Are we Setians monotheistic?

[1137]

I've been thinking about this more, and I don't really see how Setianism could be non-monotheistic. All consciousness is rooted in Set, meaning even if there are other conscious gods they are simply a lower manifestation of Set Itself. From a platonic standpoint, there's really no other way to understand Set, and I would say that if something is not conscious it cannot be a Being/God/god by definition.

 

[Onyx]

I've been thinking about this more, and I don't really see how Setianism could be non-monotheistic. All consciousness is rooted in Set, meaning even if there are other conscious gods they are simply a lower manifestation of Set Itself. From a platonic standpoint, there's really no other way to understand Set, and I would say that if something is not conscious it cannot be a Being/God/god by definition.

I tend to see myself as a rough approximation of Set (refined through Xeper/Remanifest), which is why I sometimes conflate my own Godhood with that of Set when trying to express my views.

Set is indeed unique among divine Forms. But wouldn't other Forms enjoy the same level of divinity? This is where the logic gets tricky for me, but it may simply be a matter of choosing an absolute or relative perspective.

In the absolute sense, I can accept the premise that other conscious gods probably wouldn't qualify as First Principles like Set. In a relative sense, something that is both conscious and immortal might as well be a god from my own personal viewpoint.

 

[Aštra’el]

It would appear that Setians are enhancing and evolving Set's existing archetype into their own direction, with the attributes of Tiamat. Though these two deities might appear to share many attributes, Set was never the most ancient of ancients OOOG source of all things that Tiamat was.