considering that this temple believes that Gods are real, what is the structure of the universe/Cosmology in this religion? what is the afterlife like? is there an offical view, or as an individual are you free to believe anything you like?
First: I am a Setian, but I am not with the Temple of Set, meaning that I neither can nor want to speak for their specific way to see things (just for avoiding the word "believe", which is generally frowned upon by
all Setians). However, I can speak for a much more important thing (at least, this is
my personal assessment), myself.
IMO, your very first question does not make sense because it stems from the philosophic basis of "naive realism" while I am into radical constructivism. I have written an arcticle to explain that in detail:
Radical Constructivism because I do not want to write it again and again, so I just compiled it.
When you have read it, my following answers will maybe make more sense to you. I can and do use the perspective of gods (and especially Set) as conscious beings. However, I use this perspective only when it serves my current purpose. In other cases, I also can see gods as currents of force, and/or as symbols, and/or as parts of my psyche, and/or as parts of the collective unconscious (cf. C.G. Jung).
So I can say all of the following:
- Set is a god out there, and we have contact because we are akin.
- Set is a current which I can and do participate because this current is what my force has come alive from.
- Set is a symbol which has most meaning to me.
- Set is a complex mathematical wave function which I am a subset of.
- Set is a part of memory shared by all humans, and some feel attracted to it.
- I am Set - to an extent.
- Set is all the madness this universe has called up, and I am crazy enough to have answered the call, too.
My cosmology is that I cannot know what anything beside myself is like, I explained the reasons in the article mentioned above. I only can assume certain explanations of the universe and see whether they work. A more important question with the choice of answers than whether they are "true" (which does not make sense to me, see the article) is where they will lead me.
The same goes for the afterlife. Time, IMHO, is nothing more but a category which our consciousness likes to sort things by. So the question of what comes after life can only have meaningful answers in a reality tunnel based upon time (and space). However, I am not limited to this reality tunnel; there are many ones, each leading to an answer which, in the corresponding reality tunnel, makes some sense. However, differing form many, many people in this world, I DO believe in a life BEFORE death.
And I am free to believe (if you want to call the temporary engagement into a specific reality runnel "belief") what I want; in fact, I am unable to refrain from the choice, even if I tried. So the question of specific beliefs is, for me, a case where the inalienable right and the inescapable constraint coincide.
To speak with Sartre: Man is condemned to freedom.
simple answers don't exist (unless you choose to discard all of it and not engage it at all).
Well, as the predominance of the jewochristian religion proves, simple answers do exist for the majority of mankind. However, and here I dare speak for
all[/] Setians, where they stop asking is barely where we begin. And it is not that simple answers did not exist - but we are not content asking not more than the questions they fit to..