Set isn't Satan

[1137]

Yes, however there can be mythic character sameness, from culture to culture, to an extent. I don't think that Set and Satan are an example of a same deity, in other words. I think that the name similarity, /there could be one, sort of/, is coincidental.

Are you talking about the "Set-hen" theory put forth by the ToS? There is no actual connection there except transliteration. Sure they sound similar, but one means "The Eternal Set" and on means "the adversary", one even being a proper noun whereas the other is not.

The fact that archetypes do vary to the specific character of satan, means that you can 'answer the poll'. An archetype is singular, that's why it's ''an archetype''. That's what archetype means. If a character varies widely, he/she isn't an archetype.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you realize that The Joker from The Dark Knight, and your go-to image of a court jester actually share in the same archetype? Those are vastly different.

Historically, no, I think the archetypes were developed independently.

If I invoke Count Dracula, it is with the understanding that it represents some particular aspect of Set (as the primordial source of higher consciousness) that I wish to explore. Same with Satan, as a symbol for a more focused understanding of the carnal aspects of our individuality.

What do you mean they were developed independently?

I have to be clear that I only consider Set minor in comparison to other characters in the Egyptian pantheon. He doesn't have a critical role like Thoth, Maat, or others do. There certainly was a period where he was a major character, but that time was short and basically tied to certain pharaohs. My criticism still stands...

I address this above.

I completely disagree with any notion that Egyptian gods represent any sort of platonic forms, they were beings to the Egyptians themselves. Any sort of revisionist thinking is just that, and ToS is completely full of crap in that regard if that is what they really feel. Egyptians viewed their relationships with the gods as intensely personal... I don't take what they say with any authority because I simply refuse to accept their retcon, which doesn't jive with history.

We'll certainly and unfortunately never know, but a huge portion of Greek ideology seems to have come out of Egypt. The gods were not seen as anthropomorphic, Greek like gods, but rather as aspects of nature. For example, at least within the priesthoods and scholarly circles, Sobek was not seen as an actual Crocodile-Man wandering the world, but literally represented the Nile river and its behaviors. This is why Horus, representing Order, was seen in any aspect of life that contained order, and why beings like Set and Apep were feared (at times) through their presence in all things disorderly. You may recognize this as very, very similar to Plato's theory of grounding forces that exist in which experience and manifestation is rooted.

If it floats your boat, hey, I mean no offense. I just don't find it any more authentic than when the pagans borrow Celtic things and repurpose them. The only difference is the pagans admit they are refactoring it.

Anyway, the Set-hen and Satan mean nothing... Egyptian/Demotic script languages and Semitic languages have no connection at all. Completely different people, and sound-a-likes are coincidental.

Indeed, the name thing needs to be recognized for its absurdity. But there is a large difference between repurposing religions eclectically and actual, historical investigation based in the modern understand of the world and history.

It's only vague if you don't know the subject.
It's like you're completely unaware that both 'Set', and 'Satan', are characters outside some specific group paradigms

What do you mean by this? Different cultures/paradigms may have different masks but still the same archetype underneath is.

Set is around way before the Greeks and Egypt have dealings, so I just thought it largely irrelevant to the discussion.

Ignoring all the whiny ad hominem attacks, I don't see how this follows AT ALL. Set is older than the Greeks and predates their dealings with Egypt, therefore they cannot possibly have incorporated ideas related to Set and the Neteru in any way? That makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not an ''occultist''. Nothing in my syncretism is anything that I would label the 'occult', and any study is contextual as well, not an overall study of all occult. Not that it matters, since what you are presenting is religious speculation, anyway.

Ah, my mistake and an illuminating response. You're free to check any fact of mine you want and point out what is inaccurate about it, but it is just dishonest and lazy to off hand state well definied, verified facts are "religious speculation."

 

[Aštra’el]

I'm not sure what you mean here, because this references one very specific story in history relating to the Egyptian gods. Ahriman, Melek Taus, Satan, nor Enki are seen in this light, bringing some sort of enlightening gift to mankind.

No, but Enki did enlighten Utnapishtim to the knowledge that his brother, the storm God Enlil, was going to destroy the world in a flood. This single act prevented the extinction of mankind, as Utnapishtim had just enough time to contruct a ship to harbor his people and animals to survive the deluge.

Then again that was the Epic of Gilgamesh. Enki's most prominent archetypal attributes however do include sorcery and wisdom, wisdom in many cases being identical to enlightenment. I can kind of understand why some groups would see some parallels between Enki and the Lucifer archetype.

I certainly would not connect Enki to Satan, however, especially Christianity's Satan. Enki saves the younger gods from destruction at the hands of Abzu, empowers Marduk to help save the younger gods from Tiamat, saves Utnapishtim and mankind from extinction, saves Ishtar/ Inanna from the underworld... he did a hell of a lot of helping out and saving and preventing things from extinction.

Enki is a rebel in what would be seen, from a LHP perspective, the wrong direction. Simply rebelling does not make one fit into this archetype, there are bad rebellions (like IS?...). Enki was part of an uprising meant to bring about a heavenly/holy order, which then led to him creating mankind as SLAVES. This is certainly not the same archetype.

Enki only rebelled because it was a matter of survival. He correctly anticipated that their primordial ancestor Abzu was plotting to destroy them all (the younger gods), so Enki struck first and defeated him, saving the younger gods from extinction. But yes, there was no hubris or malevolent intent involved in this act of rebellion.

Enki was part of a Zeus like uprising against the older gods, such as the mother Tiamat.

Those older gods were Abzu and Tiamat... the two halves of the primordial waters, freshwater and saltwater. Enki single-handedly defeated Abzu, but it was Marduk who defeated the primordial chaos goddess Tiamat. Enki did teach Marduk some powerful wind sorcery before the battle, and other gods did offer Marduk a "storm chariot" and other resources, but Marduk was the only one who actually went into battle against Tiamat and her monsterous army.

Tiamat only sought the younger gods' destruction after Abzu was defeated, before that, she did not support his intentions of destroying the younger gods. She was going to experience great loss either way, the loss of her other half and lover, or the loss of her children/ creations.

 

[Onyx]

What do you mean they were developed independently?

I misspoke.

 

[1137]

No, but Enki did enlighten Utnapishtim to the knowledge that his brother, the storm God Enlil, was going to destroy the world in a flood. This single act prevented the extinction of mankind, as Utnapishtim had just enough time to contruct a ship to harbor his people and animals to survive the deluge.

Then again that was the Epic of Gilgamesh. Enki's most prominent archetypal attributes however do include sorcery and wisdom, wisdom in many cases being identical to enlightenment. I can kind of understand why some groups would see some parallels between Enki and the Lucifer archetype.

I certainly would not connect Enki to Satan, however, especially Christianity's Satan. Enki saves the younger gods from destruction at the hands of Abzu, empowers Marduk to help save the younger gods from Tiamat, saves Utnapishtim and mankind from extinction, saves Ishtar/ Inanna from the underworld... he did a hell of a lot of helping out and saving and preventing things from extinction.


Enki only rebelled because it was a matter of survival. He correctly anticipated that their primordial ancestor Abzu was plotting to destroy them all (the younger gods), so Enki struck first and defeated him, saving the younger gods from extinction. But yes, there was no hubris or malevolent intent involved in this act of rebellion.


Those older gods were Abzu and Tiamat... the two halves of the primordial waters, freshwater and saltwater. Enki single-handedly defeated Abzu, but it was Marduk who defeated the primordial chaos goddess Tiamat. Enki did teach Marduk some powerful wind sorcery before the battle, and other gods did offer Marduk a "storm chariot" and other resources, but Marduk was the only one who actually went into battle against Tiamat and her monsterous army.

Tiamat only sought the younger gods' destruction after Abzu was defeated, before that, she did not support his intentions of destroying the younger gods. She was going to experience great loss either way, the loss of her other half and lover, or the loss of her children/ creations.

Actually the entire war started with the young gods trying to murder the old gods, which is why they were attacked in the first place.

 

[Aštra’el]

Actually the entire war started with the young gods trying to murder the old gods, which is why they were attacked in the first place.

The Enûma Eliš describes how Abzu grew annoyed with the younger gods, and how he sought to destroy them. Enki became aware of this and struck first, defeating Abzu with his sorcery. It was clearly an act of survival, if Enki had not first attacked Abzu than Abzu would have inevitably attacked the younger gods.

This is what provoked Tiamat, who put up far more of a fight than Abzu. She had no desire to see the younger gods destroyed before, but the defeat of Abzu moved her thoughts towards vengeance. Only Marduk was willing to do battle against her; the most the other gods did was grant him powers and resources.

 

[1137]

See guys, it's not hard to see who the real LHP and truly knowledgeable people are. One big detailed post and they run fleeing! Would either @syncretic or @Mindmaster care to address their numerous exposed mistakes?

 

[1137]

The Enûma Eliš describes how Abzu grew annoyed with the younger gods, and how he sought to destroy them. Enki became aware of this and struck first, defeating Abzu with his sorcery. It was clearly an act of survival, if Enki had not first attacked Abzu than Abzu would have inevitably attacked the younger gods.

This is what provoked Tiamat, who put up far more of a fight than Abzu. She had no desire to see the younger gods destroyed before, but the defeat of Abzu moved her thoughts towards vengeance. Only Marduk was willing to do battle against her; the most the other gods did was grant him powers and resources.

I always heard it that the children decided to attack Abzu for no reason, or that they were harassing him causing him to attack. Even if Enki is more satanic in this way then he is simply more like Set as well, which still erases the point mind master attempted to make. We also have to factor in the whole myth though. Enki enslaved mankind, how can he then be satanic?

 

[Aštra’el]

I always heard it that the children decided to attack Abzu for no reason, or that they were harassing him causing him to attack. Even if Enki is more satanic in this way then he is simply more like Set as well, which still erases the point mind master attempted to make. We also have to factor in the whole myth though. Enki enslaved mankind, how can he then be satanic?

Enki, as depicted in the Enuma Eliš, saves the younger Gods from destruction by defeating Abzu. Enki, as depicted in the Epic of Gilgamesh, saves humanity from extinction by warning Utnapishtim about the coming deluge. Enki, as depicted in the Descent of Ishtar, saves Ishtar from her fate in the underworld by providing the only means for her return.

This is a lot of saving for one being labeled as "Satanic".

 

[Mindmaster]

See guys, it's not hard to see who the real LHP and truly knowledgeable people are. One big detailed post and they run fleeing! Would either @syncretic or @Mindmaster care to address their numerous exposed mistakes?

Mostly, it's the tiring and pedantic vomiting of your ego all over the page that I get tired of responding to. Whether you are right or wrong about something, I find I just don't care because of the presentation. I'm not here to judge anyone's LHPness because I am not a douche... You need to chill the hell out, smoke some weed, get laid or something...

Where we disagree, they are simply differences of opinion. I have no problems with those differences existing because I'm not overly concerned about anonymous online comments. Your views are slightly jaded in my view because you've selectively taken non-historical sources to form your opinion, and I am only concerned with archaeology or what's recorded in a culture specific myths. Calling people out in this way is against the rules of the forum, and it's just trolling even when it isn't.

I simply don't care what your beef is with me little man. I say that with love, hoping you will towel off that water that's between your ears.

 

[Mindmaster]

Enki, as depicted in the Enuma Eliš, saves the younger Gods from destruction by defeating Abzu. Enki, as depicted in the Epic of Gilgamesh, saves humanity from extinction by warning Utnapishtim about the coming deluge. Enki, as depicted in the Descent of Ishtar, saves Ishtar from her fate in the underworld by providing the only means for her return.

This is a lot of saving for one being labeled as "Satanic".

I think these characters are complex myself, but undoubtedly various ideas were co-opted from other figures and that's basically what I would base a symbolic Satan type of archetype on. Moreover, I think it is especially relevant as a tool to understand the evolution of spirituality and myths and determine their lineage. Some people use this as a way to invalidate others beliefs, but I see it simply as recording the facts. It doesn't matter who came first, it matters to me which ideas are living. Satanism and even Setianism are living, and they are the expressions of a unique combination of ideas, many of which had expressions in the past but are now lost.

 

[Aštra’el]

I think these characters are complex myself, but undoubtedly various ideas were co-opted from other figures and that's basically what I would base a symbolic Satan type of archetype on.

There certainly are varying degrees of subjectivity attached to these deific archetypes. A lot of times, when someone is deeply passionate and immersed in these gods or mythologies, they see what they want to see and in some way embrace the perceived God(s) as a powerful means to improve themselves and achieve their goals. That, and a well constructed pantheon can provide many cultural and even political advantages, so sometimes it is necessary to design or evolve the archetypal attributes of God(s) to suit an agenda, whether by an individual or small group, or an entire society.

Moreover, I think it is especially relevant as a tool to understand the evolution of spirituality and myths and determine their lineage. Some people use this as a way to invalidate others beliefs, but I see it simply as recording the facts. It doesn't matter who came first, it matters to me which ideas are living. Satanism and even Setianism are living, and they are the expressions of a unique combination of ideas, many of which had expressions in the past but are now lost.

And unfortunately so, but hopefully those lost cultures do encourage people to go out and create and design or evolve religions as our ancestors did, not identically but in ways that are relevant to today's world, ways that reflect the lives and goals and dreams of people alive today.

___________

I think what has been said above is particularly relevant to those who are LHP and/ or pagan, as these individuals appear to be more inclined to design and evolve our own spiritual-religious systems to reflect our own personal Weltanschauung and Will.

 

[1137]

Enki, as depicted in the Enuma Eliš, saves the younger Gods from destruction by defeating Abzu. Enki, as depicted in the Epic of Gilgamesh, saves humanity from extinction by warning Utnapishtim about the coming deluge. Enki, as depicted in the Descent of Ishtar, saves Ishtar from her fate in the underworld by providing the only means for her return.

This is a lot of saving for one being labeled as "Satanic".

Enki is not satanic, I thought we had made that clear?

 

[1137]

Mostly, it's the tiring and pedantic vomiting of your ego all over the page that I get tired of responding to. Whether you are right or wrong about something, I find I just don't care because of the presentation. I'm not here to judge anyone's LHPness because I am not a douche... You need to chill the hell out, smoke some weed, get laid or something...

Where we disagree, they are simply differences of opinion. I have no problems with those differences existing because I'm not overly concerned about anonymous online comments. Your views are slightly jaded in my view because you've selectively taken non-historical sources to form your opinion, and I am only concerned with archaeology or what's recorded in a culture specific myths. Calling people out in this way is against the rules of the forum, and it's just trolling even when it isn't.

I simply don't care what your beef is with me little man. I say that with love, hoping you will towel off that water that's between your ears.

So pointing out your factual inaccuracies is ego rambling that causes you to go on the defensive? Such an adept! Bye bye mundane

 

[Mindmaster]

So pointing out your factual inaccuracies is ego rambling that causes you to go on the defensive? Such an adept! Bye bye mundane

They're only facts to you, and as such do not constitute facts just your opinion or perspective. Anyway, it is more the problem that someone who suffers from mental deficit lacks precisely the tools to ascertain their position. You've never been on the LHP, but you have pretended for an inordinate amount of time. You're good at regurgitating information from other people, and terrible at coming up with your own ideas. No one who is really on the LHP gives a rats what you think, but might entertain themselves in the way that occasionally it is amusing to drop a ball of yarn in front of a kitten.

Anyway, I know all about you. As soon as your touchy little emotions are offended it's just trolling and report button, hoping some mod will save you. Set the trap for someone who cares...

 

[Aštra’el]

Enki is not satanic, I thought we had made that clear?

What I sought to make clear was Enki's portrayal in the Enuma Eliš, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Descent of Ishtar/ Inanna's Descent.

If, within their own spiritual-religious systems, people choose to somehow connect Enki and Satan, or Enki and Set, Enki and Lucifer, Satan and Set, etc, then so be it... I encourage people to design and evolve their pantheons as they Will, in a way that empowers them and reflects their own Weltanschuung and helps them fulfill their own goals... as people who are LHP and/ or Pagan tend to do.

 

[Desert Snake]

Enki is not satanic, I thought we had made that clear?

And yet Set is? Arguments could be made for more than a single figure/character, the point is, why are you choosing not really same character, and not other not really same characters. Enki seems more ''satanic'' than Set, to me, for example; guess it's subjective.

 

[1137]

And yet Set is? Arguments could be made for more than a single figure/character, the point is, why are you choosing not really same character, and not other not really same characters. Enki seems more ''satanic'' than Set, to me, for example; guess it's subjective.

Sadly for you it's not subjective, the "satanic milieu" is well academically defined, and a god who created humanity as slave cannot be crammed into it such a label. The connection between Setianism and Satanism is also well academically defined.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sadly for you it's not subjective, the "satanic milieu" is well academically defined, and a god who created humanity as slave cannot be crammed into it such a label. The connection between Setianism and Satanism is also well academically defined.

I think you missed the point of the thread. It's addressing 'Set', and 'Satan'. Not ''Setianism'', and ''Satanism''. /which varies anyway.

 

[1137]

I think you missed the point of the thread. It's addressing 'Set', and 'Satan'. Not ''Setianism'', and ''Satanism''. /which varies anyway.

Well in one of my many questions you blatantly ignored, I asked why a modern association of Set and Satan would not be enough to say that, at least in the right context, they are in fact identical. Of course I know better than to expect any useful answer at this point!

 

[Desert Snake]

Are you talking about the "Set-hen" theory put forth by the ToS? There is no actual connection there except transliteration. Sure they sound similar, but one means "The Eternal Set" and on means "the adversary", one even being a proper noun whereas the other is not.

No, I'm not. And that is actually a different subject/ equation, altogether. You wouldn't approach the thread premise question, in the same manner, at all. A certain relational can be there, and in another context, it isn't. The thread question is quite literal, and meant to be answered in that manner.
Your arguments are essentially off topic.