Talk:Setianism

Setianism and the Church of Satan side panel?

Why does this article have a big side panel with a whole bunch of links pertaining to the Church of Satan? Seems to me that those links belong a page about LaVeyan Satanism, not on a page about Setianism. Admittedly the Temple of Set had its origins in the Church of Satan, but does an article on Setianism need more than one CoS-related link?

This same side panel now appears in a whole bunch of other Wikipedia articles pertaining to Satanism in one way or another. Seems to me it doesn't need to be on more than one of these pages. Diane Vera 20:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed -- Someone recently removed the side panel from the Temple of Set page, and there's been no uproar about that; I'd favor removing that Satanism panel from this page as well. --Balanone 03:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Setianism and Neopaganism

AdelaMae changed the category of the Setianism article, from reli (religion) to paganism (neopaganism), 22:27, 6 February 2006. The Talk page now has a heading of: "This article is part of WikiProject Neopaganism, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions."

Per discussions in Usenet throughout the 1990's, it's my impression that while many would consider the Setian religion to be a part of modern Paganism, the term Neopaganism is reserved for a specific subclass of modern Paganism, and the Setian religion, like the closely related religion of Satanism, is generally considered to be outside that subclass.

Reviewing the Neopaganism article,

• Ecological and mystical currents: "Neopaganism generally emphasizes the sanctity of Earth and Nature." The Setian religion does not share this attribute.

• Neopagan views of gods and gender: This section seems to make a big deal of gender within Neopagan religions, and there is no gender bias of any kind within the Setian religion or practice.

• Traditions: "A sect within Neopaganism is sometimes referred to as a "tradition," although this term is more properly used to define a sect within a particular Neopagan religion, such as Wicca, Hellenism, Ásatrú, Druidry, Dianics etc. There are many traditions within the larger world of Neopaganism, most of which are identified according to the pantheon they work with, or the founder of the tradition." The Setian religion does not use the term Tradition, while the use of the phrase "There are many traditions" seems to support the theory that Neopaganist sects are traditions, not just sects.

For these reasons, I question the validity of trying to classify the Setian religion as a Neopagan religion.

To be fair, from time to time in the early 1990's I myself argued that we should be, along the lines of "Usage of the term 'Neopagan': The term "Neopagan" is used by academics and adherents alike to denote those Pagan traditions which are largely modern in origin, or which are conceived as reconstructions of ancient practices." However, the Setian religion is so far out on the edge/fringe of this definition, that such discussions have almost always ended with most people claiming/agreeing that the Setian religion fell on the outside of what they considered to be Neopagan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balanone (talk • contribs)

Redirect

This article is very incomplete and Setianism doesn't need its own article. If you look in Religious satanism, you will find more information on Setianism, therefore I suggest we redirect this article to Religious satanism. --– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 02:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply redirect to the Temple of Set page? – Niki R.

I agree about the merging Drakein 11:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)