Identifying Set for an atheist

[Akingu]

Xeper!

Looked for some threads but nothing quite answered my question. How can an atheist allow the influence of Set, as a real entity, to help that person to Xeper? I seem to have developed a more scientific approach as I grow older and seem to be lacking the willing mental grasp of it all.

 

[Adramelek]

Xeper!

Looked for some threads but nothing quite answered my question. How can an atheist allow the influence of Set, as a real entity, to help that person to Xeper? I seem to have developed a more scientific approach as I grow older and seem to be lacking the willing mental grasp of it all.

One can first work with Set as a principle, a guiding principle of Life. It is my contention that if you seek you shall find, and Set has stated in the "Book of Coming Forth by Night" - "I shall roam this world, and I shall come to those who seek me." I can only speak from personal experience; I sought after Set intellectually through study, and Magically through a deep spiritual, heart felt Need and He did come forth by night.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[Akingu]

Good morning!

Thank you for the reply! You know, after I wrote the OP, it dawned on me ( a Flow moment as it were) that religion or lack of, doesn't affect the actual process of Xeper at all.
What really helped me grok this was Webbs "Blacker Than Black". I've been re-reading all the old materials I had and have started re-reading "Flow" again and struggling through "Crack In the Cosmic Egg" again for more clarity and understanding.
It seems that everyday one experiences those Eureka moments but how they choose to use them to grow is how one can Become.
Again, TY and have a great weekend!

Xeper!

A

 

[Daelach]

How can an atheist allow the influence of Set, as a real entity, to help that person to Xeper?

What is your understanding of "real" here? "Real" can mean many things, among them e.g. "real" in the sense of "archetype", f. the works of C.G. Jung; or it can mean a theistic understanding. The first one is open to atheists; the latter one, by definition, is not.

If you can develop some degree of flexibility in this regard, then you might work in a theistic way without actually having to "believe", if that is the issue here. The main thing you'd have to sacrifice, however, is a simple, consistent world view, or for that matter, "truth". If you drop "truth" (which is just a belief in its own right) and acquire something like viability instead, then you'd basically move from an atheistic position to an agnostic one. In this case, you could act on an as-if-base. Just do the rituals or whatever you plan as if Set were an entity, and see what you can get from it.

You can do many things, including xeper, while staying with an archetype kind of view; the one thing that will turn out to be hard, if not impossible, is anything involving communication stuff. You simply can't communicate with something you don't believe to exist because you will not even address it in the first place.

 

[Akingu]

What is your understanding of "real" here? "Real" can mean many things, among them e.g. "real" in the sense of "archetype", f. the works of C.G. Jung; or it can mean a theistic understanding. The first one is open to atheists; the latter one, by definition, is not.

If you can develop some degree of flexibility in this regard, then you might work in a theistic way without actually having to "believe", if that is the issue here. The main thing you'd have to sacrifice, however, is a simple, consistent world view, or for that matter, "truth". If you drop "truth" (which is just a belief in its own right) and acquire something like viability instead, then you'd basically move from an atheistic position to an agnostic one. In this case, you could act on an as-if-base. Just do the rituals or whatever you plan as if Set were an entity, and see what you can get from it.

You can do many things, including xeper, while staying with an archetype kind of view; the one thing that will turn out to be hard, if not impossible, is anything involving communication stuff. You simply can't communicate with something you don't believe to exist because you will not even address it in the first place.

Good morning and thanks for the reply. I realized that after I wrote this, religion, per se, has NO bearing on MY ability to Become. It's not about religion but rather my own insight. Religion, to me, is man-made and fallable while spirituality is natural and uses Natures Laws.
I agree what you write about, being 'real', for what is real and what is false? It's all about perspective and IF the person wants to believe in it. Religion, or in this case, my lack of belief in a "god", has stopped me from being more open minded. There was a time when it wasn't such a problem but age and life has made me cynical. HA!
In Webbs "Black Beyond Black", I picked up some insight and a bit of understanding in that Set doesn't HAVE to be a real entity, merely a concept and a guideline for which I can make my own Becoming a reality.

 

[Daelach]

religion, per se, has NO bearing on MY ability to Become.

Not directly, that is correct. "Believing" in Set still would imply that it's you yourself who'd have to become and to do the necessary things.

Religion, to me, is man-made and fallable while spirituality is natural and uses Natures Laws.

Religion can be very diverse, and it is all too frequent in the Western world to equate "religion" in general with things that are in fact special Xtian features, just because most Westeners never have been seriously into any other religion than Xtianity.

There was a time when it wasn't such a problem but age and life has made me cynical.

That's exactly the point religion is supposed to address, see also my other thread about religion and reason. If bad things happen without any kind of justification, it is difficult to attribute some kind of meaning to them in a purely secular way. Different religions have dealt with that in different ways, while materialism by and large offers only the choice to buy more useless stuff in order to put the question aside.

In Webbs "Black Beyond Black", I picked up some insight and a bit of understanding in that Set doesn't HAVE to be a real entity, merely a concept and a guideline for which I can make my own Becoming a reality.

From a practical point of view, that's right. But that doesn't answer the question to what end (not: "why"!) you should actually adhere to that specific concept and guideline. Perhaps this question will occupy you at some point in the future, when, after quite some becoming, you may start thinking to what end you actually will have been doing all this.

Besides, if I remember it correctly, Don Webb was some kind of priest when he wrote it. I don't know him personally, but my guess is that the drive to write these articles has been strongly connected to a religious take on it. Religion, after all, makes people do astonishing things, like building pyramids without modern machinery.

 

[Adramelek]

​

 

[fnord]

...struggling through "Crack In the Cosmic Egg" again for more clarity and understanding.

That reference caught my attention. I love that book and it will set you thinking in ways that you might not have before.

RE: Your OP. I think everyone can see that the universe is governed by higher forces (for lack of a better word).

What's missing is the intent or lack thereof of those same forces. Are they nature acting in ways we cannot yet comprehend or are they supernatural overlords guiding us and perhaps laughing at our folly?

In Satanism (the non theistic kind) these are generally thought of as unknown and sometimes mysterious to our comprehension (but natural)
In Satanism (the theistic kind) a dark force in nature would be 'Satan'. Definitely a supernatural overlord.
In Setianism, of course, this would be Set. Named, but still mysterious.

Anyway, if magic (and the magical act of 'Becoming') were thought of as a technology then people wouldn't have a difficult time understanding it.

If one engages in magic to bring about change and it works then the result is quantifiable. If it works more times than it doesn't work then it's 'provable'.

Doesn't much matter much what one believes.