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?
there's ever any need to do good instead of evil in that system
It's a good question, same can be said about the Christian church. The famous question: Can a truly converted Christian ever lose his salvation? regardless how much sin he/she commits afterwards. This discussion has been ongoing for centuries in the church. According to the Gnostics, the archons are distortions of consciousness, echoes born when divine light entered the realm of matter and fragmented. They exist in the unseen layers of thought, emotion, and energy.
IMO, doing good instead of evil negates archons influence on you and me and helps us with our struggle for spiritual liberation. The Gospel of Mary describes this as the kingdom of the flesh, a world where false powers, the archons, stir desire and confusion until the soul forgets its own light. The desire (money, sex, etc.) and confusion help the archons exercise influence over us. Their influence doesn't come from force, but from forgetting. Because when you forget what you are, pure divine awareness, unbound by form, you fall asleep inside their dream.
Why would the church story contradict the new-evidence story?
The Catholic Church was not born from Jesus, but from the Roman Empire using his name to maintain control.
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?
We have already discussed the last part of your question. Time is infinite. This one lifetime is just one experiment, one attempt.
The Christianity you and I know today emerged from a brutal ideological war that lasted centuries. The Roman Church won the war. In the first few hundred years after Jesus's death, dozens of Christian movements flourished across the Mediterranean. Among them were the Gnostics, communities that believed something revolutionary. You don't need priests, churches, or salvation from anyone else because the divine spark already lives within you. This wasn't just a theological disagreement. It was an existential threat to religious authority itself. Now, using critical thinking, if people can access the true God directly through inner knowledge, what happens to the entire power structure of organized religion? The early church fathers understood this danger perfectly. They didn't just argue against Gnostic ideas. They systematically destroyed them. Entire libraries burned, communities scattered, teachers executed. For over 1500 years, we only knew Gnosticism through the writings of its enemies. Until 1945, when an Egyptian farmer discovered 13 buried cottices near Nag Hammadi. Suddenly, we could hear the Gnostics speak for themselves. And what they revealed changes everything we thought we knew about early Christianity.
What is satan the adversary of?
I'm still not sure I understand your concern/question about Satan or Samael. Perhaps you could be more specific which tradition you are referring to. For instance in Hebrew, the term Satan is usually translated as "opponent" or "adversary," and he is often understood to represent the sinful impulse (in Hebrew, yetzer hara) or, more generally, the forces that prevents human beings from submitting to divine will.
As I mentioned before we live in a duality physical world, where there is light and there is dark. The world is full of people radiating love, light, and nonviolence and the world is also full of people radiating hate, darkness, violence, and fear. We both can see that, to think otherwise is naive. You can choose to call the duality: black & white, good & evil, yin & yang, or god & satan. And you can choose to call god: Yahweh, Jehovah, LORD, Elohim, Adonai, or Sabaoth. You can also choose to call evil: satan, samael, abaddon, or lucifer.
It's a good question, same can be said about the Christian church. The famous question: Can a truly converted Christian ever lose his salvation? regardless how much sin he/she commits afterwards.
Touche! I should have said everyone needs to do good like everyone needs to breathe. Some people deny the need, and end up lacking; some recognize the need and engage it. Doing good includes ensuring full coverage for how one's past sins have harmed oneself and others, so the end result answers the question in each case.
IMO, doing good instead of evil negates archons influence on you and me and helps us with our struggle for spiritual liberation.
Okay ....
Because when you forget what you are, pure divine awareness, unbound by form, you fall asleep inside their dream.
How does the awoken live in this physical world then? Isn't it how Jesus lived, master of every situation, always down to earth remaining above it all?
Anyway, my point was eschatological so less important. If there is present motivation as you describe then there is always fruit and no doubt about whether any question will persist infinitely.
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?
They aren't, they are based on matters accessible generally to all people and specially via echoes in all cultures. The recent phenomenon of a "complete Bible" is merely systematization of that eternal accessibility. Proof, the Bible never existed as one set of manuscripts in the same place at the same time, copies (even very poor ones) always work like the originals.
Among them were the Gnostics, communities that believed something revolutionary. You don't need priests, churches, or salvation from anyone else because the divine spark already lives within you. This wasn't just a theological disagreement. It was an existential threat to religious authority itself.
I don't understand. The divine spark makes anyone in very real senses a priest, church, and saviour. Therefore there should be no problem with letting anyone else be priest, church, or saviour too. Gnostics, or Orthodox, who would live and let live wouldn't have a problem with this. When a Gnostic, or an Orthodox, forgets the divine spark in another and declares separation that's when the war starts. So the aspect of gnosis you describe doesn't logically constitute an existential threat IMHO.
A little bit. This is a community that likes sources for sweeping claims like this. Gnostics executed, trying to recall any, nothing comes to mind. Libraries burned, doesn't sound like when the gnostics were alive. Yeah, a couple people were exiled as far as I know for "scattered communities". What physical facts did you have in mind?
For over 1500 years, we only knew Gnosticism through the writings of its enemies. Until 1945, when an Egyptian farmer discovered 13 buried co[d]ices near Nag Hammadi. Suddenly, we could hear the Gnostics speak for themselves. And what they revealed changes everything we thought we knew about early Christianity.
Thanks, James, but this doesn't sound like your own voice. When I discovered Nag Hammadi it didn't change anything I thought I knew.
I'm still not sure I understand your concern/question about Satan or Samael. Perhaps you could be more specific which tradition you are referring to.
I'm not referring to tradition but to actual beings. Is there not a single extant, conscious, sentient, communicative, spiritual being that currently answers to "Samael" and the title "satan"? Or do you not mean an entity at all but merely a cluster of abstract concepts like "Evil"?
he is often understood to represent the sinful impulse (in Hebrew, yetzer hara) or, more generally, the forces that prevents human beings from submitting to divine will.
Yeah, not what I'm talking about at all. Yetzer hara and forces are human or cosmic functions that can be instantiated, they're not abstract like evil. Similarly, spirit entities are personal beings like we are, and if they weren't then we should stop personifying them and just speak about them abstractly like evil.
the world is also full of people radiating hate, darkness, violence, and fear.
Or, these things are lack of radiation ....
And you can choose to call god: Yahweh, Jehovah, LORD, Elohim, Adonai, or Sabaoth. You can also choose to call evil: satan, samael, abaddon, or lucifer.
This sounds like you want to take the personality of both Monad and adversary out of the question. I'm focusing on persons.
I'm a person. I answer to the highest person that exists. If the Monad is a person, I answer to it; if not, I ask who is the highest person. Evil is not a person. There exists a most evil person (unless all humans and devils will be personally purified without exception). If there are no evil people, there is no point attributing personal titles to satan; if there is a most evil person, there is no point attributing him titles beyond what his evil deserves. HTH and thank you for the great counterpoint.
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?
It's a good question, same can be said about the Christian church. The famous question: Can a truly converted Christian ever lose his salvation? regardless how much sin he/she commits afterwards. This discussion has been ongoing for centuries in the church. According to the Gnostics, the archons are distortions of consciousness, echoes born when divine light entered the realm of matter and fragmented. They exist in the unseen layers of thought, emotion, and energy.
IMO, doing good instead of evil negates archons influence on you and me and helps us with our struggle for spiritual liberation. The Gospel of Mary describes this as the kingdom of the flesh, a world where false powers, the archons, stir desire and confusion until the soul forgets its own light. The desire (money, sex, etc.) and confusion help the archons exercise influence over us. Their influence doesn't come from force, but from forgetting. Because when you forget what you are, pure divine awareness, unbound by form, you fall asleep inside their dream.
The Catholic Church was not born from Jesus, but from the Roman Empire using his name to maintain control.
We have already discussed the last part of your question. Time is infinite. This one lifetime is just one experiment, one attempt.
The Christianity you and I know today emerged from a brutal ideological war that lasted centuries. The Roman Church won the war. In the first few hundred years after Jesus's death, dozens of Christian movements flourished across the Mediterranean. Among them were the Gnostics, communities that believed something revolutionary. You don't need priests, churches, or salvation from anyone else because the divine spark already lives within you. This wasn't just a theological disagreement. It was an existential threat to religious authority itself. Now, using critical thinking, if people can access the true God directly through inner knowledge, what happens to the entire power structure of organized religion? The early church fathers understood this danger perfectly. They didn't just argue against Gnostic ideas. They systematically destroyed them. Entire libraries burned, communities scattered, teachers executed. For over 1500 years, we only knew Gnosticism through the writings of its enemies. Until 1945, when an Egyptian farmer discovered 13 buried cottices near Nag Hammadi. Suddenly, we could hear the Gnostics speak for themselves. And what they revealed changes everything we thought we knew about early Christianity.
I'm still not sure I understand your concern/question about Satan or Samael. Perhaps you could be more specific which tradition you are referring to. For instance in Hebrew, the term Satan is usually translated as "opponent" or "adversary," and he is often understood to represent the sinful impulse (in Hebrew, yetzer hara) or, more generally, the forces that prevents human beings from submitting to divine will.
As I mentioned before we live in a duality physical world, where there is light and there is dark. The world is full of people radiating love, light, and nonviolence and the world is also full of people radiating hate, darkness, violence, and fear. We both can see that, to think otherwise is naive. You can choose to call the duality: black & white, good & evil, yin & yang, or god & satan. And you can choose to call god: Yahweh, Jehovah, LORD, Elohim, Adonai, or Sabaoth. You can also choose to call evil: satan, samael, abaddon, or lucifer.
Touche! I should have said everyone needs to do good like everyone needs to breathe. Some people deny the need, and end up lacking; some recognize the need and engage it. Doing good includes ensuring full coverage for how one's past sins have harmed oneself and others, so the end result answers the question in each case.
Okay ....
How does the awoken live in this physical world then? Isn't it how Jesus lived, master of every situation, always down to earth remaining above it all?
Anyway, my point was eschatological so less important. If there is present motivation as you describe then there is always fruit and no doubt about whether any question will persist infinitely.
They aren't, they are based on matters accessible generally to all people and specially via echoes in all cultures. The recent phenomenon of a "complete Bible" is merely systematization of that eternal accessibility. Proof, the Bible never existed as one set of manuscripts in the same place at the same time, copies (even very poor ones) always work like the originals.
I don't understand. The divine spark makes anyone in very real senses a priest, church, and saviour. Therefore there should be no problem with letting anyone else be priest, church, or saviour too. Gnostics, or Orthodox, who would live and let live wouldn't have a problem with this. When a Gnostic, or an Orthodox, forgets the divine spark in another and declares separation that's when the war starts. So the aspect of gnosis you describe doesn't logically constitute an existential threat IMHO.
A little bit. This is a community that likes sources for sweeping claims like this. Gnostics executed, trying to recall any, nothing comes to mind. Libraries burned, doesn't sound like when the gnostics were alive. Yeah, a couple people were exiled as far as I know for "scattered communities". What physical facts did you have in mind?
Thanks, James, but this doesn't sound like your own voice. When I discovered Nag Hammadi it didn't change anything I thought I knew.
I'm not referring to tradition but to actual beings. Is there not a single extant, conscious, sentient, communicative, spiritual being that currently answers to "Samael" and the title "satan"? Or do you not mean an entity at all but merely a cluster of abstract concepts like "Evil"?
Yeah, not what I'm talking about at all. Yetzer hara and forces are human or cosmic functions that can be instantiated, they're not abstract like evil. Similarly, spirit entities are personal beings like we are, and if they weren't then we should stop personifying them and just speak about them abstractly like evil.
Or, these things are lack of radiation ....
This sounds like you want to take the personality of both Monad and adversary out of the question. I'm focusing on persons.
I'm a person. I answer to the highest person that exists. If the Monad is a person, I answer to it; if not, I ask who is the highest person. Evil is not a person. There exists a most evil person (unless all humans and devils will be personally purified without exception). If there are no evil people, there is no point attributing personal titles to satan; if there is a most evil person, there is no point attributing him titles beyond what his evil deserves. HTH and thank you for the great counterpoint.