Seth and Satan

Em Hotep.

Is there a possibility that there can be drawn a line of similarity or even identity between these two entities - Seth and Satan - speculating them to be one and the same?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Set

"The Temple was established in the United States in 1975 by Michael Aquino, an American political scientist, military officer, and a high-ranking member of Anton LaVey's Church of Satan. Dissatisfied with the direction in which LaVey was taking the Church, Aquino resigned and – according to his own claim – embarked on a ritual to invoke Satan, who revealed to him a sacred text called The Book of Coming Forth by Night. According to Aquino, in this work Satan revealed his true name to be that of the deity Set, which had been the name used by his followers in ancient Egypt. Aquino was joined in establishing the Temple by a number of other dissatisfied members of LaVey's Church, and soon various Setian groups were established across the United States."

Based upon this one would speculate that perhaps Satanism in contrast to the Red Order of Seth is a very exoteric branch worshipping or serving the same god as the ROS - Seth, or Satan, if, now, they are one and the same entity at all. However, we know that the Red Order of Seth is a very secretive organization or group of certain affiliation, to their deity, and very little is known about them.

This interesting thought is not to say that we cannot see other parellels between the Christianized version of the Devil, or Satan, but that there can also be seen other streamlines of similarities, too, such as with the copy of pagan gods and their derivative qualities, both spiritually and in physical depiction, such as with the horns and goat like appearances, say from the Greek culture, with the deity named Pan amongst many others from different cultures such as the Celts or Gauls with the horned god Cernunnos, and superimposing them onto the idea of the Christian Devil for its complete invalidation of pagan beliefs, traditions and practices. However, they might be entirerly different gods, apart from Seth or Satan altogether, just brought about in demonization from the consequence of the rising of the imperialistic Catholic Church with its suppression of other religions and appropriation of holidays and festivals and so on, such as in the Roman Empire to satisfy the demands of the people, for instance - hence the holiday festival of Christmas on the 25th of December, because they [the people] wanted to keep those holidays and festivals but which were then guised differently under Christianized themes - but probably blending these other gods into the Christian idea of the Devil as Satan in order to demonize these other horned gods and suppress the religions worshipping them, in the minds of the people. This, of course, for the uprising of the Roman Catholic Church's imperialism and relative world control, if now that was their intention - or at the very least domination and control - but which I could go into on a few additional notes of thought regarding conspiracy theory and so on, so bear with me...

It seems that with the advent of Christianity, or its appropriation more rightfully said, by the Catholic Church - since the first Christians were probably more gnostic and less dogmatic and imperialistic in their beliefs - there seems to have been an ongoing effort to suppress our ancient roots, perhaps to make us forget that which our ancestors or the ancients knew, consequentially losing touch with both our nature and nature itself, inner or spiritual consciousness, and with the planet, as well as with ancient knowledge and wisdom therewith, just in order to keep us enslaved and subservient to their agendas and manipulation of relative world control. This is a new era however, the Djehtuy of the Serpent, as far as I am concerned and such influences are fearfully losing their grip under the light of truth as it seems (but do correct me if I am wrong...).

But the world is probably more complex than this and I might be bashing the Catholic Church far too much as a scapegoat to humanity's problems and only providing a one-sided point of view but there can also be legitimacy to these claims but I will probably not go into it that much in this initial post as my background of research is not that very extensive. However, what do you think upon these thoughts - particularly in regards to the parellels between Seth and Satan given this contrast above?

Thanks.

Your point of view is interesting and it is not far-fetched. I'm going to tell the truth, what I know of the subject is limited, but as far as I know, the attempts to relate the figure of Set (Seth) with Satan (Saitan), are contemporary and have their origin in groups or lodges based in the USA .

Maybe someone in a place that has not been USA has established this relationship, if it is so I do not know, but I believe that Miquel Aquino was the first one who did it to validate and differentiate his Church from the COS. I also believe that Michael W, Ford, also pointed to this parallelism at some point.

As far as the European Satanism or the European lodges like Dragon Rouge or the temple of the ascent flame have not seen it at any time.

It would be interesting if someone had a greater knowledge of the subject add here what you know.

Ah, so they are... I do not believe they are impossibilities. Even though Satan appears to be a much later construct and perhaps even an egregore, from the collective thought forms of so many people, there is some point I would like to add, although it is just a theory: that egregores might not always only be egregores, but shadows of real entities or actual deities, either overshadowing them or following them like a shadow.

Say for instance the principle of God which is just an allegory for the underlying transcendent Reality. People have somewhat anthropomorphized it and through their mental constructs of the same regarded it as something else entirerly throughout millenia now so surerly there is bound to be an egregore of some sort. It is completely unlike the experience of prophets or mystics and great yogis for instance who saw something much different but talked about it in allegory and symbol, in words that the people could understand.

In the same way as mentioned above, Satan could be a superimposition of mental constructs unto older gods and deities... an egregore as a shadow, or overshadowing, of a real entity, in a certain sense - the sense lying hidden throughout history where its origins and development has unfolded by various influences from different angles, as partially went through in the original post but can be extensively elaborated upon with the right research. Although this could be the case, as discussed, it is of course up to debate. It is nevertheless an interesting notion at least so far as I regard it.

Further study however would be necessary upon the origins of said entities within the minds of people in history - whether solely being originative in the minds of people or carrying a somewhat transcendent identity beyond.

Maybe "A History of the Devil" by Gerald Messadié would do good?

Very true. On the other hand your answer has given me to think ... well it could also be that the same deity presents itself to the world under a different archetypal aspect, more contemporary, to recover renewed and recover the influence it had in the past. what do you think ?. By the way, it's a good book that you mention, I've been searching for it in Spanish for a while, thank you for bringing it back to my memory again ..

No problem. Yes, that was kind of what I was inferring, mostly as a possibility but in different words. There is no certainty for it but surerly further research might do it some justice as well as with contemplation even if it might not be an easily available research to such a great extent as desired. But the tool of contemplation should never be underestimated for spiritual insight, higher knowledge and a grasp for understanding as it brings these things with it through its lucid clarity like a crystal ball of supernal gnosis, although beware of delusions and illusions lurking in the corners of the mind, as always...

The oldest form of the Prince of Darkness, the archetype of Isolate Intelligence, is the Egyptian god Set, whose Priesthood can be traced to predynastic times. Images of Set have been dated to ca.3200 BCE, with astronomically‑based estimates of inscriptions dating to 5000 BCE. Set’s original name meant “cutter” or “Isolator” ‑ he is the personification of the process of initiation‑ of becoming more and more your own self. Setians do not pray to Set, nor does he care about their day‑to‑day lives. Setians emulate Set, and further the process of individuation and Initiation on this world. Set is a complex figure, a much better role model than the limited figure of the Judeo‑Christian Satan. Satan, the archetype of the rebel against cosmic injustice , may be where many people begin the lifelong process of Initiation, but he is too small a symbol for the richness of the Left Hand Path
.
The Egyptian god Set went through periods of immense popularity alternating with total denunciation. Set in the predynastic and archaic periods was an essentially positive deity introduced from the east as a god of the “extension” of “existence“. He is therefore god of “expanding” borders and radical changes of being, particularly birth, circumcision/ initiation, death in battle, and rebirth through the Opening of the Mouth ceremony. Popular among easterners, his first cult site being Pelusium in the eastern Delta, Set’s worship quickly spread to the “border” areas, where he was identified with local gods of initiation. Two examples of such cult sites are Kharga in the south, which has always been primarily a Nilotic culture area, and the Libyan settlement of Ombos, wherein Set was identified with the local god Ash in the IInd dynasty. Set’s original worship as a nighttime/polar deity suffered a decline with the rise of solar worship in the IVth dynasty. The Great Pyramid of Khufu is one of the last early monuments connected with the idea of the Setian afterlife as well as a solar one. The Great Pyramid had a special air shaft for the king’s “akh” to fly to the stars of Set.
__________________________________
Temple of Set

The present custom in ancient Christianity of transforming into demons all the gods of ancient pagan religions and religions is well known. In the Hebrew mythology the deserts are populated with all kinds of demons (Jesus is tempted by the devil in the desert), being Seth a deity related to the desert, it is possible that the ancient Christian theologians made a simplistic reduction that some followers of the LHP current have recovered or imitated at the time of realizing Seth with Satan.

AmirAlzzalam wrote:The oldest form of the Prince of Darkness, the archetype of Isolate Intelligence, is the Egyptian god Set, whose Priesthood can be traced to predynastic times. Images of Set have been dated to ca.3200 BCE, with astronomically‑based estimates of inscriptions dating to 5000 BCE. Set’s original name meant “cutter” or “Isolator” ‑ he is the personification of the process of initiation‑ of becoming more and more your own self. Setians do not pray to Set, nor does he care about their day‑to‑day lives. Setians emulate Set, and further the process of individuation and Initiation on this world. Set is a complex figure, a much better role model than the limited figure of the Judeo‑Christian Satan. Satan, the archetype of the rebel against cosmic injustice , may be where many people begin the lifelong process of Initiation, but he is too small a symbol for the richness of the Left Hand Path
.
The Egyptian god Set went through periods of immense popularity alternating with total denunciation. Set in the predynastic and archaic periods was an essentially positive deity introduced from the east as a god of the “extension” of “existence“. He is therefore god of “expanding” borders and radical changes of being, particularly birth, circumcision/ initiation, death in battle, and rebirth through the Opening of the Mouth ceremony. Popular among easterners, his first cult site being Pelusium in the eastern Delta, Set’s worship quickly spread to the “border” areas, where he was identified with local gods of initiation. Two examples of such cult sites are Kharga in the south, which has always been primarily a Nilotic culture area, and the Libyan settlement of Ombos, wherein Set was identified with the local god Ash in the IInd dynasty. Set’s original worship as a nighttime/polar deity suffered a decline with the rise of solar worship in the IVth dynasty. The Great Pyramid of Khufu is one of the last early monuments connected with the idea of the Setian afterlife as well as a solar one. The Great Pyramid had a special air shaft for the king’s “akh” to fly to the stars of Set.
__________________________________
Temple of Set

I find a lot of texts and philosophies from the Temple of Set poorly researched. Most of the claims are bogus and not accepted by historians in any way. The Great Pyramid has no connections with Seth at all. The stellar alignment of the air-shafts don’t even have a relation to Set in ancient Egyptian cosmology.

Original text here: http://www.arcane-archive.org/religion/satanism/temple-of-set/temple-of-set-general-information-and-admissions-policies-1.php

Typical marketing from the ToS more than valid occult philosophy.

Bonus points to the lame ending text:

I hereby authorize my application fee of US$______ to be charged
to my: Visa [ ] or MasterCard  [ ]

Very revealing Jonathan. I do not know in depth the opinion of the US occultists, but in Europe people see groups like TOS, TOV, and the Lucifer church of Ford, as movements that have wanted to repeat the example of the COS, modifying the content of their "beliefs", but with the same commercial purpose.

That is why they establish connections not always well founded with cultures such as Egypt and Sumeria.

Noctis wrote:Very revealing Jonathan. I do not know in depth the opinion of the US occultists, but in Europe people see groups like TOS, TOV, and the Lucifer church of Ford, as movements that have wanted to repeat the example of the COS, modifying the content of their "beliefs", but with the same commercial purpose.

That is why they establish connections not always well founded with cultures such as Egypt and Sumeria.

I agree with you. I'm actually an American occultist but you're definitely right about these US groups, they lack the depth, knowledge and true initiation of European orders. There is really no way to compare, however the occult underground here is still very limited. The vast majority are just dabblers worshipping their ego without any real world experience with magick.

Jonathan wrote:

AmirAlzzalam wrote:The oldest form of the Prince of Darkness, the archetype of Isolate Intelligence, is the Egyptian god Set, whose Priesthood can be traced to predynastic times. Images of Set have been dated to ca.3200 BCE, with astronomically‑based estimates of inscriptions dating to 5000 BCE. Set’s original name meant “cutter” or “Isolator” ‑ he is the personification of the process of initiation‑ of becoming more and more your own self. Setians do not pray to Set, nor does he care about their day‑to‑day lives. Setians emulate Set, and further the process of individuation and Initiation on this world. Set is a complex figure, a much better role model than the limited figure of the Judeo‑Christian Satan. Satan, the archetype of the rebel against cosmic injustice , may be where many people begin the lifelong process of Initiation, but he is too small a symbol for the richness of the Left Hand Path
.
The Egyptian god Set went through periods of immense popularity alternating with total denunciation. Set in the predynastic and archaic periods was an essentially positive deity introduced from the east as a god of the “extension” of “existence“. He is therefore god of “expanding” borders and radical changes of being, particularly birth, circumcision/ initiation, death in battle, and rebirth through the Opening of the Mouth ceremony. Popular among easterners, his first cult site being Pelusium in the eastern Delta, Set’s worship quickly spread to the “border” areas, where he was identified with local gods of initiation. Two examples of such cult sites are Kharga in the south, which has always been primarily a Nilotic culture area, and the Libyan settlement of Ombos, wherein Set was identified with the local god Ash in the IInd dynasty. Set’s original worship as a nighttime/polar deity suffered a decline with the rise of solar worship in the IVth dynasty. The Great Pyramid of Khufu is one of the last early monuments connected with the idea of the Setian afterlife as well as a solar one. The Great Pyramid had a special air shaft for the king’s “akh” to fly to the stars of Set.
__________________________________
Temple of Set

I find a lot of texts and philosophies from the Temple of Set poorly researched. Most of the claims are bogus and not accepted by historians in any way. The Great Pyramid has no connections with Seth at all. The stellar alignment of the air-shafts don’t even have a relation to Set in ancient Egyptian cosmology.

Original text here: http://www.arcane-archive.org/religion/satanism/temple-of-set/temple-of-set-general-information-and-admissions-policies-1.php

Typical marketing from the ToS more than valid occult philosophy.

Bonus points to the lame ending text:

I hereby authorize my application fee of US$______ to be charged
to my: Visa [ ] or MasterCard  [ ]

First, let me say that I am not defending the Temple of Set and Ido not speak for them in any authorized capacity. The information I originally posted was from their official website . . . https://www.xeper.org/

There is nothing new to the fact that the Great Pyramid at Giza is associated with Set, historians and anthropologists have been writing about this for a long time.

http://www.arcane-archive.org/religion/satanism/temple-of-set/temple-of-set-general-information-and-admissions-policies-1.php

Within the Temple of Set, there are many professionals such as historians, anthropologists as well as various scientists who study culture and mythos. Their research and work has contributed to the wealth of knowledge that is found within this organization.

Charging a fee for membership is typical of almost any organization, the Temple of Set is no different. The reasoning behind this is to cover material costs and running any good-sized organization.


In regards to this thread;
The center of the original Priesthood of Set was PaMat-et, capital of the ancient Egyptian XIX Uab Nome. It was called Oxyrhynchus by the Greeks. It is located in Upper Egypt at Latitude 28.5N, Longitude 30.8E. Other cities which were centers of the Setian Priesthood were Ombos at 24.5N, 32.9E, and Tanis at 31N, 31.9E in Lower Egypt.

As a neter of darkness and night, Set was the complement to Horus (Hor - neter of the Sun and daylight) in predynastic times. So integral was this relationship that the heads of the two neteru were frequently shown on a single body (hieroglyphic name Hrwyfy “He with the Two Faces”). With regard to the annual cycle, Horus was thought to govern the waxing of the Sun from the South Solstice, while Set governed the waning of the Sun from the North Solstice.

Together the two primeval neteru - Horus and Set - then symbolized the unity and wholeness of the Egyptian nation: Horus as the neter of the north (Lower Egypt) and Set as the neter of the south (Upper Egypt). This union was represented on monuments by the ritual gesture of samtaui, showing Horus and Set binding the heraldic plants of Upper and Lower Egypt around the stem of an AnX, symbol of divine life.

Horus was later adopted into the Osirian mythos as the “son of Osiris and Isis”. Egyptologists generally distinguish the original and the corruption by the terms “Horus the Elder” and “Horus the Younger” respectively. HarWer is a form of Horus the Elder combined with Wer (“The Great God”), a transcendent neter of light. The Sun and the Moon were said to be the right and left eyes of HarWer, known as the Udjat (“Uræus” in Greek). At the same time, the Udjat was also considered to partake of the essence of Set. Mounted both on the SeXet and on other national crowns and headgear, the Udjat became another symbol of the pharaoh.

I have yet to meet an Egyptologist that places any credibility on the ToS material. Their claims are highly speculative at best and often just flawed concerning ancient history.

Anyways, whatever floats your boat I guess. Personally I’m not really that interested in the whole “Setian” philosophy of that group or in modern Satanism. I’ve had that phase many years ago and I’ve since moved to more... advanced traditions.

Noctis wrote:Very revealing Jonathan. I do not know in depth the opinion of the US occultists, but in Europe people see groups like TOS, TOV, and the Lucifer church of Ford, as movements that have wanted to repeat the example of the COS, modifying the content of their "beliefs", but with the same commercial purpose.

That is why they establish connections not always well founded with cultures such as Egypt and Sumeria.

The Temple of Set (unlike the other organizations you mentioned) grew out directly from the Church of Satan and a very detailed documentation of this can be found in Dr. Aquino's Church of Satan books (Vol I & II). Aquino had concerns regarding the "Church of Satan, feeling that it had attracted many "fad-followers, egomaniacs and assorted oddballs whose primary interests in becoming Satanists was to flash their membership cards for cocktail-party notoriety". When in 1975 LaVey abolished the system of regional groups, or grottos, and declared that in future all degrees would be given in exchange for financial or other contributions to the Church, Aquino was disenfranchised; he resigned from the organisation on June 10, 1975^".


Along with Aquino's departure so did half of the CoS's priesthood follow which created the foundation of what is today the Temple of Set.

Jonathan wrote:I have yet to meet an Egyptologist that places any credibility on the ToS material. Their claims are highly speculative at best and often just flawed concerning ancient history.

Anyways, whatever floats your boat I guess. Personally I’m not really that interested in the whole “Setian” philosophy of that group or in modern Satanism. I’ve had that phase many years ago and I’ve since moved to more... advanced traditions.

I cannot account for who you know and don't know or whether these (Egyptologists) have any credibility, however this thread is concerned about the relationship (or not) between Set and Satan, so I am discussing and addressing posts accordingly.

AmirAlzzalam wrote:

Noctis wrote:Very revealing Jonathan. I do not know in depth the opinion of the US occultists, but in Europe people see groups like TOS, TOV, and the Lucifer church of Ford, as movements that have wanted to repeat the example of the COS, modifying the content of their "beliefs", but with the same commercial purpose.

That is why they establish connections not always well founded with cultures such as Egypt and Sumeria.

The Temple of Set (unlike the other organizations you mentioned) grew out directly from the Church of Satan and a very detailed documentation of this can be found in Dr. Aquino's Church of Satan books (Vol I & II). Aquino had concerns regarding the "Church of Satan, feeling that it had attracted many "fad-followers, egomaniacs and assorted oddballs whose primary interests in becoming Satanists was to flash their membership cards for cocktail-party notoriety". When in 1975 LaVey abolished the system of regional groups, or grottos, and declared that in future all degrees would be given in exchange for financial or other contributions to the Church, Aquino was disenfranchised; he resigned from the organisation on June 10, 1975^".


Along with Aquino's departure so did half of the CoS's priesthood follow which created the foundation of what is today the Temple of Set.

I know the history of the Temple of Set and the COS quite well. Regardless of the subject that concerns us, it happens to me as Jonathan, I do not know Egyptologists who validate the relationship established by the Temple of Set. As for the collection of a membership, it is not something I see wrong at all, but I can assure you that there are many organizations that do without it.

The years have led me to distrust anyone who announces much publicly. Likewise, my stay in the almost extinct Church of Satan Hispanic, was enough for me, the Setians and similar groups have nothing that interests me.

Either way, the Crsitian satan character, is a false construction of the church to demonize pagan cultures, relate it to any ancient god to endow it with an aura of "darkness" or bring it to the LHP, it is a mistake.

In that sense there are groups that do it quite well fleeing from that relationship.

Noctis wrote:Either way, the Crsitian satan character, is a false construction of the church to demonize pagan cultures, relate it to any ancient god to endow it with an aura of "darkness" or bring it to the LHP, it is a mistake.

In that sense there are groups that do it quite well fleeing from that relationship.

There are many ways to view the Judeo-Christian 'Satan', not all of them are pro-Christian, and even their scriptures can be understood in different context. The Christian Satan serves their purpose well, however it is not the version of the Prince of Darkness which would serve well anyone on the LHP.

Satan is a personification of the Judaic word ha‑satan meaning Adversary. Ha satan did not become Satan until much later when Jewish sects / tribes particularly the Essenes began referring to anyone who was not an Essene as ha satan. Still further on, the Roman Christian Church decided it was time to personify "the adversary" into Satan (complete with horns, tail, colored red, and all that jazz) and have him become the scapegoat for all evil in the Christian world.

The Adversary is a trans‑cultural archetype which existed long before Christianity began in the form of Set, Samael, Ahriman, Loki, and the feminine aspect being Lilith, to name but a few. Psychologically speaking, the Adversary is our Shadow Self, that which opposes and challenges you, when confronted by it, one either becomes consumed by it or one becomes stronger because of it.

AmirAlzzalam wrote:

Noctis wrote:Either way, the Crsitian satan character, is a false construction of the church to demonize pagan cultures, relate it to any ancient god to endow it with an aura of "darkness" or bring it to the LHP, it is a mistake.

In that sense there are groups that do it quite well fleeing from that relationship.

There are many ways to view the Judeo-Christian 'Satan', not all of them are pro-Christian, and even their scriptures can be understood in different context. The Christian Satan serves their purpose well, however it is not the version of the Prince of Darkness which would serve well anyone on the LHP.

Satan is a personification of the Judaic word ha‑satan meaning Adversary. Ha satan did not become Satan until much later when Jewish sects / tribes particularly the Essenes began referring to anyone who was not an Essene as ha satan. Still further on, the Roman Christian Church decided it was time to personify "the adversary" into Satan (complete with horns, tail, colored red, and all that jazz) and have him become the scapegoat for all evil in the Christian world.

I

The Adversary is a trans‑cultural archetype which existed long before Christianity began in the form of Set, Samael, Ahriman, Loki, and the feminine aspect being Lilith, to name but a few. Psychologically speaking, the Adversary is our Shadow Self, that which opposes and challenges you, when confronted by it, one either becomes consumed by it or one becomes stronger because of it.

In this we agree, I am aware of the presence of the archetype of the adversary in a line different from that presented by Judeocrsitianism. But I think the relationship that was talked about here was precisely that, which is wrong. The one that you mentioned is different, and much more accurate and based on its postulates, is precisely the one I referred to when I spoke about the existence of groups within the LHP that flee from that realization with the Christian "satan".

Even so, and sorry for the double publication, many of those relationships I find dificles de compobar, although they are not preposterous or impossible, they are simply expensive to track because of their distance in time.

I enjoy your discussion upon the topic so far. Interesting and insightful, especially in regards to the concept of an Adversary. We find that Asetians themselves, or the Order of Aset Ka, refer to themselves sometimes as adversaries in certain respects which is an interesting thing.

It is a subject that goes a long way, but it is also tricky. For example, the concept of "deidifying masks" used by Michel.W.Ford in his "Bibilia del adversario", effectively allows, as AmirAlzzalam rightly mentioned, to relate the figure of the adversary with many of the deities that are the counterpoint in many pantheons . Since almost all of them have dark gods, pranksters, infernal, rivals, or somehow faced with the main deities.

It is a dangerous game, which is what I meant when I said that many of them are difficult to trace, although psychologically, their validity as archetypes is not discussed at any time.

The problem does not lie in these relationships, but in how they are established. It is simply that they are difficult to identify and given the many gaps in the mythology of certain cultures, some are established very hastily.

Nor is it an issue that I control expertly, maybe AmirAlzzalam or another person can recommend some interesting reading.

Noctis wrote:
The problem does not lie in these relationships, but in how they are established. It is simply that they are difficult to identify and given the many gaps in the mythology of certain cultures, some are established very hastily.

Nor is it an issue that I control expertly, maybe AmirAlzzalam or another person can recommend some interesting reading.

There is a lot to be said of Carl Jung's studies regarding archetypal structures, the unconscious mind and religious structures.

Noctis wrote:Your point of view is interesting and it is not far-fetched. I'm going to tell the truth, what I know of the subject is limited, but as far as I know, the attempts to relate the figure of Set (Seth) with Satan (Saitan), are contemporary and have their origin in groups or lodges based in the USA .

Maybe someone in a place that has not been USA has established this relationship, if it is so I do not know, but I believe that Miquel Aquino was the first one who did it to validate and differentiate his Church from the COS. I also believe that Michael W, Ford, also pointed to this parallelism at some point.

As far as the European Satanism or the European lodges like Dragon Rouge or the temple of the ascent flame have not seen it at any time.

It would be interesting if someone had a greater knowledge of the subject add here what you know.

Got a masonic temple in my town. Is that part of the flame?

No need for you to give us an introduction, stick boy.  You have already shown everyone here you lack manners, understanding, and any wisdom of the subject you try to interject yourself into by flaming various topics and giving orders with your juvenile attempt to draw attention to yourself.  We have seen your type personality here many times over the years, and none of them are here anymore.  So you are viewed as just another helpless, hapless child under 20 that lacked parental guidance in early life.  Suggestion:  Go find a Nanny, Kid.

Give him a chance at least. He'll slow down soon enough, he's just interested thats all. Yes he's undoubtedly feeling a little entitled but, he'll mellow out eventually. If not then he'll just fizzle out until we forget he was ever here.