Secularist Setian

[lamplighter]

I've noticed that both Satanism and Luciferianism both have theistic and secularist paths, but it seems that Setian is only theistic. I don't know if it's possible or not, It seems that followers of Set seem focused on communicating with him, but does Atheism exist in the Temple of Set? Why or why not.

 

[Mr.Advocate]

It’s quite possible that atheists belong to the ToS. By their own literature we can see that it is unnecessary to hold a theistic belief in Set to be a member. Though I find it hard to believe that an atheist would stick around for long, I think that at any given time there has, is, or will be atheists who join out of curiosity.

A more specific question is how does the ToS define theism?

The organization was started by ex-members of the Church of Satan so let’s begin our investigation with it.

“If man needs such a god and recognizes that god, then he is worshipping an entity that a human being invented. Therefore, HE IS WORSHIPPING BY PROXY THE MAN THAT INVENTED GOD. Is it not more sensible to worship a god that he, himself, has created, in accordance with his own emotional needs--one that best represents the very carnal and physical being that has the idea-power to invent a god in the first place?”
-Anton LaVey, (The Satanic Bible).

If, as Aquino asserts, the founding members of the ToS resigned from the CoS due to the “selling of degrees”, is it probable that they all suddenly had an epiphany of the actual existence of some great cosmic ant-eater? Not likely, so let’s look at the above quote again.

Prior to the Church of Satan, Satan was defined by Christianity. It was the formation of the CoS that provided its membership the ability to publicly define Satan as a cultural icon that represents The Nine Satanic Statements. So the CoS essentially hijacked the Christian devil to promote a religion based on carnality. If someone then chooses to worship this icon, they are “worshipping by proxy”, those that define the icon (Anton LaVey and his priesthood).

So I ask again, is it probable that ex-members of the CoS, who prior to their disgruntled exits were representatives of the Satanic icon, suddenly became theists? Or, is it more likely that they formed the ToS in imitation of their predecessor? Only this time, rather than have one person who stands out as Set, the entire priesthood will embody the Set icon equally.

“Just as the II* represents the height of personal identity, and glory to be taken in that identity via application of the Black Arts, so the Priesthood involves the opening of a very special kind of door: the merging of the consciousness, indeed the personality, with that of the Prince of Darkness himself….”
-Michael Aquino (Black Magic in Theory and Practice).

“Hence the Priest or Priestess – when acting as such, for ‘Priesthood’ is a deliberate act, not an office – is something more than human, something more than the individual whose human visage appears before onlookers. At such times he or she is not ‘possessed’, but is rather become a veritable living Temple indwelled by the presence of Set.”
-ibid

Isn’t this just a fancy way of saying that Set is the priesthood of the ToS?
And do those who believe in the priesthood, believe in Set?

“We suggest that subjective realities do objectively exist, as indicated by their affects upon the objective reality.”
-Robert Menschel (Ruby Tablet of Set)

Ah, I see, so whatever we imagine, actually exists once we draw a picture of it. And since Set is a figment of the imagination that someone wrote a poem about, then Set exists. I wonder what the unicorns make of all this…

 

[lamplighter]

Well then in reality it doesn't seem if Secularism can truly exist in the ToS, it seems to me that you would have to accept things that go against a secularist's thinking. I don't see how subjective realities objectively exist because it takes all the subjective realities to compose an objective one, seeing has how every organism perceives the universe differently and it takes all those view points to create the objective. So it seems an objective reality is only as complete as the number of subjective realities that make it up. But aren't they just recreating what they left? Even though it's a group of people representing Set, aren't you still accepting someone else's god?

 

[Mr.Advocate]

They seem to think that they are improving upon The Church of Satan, but that is totally up to the observer. You see to the Satanist, Satan is essentially a work of art, and in effect the Setians are creating their own work of art. My own observations have left me with the impression that what the Setians are creating has little to no emotional impact upon the audience. So after 30 some years they don’t seem to be making much of an impact on anyone other than themselves, like a bunch of French painters sipping coffee and pontificating on how great their art is when no gallery in town will display it.

Have you ever seen the movie “Miracle on 34th Street”? It’s about a fellow named Kris Kringle who is on trail to verify his sanity after he goes about insinuating that he is Santa Clause. His lawyer argues the case by saying that if we don’t have faith in the existence of Santa, then all the goodwill and joy of Christmas will fade away, and isn’t goodwill the real “magic” of Christmas? It’s a truly repulsive movie.

From this same perspective, if a small collection of nerds want to have faith in the existence of Set, and this provides them with an excuse to improve upon their sorry little lives, isn’t that the real magic of Set?

 

[Sireal]

Faith?:areyoucra

Let me guess: your TOS application was refused.

 

[Daelach]

of course, a Setian may be an atheist. Let me tell you a parable:

Three blind men meet an elephant. They are curious what an elephant is like, so they start carefully to examine him. After a while, they sit down and discuss their results:
"An elephant is like some kind of hose", said the first.
"No, it is rather like a huge sheet", said the second.
"All wrong, it is more like a trunk of a tree", said the third.

The point is twofold:
1) They are all somehow "right".
2) The elephant does not care.

So, it does not matter whether one portrays Set as symbol, force or personal entity. Even the latter is just a portray, assuming that he has some kind of personality which a human can interact with, i.e. that means anthropomorphising him. Take whatever view you can work best with, but keep in mind that it is only a model. Even if it works, this does not "prove" any kind of truth.

Now, your question was a bit confuse because it seemed you equate Setian with membership in the TOS although this is not the same. So concerning TOS membership, it may be that you could be a TOS member as an atheist because from what I have read, they do not require their lesser degrees to believe in Set. But on the other hand, this is a necessary precondition to get promoted to higher ranks, so those who run the show are theists.

 

[Mr.Advocate]

“Is it necessary for a Priest or Priestess of the Temple to believe in the existence of Set? In one sense the answer must be Yes. Simply put: If you are a member of the Priesthood and your answer is no, than I ask you who in the hell are you a Priest of. If you do not recognize Set, you cannot truly belong to the Priesthood of Set.

The next tricky question there presents itself - Who is Set? Set is whatever you, as a member of the Priesthood define/or determine this principle to be. Once you have recognized/acknowledged this principle, Set does exist. Opinions of and experiences with Set vary greatly among the initiates of the Temple. Here is a brief list. There are probably many more that could be added to this:


- An intelligence/entity which operates both separately and at times in conjunction with that of our own psyche and not just as an aspect of it.
- An "indwelling essence".
- A god of mankind's creation.
- A God, self created.
- A neter - a necessary principle of creation affecting the SU & OU.
- A purely Platonic Form.
- Not a Platonic Form, but an ideal.

The key is, as I've said above: Set is whatever you define Set to be.”

Quoted directly from the Onyx Tablet of Set.

 

[Mr.Advocate]

Oh, and to Sireal: No, my application was not rejected.

 

[ViaSinistra]

It’s quite possible that atheists belong to the ToS. By their own literature we can see that it is unnecessary to hold a theistic belief in Set to be a member. Though I find it hard to believe that an atheist would stick around for long, I think that at any given time there has, is, or will be atheists who join out of curiosity.

A more specific question is how does the ToS define theism?

The organization was started by ex-members of the Church of Satan so let’s begin our investigation with it.

“If man needs such a god and recognizes that god, then he is worshipping an entity that a human being invented. Therefore, HE IS WORSHIPPING BY PROXY THE MAN THAT INVENTED GOD. Is it not more sensible to worship a god that he, himself, has created, in accordance with his own emotional needs--one that best represents the very carnal and physical being that has the idea-power to invent a god in the first place?”
-Anton LaVey, (The Satanic Bible).

If, as Aquino asserts, the founding members of the ToS resigned from the CoS due to the “selling of degrees”, is it probable that they all suddenly had an epiphany of the actual existence of some great cosmic ant-eater? Not likely, so let’s look at the above quote again.

Prior to the Church of Satan, Satan was defined by Christianity. It was the formation of the CoS that provided its membership the ability to publicly define Satan as a cultural icon that represents The Nine Satanic Statements. So the CoS essentially hijacked the Christian devil to promote a religion based on carnality. If someone then chooses to worship this icon, they are “worshipping by proxy”, those that define the icon (Anton LaVey and his priesthood).

So I ask again, is it probable that ex-members of the CoS, who prior to their disgruntled exits were representatives of the Satanic icon, suddenly became theists? Or, is it more likely that they formed the ToS in imitation of their predecessor? Only this time, rather than have one person who stands out as Set, the entire priesthood will embody the Set icon equally.

“Just as the II* represents the height of personal identity, and glory to be taken in that identity via application of the Black Arts, so the Priesthood involves the opening of a very special kind of door: the merging of the consciousness, indeed the personality, with that of the Prince of Darkness himself….”
-Michael Aquino (Black Magic in Theory and Practice).

“Hence the Priest or Priestess – when acting as such, for ‘Priesthood’ is a deliberate act, not an office – is something more than human, something more than the individual whose human visage appears before onlookers. At such times he or she is not ‘possessed’, but is rather become a veritable living Temple indwelled by the presence of Set.”
-ibid

Isn’t this just a fancy way of saying that Set is the priesthood of the ToS?
And do those who believe in the priesthood, believe in Set?

“We suggest that subjective realities do objectively exist, as indicated by their affects upon the objective reality.”
-Robert Menschel (Ruby Tablet of Set)

Ah, I see, so whatever we imagine, actually exists once we draw a picture of it. And since Set is a figment of the imagination that someone wrote a poem about, then Set exists. I wonder what the unicorns make of all this…

Very good reply Mr. Advocate. I'm hoping things brings to light some contributing factors which may aid others in their quest... very good.

 

[Daelach]

If, as Aquino asserts, the founding members of the ToS resigned from the CoS due to the “selling of degrees”, is it probable that they all suddenly had an epiphany of the actual existence of some great cosmic ant-eater?

It would seem that Aquino himself has a different opinion and that he already would disagree with your premise about the COS point of view. I will quote from a posting of his in alt.satanism from Dec 28 2000:

The Church of Satan was founded as, operated for its
first nine years as, and represented itself as a church
believing in and dedicated to the worship of Satan,
the metaphysical conscious entity standing apart
from and in contrast to the singularity of the cosmos.

As with any religion, the Church tolerated varying
shades of literal belief in Satan among its lay
membership, but where the Priesthood of Mendes
was concerned, there was no question of the literal
sincerity of the Church whatever. At the lay level,
see for example the Adult Rite of Satanic Baptism,
with particular attention to its Oath, as contained
in Anton LaVey's _Satanic Rituals_.

That of course does not match the SB which was written prior to 1975, but Aquino has an explanation:

My point is simply that, as I have recounted here
and elsewhere at length, this belief in and allegiance
to Satan was absolutely and unequivocally at the
core of the original Church of Satan. Just as pointedly
the Church was vague about this in its interactions
with the public, for the obvious reason that it was
much more easy for it to be tolerated as a mere
psychodramatic/symbolic affair than as a deadly
serious religion dedicated to the Devil, his Daemons,
and Black Magic.

Thus when in 1975 Anton LaVey announced that all
degrees, including the Priesthood, were henceforth
for sale simply for cash, and shortly thereafter
renounced his own High Priesthood as "symbolic,
not literal", he instantly destroyed precisely what
had made the Church of Satan exactly and
authentically what its name bespoke. After that
it was simply his personal fan club [...]

Not only that, but also the "infernal mandate" stuff from the BOCFBN would just not wash with Set as symbolic icon. Nor would Aquino's opinion when he claimed that the TOS was Set's sole and exclusice initiatory agency on earth which also is founded upon the BOCFBN because that would boil down to "I say so". And for such an argument, no BOCFBN would necessary, except for fooling the most stupid.

 

[Mr.Advocate]

"Not only that, but also the "infernal mandate" stuff from the BOCFBN would just not wash with Set as symbolic icon. Nor would Aquino's opinion when he claimed that the TOS was Set's sole and exclusice initiatory agency on earth which also is founded upon the BOCFBN because that would boil down to "I say so". And for such an argument, no BOCFBN would necessary, except for fooling the most stupid."

Precisely.

 

[Daelach]

Now given the fact that Aquino was a rather high-ranking psy-ops officer, I think that he is able to use more subtle psy-ops means if he wants. Or to put it the other way: If that is all what such an officer could come up with, the US should worry about its army (-;

 

[ViaSinistra]

It would seem that Aquino himself has a different opinion and that he already would disagree with your premise about the COS point of view. I will quote from a posting of his in alt.satanism from Dec 28 2000:

The Church of Satan was founded as, operated for its
first nine years as, and represented itself as a church
believing in and dedicated to the worship of Satan,
the metaphysical conscious entity standing apart
from and in contrast to the singularity of the cosmos.

As with any religion, the Church tolerated varying
shades of literal belief in Satan among its lay
membership, but where the Priesthood of Mendes
was concerned, there was no question of the literal
sincerity of the Church whatever. At the lay level,
see for example the Adult Rite of Satanic Baptism,
with particular attention to its Oath, as contained
in Anton LaVey's _Satanic Rituals_.

That of course does not match the SB which was written prior to 1975, but Aquino has an explanation:

My point is simply that, as I have recounted here
and elsewhere at length, this belief in and allegiance
to Satan was absolutely and unequivocally at the
core of the original Church of Satan. Just as pointedly
the Church was vague about this in its interactions
with the public, for the obvious reason that it was
much more easy for it to be tolerated as a mere
psychodramatic/symbolic affair than as a deadly
serious religion dedicated to the Devil, his Daemons,
and Black Magic.

Thus when in 1975 Anton LaVey announced that all
degrees, including the Priesthood, were henceforth
for sale simply for cash, and shortly thereafter
renounced his own High Priesthood as "symbolic,
not literal", he instantly destroyed precisely what
had made the Church of Satan exactly and
authentically what its name bespoke. After that
it was simply his personal fan club [...]

Not only that, but also the "infernal mandate" stuff from the BOCFBN would just not wash with Set as symbolic icon. Nor would Aquino's opinion when he claimed that the TOS was Set's sole and exclusice initiatory agency on earth which also is founded upon the BOCFBN because that would boil down to "I say so". And for such an argument, no BOCFBN would necessary, except for fooling the most stupid.

Hence the "Book of Coming Forth By Night"........ Here, enjoy... http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/TOSd7.pdf

So it was done!

 

[Daelach]

Well, there are parts of the BOCFBN which I personally consider as Setian, but there are also large BS passages which I do not accept and consider them as Aquino's own reflections. Foremost, this concerns the whole legitimation stuff.

 

[Mr.Advocate]

Greetings Daelach,

Once again I find myself in agreement with you. It is the whole attempt to “legitimize” itself that makes it so ludicrous.

When Robert Ethel left to form the Order of the Inverse Pentagram, the Temple nearly collapsed. How does Aquino try to justify the fact that the Chairman of the Council of Nine rejected the BoCFbN as a mandate from an actually existent “god”?

“The O.I.P. is nothing more than a social club for materialists who enjoy ceremonial pageantry, and this fact bespeaks the ultimate futility of its posture; If it remains true to its proclaimed atheism, then its priesthoods, rituals, and mysteries are just so much play-acting.”
-M. Aquino (The Third Year: Jul ‘78 Scroll of Set)

Yet he continues to this day, to proclaim the CoS a theist organisation that hid its “Infernal Mandate” from the unwashed masses. I guess no one told Mr Ethel when he was promoted to Priest in the CoS, that Satan really exists.

Personally I think the Temple would be better off washing its hands of the Aquino’s. There has been numerous attempts by those in the know, but the end result tends to be an endless exodus of higher ups leaving to form their own orders, or just plain giving up in disgust. A prime example….

“Michael Aquino has simply placed Set upon God's throne, and then sat
down upon it himself.”
- L. Dale Seago (Letter to the Priesthood).

 

[ViaSinistra]

I'm sure we can be in dialog all day over this.... But good point, i'll give you that.

 

[Sireal]

Well, there are parts of the BOCFBN which I personally consider as Setian, but there are also large BS passages which I do not accept and consider them as Aquino's own reflections. Foremost, this concerns the whole legitimation stuff.

Daelach,
I suppose this is where I have the difficulty with some of the recent posts concerning "legitimating" channeled documents and folks getting their calvin kliens in a knot over some one else's words.

When I began this path in the school of the Temple I understood right from the start that my own discernment was of paramount importance concerning the information I would be exposed to and I still hold that perspective after many years. I have read hundreds of such documents throughout my Initiation and some have merit and most do not IMO . At no point in my Temple experience have I been imposed upon to "Believe" anything or take for instance the BoCFbN as the literal channeling of Set through Dr. Aquino. I definitely have my own opinion on the contents of this document and I know for a fact it would mean Nothing at all to anyone but my Self and I do not intend to bore you with it. Picking others apart based on their initatory experience is waste of bloody time and is the realm of fools ie: while one is busy chasing ghosts their Becoming is not happening- at all- .

In closing I think your perspective developed through whatever initiatory experiences you may have had is valid. I would ask you though- is your opinion of someone else's Initiation relevant to your path whatever that may be? and if so why are you here?

 

[blackout]

Daelach,
I suppose this is where I have the difficulty with some of the recent posts concerning "legitimating" channeled documents and folks getting their calvin kliens in a knot over some one else's words.

When I began this path in the school of the Temple I understood right from the start that my own discernment was of paramount importance concerning the information I would be exposed to and I still hold that perspective after many years. I have read hundreds of such documents throughout my Initiation and some have merit and most do not IMO . At no point in my Temple experience have I been imposed upon to "Believe" anything or take for instance the BoCFbN as the literal channeling of Set through Dr. Aquino. I definitely have my own opinion on the contents of this document and I know for a fact it would mean Nothing at all to anyone but my Self and I do not intend to bore you with it. Picking others apart based on their initatory experience is waste of bloody time and is the realm of fools ie: while one is busy chasing ghosts their Becoming is not happening- at all- .

In closing I think your perspective developed through whatever initiatory experiences you may have had is valid. I would ask you though- is your opinion of someone else's Initiation relevant to your path whatever that may be? and if so why are you here?

Sireal...

As one reading with interest,
who knows little of the details of which you are speaking
(BOCFBN and all)
a few thoughts come to mind...
in light of my own experiences
with schools, churches, organizations and life in general.

After years of home educating,
I just finally sent two of my children off to the school system last week.
Because we live in America...
I didn't HAVE TO send them
which makes what we did... a DECISION.
And that alone is an important distinction.
The kids said they wanted to go
(though my son is ALREADY asking about summer vacation, lol)
and who am I to get in the way of THEIR Xeper.

Now, if I thought the schools were absolutely horrible
and had NOTHING of worth to offer my children
admittedly I might not take them.
(Just as I would never take them to a DOCTRINAL church).

So here is what I see...
The schools provide their own version of 'information', yes.
(and their own version of "reality")
But it is my CHILDREN'S JOB to IN FORM their own SELF.
(to REALize their own life)
And it is MY JOB to MENTOR my children in the fine art
of "IN FORMING THE SELF" ... or "Self BEcoming".

For me this is the very most important thing.

'Grades' and all that are entirely secondary to me.
But of utMost importance
is their ability to person-ally discern and reflect...
to NOT take anything they are handed...
by teachers, and experts, and elders, and societies...
as "fact"
or "obligation"....
which I know goes COMPLETELY against the school agenda.
(especially... in the younger grades)

If my children grow up knowing the PRIMARY secret
that INner FORMATION... TRULY...
works from the INSIDE >> out...
then whosever organization's "information" they decide to paruse,
or meditate on... or even get a "degree" in...
the INNER FORMATION of their own SELF...
will EVER AND ALWAYS be their own.

All that being said though,
I definately do have a problem with orgainzations
which are DOCTRINAL in nature...
telling you what you MUST believe.

Schools may tell you how you must 'answer'
to make a certain "grade" yes...
and I'm not real crazy about that...
(thus the need for 'occultic response & in-tent')
but
Doctrinal Church organizations and the like
which say you are "in or out" due to your
BELIEF in thier doctrines...
are not worth five minutes of my time.

As well... when you are surrounded by people
whose primary gig in life is
BEing and BEcoming THEIR OWN UNIQUE SELF...
you KNOW everyone there is going to read EVERYTHING
with "occultic" eyes and understanding.

I really don't see how doctrine COULD "rule" in such a situation.

Hope my thoughts were of interest.

~Vi~

 

[Sireal]

Sireal...

As one reading with interest,
who knows little of the details of which you are speaking
(BOCFBN and all)
a few thoughts come to mind...
in light of my own experiences
with schools, churches, organizations and life in general.

After years of home educating,
I just finally sent two of my children off to the school system last week.
Because we live in America...
I didn't HAVE TO send them
which makes what we did... a DECISION.
And that alone is an important distinction.
The kids said they wanted to go
(though my son is ALREADY asking about summer vacation, lol)
and who am I to get in the way of THEIR Xeper.

Now, if I thought the schools were absolutely horrible
and had NOTHING of worth to offer my children
admittedly I might not take them.
(Just as I would never take them to a DOCTRINAL church).

So here is what I see...
The schools provide their own version of 'information', yes.
(and their own version of "reality&quot
But it is my CHILDREN'S JOB to IN FORM their own SELF.
(to REALize their own life)
And it is MY JOB to MENTOR my children in the fine art
of "IN FORMING THE SELF" ... or "Self BEcoming".

For me this is the very most important thing.

'Grades' and all that are entirely secondary to me.
But of utMost importance
is their ability to person-ally discern and reflect...
to NOT take anything they are handed...
by teachers, and experts, and elders, and societies...
as "fact"
or "obligation"....
which I know goes COMPLETELY against the school agenda.
(especially... in the younger grades)

If my children grow up knowing the PRIMARY secret
that INner FORMATION... TRULY...
works from the INSIDE >> out...
then whosever organization's "information" they decide to paruse,
or meditate on... or even get a "degree" in...
the INNER FORMATION of their own SELF...
will EVER AND ALWAYS be their own.

All that being said though,
I definately do have a problem with orgainzations
which are DOCTRINAL in nature...
telling you what you MUST believe.

Schools may tell you how you must 'answer'
to make a certain "grade" yes...
and I'm not real crazy about that...
(thus the need for 'occultic response & in-tent')
but
Doctrinal Church organizations and the like
which say you are "in or out" due to your
BELIEF in thier doctrines...
are not worth five minutes of my time.

As well... when you are surrounded by people
whose primary gig in life is
BEing and BEcoming THEIR OWN UNIQUE SELF...
you KNOW everyone there is going to read EVERYTHING
with "occultic" eyes and understanding.

I really don't see how doctrine COULD "rule" in such a situation.

Hope my thoughts were of interest.

~Vi~

Ultra-Violet Hail! Creatress of the Future! Your children are very fortunate to be in such Care and Attention. Having raised several children and learned this far too late, I admire your courage and ability to See the Real at crucial moments when your children most Need it. Your insights in my view are spot on and very admirable. May you continue to Become in the Dark Light of your own Wisdom. Respectfully,

 

[Daelach]

I suppose this is where I have the difficulty with some of the recent posts concerning "legitimating" channeled documents

I think we have a misunderstanding here. By "legitimation stuff", I did not address the question of the legitimation of the document itself. I was referring to the passages of the BOCFBN where the TOS and its founder are legitimated. It is those passages which I consider as nonsense. They remind me of countless other religions, it is really very common-place religious stuff. "Destined first century heir", come on..

At no point in my Temple experience have I been imposed upon to "Believe" anything or take for instance the BoCFbN as the literal channeling of Set through Dr. Aquino.

But by the very fact of having some priest have evaluated you (otherwise, you cannot get the II), you did accept their legitimation which ultimately is founded upon the BOCFBN - this is what Aquino himself said.

If someone does NOT think that Aquino holds an "infernal mandate", that the TOS is NOT "Set's sole and exclusive initiatory agency on earth (Aquino's words), that the priesthood does NOT have any other justification of its authority than, directly or indirectly, Aquino's whim - why would such a person seek their evaluation?

OK, there is one logic reason: the hope of making contacts with interesting people, although the price to pay would be high. Everything else (scrolls, tablets) can be retrieved without membership.

I would ask you though- is your opinion of someone else's Initiation relevant to your path whatever that may be?

I guess you should ask that question of your priesthood first (-;

The relevance for me is twofold: Of course, I do learn from others. While I theoretically could re-invent all the wheels anew, my lifetime is too short for that. So I look on what others have done, and using their experiences for my becoming, I can travel much faster than I could by just my own efforts. It is a question of effiency. Humans are giants - standing on other's shoulders.

When I study what others have thought, written and done, I will take the best and leave the rest. Naturally, I will hold that what I deem "best" in a good opinion while thinking worse of the "rest". But even the "rest" can be useful because I do not only learn from others' success, but also from what I consider as their failures.

and if so why are you here?

Above, I mentioned the price, you remember. Unwilling to pay it (the money would be my least concern), I am looking for interesting Setians here.. although I do not hold much hope.

But I am also curious why you are here. It is rare nowadays that TOS members would discuss Setianism outside the temple's walls, in what Aquino calls "the world of horrors".