Christianity teaches unity in diversity, not unity free from polarity.

Ultimately wrong may be an absence of right, but to ignore difference between absence and presence is to lose meaning.

Invention of "densities" and of billions of years is gnostic: irrational appeal to gnosis that may be true or false.

Claims of "trying" to speak in Egypt "with mixed results" also cast doubt, indicating the speaker's professed inabilities.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hidan_of_Maukbeiangjow&oldid=1339650755

Christianity also teaches eternal enmity with those who harbor wrongdoing, not "friendship".

It teaches that the spiritual real and the natural real are complementary, not that the natural is unreal.

It teaches infinite intelligence does recognize its potential, in its teaching that unity contains diversity.

If it could not, we could not, nor could we speak of the hypothetical, for we are less than it.

But, since "recognizing potential" is ambiguous and almost meaningless, it's possible to define it in some acceptable way.

1. To say a subcreator receives freewill is to acknowledge it as a gift of the One Infinite Creator who has it unlimited.

2. To say a law becomes Logos and cocreates an array where it can know itself is to blur Creator Logos from subcreator logos.

3. To say Logos creates law of light to manifest matter thereby leaves unstated whether Logos is infinite energy or subenergy.

To say the Creator "steps down" to become Logos is similarly ambiguous without specifying identities and polarities.

To imagine a hierarchy separately creating universes, galaxies, and stars as if each independently belies observed reality.

Namely, we observe one universe unconnected to any other but all galaxies and stars are interconnected.

Thus making subcreators one with a Creator but "independent" belies their dependence on and in the one Logos universe.

The theory's point is to mediate Creation to middlemen and demote Yahweh (Being) from being Being to being a sub-sub.

Yahweh as angel follows angels' rules, not as sub-sub but as the writer of the rules who can use them better than any other.

So if Lucifer and Elders pretend they are equals, they can be tested by confrontation with Yahweh.

For Lucifer to portray Adam as devoid of freewill rather than freely obeying is to attribute Yahweh's plan to himself.

For Lucifer to portray his "fall" as being "here to help" recalls Screwtape's similar spin on why Lucifer "so rapidly departed".

Incidentally, to cite a no-polarity teaching as supporting an absolute-polarity teaching is flatly contradictory.

Lucifer then portrays Yahweh as creating the desire to sin, attributing his own work of warping desire to Yahweh.

He portrays Yahweh as unaware of the Tree's consequences rather than aware and actively limiting the amount of evil.

He portrays the offering of evil as the only direction and leadership, rather than an opportunity to obey as Christ did.

He portrays the only escape from pawn to promotion is via alliance with him, again attributing Yahweh's work to himself.

"Many of us do not mean you any harm" is a singular backhanded admission and revelation of method.

Referring "between lives" to antimatter is a singularly insidious inversion that would be a complete digression to debunk.

The three-way eschatological split is just guesswork in hopes of having something for future people to point to in the past.

Relatively comparing negative hell and lukewarm hell so as to make them look relatively good is the height of ignorance.

Declaring bare spirits as "greater" more "evolved" density than physicospiritual humans is another inversion of reality.

Glorification of the negative is mere Frankism and was long ago debunked in Romans 3.

Denial of a day of judgment, in favor of an infinite evolutionary probation, motivates lukewarmness and indecision, not action.

Ultimately, pursuing 95%+ negative polarity is not rewarded.