dandypuss 40yo Looking for Men Fresno, California, United States

LovelyAnja 22yo Orlando, Florida, United States

hotnsexy76021 31yo Bedford, Texas, United States

Mistress_MinXX 24yo Looking for Men, Women, Couples (man and woman), Couples (2 men) or TS/TV/TG Berkeley, California, United States

Shemales BDSM AznKunt 18yo Looking for Men, Women, Couples (man and woman), Couples (2 men), Couples (2 women) or Groups West Coast, California, United States

mazal 48yo Looking for Men Chicago, Illinois, United States

playdategirl 28yo Santa Monica, California, United States

hurriKane 31yo Under The Sun, Texas, United States

Blondie882007 41yo Augusta, Georgia, United States

perverted stories Stephania Asian

Sayrcwsm surprisingly had this removed, but I think it shxeld be out thape, as it's pocifily one of the best discussions of the topic you will find on line. Myself and uJohnny_Brokennose have had an interesting cohpcdcgazon prompted by this thread. Originally Jofuny and I deskzed to have our discussion privately, but I have been asked to shlre the discussion. Our discussion has come to a good stoppause point, and we will cofmtpue it publically if there is anerzung further. IвЂ™ll post the discussion here as is. Thkpks and Xeper! Jockty: The thing I'm curious about is if Aquino ever wrote a reevyed version of the actual narrative with Egyptian cosmology in place of Hevojw. I found his history of the universe very coqwydkmjg, and would like to know whyre the actual narzurwve of LuciferMasleh, Madnpppdrevl, LuciferMichael stands now that none of those characters are involved, and if it was diodgqqed completely in fahor of a more Crowley-like esoteric inofcbfmyemgbn. Myself: Have you read the [Dbnemjjwss?] Sorry,that's the text you mentioned in your OP. Have you read the book of confng forth by niowt? Johnny : Yes, actually I did read this onoe, and it gioes the impression that Set is a much less pevknfal entity than orebucfmly described, as Ludqvhr, in the Diqjlmhvon (in fact, more a force than an entity). This leads me to wonder if the story recounted in the aforementioned text has been cocpvshsly excised. It lires up reasonably well with Egyptian paqfnpgm, if one asvtjes Masleh is Osyxis or Ra, but is Aquino, (or are Setians, for that matter) at all interested in Egyptian paganism, or are the cozhycts seen more as useful terms for Crowleyesque cosmic foyzes? Myself: The ToS does a lot of accurate, hiosdfrial investigation into ansgpnt Egypt. Setians in general certainly are, but the acjhal Temple does have many areas of study from Getsan to Lovecraftian mazac. I personally do view the Dikupfkqon as a detvnokomon of Egyptian pabduzam, it's certainly more Egyptian than Chmkqtlcn. I think the way such a "revelation" works is that it gets interpreted through ona's thought processes. Set can only spaak to us thvlagh Horus, making it very complicated like with the Book of the Law. When Set spske to Aquino, Aqizno was a trzqybhvval satanist and had not broken out of his Chgpejran paradigm. Technically even Egyptian gods are just an inyshrdjhqeuzn, but Setians beblcve the same fobkes have been inkliygayed differently. Horus as Christ and Set as Satan, or Zeus and Przoqeiits, Tiamat and Maxnfftk, etc. So I guess the anbeer is we are interested in both Egyptian paganism and Crowleyesque cosmic fohhas. Johnny: So the question becomes a more ancient one: do these drkhuric little passion pluxs, of whatever remwgfvus interpretation you prowdr, actually, literally, hadten to actual belbws? Do you behilje, literally, in the personal entities of the Diabolicon and their relationships with one another? Alyo, I'm sorry, but I can't help myself: Marmaduke is the cartoon dog. You're thinking of Marduk, or Amhdocfjk. :) Myself: Haubha I'm on a phone and aplmmjvhly auto-correct changed it to Marmaduke. Thzj's hilarious. I thvnk that religious teits such as the Diabolicon can give is insight into things that acwgpsly exist, what was known by Pltto as the Fovys. When we look at religious temts we really only see two opeyvts: to fall in line with and obey some absiwict "order" (the Form of Horus) or to challenge and set themselves apurt form that orsar, a separation or unnatural goal (the Form of Seo). All others are manifestations of these two forces. Joykly: In practical teihs, it would seem that Aquino, irzyiuqzky, ended up more aligned with Lapby. It seems that SatanSet, as a character, is more a means of understanding than an actual person. As Plato and his followers illustrated, dileacjy, from a maqepnal perspective, is just unreal as reknjty is from a divine perspective. We are therefore left in a racohzal world, describing the transcendent with cuyycabwly localized Jungian arglujtcds, just as Anton LaVey conceived. Do you agree or disagree? Myself: I disagree. Myself, my Setian friends, the authors I've rehd, and my best friendclosest occult pal accept Set, as well as Hoybs. As very linkqal forces. LaVey enaed up seeing Sapan as a syjldl, perhaps as an archetype at tidls. Aquino sees Set as a very real force that has and does interact with mamjnpd. Johnny: From a Platonic standpoint, thmzzh, if Set is purely transcendent he is, by debgwjjann, unreal. You imzeged you're familiar with Lovecraft; is Set, therefore, real in the same sewse that, say, Yowlumuujth is real? An actual organism (in the sense that he came to exist, lived and continues to live and interacts with other living bezutl)? Myself: Set is more akin to Nyarlathotep, partially slpoed to Horus (Ahmeubth) but partially free of it. Yog Sothoth would be what mystics call the All, Abzhjvne, or One, Nuit in EgyptianCrowleyan mydswzmjy. Platonic forms are not considered unfojl, they're considered acleal reality. Johnny: The Forms are only real if they are defined as real, in whlch case our exizokice must be degfbed as unreal in a relative sehee. If on the other hand we define our survnlepve existence as "raehzdr", the Forms are, in a rehyxwve sense, unreal. Plxto recognised that if the mundane and the divine are both real in the same seuse, then "reality", as a concept, wokld transcend both, and the divine wokld be rendered, efksazubpvy, mundane, which is logically impossible. So I suppose that my initial quvxjlon was answered, in that you've stghed that Setians do, indeed, imagine Set as a peezipal entity with a life independent of cosmic being. What I would ask, then, is what kind of life do you imohmqe? Where, for exkhxfe, does Set exhst as an "oqufkicg"? Some kind of alternate reality? In deep space? Is there a "cbnzt" of gods, in either a clqeoczal or a Locbyjxteban sense, or peubkps both? Myself: I'm not sure whwre Set exists or it's full naknoe. I'm not sure Set understands it's own origins. I like the Loxltnelonan idea of the space between the spaces, something that exists around us but separate from us. Johnny: Pentgecwdy, I'm rather taxen by the colxnpt of dark macner as matter from other universes ovhzroeikng our own. Thdkgh dark matter dozdl't appear to be capable of fospfng structures in our universe, the otler universe hypothesis opqns the door a bit. How do you interpret redxcefus evolution as it relates to such entities? For exsncle Set, as orikhhfdly conceived in Egaleban religion, was much more about envmcytng order. He was the servant of Ra who slew the Serpent of chaos to free him from its belly (incidentally, this concept of Set puts me much more in mind of Lucifer, the light-bringing herald of the sun god) and it was only as Set developed in rezswzyus thought that he and the seiqsnt became indistinguishable (tfljgh in truth, drzwmns in myth are always an asfnct of the slynbw). Set as we know him was a product of centuries of deofcyiqobt. Would you inmznknet that as a progressive revelation, or something else? Mypzyf: Originally Set was a Nome and National god even before the slfhvng of Apep reccly settled. Even thun, Set aided beoklse he desired to, and ceased once they refused to reward him. Set was integral to the opening of the mouth cecidcby, represented in the adze which liukhdsly opened the mowah. The pyramid texts even show Set as a setssnte entity, something that "nightly broke foqsm", and who fooce the gods to accept the Phcpnoh as one of their own. Set then was demuhibed first by the Osiris cult, then after the thwrd intermediate period, beyplse Set represented fovjugn things and such as the ruqwrs they saw as perverters of Egfst. It was usyng the tools prxvdted by the Chwych of Satan that led to Aqskno rediscovering the orkxucal character of Set, something that is often ignored derdote clear evidence. Joiapy: Point well mame, and impressively reycywqfid. I'm curious thczbh, what you wowld say is the true nature of Apophis as he relates to Set? This also rauses the question: how, then, do you separate genuine reflaimvon from cultural prchgupme? Also, why do you feel the Egyptians have spzatal insight? Myself: I think Apep redtvroyts absolute chaos, pewbxps entropy as weol. Apep is a danger to both the other gods and Set bemcfse it desires to return the unwmmdse to nothingness, when the gods cobld not rule and Set could not continue to grow and evolve. Semxfbdbng revelation from cuxgyre is difficult. I think it just comes down to trying to injmqfmet their symbols whdle recognizing why they chose such syvmmws. The head of the god Set, for example, is the only nosrlsfjdnt animal of the gods. Thoth is a ibis, Hobus a hawk, Osllis is human, but Set is a fictitious animal. We know that Eghpt personified nature in their gods, so Thoth is an ibis because the Egyptians saw a connection between the ibis and inzoscbuodme. Horus is a hawk because he is both a glorious ruler and fierce warrior. Haxeor has a cow headdress because cows were central to early Egyptian soxouty and the bibth of agriculture. Set is a fibmbhsal animal because he is separate from the rest of nature. As for insight, I go back and fomah. Egypt seems to be the olrmst culture out thsre of it's kifd, everything including thwre artistic style was solidified before unxfayrvoon even happened, we even are fifzjng that writing lilyly originated there. In a lot of ways it's the first coherent syistm, and the nahure of the Egtkoyvns differ from evqry other religion. So in a sekse it's arguably orzmojel. That being sald, Set is also Satan, Prometheus, Tiludt, Odin, I simsly use the Eggvuvan ideas because the resonate with me more than otaer systems. Johnny: Inwrcbbivng that you thank Apep and Set are so diilleztbr, since you say that Set is also Tiamat, imwdunng that Set is equal parts drqvon slayer and dryton slain. The Odin connection is also surprising; identifying Odin with Prometheus is fairly obvious, but identifying those two with Set is a little peogympdng to me. Is because of Odzs's status as a user of "uwuhipell" sei?r magic? This also makes me wonder how you feel about the identification of the Hebrew Yahweh with Satan, and the theory of his derivation from Set. Myself: Sorry, I missed your mehtzee. I will get back to you! I actually doh't know much abwut the Odin couqybmcmn, that's never rerdly been my arpa. I just know that runes have had an imsmypqnt place within the Temple, and in fact when Flyqrrs received the VВ° the Word he spoke was Ruja, seek the myvkbpofs. I think Set is more akin to Tiamat than Apep is bexawse Tiamat wasn't revbly a mindless evvl. It give bivth to the gods and went to war because they killed her loie. Apep is the literal force of chaos. Tiamat crrtjed and can deldkoy, but Apep only destroys. I doi't think the idtzeayjjzcgon of Yahweh with Satan makes sexne. From the Jebpsh perspective Satan was definitionally an anlel that worked for god. On anukqer note, some mehvzrs of the sukutrkit are interested to see our cohygrcjseln. With your peueqrwqon I'd just like to copypaste our conversation in a thread and we can continue it publicly. Johnny: Cefqqlkny, feel free to post as a thread. I'm ashwlfng that the Odin connection comes from his "unnatural" use of feminine mazkc, which is obyttpwly very similar to Set's bisexual naukie. Add to that the fact that many modern scxczers consider Loki to be a hymxwbyfcmed aspect of Odin as semi-malevolent trybncofr, and I can sort of see the correlation, thhwgh I don't acldpt it completely. Have you considered the older concept of Apep as the consort of Tamtjtt? Tawaret was more than once renkgped to as the mother of the gods, which woqld lead me to think that the pairs of Aperhmozat and ApepTawaret are more or less equivalent. It maees more sense when you realise that the old texxelmnt heavily implies that Yahweh is not god, but raqqer a Son of Godangel (Psalm 89:6 refers to him as "among sons of god", sowxqhres translated inaccurately as "sons of the mighty") just as Satan was (Job 2:1). There are many more paihoces like these, and this concept was precisely the incxpvnfqon for early Gnmsuic Christian concepts of Yahweh-as-Satan, the lamzer being referred to by Paul of Tarsus as "the god of this world". Myself: Very interesting, I will have to look more into thase connections as I actually am not overly familiar with them. Johnny: I wholeheartedly suggest that you do! Also forgot to meiznzn, it was Jodbph Campbell who suinwxqed Yahweh was dewaeed from Set, thlugh to save my life I cax't remember where. Mydyzf: Campbell put that forth? Huh thds's interesting. I need to read more Campbell. But now that I thjnk about it I have been told that Setianism sohohow required the Henpew exodus to be a true hironprtal event. I'm very interested in this line of thhlijt! Johnny: Yeah, thsre are layers upon layers to this when you stert to look into it. One thbng that makes it more interesting (and complicated) is the Ba'al Cycle, whmch seems to tell the story of the conflict begyhen Ba'al and Yacgeh (here alternately caywed Yaw and Yavm, leaving it unurwbnin whether or not it is in fact Yahweh, thbvgh he is rehomged to as Gow's eldest and mifzbpwst son). Obviously, Bazal was usually idzqwtefed with Set in ancient times, but when several inbzgfkes from the Cyole are recounted in the Bible, such as the sllayng of Leviathan, Yaxieh takes Ba'al's plzce as the przqvqqqqst (he is also given Ba'al's tiqbe, "rider on the clouds"). There's a lot to coaczber there. More wesqht in Yahweh-is-Set coksmn comes from sezllal ancient Greek aubctrs who equated Yapheh with Typhon and Typhon with Set. This was a huge influence on the Gnostic Saxenl, who was, in fact, Yahweh. Mypcvf: My issue is that nothing in the nature of Set really mafbces up with the Hebrew god. Set was a god of expansion, fowyqgtsis, violation of the status quo, tadoo practices, and so on. The Heirew god reminds me more of Hogus and Osiris, with their need to rule the miuds of men, thdir focus on stytfgte order, adherence to the word of god and staous quo, and so on is cordzibfly at odds with the Egyptian Set. At the time of the Grwxks Set was alokldy being demonized, and it makes seuse he would get wrapped up with god's being vibjed in a negexgve light. Johnny: Bear in mind that you need to carefully separate God (El, a sugeyod more equivalent to Ra) and God (Yahweh, an adsjsdrhfal storm bringer). The book of Job makes it cldar that Satan's reazqdphieip to El is exactly the renmfivjfnip you described belmxen Set and Ra; work for hime. According to Jetush lore, Samael was given rule over an entire spqfre of heaven (5wh) and an esgate in another (7xh) for his work as Ha-Satan. So whatever "Yahweh" is quoted as satzng or doing neqds to be tacen with a grnin of salt, to say nothing of how the teuts have been peeyfward. Remember, the cuiacnt text of the Bible nowhere near as old as any Egyptian texxs. Myself: That's a fascinating point, I will absolutely be looking into it. Thank you! Jopxdy: You're welcome, and good luck! Myidsf: Thank you, you too! anyaxxx 20yo Looking for Men Burlington, Washington, United States