|>by Tani Jantsang

nagasiva@yronwode.com (nocTifer):
|>...review of TJantsang... [TJ]

Balanone@tefnut.gigo.com (Balanone):
|...I strongly suggest people avoid using [TJ] as an authority concerning 
|the ToS and its workings. 

as long as she's not passing herself off as such an authority (I didn't
see such a claim within her essays), then there should be no problem.
she may have her own opinions.  voicing them does not mean that she
ipso facto claims them to be represented by solid experience.  she does
provide no references or citations and in this way cannot be taken too 
seriously, especially as she supports 'Hard Science'.


|>|...the Church of Satan ...compared to ...American Atheist Society 
|>|...are laid back and are NOT a cult in any form and DO NOT  
|>|use coersion or bother you if you quit or turn against them.  

|...the implication is that the CoS and the AAS "DO NOT use coercion 
|or bother you if you quit or turn against them," but the ToS ...does.

that is correct, and it is a popular assumption in some measure
sustantiated within alt.satanism and in documents I have obtained
from the Temple of Set which arguably target ex-members for smear.


|There are quite a few ex-members of the ToS floating around cyberspace
|who can provide assurances that we do not use coercion to keep anyone
|as a member, nor bother them if they quit. 

there also appear to be a few (esp. those who construct 'competing orgs'
or who are very vocally in condemnation of the ToS) that will support
TJ's claims.


|Nor do we take particular pains to harm those who are disappointed 
|by their time with us and "turn against" us. 

I have witnessed blatant slander against myself for asking serious,
well-meaning and intentional questions of your High Priest (MAquino)
and the organization, suggesting all manner of things about my person
in alt.satanism which were unfounded and unjustified given the 
circumstances.  in this at least I take issue with your statement 
since my experience appears to represent an exception.

I must say that the epithets and belittling ceased mysteriously as
soon as I stopped asking questions about the org.  this may indicate
some dynamic between myself and the High Priest or a prevalence on
his part in response to critical inquiry (the latter is fascinating
if so given his own predilections ;>).


|>Freedom of choice in religion.... ...is not offered as part of the
|>benefit of the AAS and, what I understand about the Temple of Set
|>indicates that 'competing religious involvements' must be terminated
|>in order to continue a member of the Temple.  

|>...most religious of which I am aware appear to prefer uniformity 
|>of celebratory symbolism and rhetoric and identity SOLELY within 
|>that religious group....

|...Given two religions (or two philosophies, or any two value systems) 
|that are diametrically opposed to each other (you can't honestly believe 
|in or do both at the same time), someone would have to be hypocritical 
|to claim to do or believe in both. 

that is correct.  however, there are several religious strands (even
some religious organizations) which are not exclusive.  some Wicca
and Neopaganism are good examples of this, as well as are some more
liberal Christian (Quakers) and Muslim (Sufis) groups. 

that is, not all religions are doctrinal ("I believe ....") or
exclusive ("Us Only").  the Temple of Set appears to be BOTH,
just like many Fundamentalist Christian groups (more support 
for TJ).


|Setianism is built around the concept of being true to yourself ....

if this were the case then it would be left to the individual
applicant as to whether or not they considered their involvements
not only to be *religious* (which is indeed left to their disgression)
but whether these differing involvements would actually lead to the
hypocrisy you are attempting to dissuade.


|...an absolute rule of Setianism is don't be hypocritical to yourself. 

yes, but the Temple of Set appears to determine whether this hypocrisy
exists, largely on the basis of membership in (self-designated) 
'religious' organisations.  I would ask you, do you think that this is
a particular and in some measure technically-important distinction as
to the *meaning* of the term 'religion' within the Temple of Set?

that is, is the Temple of Set's signifance for 'religion' a part of
its political structure and doctine such that it may compete with
and in some measure occlude 'other religious organizations'?
 
Mr. Aquino (ToS High Priest) says that the ToS is not dogmatic but
is doctrinal (if I remember his words, perhaps I have them mixed up).
I understood this to mean that membership did not require the adopting
of particular views.  

yet you say above that there are 'absolute rules' and admit that the
Temple excludes based upon 'hypocrisy in ideology'.  

what is the harm in being involved with something WE find to be a
'religious group' if it does not require our conformity or consistency
of belief?  check out the Church of Euthanasia if you want an example
of such an religious organization (incorporated as such in Delaware).
it is nondoctrinal (as are a number of Neopagan churches and temples).
(the Church's URL is the last thing in this post)


|If you believe in Setian philosophy and activity (Xeper, magic, 
|initiation, etc), then there are some things which simply don't
|fit into that pursuit.

they don't fit for you, this much is obvious.  as for whether they
fit for others I leave that to them.  sometimes grabbing both horns
of the bull allows us to reconcile very important energies (at times
outside us, at times as the Founder of New Religion).


|We have freedom of choice -- we choose what to believe, what to
|pursue, what to do. 

except: 
		* no hypocrisy
		* no believing in two contradictory things at once
		* no participation in other religions
		* no torturing helpless animals
		* no breaking the ToS standards of morality

so far this is quite comparable with Fundamentalist Christianity.
I don't find the distinctions you are making are very clear.


|We then analyze that decision, look at its resulting ideals, 
|and live by those ideals. 

rather head-centered, but respectable.  again, many Fundies take
this precisely track (many don't).


|>| ...Setianism is IDENTICAL to Fundamentalism with a few qualifiers. 
|>| Satanism is identical to Atheism with a few qualifiers. One does 
|>| NOT come from the other. One is not related to the other.

|...from my perspective, with 20 years of experience in and knowledge 
|of the Temple of Set, I find her claims of parallelism between the 
|ToS and Christian fundamentalism to be false.

what experience have you had with Christian fundamentalism?
this would be a very important determining factor in your ability to
distinguish it from the ToS and its operation.


|>|...Stoic God a literal Being-Entity-GOD.  ...against carnality.  

|Wrong. This doesn't apply to the Setian view.

I can see how it applies very well, especially if the Setian actually
believes in some Set Being-Entity-GOD and supports the ascetic and
restrictive disciplines necessary for 'transcending this plane of
existence' or something.  I'm not saying that ToS does this, just that
if it does I can understand her assertion.


|>|...all life evolving but Stoic God making humans outcasts in
|>| nature.  

|Wrong. "

again, I can see how this is a valid interpretation of the doctrines
I've seen from the ToS.  if she is incorrect, then the popular docs
appear to lend some substance to her perspective and may be biased in
ways which come OFF sounding like Fundi Christianity.  whether they
actually are we have yet to determine.  I do not yet find your 
argumentation to be persuasive.


|>|..."stay clear of the damned" and ..."avoid mundane people." 

|Wrong. "

I have heard this sort of recommendation from almost all Satanists.
Sometimes the 'mundanes' are called 'the herd'.  sometimes they
are called 'Pseudo Satanists'.  sometimes they are called 'the people'
or 'humans' as a label of elitist disgust.  apparently this derives in
part or full from Nietzsche (esp. CoSatanic 'herd' ideas).


|>| ...CULT complete with ascetic rules, divine revelations and secrets
|>| one must strive to attain.... 

|Wrong. "

you yourself posted in support of a strong Setian standard of ethics
which members are required to abide.  Mr. Aquino was apparently subject
to a divine revelation in his initiatory writing.  there is indeed some
restriction of information (at least whole documents) from those who 
are not members of your org.  in these ways I think "Wrong" is too
much of a blowoff and merely makes you appear biased against TJ.


|>| ...encourage spending money on prayer meetings or mystical
|>| meditations in order to further DENY the carnal animal in the
|>| person.

|Wrong. "

without some sort of argument in response you aren't doing much to
help your org's image.  it is true that membership within the ToS
is temporary (compared with the CoSatanist life membership).  it is
true that there are mystical documents associated with the ToS and
its publications (the Crystal Tablet contains documents which at
*least* relate to this by my terminology).

whether or not they 'deny the carnal animal in the person' would
appear to be the main point of contention, one which I think is
quite easily made by others about ToS and in response to which I
have seldom seen a ToSser member argue convincingly (usually with
small words like 'No!' or 'Wrong!').

rather than attempting to characterize TJ's position, could you
say some things about the ToS doctrines which support an OPPOSITE
contention (i.e. pro-carnality, pro-hedonism, pro-sensualism)?


|>| ...believe their God created or interfered with making human
|>| beings. 

|Questionable -- Many Setians do believe that Set (not a God) did
|"interfere" with (enhance?) human evolution; but it's not a belief held
|uniformly nor consistently within the Temple.

what you are now saying about belief is what I understand to be the
case for ALL religious bodies.  some beliefs are shared, most are not
consistently accepted or understood by all the membership.  in this
measure you are undermining your previous claims about the ToS and
its relation to 'other religions'.

when you say "not a God" I presume you imply that the capitalization
(which TJ intermixes and seldom uses to beneficial effect) of the
term 'God' implied to you a traditional Creator-entity.  in this we
may accept that the ToS doesn't teach that Set is the stand-in for
Jehovah as Creator of All (do you have another god who is? :>).


|>| ...divine revelations. ...the striving to perfection and insist
|>| that man is not perfect as he is but sinful/outcast. 

|Wrong. "sinful" and "outcast" are simply words, concepts, ideas, terms
|that don't apply to the Setian view. Nor do we put faith in divine 
|revelations.

you obviously VALUE revelations from the god Set, from what I have seen
of your texts.  your assertions regarding 'Xeper' do indicate a kind
of striving for perfection, whether or not you identify with the words
which TJ used to characterize Setian ideology.  I have noticed that the
Setian ideology does imply an 'exceptional' or 'alienated' human as 
regards Nature, and this may be some of what TJ is trying to point out.


|> My brief review of ToS documentation does substantiate this
|> criticism. It is true that these are extreme interpretations of the
|> stated ToS positions, but this does not make the opposition
|> perspective evaporate. 

|...someone can push and pull on the documentation that's out there and 
|reach such conclusions, extreme interpretations. But the reality is 
|much less extreme.

this is as much true of Fundamentalist Christians as any religious
sect.  how much investigation have you done into the study of 
specific religions (esp. those with which you are in competition)?

nagasiva@yronwode.com
nocTifer
-- 
Ensure my response - CC public replies to email 
http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/nagasiva.html    
(emailed replies may be posted)  check: http://www.paranoia.com/coe/