Samaelism has adopted, philosophically and religiously, the monotheistic position without any doubt. It is therefore fundamental to understand why this position has been considered rational enough to be imported in our religion  as a system of thought and believes.
As we can easily see in the LHP landscape, monotheism is not very popular, since it is almost always associated to a negative vision of religion which is, likewise, linked to the ideas of discrimination, religious violence and extremism . The majority of the LHP philosophies known nowadays has therefore adopted a polytheistic point of view which is, generally, considered more open-minded and tolerant , but also better linked with the plurality of δαιμονες who live in the LHP imaginative.
On the other hand, monotheism seems to appear a very irrational choice for a form of spirituality or for a religion which ethic is strictly linked to the concepts of tolerance, cooperation and Agàpe . Academic studies have indeed showed that the monotheistic approach is easier to degenerate into fanaticism and violent movements, since the believe into a single Deity logically implies the denial of the existence of any other deity. 
In this article we will deepen the subject analyzed in the fifth volume of the Exalogy  and we will try to defend theoretically the monotheistic approach from the easier and simplier believe in a plurality of divine elements.
The reasons of Monotheism
A first attempt to logically demonstrate the existence of a single Deity was made by Aristotle  even if a tendency to rationalize the existence of the divine element into a single form was already developed into the greek and even into the Egyptian system of believes.
It must be said, indeed, that even if the majority of population, in Greece, was polytheistic, the academic elites, such as the philosophers, already developed an attitude to believe in the existence of only a divine substance, sometimes associable to our idea of God. 
The reasons of this tendency can be found into the theoretical speculation of that time, which led the majority of philosophers and thinkers to the idea that, if the world was a sequence of causes and effects, therefore it is necessary to identify a single uncaused cause which of course corresponds to God. As already said, Aristotle brought these speculations to a new whole level, introducing the theoretical distinction between substance and form, but even between the causes of existence. 
Of course we must say that this is not the fist time in history in which the monotheistic vision is adopted in a theoretical speculation, because at the time of Aristotle, the jewish tradition had already left the enotheistic ideas and had adopted the monotheistic position. Monotheism was not, for this reason, a greek invention, but started to be shared by more and more people.
Even in Plato  we find a relevant speculation regarding the Demiurge, who cannot be completely absorbed into the idea of God, but who is seen as single supernatural entity whose purpose is to reorganize the chora, which was the greek term to point at an undefinable state of the matter before the Creation. So, Plato's idea was not very similar to the creationist view expressed in the Bible, rather it was associable to the idea of "organization", since the Demiurge's work was limited in organizing the matter in new forms.
The absence of a speculation defined as "creationist" in the ancient thought is related to the classical system of believes, very well represented by the latin poet Lucrezio, in his De rerum natura  where we can find one of the most famous expressions on this subject: «Principium cuius hint nobis exordia sumet, nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus umquam». This expression was related on the greek atomistic philosophy of Democritus which was, likewise, based on a Parmenide's principle: οὐδέν ἐξ οὐδενός later translated in latin as Ex nihilo nihil [fit] and therefore: «It is not possibile for anything to be born form the Nothingness».
The problem, here, is merely theoretical: the Greeks and the Latins did not have an idea of the Nothingness as we do. For them, the simple idea of an infinite emptiness was simply a non-sense . This is why, the expression above was used by the ancients as one of the main arguments against the idea of creation expressed in the Bible.
Apart from this theoretical issue related to these two opposed vision on the creation (creationist and demiurgic), we must say that the success of monotheism relies on the fact that the ancients, at least in their most educated classes, were already used to think at a single deity and not anymore at a plurality of gods.
With the advent of Christianity, the same discourse can be made for the Roman Empire. If on one hand, when we think at the Romans we think at a very polytheistic society based on the practice called interpretatio , on the other hand, during the late Empire, we are before a society whose majority of people was already very near to the cult of Mitra , a monotheistic and initiatic religion particularly popular among soldiers and aristocrats. Mithra was, indeed, a: «[...] demiurge and master of generation» .
In his traditional iconography, Mithra is represented busy sacrificing a bull. This action, should have been perceived as salvific, as attested by the inscription underneath the church of Santa Prisca: «Et nos servasti (a) eternali sanguine fuso» .
It would not be inappropriate to think, that both Mithra and the bull were symbols of divine salvation, prefigurations of Christ, who creates and redeems humanity spilling his own blood. 
Later, during the late stages of the Roman Empire, the cult of Mithra was developed, once again, on Plato's philosophy and Mithra became the Creator who had the power on all the other gods. This very specific imaginative helped, of course, the spreading of Christianity into the Roman Empire since, as we have already said above, the population was already used to think at a solar God, creator of the universe, savior of humanity and so on.
At that time, the plurality of gods was not considered to be a heresy, but neither we can imagine that the transition between monotheism and polytheism was immediate or created by the persecution carried out by the christians against the pagans.
In this case, the aforementioned transition was mostly pacific and depended on a certain amount of philosophical ideas, spreading into the population and its religious imaginative.
Whether Samaelism is a convinced monotheism, it is not our purpose to write an apology of this system of thought; what we want to do here is to show the reasons of our choice, related to the majority of LHP spiritualities which are nowadays considered as polytheistic.
Too many Gods: the satanic contradiction
Talking about Satanism as a form of religion  we must say that, generally, we are before a theistic system of believes with very poor arguments and without any theoretical and convincing demonstrations of their thoughts. Of course there are some exceptions and this discourse is not applied to the so-called " rationalism" which we do not considered as a form of satanism itself.
In a previous article we had the chance to shortly confront some basic ideas of the main satanic currents, highlighting how contradictory and grandiloquent they can be. On a theoretical level there are a few thoughts which can be considered as serious and usually they belong to big, well-known and international organizations or initiatic orders. The problem with satanism can be described on multiple levels which we are going to highlight with a series of questions:
-How many gods do you believe in?
-How many demons do you believe in and why?
-Why to worship a demon if you can worship directly your Deity?
-Why the worshipping of demons is just the same of the one dedicated to the Deity? Aren't they substantially different?
-Why do you continue to rely on a monotheistic speculation (grimoires, demonology, theology, magic et similia) if you despise these same traditions?
These are just a few of the many questions that any rational human being would ask to those who identify themselves as "satanist". For convenience in our analysis we will try to focus on the first and fourth points.
In the first place, we must understand way deeper the difference that many satanic currents make between YHWH (called Demiurge) and HWHY (The true antinomic God). Indeed, reading this kind of speculation we can easily realize how it is simply a turnover of the christian vision of the universe, without any additional explanation. To be honest, what this kind of speculation does is to complicate the Universe, by the addition of a second metaphysical entity, substantially equivalent to the other. Where the monotheism managed to simplify the Universe reducing the number of divine elements to only one, this kind of speculations make the things more complicating by adding not only an anti-god (which is the real god, in their opinion, n.d.a.) but even an infinite amount of demons, spirits and entities without any tradition behind it. If we look at the list of these entities we can see how they have been taken some from the jewish demonology, some from the christian demonology other from the Latin-American or African tradition: what a mess!
On the other hand, even if we admit a plurality of divine elements, we must understand why all these elements are venerated in the same why: why should be god praised in the same way as demons. After all, if a metaphysical element is substantially different from the principle entity (i.e. God) it is logical to admit that the veneration reserved to both this categories of entities should be different. But, at least in satanism, it is not. This absence of difference shows not only a lack of logic but a total lack of any theoretical and rational speculation on the subject. The majority of satanists today tend to read a book and blindly follow what is therein written: what a shame!
For all the reasons above, Samaelism has adopted a monotheistic vision, where there is only one God whose manifestation are multiple and personal. God can be perceived in a way by someone and in a totally different way by someone else. In Samaelism there is no place for demons, who are considered to be just as personifications of metaphysical archetypes which we are called to work with .
In Samaelism there is no place for ignorance, approximation or lack of theoretical speculations. It is our duty to ask questions, give answers, doubt of the answers and ask again, and again and again, untile a small, almost invisible, part of God becomes accessible to our spirit and perception. This is what Samaelism is about: not false promises, not grotesque aesthetics and adolescent rebellion, but hard work, theoretical thought, communion with God.
 cfr. Ordo Adamantis Atri, Exalogy of the Serpent vol. V, Amazon 2023, pp.5-16
 cfr. J. Assman, Monotheism and Mosaic distinction, Morcelliana Edizioni, Brescia 2016
 cfr. M. Bettini, Elegy of Polytheism, Il Mulino, Bologna 2014
 Ordo Adamantis Atri, Treatise of Samaelite Doctrine, Amazon 2021, pp. 181-226
 M. Bettini, Elegy of Polytheism, Il Mulino, Bologna 2014, pp. 41-46
 Ordo Adamantis Atri, Exalogy of the Serpent vol. V, Amazon 2023
 cfr. Aristotle, Metaphysics, any edition
 Specifically, the heresy of Akhenaton is particularly relevant because is the first attempt to institutionalize a monotheistic vision into a polytheistic society. To deepen the subject: G. Filoramo, M. Massenzio, M. Raveri, P. Scarpi, Manual of History of Religions, Laterza, Bari 2021, pp. 42-43
 M. Bonazzi, Theological Reflection and critic to the religious tradition: from Senofane of Colofone to the sophists, in M. Bonazzi (edited by), History of Ancient Philosophy: from the origins to Socrates, Carocci Editore, Roma 2016
Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book XIV, any edition
 Plato, Timaeus, any edition
 Lucrezio, De Rerum Natura, any edition, vv.149-150
 In favor of this thesis, please confront Parmenide's ideas on the non-being. To deepen this subject cfr. M. Bonazzi, History of Ancient Philosophy: from the origins to Socrates, Carocci Editore, Roma 2016
 M. Bettini, Elegy of Polytheism, Il Mulino, Bologna 2014, pp. 65-70
 Alfredo Cattabiani, Symbols, Myths and Mysteries of Rome, Newton Compton, Roma 1990, pp. 83-92
 Porfirio, De antro nympharum, 25.
 Alfredo Cattabiani, Symbols, Myths and Mysteries of Rome, Newton Compton, Roma 1990, p. 83
 A.A.V.V., The Bible, John 1,3 and 12-13
 cfr. Ordo Adamantis Atri, Exalogy of the Serpent vol. I, Amazon 2020
 Ordo Adamantis Atri, Treatise of Samaelite Doctrine, Amazon 2021