On my Theistic Satanism blog, Finn wrote:
What would be the considerations of difference between, say, seeking affiliation with the Black Goat Cabal and the Church of Azazel?
The Black Goat Cabal doesn’t really exist anymore. It was the inner circle of people in my Theistic Satanism Yahoo groups, which I ceased running in 2007. On the other hand, I’m now trying to get a local Church of Azazel group off the ground.
Finn also wrote:
I am curious as to why groups such as yourself (and the Temple Of Set, and the OTO to a lesser extent) appear as concerned as you do regarding the esteem in which the general populace hold you. I understand the human urge to recognition and respectability, and I also acknowledge that being able to relate harmoniously with your environment enables many expressions that a hidden or hostile stance would preclude, but nonetheless it tends to grate when an organisation that is ostensibly a champion of “elite” or evolutionary values is seen “currying favour”, or appealing to, the common populace. Of course, if you do not see Satanism as representing evolutionary values, then there is no problem. However, if you do, then I can only reiterate my sense of discord between this evolutionary assumption and the apparent urge to assimilate with the mainstream, especially politically and morally.
Depends what you mean by “evolutionary values.” Googling that term, I found Evolutionary Values on the Principia Cybernetica website and The Evolutionary Manifesto by John Stewart. Is this the sort of thing you’re talking about?
It’s not the sort of thing that the Church of Azazel is concerned with. We are concerned with a much more immediate problem — fighting back against those who wish to impose Christianity. (See the many resources listed here.)
Anyhow, if you yourself seriously wish to promote “evolutionary values,” whatever you mean by that term, it seems to me that you too will need to engage in a massive public relations effort.
I consider many dichotomies little more than the bias, ignorance or laziness of their proponents, and more often than not reflect a simple problem of semantics rather than substance. That being the case, I am suspicious of apparent absolute dividing lines between such concepts as RHP and LHP, or “theistic” versus “atheistic”.
I too don’t see these as black-and-white distinctions.
My personal take is that the substance of a Deity must include both; if the premise of Deity is not recognised it cannot be theistic, but if it cannot be also recognised as a pervasive energy, of a unique character which contains both transcendent and imminent affect, then it is hardly any sort of “symbol” or “principle”. Thus, I would say I appreciate and recognise the possibility of a “separate Deity” (such as Satan) but am happy to accept that God form represents the imagination and creation of Man, enlivened by the real divine power represented thereby. Basically, an archetypal image housing an imageless archetype. Make sense? How would my viewpoint resonate within your understanding of “theistic Satanism”?
My view is not identical to yours, but somewhat similar. I would not use the term “archetype.” What I would say is that there is something, or some things, out there that communicates with us via human-created deity myths. I don’t claim to know who/what the deities really are, beyond observing how some of them seem to be manifesting in our world.