I say to you this has already been determined 2,000 years ago.
Maybe, but each individual determines it afresh for himself. You seem fine with another's determination previously made and uncertain about my determination previously made.
open the OT and you meet a different entity entirely
That is not self-evident.
Does that sound like
Frankly, it sounds like the result of a paradigm shift culminating in the 4th century about the testaments compounded by another paradigm shift in the 19th century in which self-declared experts made up their own interpretations without respect to original culture. I'm surprised you buy these recent German arguments instead of going to the source about what people actually thought when Jesus walked the earth. If any gnostic aspects predate that, they were dead for a millennium before these Germans revived them.
The true god I was referring to, the Monad or the Pleroma, is pure infinite consciousness. The Monad has no needs. It has no gender. It has no jealousy. It does not judge because nothing exists outside of it. It simply emanates light and love like the sun shines without condition.
Those attributes are not self-evident. That's why I asked exactly how we come to agreement on attributing things to entities. We could both talk into the air but that wouldn't be likely to bring agreement. It seems to me agreement is brought by agreeing to pursue truth wherever it leads and then working together from that common understanding to align our own paradigms. We could line up all the reasons the Monad is or isn't something and then infer the best explanation.
If you begin by proposing we don't need to agree and then continue with your belief system and a couple reasons as if they stand without needing questioning or in fact validation (as if it's important that people agree with you), that's kind of two different approaches.
Your stated reasons are (1) Yahweh's name is "Jealous", (2) Yahweh creates by separation (duality), (3) Yahweh seeks blood sacrifice; implied conclusion, Yahweh is not the Monad. You also give many supportive recent tropes about why one should conclude this. I asked how you'd like to resolve this, but you demurred to that question. If, for instance, the answer were "critical thinking" then we might both propose structures that appear to be critical thinking, but we'd still need to agree on basic rules of facts and logic so that we can determine which is better. We could both propound many arguments, I am known for going very long, but it wouldn't help if we weren't seeking some core agreement and were only trying to validate our own already-determined positions. Your propositions are not disabusing me of my errors because I've mostly seen them before and feel very comfortable with how I handle them in my own mind; plus they go in so many directions that it's hard to be selective. So let me go very basic.
(1) We agree that the Monad and an adversary exist (you also use "satan" so I trust I can substitute that too).
(2) When you say that adversary "exists because we validate him", I presume you mean he is benefited from our validation and deficited from our invalidation (not that he could cease to exist, or maybe you think he could), which I agree with.
(3) When you argue against belief or fear, I presume you mean not to put any trust or reverence in that adversary, which I agree with.
Why then should we give that adversary any undeserved credit by giving him titles or attributes beyond what is straitly revealed about him? Maybe Yahweh is some third entity that is neither Monad nor adversary, and this adversary is stealing all of Yahweh's thunder like he steals Zeus's thunder. It's not self-evident to me that all your assertions about an adversary have either historical or revelatory backup, they are just inferences that (to me) contribute toward glorifying that adversary. I hope you don't mind my speaking frankly about that because it seems to me central to the rest of the argument.
Sorry! I meant, your presentation involves a number of appeals to logic that were mostly first espoused in Germany in the 19th century, and I led with that thought in answer to your question of what it "sounds like" to me. My larger point is that we don't determine it by what it sounds like, and thus having an agreement on a way to resolve differing sounds seems to me more essential than you suggested.
I don't want to sound standoffish or anything; you've taken it on yourself to seek to give me a clearer view of things than the one I profess, and I'm interested in whether I'm wrong or not. If you wish to teach me what satan is and I don't find it convincing, my general question was how we could resolve such an impasse. For instance, we could appeal to common external revelation, or to a common external Spirit speaking to us both, or to common objective logic, definitions, historical facts, etc. You appeal to "critical thinking" but I've used that and gotten different conclusions, so it seems we need to be clearer on how we use critical thinking (or anything else) to arrive at the same answer. In math everyone gets the same answer with the same start, and it'd be nice for the same to happen in informal logic.
your presentation involves a number of appeals to logic that were mostly first espoused in Germany in the 19th century
OK. I had no idea. I have not looked at anything specific from Germany in the 19th century. I admit I briefly glossed at Friedrich Hegel and the Hegelian Dialectic, which inspired both Marxist theory and existentialist thought, albeit in radically different directions. But, I wasn't thinking of that when I replied to your message.
I'm interested in whether I'm wrong or not
I'm not sure either if you're right or wrong. To me that's really not that important, we have many lives to get everything right. I'm not trying to teach you who Satan is, I don't really know myself who he is or is not. I read to LaVeyan Satanism, Satan is a symbol of virtuous characteristics and liberty. To Christians Satan is the god of this world, who has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. I read to to Muslims he is known as Shaytaan. To Muslims he is the cause of deceptions originating from the mind and desires for evil. He is regarded as a cosmic force for separation, despair and spiritual envelopment.
You appeal to "critical thinking" but I've used that and gotten different conclusions, so it seems we need to be clearer on how we use critical thinking
Sure, you're right about this. Let me get back to you. Now I recall Jesus healed the man born blind. The disciples asked, "Who sinned? This man or his parents?". They were thinking in demiurgic terms. Jesus said, "Neither". Jesus was thinking in spiritual terms, the fullness/the Pleroma where there is no such thing as sin. It was not about critical thinking, Jesus and the disciples were not on the same page.
(1) Yahweh's name is "Jealous", (2) Yahweh creates by separation (duality), (3) Yahweh seeks blood sacrifice; implied conclusion, Yahweh is not the Monad
I had a chance to read your entire message. Your first part of the message didn't make any sense to me and I already told you so. However, this is correct. Except the conclusion, I'm not trying to convince you "Yahweh is not the Monad". I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Why are you making this statement? I already told you this was established 2,000 years ago. We don't need to talk about this any longer, but we could even thou it doesn't make any difference. If you or I are not right, we'll have another chance, and another, until infinity. Eventually we'll get it right.
the answer were "critical thinking" then we might both propose structures that appear to be critical thinking,
Sure, again you're right here. But, what difference does it make if we still need to agree on basic rules of facts and logic? again I'm not trying to prove anything and once again I say, it has been already been proven (2,000 years ago). It doesn't matter if we "determine which is better", it makes no difference. But, we could still argue about, and that could be fun, but that's it.
So let me go very basic. (1) We agree that the Monad and an adversary exist
No, we don't agree on this. What I said all along there is a spiritual realm, known as Pleroma and physical realm created by the Demiurge (Yahweh). Yahweh is not opposed to the Monad or Pleroma. He just doesn't know what's above him. All he knows, or feels, or senses the Pleroma, the true light above him. He knows there are other forces greater than him. And he is terrified. Terrified that his creation, the humans who carry the divine spark will discover the true Father and stop worshiping him. So what does he do? He acts like a narcissistic abusive partner. Look at me. Worship only me. If you look at another god, I will kill you. He commands exclusive devotion not because he deserves it but because he needs it to maintain the illusion. We live in Yahweh's simulation, or as Hindus say we are living in Vishnu's dream, which is nothing but an illusion.
(2) When you say that adversary "exists because we validate him", I presume you mean he is benefited from our validation and deficited from our invalidation
No, we don't agree on this. What I'm saying there is no adversary. There is only a physical world that was created on the principle of duality, wright or wrong, good or evil. I will give a lot of credit to Yahweh for creating everything, it's an amazing job he has done. But, it has to work on this principal of separation, duality, there is no other way. Because Yahweh is unaware of Pleroma, although he sense it. When you go to vote you really have two choices Democrat or Republican. Many say your vote matters, IMO, your vote does not make any difference. It's just an illusion, again created for you to feel good about it. In reality your vote doesn't influence the outcome, TPTB always select and control both sides. Just like the physical world we live in (as above so below). I don't care what you call this principle, good & evil, black & white, the Chinese call this Yin & Yang the absolute foundational principles of the physical universe.
(3) When you argue against belief or fear, I presume you mean not to put any trust or reverence in that adversary, which I agree with
No, we don't fully agree on this. IMO, Yahweh only creates the fear so he can sell us the protection. Whatever that may be, religion, empire, institutions. It's important that we live in a world of fear, suffering and pain. Like I said when a living being dies in a state of fear, pain, and trauma, it releases a massive amount of psychic energy. The demiurge and his archons are cut off from the eternal source of energy, the Pleroma. This is their food. They feed on low vibrational energy, fear, guilt, anger, and death. The entire sacrificial system of the OT was not a system of forgiveness. It was a harvesting system. It was a buffet.
We don't need to talk about this any longer, but we could even thou it doesn't make any difference. If you or I are not right, we'll have another chance, and another, until infinity. Eventually we'll get it right.
Well, logic seems to kick in here: If it doesn't make any difference, then it rapidly follows that no experience makes any difference and life is meaningless; but I don't think you conclude that. Second, if we have infinite chances, that doesn't logically prove that we'll get it right, we might get it wrong infinitely (again suggesting meaninglessness). Origen tried saying things like this after listening to gnostics, and neither he nor his followers ever finished working them out.
To the degree we believe in meaning, we converse to grow more adept at meaning.
It doesn't matter if we "determine which is better", it makes no difference. But, we could still argue about, and that could be fun, but that's it.
Logically, that implies that fun is a value but good (better) isn't.
No, we don't agree on this.
Thanks for disagreeing at point 1. Let's see:
John reveals "before anything existed, the Monad was."
So we agree on existence of the Monad.
Samael is an archangel in Talmudic and post-Talmudic lore; a figure who is the accuser or adversary, seducer, and destroyer.
So we agree on existence of Samael an adversary. I'm fine if you prefer the word "adversary" to the Hebrew translation "satan", as it appears "satan" has too much Christian baggage. Given those two, I'm not sure that we have any disagreement about existence of Monad and an adversary. As I said, we disagree on other attributes than those names.
What I'm saying there is no adversary.
Does that modify your statement Samael is an adversary? We could strip him of that title too, I suppose.
It's important that we live in a world of fear, suffering and pain .... archons are cut off from the eternal source of energy, the Pleroma.
Um, so you don't want us to believe in or fear these archons, or to give them any trust or reverence (or afraidness), which is what I thought I said. But if there's still some misunderstanding we can clear it up. If you find it meaningful.
Second, if we have infinite chances, that doesn't logically prove that we'll get it right
It's not what I'm saying. Life is not meaningless. Let me try again. Indeed we need to recognize that time is infinite. This one lifetime is just one experiment, one attempt. If you fail, if you spend this life chasing money and power and realize at the end that it was empty, that's OK. You'll get another chance and another and another. Eventually, you'll figure it out. We need to build our lives around what makes our divine spark glow and shine bright. When you're doing something and you feel alive, connected, purposeful, joyful, that's your spark glowing. Follow that feeling. Build a life around that. Don't chase what society tells you to chase. Jesus said, "Love your brother like your soul, guard him like the pupil of your eye." - Gospel of Thomas. And finally, we need to love our enemies. This is the hardest teaching, the most radical teaching, but it's the key to everything. The people who oppress you, who exploit you, who seem evil, they're suffering more than you are. They're trapped. They're spiritually dead. If you hate them, you join them in that death. If you love them, you might free them, and you'll definitely free yourself. Conclusion, the light that never dies. This is the story of Jesus. Not the story the church tells you, but the story based on evidence, based on texts that were hidden for centuries, based on the teachings of prophets and poets who understood the same eternal truths. Jesus was not and never claimed to be God. Jesus was a human being with a divine spark just like you and me. But Jesus figured out how to make that spark glow so brightly that 2,000 years later, we're still talking about him.
Logically, that implies that fun is a value
Just like I have already said. We need to build our lives around what makes our divine spark glow, that matters.
So we agree on existence of the Monad
We agree on existence. I disagree with your comment "If there's a Monad, and also a part-time architect named Samael, I think the title or name Yahweh better describes the Monad".
So we agree on existence of Samael an adversary... I'm not sure that we have any disagreement about existence of Monad and an adversary
I said Samael is an archangel in Talmudic and post-Talmudic tradition; a figure who is the accuser or adversary (Satan in the Book of Job), seducer, and destroying angel (in the Book of Exodus). I agree for jews Samael is an important character, he is an angel from Jewish theology, his figure is similar to the Christian Satan, but not exactly the same. I disagree when you put "Monad and an adversary" together like you did. If you imply Monad is a force for good and Samael or Satan is the force for evil, to me that doesn't make sense. It's like saying: Duality, exactly the physical world we live in. The Monad has no needs. He doesn't have an adversary. "For he is total perfection. He did not lack anything, that he might be completed by it; rather he is always completely perfect in light." - Apocryphon of John
Having said that, the Pleroma is that spiritual perfection that is in contrast to physical deficiency. Gnostics believed that matter was evil. This is another way to look at it.
Does that modify your statement Samael is an adversary
I agree Samael or Satan is both the adversary to Yahweh and his servant. It is Samael’s duty to act as adversary and prosecutor to Yahweh. Samael, in Jewish folkloric and mystical tradition is the king of all demons, the angel of death, the husband of the demonic Lilith, and the archenemy of Michael the archangel and of Israel. With this I think we both agree. But, my statement "What I'm saying there is no adversary" still stands... that is no adversary to the Monad.
Eventually, you'll figure it out. We need to build our lives around what makes our divine spark glow and shine bright. When you're doing something and you feel alive, connected, purposeful, joyful, that's your spark glowing.
Playing devil's advocate, why is that a need if there are infinite chances? It doesn't seem to logically follow that there's ever any need to do good instead of evil in that system. But perhaps that's very incidental because it concerns the far future.
More important, you're defining "fun" better, as what shines and lives. I agree that gives purpose (and can be expanded on), it just appears inconsistent with the Hindu form of reincarnation (the gilgul form works a little differently).
Conclusion, the light that never dies. This is the story of Jesus. Not the story the church tells you, but the story based on evidence, based on texts that were hidden for centuries, based on the teachings of prophets and poets who understood the same eternal truths. Jesus was not and never claimed to be God.
Why would the church story contradict the new-evidence story? Why would life-and-death matters be based on manuscripts hidden from humanity for 1,500 years, how would that be fair to those who came before? Why is it necessary to deny divinity in Jesus, why not interact with those who see various unique aspects of divinity in him? Same for "matter being evil".
If you imply Monad is a force for good and Samael or Satan is the force for evil, to me that doesn't make sense.
Good, because I don't. I'm just counting entities: Monad, aeons, satan, lilith, archons; the two we're concerned about proper attributes for are Monad and satan, nothing more. What is satan the adversary of? If "Yahweh", that makes Yahweh a third entity doesn't it? But you said Samael was Yahweh IIRC. Which would you prefer?
Maybe, but each individual determines it afresh for himself. You seem fine with another's determination previously made and uncertain about my determination previously made.
That is not self-evident.
Frankly, it sounds like the result of a paradigm shift culminating in the 4th century about the testaments compounded by another paradigm shift in the 19th century in which self-declared experts made up their own interpretations without respect to original culture. I'm surprised you buy these recent German arguments instead of going to the source about what people actually thought when Jesus walked the earth. If any gnostic aspects predate that, they were dead for a millennium before these Germans revived them.
Those attributes are not self-evident. That's why I asked exactly how we come to agreement on attributing things to entities. We could both talk into the air but that wouldn't be likely to bring agreement. It seems to me agreement is brought by agreeing to pursue truth wherever it leads and then working together from that common understanding to align our own paradigms. We could line up all the reasons the Monad is or isn't something and then infer the best explanation.
If you begin by proposing we don't need to agree and then continue with your belief system and a couple reasons as if they stand without needing questioning or in fact validation (as if it's important that people agree with you), that's kind of two different approaches.
Your stated reasons are (1) Yahweh's name is "Jealous", (2) Yahweh creates by separation (duality), (3) Yahweh seeks blood sacrifice; implied conclusion, Yahweh is not the Monad. You also give many supportive recent tropes about why one should conclude this. I asked how you'd like to resolve this, but you demurred to that question. If, for instance, the answer were "critical thinking" then we might both propose structures that appear to be critical thinking, but we'd still need to agree on basic rules of facts and logic so that we can determine which is better. We could both propound many arguments, I am known for going very long, but it wouldn't help if we weren't seeking some core agreement and were only trying to validate our own already-determined positions. Your propositions are not disabusing me of my errors because I've mostly seen them before and feel very comfortable with how I handle them in my own mind; plus they go in so many directions that it's hard to be selective. So let me go very basic.
(1) We agree that the Monad and an adversary exist (you also use "satan" so I trust I can substitute that too).
(2) When you say that adversary "exists because we validate him", I presume you mean he is benefited from our validation and deficited from our invalidation (not that he could cease to exist, or maybe you think he could), which I agree with.
(3) When you argue against belief or fear, I presume you mean not to put any trust or reverence in that adversary, which I agree with.
Why then should we give that adversary any undeserved credit by giving him titles or attributes beyond what is straitly revealed about him? Maybe Yahweh is some third entity that is neither Monad nor adversary, and this adversary is stealing all of Yahweh's thunder like he steals Zeus's thunder. It's not self-evident to me that all your assertions about an adversary have either historical or revelatory backup, they are just inferences that (to me) contribute toward glorifying that adversary. I hope you don't mind my speaking frankly about that because it seems to me central to the rest of the argument.
Now, I totally lost you. I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not buying anything????
I haven't read you full message I stopped at this, because it doesn't make any sense to me.
Sorry! I meant, your presentation involves a number of appeals to logic that were mostly first espoused in Germany in the 19th century, and I led with that thought in answer to your question of what it "sounds like" to me. My larger point is that we don't determine it by what it sounds like, and thus having an agreement on a way to resolve differing sounds seems to me more essential than you suggested.
I don't want to sound standoffish or anything; you've taken it on yourself to seek to give me a clearer view of things than the one I profess, and I'm interested in whether I'm wrong or not. If you wish to teach me what satan is and I don't find it convincing, my general question was how we could resolve such an impasse. For instance, we could appeal to common external revelation, or to a common external Spirit speaking to us both, or to common objective logic, definitions, historical facts, etc. You appeal to "critical thinking" but I've used that and gotten different conclusions, so it seems we need to be clearer on how we use critical thinking (or anything else) to arrive at the same answer. In math everyone gets the same answer with the same start, and it'd be nice for the same to happen in informal logic.
OK. I had no idea. I have not looked at anything specific from Germany in the 19th century. I admit I briefly glossed at Friedrich Hegel and the Hegelian Dialectic, which inspired both Marxist theory and existentialist thought, albeit in radically different directions. But, I wasn't thinking of that when I replied to your message.
I'm not sure either if you're right or wrong. To me that's really not that important, we have many lives to get everything right. I'm not trying to teach you who Satan is, I don't really know myself who he is or is not. I read to LaVeyan Satanism, Satan is a symbol of virtuous characteristics and liberty. To Christians Satan is the god of this world, who has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. I read to to Muslims he is known as Shaytaan. To Muslims he is the cause of deceptions originating from the mind and desires for evil. He is regarded as a cosmic force for separation, despair and spiritual envelopment.
Sure, you're right about this. Let me get back to you. Now I recall Jesus healed the man born blind. The disciples asked, "Who sinned? This man or his parents?". They were thinking in demiurgic terms. Jesus said, "Neither". Jesus was thinking in spiritual terms, the fullness/the Pleroma where there is no such thing as sin. It was not about critical thinking, Jesus and the disciples were not on the same page.
I had a chance to read your entire message. Your first part of the message didn't make any sense to me and I already told you so. However, this is correct. Except the conclusion, I'm not trying to convince you "Yahweh is not the Monad". I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Why are you making this statement? I already told you this was established 2,000 years ago. We don't need to talk about this any longer, but we could even thou it doesn't make any difference. If you or I are not right, we'll have another chance, and another, until infinity. Eventually we'll get it right.
Sure, again you're right here. But, what difference does it make if we still need to agree on basic rules of facts and logic? again I'm not trying to prove anything and once again I say, it has been already been proven (2,000 years ago). It doesn't matter if we "determine which is better", it makes no difference. But, we could still argue about, and that could be fun, but that's it.
No, we don't agree on this. What I said all along there is a spiritual realm, known as Pleroma and physical realm created by the Demiurge (Yahweh). Yahweh is not opposed to the Monad or Pleroma. He just doesn't know what's above him. All he knows, or feels, or senses the Pleroma, the true light above him. He knows there are other forces greater than him. And he is terrified. Terrified that his creation, the humans who carry the divine spark will discover the true Father and stop worshiping him. So what does he do? He acts like a narcissistic abusive partner. Look at me. Worship only me. If you look at another god, I will kill you. He commands exclusive devotion not because he deserves it but because he needs it to maintain the illusion. We live in Yahweh's simulation, or as Hindus say we are living in Vishnu's dream, which is nothing but an illusion.
No, we don't agree on this. What I'm saying there is no adversary. There is only a physical world that was created on the principle of duality, wright or wrong, good or evil. I will give a lot of credit to Yahweh for creating everything, it's an amazing job he has done. But, it has to work on this principal of separation, duality, there is no other way. Because Yahweh is unaware of Pleroma, although he sense it. When you go to vote you really have two choices Democrat or Republican. Many say your vote matters, IMO, your vote does not make any difference. It's just an illusion, again created for you to feel good about it. In reality your vote doesn't influence the outcome, TPTB always select and control both sides. Just like the physical world we live in (as above so below). I don't care what you call this principle, good & evil, black & white, the Chinese call this Yin & Yang the absolute foundational principles of the physical universe.
No, we don't fully agree on this. IMO, Yahweh only creates the fear so he can sell us the protection. Whatever that may be, religion, empire, institutions. It's important that we live in a world of fear, suffering and pain. Like I said when a living being dies in a state of fear, pain, and trauma, it releases a massive amount of psychic energy. The demiurge and his archons are cut off from the eternal source of energy, the Pleroma. This is their food. They feed on low vibrational energy, fear, guilt, anger, and death. The entire sacrificial system of the OT was not a system of forgiveness. It was a harvesting system. It was a buffet.
Well, logic seems to kick in here: If it doesn't make any difference, then it rapidly follows that no experience makes any difference and life is meaningless; but I don't think you conclude that. Second, if we have infinite chances, that doesn't logically prove that we'll get it right, we might get it wrong infinitely (again suggesting meaninglessness). Origen tried saying things like this after listening to gnostics, and neither he nor his followers ever finished working them out.
To the degree we believe in meaning, we converse to grow more adept at meaning.
Logically, that implies that fun is a value but good (better) isn't.
Thanks for disagreeing at point 1. Let's see:
So we agree on existence of the Monad.
So we agree on existence of Samael an adversary. I'm fine if you prefer the word "adversary" to the Hebrew translation "satan", as it appears "satan" has too much Christian baggage. Given those two, I'm not sure that we have any disagreement about existence of Monad and an adversary. As I said, we disagree on other attributes than those names.
Does that modify your statement Samael is an adversary? We could strip him of that title too, I suppose.
Um, so you don't want us to believe in or fear these archons, or to give them any trust or reverence (or afraidness), which is what I thought I said. But if there's still some misunderstanding we can clear it up. If you find it meaningful.
It's not what I'm saying. Life is not meaningless. Let me try again. Indeed we need to recognize that time is infinite. This one lifetime is just one experiment, one attempt. If you fail, if you spend this life chasing money and power and realize at the end that it was empty, that's OK. You'll get another chance and another and another. Eventually, you'll figure it out. We need to build our lives around what makes our divine spark glow and shine bright. When you're doing something and you feel alive, connected, purposeful, joyful, that's your spark glowing. Follow that feeling. Build a life around that. Don't chase what society tells you to chase. Jesus said, "Love your brother like your soul, guard him like the pupil of your eye." - Gospel of Thomas. And finally, we need to love our enemies. This is the hardest teaching, the most radical teaching, but it's the key to everything. The people who oppress you, who exploit you, who seem evil, they're suffering more than you are. They're trapped. They're spiritually dead. If you hate them, you join them in that death. If you love them, you might free them, and you'll definitely free yourself. Conclusion, the light that never dies. This is the story of Jesus. Not the story the church tells you, but the story based on evidence, based on texts that were hidden for centuries, based on the teachings of prophets and poets who understood the same eternal truths. Jesus was not and never claimed to be God. Jesus was a human being with a divine spark just like you and me. But Jesus figured out how to make that spark glow so brightly that 2,000 years later, we're still talking about him.
Just like I have already said. We need to build our lives around what makes our divine spark glow, that matters.
We agree on existence. I disagree with your comment "If there's a Monad, and also a part-time architect named Samael, I think the title or name Yahweh better describes the Monad".
I said Samael is an archangel in Talmudic and post-Talmudic tradition; a figure who is the accuser or adversary (Satan in the Book of Job), seducer, and destroying angel (in the Book of Exodus). I agree for jews Samael is an important character, he is an angel from Jewish theology, his figure is similar to the Christian Satan, but not exactly the same. I disagree when you put "Monad and an adversary" together like you did. If you imply Monad is a force for good and Samael or Satan is the force for evil, to me that doesn't make sense. It's like saying: Duality, exactly the physical world we live in. The Monad has no needs. He doesn't have an adversary. "For he is total perfection. He did not lack anything, that he might be completed by it; rather he is always completely perfect in light." - Apocryphon of John
Having said that, the Pleroma is that spiritual perfection that is in contrast to physical deficiency. Gnostics believed that matter was evil. This is another way to look at it.
I agree Samael or Satan is both the adversary to Yahweh and his servant. It is Samael’s duty to act as adversary and prosecutor to Yahweh. Samael, in Jewish folkloric and mystical tradition is the king of all demons, the angel of death, the husband of the demonic Lilith, and the archenemy of Michael the archangel and of Israel. With this I think we both agree. But, my statement "What I'm saying there is no adversary" still stands... that is no adversary to the Monad.
Playing devil's advocate, why is that a need if there are infinite chances? It doesn't seem to logically follow that there's ever any need to do good instead of evil in that system. But perhaps that's very incidental because it concerns the far future.
More important, you're defining "fun" better, as what shines and lives. I agree that gives purpose (and can be expanded on), it just appears inconsistent with the Hindu form of reincarnation (the gilgul form works a little differently).
Why would the church story contradict the new-evidence story? Why would life-and-death matters be based on manuscripts hidden from humanity for 1,500 years, how would that be fair to those who came before? Why is it necessary to deny divinity in Jesus, why not interact with those who see various unique aspects of divinity in him? Same for "matter being evil".
Good, because I don't. I'm just counting entities: Monad, aeons, satan, lilith, archons; the two we're concerned about proper attributes for are Monad and satan, nothing more. What is satan the adversary of? If "Yahweh", that makes Yahweh a third entity doesn't it? But you said Samael was Yahweh IIRC. Which would you prefer?