Satan and Suns

One thing that's really starting to annoy me while studying Demonolatry is the constant mention of Egypt and Hermetics like it's all the same.
Okay I get Hermetics and Demonolatry are tied together, but people really need to stop acting like the "Hermetica" represents Ancient Egypt because it doesn't.
Hermetics is Greco-Egyptian philosophy, with some remnants of pharaonic beliefs. Actually, doing a search about Hermetics, I can't find anything that sounds much like Egyptian thought at all.

Lokakisa wrote:One thing that's really starting to annoy me while studying Demonolatry is the constant mention of Egypt and Hermetics like it's all the same.
Okay I get Hermetics and Demonolatry are tied together, but people really need to stop acting like the "Hermetica" represents Ancient Egypt because it doesn't.
Hermetics is Greco-Egyptian philosophy, with some remnants of pharaonic beliefs. Actually, doing a search about Hermetics, I can't find anything that sounds much like Egyptian thought at all.

This 1. Really is an academic distinction, and 2. All that really matters out of it is that hermetics is an evolutionary religious concept with roots in ancient Egyptian beliefs. Oh, and if you look at variations of the LHP, you'll see variations of how that influences the path.

Agreed.
Some authors tend to make this huge leap from pharaonic to hermetic times and then imply how similar the Ancient Egyptians and the LHP is and I'm "noping" so hard ... Lol.
Connolly is bad about this as an example.

Interesting. I didn't take that away from her work. It's been a while since I've visited that chapter, however I recall her making the distinction between the magical theories (the separation from ceremonial magick) and the evolutionary path it took evolving out of ancient Egypt. I didn't get the sense that she's saying they are/were identical in nature.

However, I will agree that Connolly's work isn't without flaw. I found several things that I recognized from my past ventures were inaccurate. There were a few others that I raised an eyebrow to, as well. But, at the end of the day, that book (The Complete Book of Demonolatry) is without peer as an introductory and inclusive book of that branch of the LHP. There are few things which aren't touched on at the beginner level. I can overlook a few minor issues and see that the overall work is outstanding. After all, she's an author, not an academic historian and definitely not an Egyptologist.

As you progress in your studies, and you read works by Michael Ford and the authors under the Temple of Set, you'll see similar lines drawn. In the writings of the later, you'll definitely see the hermetic line evolving, but most certainly originating in Egypt. Hence, in their belief system, Satanism, and Satan himself, are directly analogous to Set.

Keep reading and enjoy the ride.

Yeah I'm just being pedantic, and I think authors need to tread more carefully when discussing such a long civilization. I just think it needs to be made more clear the distinction about late period Greco-Egyptian thought...
Anyway.

As for Set, I see some similarities, as he is also a challenger or adversary. But that is where it ends. He has not fallen from anywhere, he does not rebel against the main god, he does not have his own legion, and most importantly he does not represent the source of all. He is also not separate from the other Netjeru as an opposing force.
I think it was the Hittites who raised him to more prominence during their occupation.
But like Loki, he has become the "Satan" of his pantheon .. which is true at least in terms of how they are challengers to the status quo.

Well, I don't doubt a hodge-podge of influences from the Mediterranean and Middle East for sure.

I just looked up Michael Ford on Amazon ... No way I can take that guy seriously ...