Are we Setians monotheistic?

[1137]

I'll let you guys form your own opinion.

For a force/being to be considered a god, it seems it would have to require consciousness and intent. Biological predisposition may be a Form in itself, but it is one driven by absolutely no intelligence or will. Like the order of the material world, it is mindless and unthinking. However, something like the Form of knowledge would have to be conscious, as there is no knowledge without consciousness. But if anything is conscious, it must be rooted in the Form of consciousness, Set, itself. This would mean that all "gods" are actually just manifestations of a greater being, in this case Set. Is this a type of gnostic monotheism almost?

In short, if all gods are a manifestation of and rooted in another god, would these be independent beings, or simply one? Is it a capital G God vs Gods type thing, and if so is that actual monotheism or polytheism?

 

[sovietchild]

If there was many gods, then don't you think that they would of had some kind of competition among each other? I mean think about it, apple spirit vs cocaine spirit battling each other out. How many battles would there be?

Amazon is home to 80,000 different plant species.

 

[1137]

If there was many gods, then don't you think that they would of had some kind of competition among each other? I mean think about it, apple spirit vs cocaine spirit battling each other out. How many battles would there be?

Amazon is home to 80,000 different plant species.

Well, there's my trip for the day.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Well, there's my trip for the day.

He actually has a point. If we are deifying platonic forms, why some and not all?

 

[Maponos]

He actually has a point. If we are deifying platonic forms, why some and not all?

There isn't any limit to the amount of gods that exist. To reference the poster, there is a Celtic god of apple trees.

 

[Liu]

I'd call it soft polytheism or pantheism, dependent on the further cosmology/metaphysics.
I'm not that much into Form theory (seems like something similar to platonic ideas?), but the result of your pondering feels familiar. In certain kinds of Hinduism there is the belief that nothing exists but consciousness. That's similar to what I'm inclined to believe myself. The Hindus may call it Shiva, I may call it Satan, you may call it Set, and we might all have slightly different views on it, presumptions we hold about it and concepts we relate to it.

But, why yes, looks like we all have ultimately only one deity of which we and all other beings of consciousness that may exist are manifestations. However, I wonder, in what way is this one deity then actually one coherent entity? Or doesn't it need to have a personality and an awareness of itself to be a deity, but merely be the totality of consciousness?

@Satans_Serrated_Edge: Because consciousness/Set/... is the one thing all of them must have to be divine entities, and not just concepts or things.

 

[George-ananda]

I'll let you guys form your own opinion.

For a force/being to be considered a god, it seems it would have to require consciousness and intent. Biological predisposition may be a Form in itself, but it is one driven by absolutely no intelligence or will. Like the order of the material world, it is mindless and unthinking. However, something like the Form of knowledge would have to be conscious, as there is no knowledge without consciousness. But if anything is conscious, it must be rooted in the Form of consciousness, Set, itself. This would mean that all "gods" are actually just manifestations of a greater being, in this case Set. Is this a type of gnostic monotheism almost?

In short, if all gods are a manifestation of and rooted in another god, would these be independent beings, or simply one? Is it a capital G God vs Gods type thing, and if so is that actual monotheism or polytheism?

I think for the people here to judge, you may perhaps want to start by presenting a simple introductory description of the Setian beliefs.

 

[1137]

He actually has a point. If we are deifying platonic forms, why some and not all?

It's simply definitions. Why would an immaterial, eternal, self aware, conscious being not be considered "god"?

I think for the people here to judge, you may perhaps want to start by presenting a simple introductory description of the Setian beliefs.

I've touched on it here and there, but I'm more interested if one god manifesting itself in many individual ways is monotheist, or if it's polytheism. It's not just Setianism, what about the Archon's, plemora, and Source of Gnosticism? What about the Seohirot and limitless light of kaballah?

 

[George-ananda]

I've touched on it here and there, but I'm more interested if one god manifesting itself in many individual ways is monotheist, or if it's polytheism. It's not just Setianism, what about the Archon's, plemora, and Source of Gnosticism? What about the Seohirot and limitless light of kaballah?

I would call it monotheism but if god is in all things too then I would call it pantheism.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'll let you guys form your own opinion.

For a force/being to be considered a god, it seems it would have to require consciousness and intent. Biological predisposition may be a Form in itself, but it is one driven by absolutely no intelligence or will. Like the order of the material world, it is mindless and unthinking. However, something like the Form of knowledge would have to be conscious, as there is no knowledge without consciousness. But if anything is conscious, it must be rooted in the Form of consciousness, Set, itself. This would mean that all "gods" are actually just manifestations of a greater being, in this case Set. Is this a type of gnostic monotheism almost?

In short, if all gods are a manifestation of and rooted in another god, would these be independent beings, or simply one? Is it a capital G God vs Gods type thing, and if so is that actual monotheism or polytheism?

Do you see those other gods as actually existing, or are they misinterpretations by people of one aspect of Set?

If they exist, then you're a polytheist. If they're misunderstood parts of the whole (Set), then you're a monotheist.

Hindus are polytheist, for example, even though this is all part of the Brahma.

 

[1137]

Do you see those other gods as actually existing, or are they misinterpretations by people of one aspect of Set?

If they exist, then you're a polytheist. If they're misunderstood parts of the whole (Set), then you're a monotheist.

Hindus are polytheist, for example, even though this is all part of the Brahma.

Yes thank you! It's becoming clear I need to look more into Hinduism.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yes thank you! It's becoming clear I need to look more into Hinduism.

You're welcome!
See? I'm more than just a materialist @sshole.

 

[Onyx]

I'll let you guys form your own opinion.

For a force/being to be considered a god, it seems it would have to require consciousness and intent. Biological predisposition may be a Form in itself, but it is one driven by absolutely no intelligence or will. Like the order of the material world, it is mindless and unthinking. However, something like the Form of knowledge would have to be conscious, as there is no knowledge without consciousness. But if anything is conscious, it must be rooted in the Form of consciousness, Set, itself. This would mean that all "gods" are actually just manifestations of a greater being, in this case Set. Is this a type of gnostic monotheism almost?

In short, if all gods are a manifestation of and rooted in another god, would these be independent beings, or simply one? Is it a capital G God vs Gods type thing, and if so is that actual monotheism or polytheism?

I would probably have to say that the "Form of Set" is real in terms of being a conscious force, one that by it's very nature reveals the higher potential of mankind. Therefore monotheism would be correct in that I am God (capital-G) within the context of my own conscious self-awareness.

At least that's where I'm at right now.

 

[Adramelek]

For a force/being to be considered a god, it seems it would have to require consciousness and intent. Biological predisposition may be a Form in itself, but it is one driven by absolutely no intelligence or will. Like the order of the material world, it is mindless and unthinking. However, something like the Form of knowledge would have to be conscious, as there is no knowledge without consciousness. But if anything is conscious, it must be rooted in the Form of consciousness, Set, itself. This would mean that all "gods" are actually just manifestations of a greater being, in this case Set. Is this a type of gnostic monotheism almost?

In short, if all gods are a manifestation of and rooted in another god, would these be independent beings, or simply one?

Some Setians may be monotheistic, but I wouldn't lump them all into that one category. To me Set is the origin, the primordial source for all consciousness within this Universe, however, he is not necessarily the only divine entity or "one true god". We humans as aspiring gods or daimons, through Black Magick, are capable of bringing into meaningful existence other god-like forms or daimons. I understand your first point here 1137 and agree with most of it, I just don't think "monotheist" is necessarily a proper descriptive of the Setian.

As for your second point, we may all be manifestations of the Black Flame that is the Essence and Gift of Set, who is the creator of the human psyche, our primordial father. However, we are all our own independent and distinct being moving in accordance with our own mind and will. This is the very nature and purpose of the Gift of the Black Flame, and is the bond between mankind and the Prince of Darkness. Being "one" with Set does not make you subservient to him but actually increases your sense of unique Selfhood.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll let you guys form your own opinion.

For a force/being to be considered a god, it seems it would have to require consciousness and intent. Biological predisposition may be a Form in itself, but it is one driven by absolutely no intelligence or will. Like the order of the material world, it is mindless and unthinking. However, something like the Form of knowledge would have to be conscious, as there is no knowledge without consciousness. But if anything is conscious, it must be rooted in the Form of consciousness, Set, itself. This would mean that all "gods" are actually just manifestations of a greater being, in this case Set. Is this a type of gnostic monotheism almost?

In short, if all gods are a manifestation of and rooted in another god, would these be independent beings, or simply one? Is it a capital G God vs Gods type thing, and if so is that actual monotheism or polytheism?

Sounds like you have two separate issues going on:

- is some specific Setian a monotheist or a polytheist? From what you describe, it sounds like your theology allows for either position, so if I had to guess, I'd say the answer probably varies from person to person.
- should a Setian be a monotheist or a polytheist? Dunno.

 

[Onyx]

- is some specific Setian a monotheist or a polytheist? From what you describe, it sounds like your theology allows for either position, so if I had to guess, I'd say the answer probably varies from person to person.

I'm not sure either term is a very good fit, probably depends on context.

From the inside looking out, I tend towards a "monotheistic" view in the sense that I strive to become my own God. From the outside looking in, I acknowledge that other forces are involved in the process.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm not sure either term is a very good fit, probably depends on context.

From the inside looking out, I tend towards a "monotheistic" view in the sense that I strive to become my own God. From the outside looking in, I acknowledge that other forces are involved in the process.

You have stated that you worship yourself as 'god'

now you are stating that you are 'striving' to become your own 'god',

you realize that these are two different concepts?

 

[Onyx]

now you are stating that you are 'striving' to become your own 'god',

I meant that in the sense that I strive to maintain my God-hood on a personal level. Sorry you couldn't figure it out.

Recall:

I would probably have to say that the "Form of Set" is real in terms of being a conscious force, one that by it's very nature reveals the higher potential of mankind. Therefore monotheism would be correct in that I am God (capital-G) within the context of my own conscious self-awareness.

 

[Desert Snake]

I meant that in the sense that I strive to maintain my God-hood on a personal level. Sorry you couldn't figure it out.

Recall:

It has nothing to do with figuring anything out. It's an indication that when you write 'worship your self as 'god', it doesn't really mean what you are writing.

They are still different concepts.

 

[Onyx]

It has nothing to do with figuring anything out. It's an indication that when you write 'worship your self as 'god', it doesn't really mean what you are writing.

They are still different concepts.

I might be a little loose with terminology sometimes, I'm sorry if I was unclear.