See likes

See likes given/taken


Posts you liked

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
Post info No. of Likes
Why Set Would Not Be "God" In my understanding, the Prince of Darkness, known to Setians as the Egyptian god/Neter Set, is the Ageless Intelligence of this Universe, the Highest of Life who with the force of His/Its own mind and will could recreate the Cosmos in his own image and become in essence the new "God"/Order of the Cosmos.

Set, however, is the First Principle of Isolate Intelligence, the supreme manifestation of the Prince "First" of Darkness, the spiritual essence of singular identity and independent conscious existence.

If Set were to become "God", if Set were to him Self displace the Cosmic Inertia, He/It should be forced to become a new measure of consistency. Set would cease to be One, singular, for He/It should become All.  He would lose all that makes him a unique consciousness as he would be responsible for the new All, the new Cosmic Inertia, Set would lose his very identity.

It is a theory that when Set understood this paradox he created others of the Black Flame, i.e., Gifting that which would become mankind, in order to cancel this imbalance.  Leaving a Void in which true creation could take form not just as Set but also as the individual minds and wills of the kindred of the creative fire.  Spawning other beings to collaborate with him in the re-creation of the Universe in new, unique, and unpredictable forms.  The coming into being of individuality in metaphysical existence.

Hence, Set would remain One, singular, and not the All responsible for the re-creation of the Cosmos, i.e. the new "God", the new Cosmic Order of things. Set does not seek to be the omnipresent manifestation of all things; but rather exalts and nurtures the singular presence of his own unique mind and will, and that of his own kind, us.

August 30, 2017, 02:59:18 pm
1
Brief Introduction to Setianism Setian Religion – or Setianism – is both ancient and modern in its metaphysics and practice. While practiced by numerous ancient Egyptian groups throughout history, surely those individuals would be quite alienated by the scope their god and his religion have taken on today. In the modern era, Setianism was (re)founded in the year 1975 by Dr. Michael A. Aquino, a well-respected and accomplished member of the psychological operations branch of the U.S. military, as well as a respected and accomplished occultist.

Setianism is rooted in the idea that there is a Platonic realm of Forms, which includes a Form of Isolate Intelligence. This Isolate Intelligence is understood as the individual self, which we refer to when we say “I exist.” Each intelligent being is recognized as a discrete, autonomous individual, and Set is the Form of these isolate entities. Like the Isolate Intelligence, Set was understood as a god against the other gods and against nature itself, capable of questioning, manipulating, and going against the “Natural Order.”

There is also a rising school of thought known as Setian Idealism, which sees the Set-Horus entity as the primitive ontology of the universe. In this view the Set-Horus entity may be seen as a divine mind, with Horus as the unconscious aspect, responsible for the unchanging laws of physics, math, logic, etc., And the Set aspect as the conscious, changing, growing aspect with free will.

The main metaphysical goal of Setianism is based on the concept of “Xeper”, an Egyptian word that we could call a “static verb”, meaning “to come into being.” Xeper is something constantly happening, it is a fundamental aspect of the universe, an axiomatic fact. Each moment to moment, the universe comes into being in different ways on every level, from a seed sprouting to a supernova, a first sexual experience to the creation of a new galaxy. The difference for Setians is that they try to willfully control and guide their own Xeper, to create their own destiny in accordance with their will rather than the non-literal “will” of Nature. This process of willfully controlling one’s own Xeper is known as “magic”, or more specifically “Black Magic” in Setianism.

There are no specific holy texts for Setianism, though big ones include The Book of Coming Forth by Night, The Diabolicon, The Tablets of Set, the works of Dr. Michael Aquino, Don Webb, some by Dr. Stephen Flowers, and many more. While the Temple of Set is known as the main face of Setianism, many Setians – if not most – practice individually outside of the Temple, or have formed other organizations.

While the Order of the Serpent was founded by Setians, it is not a Setian organization. The O.S. welcomes members from all of the Left-Hand Path, and is more of a “meta-path” than other LHP organizations have been thus far. The only founder to have been involved with the Temple of Set was @Setamontet, who happily answers most questions on the topic and is full of awesome stories.

November 15, 2017, 05:42:02 am
1
Hate Isn't the way of the Satanist Cross post from a debate topic I made on another forum: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/hate-isnt-the-way-of-the-satanist.203246/

Hate is a very strong emotion. Much is made, particularly among certain types, of the fact that humans are both hating and loving creatures. I honestly think such attitudes are rooted in tribalism. Love your friends, hate your enemies. Such has been the battle cry for eons of the warlike religions, political ideologies and governmental entities who sought to expand through violence and forced conversion.

It seems for some they feel as if they should love a few and default to a hateful attitude towards many others. I don't agree. Rather, I'd propose, hate should be rationed just as those like LaVey told the Satanist to ration love in The Satanic Bible (though I'll take this further later on). Hate is a destructive emotion by nature and its liable to backfire if one isn't careful with it.

"But but! Those intolerant, or evil or brainwashing x religion/group!" Well, my dear diabolical friend... simply moving the sword from the right hand to the left hand is still using a sword (see what I did there? :p). I've actually heard Matthew 10:34 and Luke 14:26 used to justify hate mongering, for example. Sadly the trap of hate is one easy to fall into. Those verses, Yeshua bringing a sword to divide, and saying one must hate others to love him, I chose for a reason and not randomly. It's again that tribalism; that old us vs them that's the trap I'm warning against.

I don't consider myself a LaVeyan in any sense, and I will break down a relevant statement in his Satanic Bible and what I disagree with, since this is what I am comparing my position to:

“Love is one of the most intense feelings felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love. Repressed hatred can lead to many physical and emotional aliments. By learning to release your hatred towards those who deserve it, you cleanse yourself of these malignant emotions and need not take your pent-up hatred out on your loved ones.”  - Anton LaVey's The Satanic Bible (1969)

Okay, so love and hate are intense. So far so good.  But the moment he starts talking about indiscriminate love he never contrasts about indiscriminate hate. Yes, I understand that most hateful Satanic types do discriminate, although too often I've seen it be over petty things. There's seems to be something in the id so to speak, that thrives on the release of hating people for stupid crap. This isn't to say this is LaVeyans specifically who do that, funny enough I've seen it with theists quite a lot, but in a lot of ways they take things like this to an extreme and so the passage merited quoting. I picked LaVeyan / Church of Satan out of any other sect as it's one of the few notable groups espousing a view on the pro-hate end of the spectrum. (also funny enough there are more LaVeyan influenced theistic Satanists than first impressions might give otherwise if my online interactions are any indication).

I don't know how we determine who "deserves" hate. What LaVey failed to account for is that since Satanism exalts the subjectivity of the individual there won't be any measure beyond whim for who "deserves" what. Such inclinations in my opinion quickly lend to tyranny of those higher up in the social "stratification" as LaVey's successor Gilmore would put it.

I don't think 99.9% of people can experience "indiscriminate love" but surely an attempt respect for all life is at least on some level rational. Satan is the god of man, of our nature. And there is a part of our nature that does seek to better itself. I'm reminded of an Episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where the Android named Data (who wishes to be a human) says it's not important that he will never become fully human, just important that he is always trying to improve himself. That to me, that constant self improvement, and personal evolution is what is at the heart of humanity and Satanism. So why can't we aim to try to love more? Perhaps even universally so? It might not be possible, but it's surely worth the effort.

LaVey almost made a valid point, but missed the mark when he said "repressed hate" instead of "repressed emotion". Hate itself, from what I've come to understand of it, festers and grows off of itself. And that's the danger. Most people (I hope) don't take out their frustrations on other people or their loved ones. I honestly think LaVey might of been speaking from experience when he spoke on that.

If someone has someone they really dislike causing them trouble they might diffuse the tension with something healthy like a hobby or working out, whatever. But taking it out on a living being? Even loved ones if they can't against the aggressor? Something more is going on there that most well adjusted people don't have (or at least I hope so anyways).

There are times though, I think "hate" of a sort is warranted, but very rarely so. It's too subjective and honestly if something is that malicious one can address the person or situation indifferently and rationally. I also would say that hate is pretty much something people should avoid as much as possible since it uses up energy and effort. Quite literally it's not worth the effort. If they are truly that bad, it's not worth hating and getting worked up over. They don't deserve your hate. That's why I say, who really deserves hate?

A Satanist should seek to improve themselves, not get carried away with those who are against them. That energy is better spent on becoming a better person, a better Satanist, a better human. Maybe Data had a point. Maybe it isn't the fact that one will ever stop hating entirely but just the fact that they won't be consumed or distracted by it as much and can better spend that effort on themselves is all that matters.

And a topic for another time, but nor does that mean one should be self righteous or arrogant in their dismissal of those they now "don't hate" :) Truly not caring is even less than that; it's not having much of an emotional reaction at all.

November 20, 2017, 10:06:44 am
1
Re: Would you follow a Satan similar to the one from christian mythos? Well yes. If Christianity is somewhat true somehow, then the "truth" of it must be something like gnostic satanism. There no conceivable way that Yahweh is actually some all loving all powerful creator. He is a weak enslaver.
May 19, 2018, 04:25:11 pm
1
Re: Origin of Lucifer Welcome @Etu Malku
August 12, 2018, 12:46:40 am
1
MOVED: Origin of Lucifer This topic has been moved to Mercuræn Luciferianism.

http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?topic=760.0

August 13, 2018, 05:36:05 pm
1
Introduction Hello Everyone, Thank you for having me! I am a Mystai in the Herald of the Dawn. I practice Mercureanism, more specifically non-traditional Enochian Magick. I’m glad to be here!-Papa Midnight
August 14, 2018, 02:06:41 am
1
How would you describe the LHP? Hi all,
I've been asked to write a short piece on the LHP, how it is different to the RHP and why it is not necessarily evil. I'm not entirely sure where to start so wondered if anyone had any suggestions? I think part of the issue is that it's such a big topic :/
Thanks in advance

August 23, 2018, 08:22:29 pm
1
Re: Origin of Lucifer The Morning Star lead the horses of the sun, but the Evening Star lead the horses of the moon.
Statius, Thebaid 8. 159 ff :
"Dark Vesper (the Evening Star) [Hesperos] is already leading forth the horses of the moon."

August 31, 2018, 01:59:21 am
1
Re: Origin of Lucifer Mercuræn Luciferianism is easily becoming one of my favorite boards created in the forum as of late. Excellent contributions, everyone :) Also, thanks @Etu Malku for sharing.
August 31, 2018, 02:16:35 am
1