The Demiurg & the Trinity

[MorganBlack]

Not bad. A few additional consultations. As for the Psalms, do they work if I don't believe in the god of the Old Testament? I only believe in Mary and Jesus. I am also making the rosary but I do not know if the Virgin will attend to my requests for justice against my enemies.

Agreed. The God of the Old Testament is a tough one. He was for me too, and I had a nicest of barely-Christian religions growing up, Unitarian Universalism.

If it helps find a place for YHVH, or at least unpack, personalize, and broaden the underlying myths. Historian Russell Gmirkin makes the case YHVH "is" the Demiurge from Plato’s Timaeus, which we can see as one of His names and titles.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think he is on to something, but these is useful to think of htese not as staements of theology, as truth claims of known things, but a way for a magican to think about ideas - and the universe is made up of stories and ideas. If you are more pagan, you can call him Zeus, but I think Saturn (as the creator of boundaries, manifestation, time , and so therefore death) is mythically more accurate. Whereas the New Testment God is more mytically more Jupiter, imho.

In my personal cosmo-conception, the way I make sense of him, "He" gets linked up (as "The Father" ) with Zurvan, as a time god above the all the zodiacal forces and decans. He makes a very early appearance as Neolithic time god at Gobekli Tepe and who, in my interpretation, appears with what seem to be carvings of very early decans / theriomorphic forms of stellar daimons. We might see "Him" as the creator god that creates all the later creator gods, Ptah, etc.

In my weird Folk Catholic approach , "The Holy Trinity" is a very deliberate modulation of the "Father of All," who orginally has to also be the pangenitor of all things, even those that are inimical to humans: tapeworms, paper cuts, Ebola, dust-bunnies. (heh!).

I link Him up that primodial radioactive furnace of "Chaos" and physically "down here" to outer space. One of his manifestations is called by The Headless Rite, a rite which sets me on fire, often uncomfortably, when performed, as fitting the primordial layers of reality - or at least how I concieve of it.

So here, we see all the various god-names as valves, commuicated from within specific cultural contexts, of what I prefer to call "The Mystery. " Frater Acher on his Theomagica blog, talking about the Greek "gods," but this applies to all mytic figures, imho:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Think of a giant water damn wall. Behind this wall resides a massive amount of power in potential. Over millennials of evolution smart humans managed to build valves into this massive wall, which now allow us to open and close these individually. Thus humans learned to leverage the water pressure behind the wall through specific power access points which in return have become controllable and can be harnessed to accomplish all kinds of man-made plans. Depending on which valve is opened and for how long we get a certain kind of pressure and quality of water. And with that we can work in whatever kind it pleases us."

This is a very useful and "operationally true" statement.

(Oh, just a quick note, from my bag of kit. Not making rules, but I do not treat Mary as a "work spirit" - for that I would go to the daimons., who are more than capable to subjugate one's enemies , if you like. But she can help us call them and grant us "authority", or at least that have been my observation.)

 

[MorganBlack]

First, many apologies if this comes across as proselytizing! Not my intention. Christian myth makes people's head spin, so I hate talking about it too much

The Catholic "God the Father" is much more pagan than the Gnostic Christian's evil creatorr, Yaldabaoth. (BTW, this upsets both Catholics and pagan recontructionists - the pagans when they discover Catholicism is vastly more pagan than them, and Catholics for the same reason . Heh! )

"The Father" of the Catholic "Trinity" modulation (my words) is much closer - even identical - to Plato's Demiurge, than the prison warden of the Valentinian Gnostic school.

And here, because I'm short on time, here's what GROK has to say:

Plato’s Demiurge in Timaeus​

In Plato’s Timaeus, the Demiurge is a central figure in his cosmological myth. Plato describes the Demiurge as a divine craftsman or artisan who shapes the physical world. Here’s what Plato says about its personality and role, which you can use to build your argument:

1. Goodness and Benevolence: Plato explicitly portrays the Demiurge as inherently good. He writes that the Demiurge is "free from jealousy" and desires to make the world as good as possible, modeling it after the eternal, perfect Forms (Timaeus 29e-30a). This suggests a being motivated by kindness and a wish for harmony, not malice or tyranny.
2. Order and Purpose: The Demiurge doesn’t create the universe from nothing (like YHVH in Genesis); instead, he takes pre-existing chaos—disordered matter—and imposes structure and beauty on it. This act of bringing order is framed as a generous, constructive effort, reflecting a caring intent to make the world intelligible and functional (Timaeus 30a-b).
3. Not Omnipotent, but Cooperative: Unlike the all-powerful YHVH, the Demiurge works within limits, constrained by the nature of matter and necessity (ananke). This makes him less authoritarian and more relatable—a craftsman collaborating with the materials at hand, striving for the best outcome possible (Timaeus 47e-48a). You could argue this humility softens his image compared to the Gnostic view of an overbearing creator.
4. No Evil Intent: Plato’s Demiurge isn’t responsible for evil or imperfection; those arise from the limitations of the material world, not from his will. He’s a positive force, aiming to reflect divine goodness in the cosmos (Timaeus 37c-d).

So, yes, Plato’s Demiurge is a loving Creator in the sense of being benevolent, purposeful, and dedicated to goodness—not a tyrant or a malevolent figure like the Gnostic Demiurge your friend might associate with YHVH.

 

[Xenophon]

First, many apologies if this comes across as proselytizing! Not my intention. Christian myth makes people's head spin, so I hate talking about it too much

The Catholic "God the Father" is much more pagan than the Gnostic Christian's evil creatorr, Yaldabaoth. (BTW, this upsets both Catholics and pagan recontructionists - the pagans when they discover Catholicism is vastly more pagan than them, and Catholics for the same reason . Heh! )

"The Father" of the Catholic "Trinity" modulation (my words) is much closer - even identical - to Plato's Demiurge, than the prison warden of the Valentinian Gnostic school.

And here, because I'm short on time, here's what GROK has to say:

Plato’s Demiurge in Timaeus​

In Plato’s Timaeus, the Demiurge is a central figure in his cosmological myth. Plato describes the Demiurge as a divine craftsman or artisan who shapes the physical world. Here’s what Plato says about its personality and role, which you can use to build your argument:

1. Goodness and Benevolence: Plato explicitly portrays the Demiurge as inherently good. He writes that the Demiurge is "free from jealousy" and desires to make the world as good as possible, modeling it after the eternal, perfect Forms (Timaeus 29e-30a). This suggests a being motivated by kindness and a wish for harmony, not malice or tyranny.
2. Order and Purpose: The Demiurge doesn’t create the universe from nothing (like YHVH in Genesis); instead, he takes pre-existing chaos—disordered matter—and imposes structure and beauty on it. This act of bringing order is framed as a generous, constructive effort, reflecting a caring intent to make the world intelligible and functional (Timaeus 30a-b).
3. Not Omnipotent, but Cooperative: Unlike the all-powerful YHVH, the Demiurge works within limits, constrained by the nature of matter and necessity (ananke). This makes him less authoritarian and more relatable—a craftsman collaborating with the materials at hand, striving for the best outcome possible (Timaeus 47e-48a). You could argue this humility softens his image compared to the Gnostic view of an overbearing creator.
4. No Evil Intent: Plato’s Demiurge isn’t responsible for evil or imperfection; those arise from the limitations of the material world, not from his will. He’s a positive force, aiming to reflect divine goodness in the cosmos (Timaeus 37c-d).

So, yes, Plato’s Demiurge is a loving Creator in the sense of being benevolent, purposeful, and dedicated to goodness—not a tyrant or a malevolent figure like the Gnostic Demiurge your friend might associate with YHVH.

There are those (e.g., Felipe Luis Moya, Gustavo Brondino) who hold that the benovolent face of the demiurge is simply a mask. THe original honey trap, if you will. Think of the demiurge as a creepy perv. Some of us kids he lures in with candy. Others he just bundles into the trunk. Either way, you get taken for a ride in the big car.

 

[MorganBlack]

I'm more a Neoplatonist per Iamblichus, and not a Gnostic, but I like to visit their neighborhood.

That said, if you want to got to war and need to EPIC BATTLE then Gnosticism is a great mythic to live in . I was more there around age 22. I think fighting an Epic Cosmic battle against haughty Star Demons (archons) and their overlord, Yaldy-baldy is a great story to be in to get fired up.

All the best stories are along this line - The Matrix, The Invisibles , most of P.K Dick. - but IMHO, once you get to these strong emotions, these passions, you are looking at something far far closer to us in the sublunar world than the One, or even the Demiurge.

Hmmm. I was not aware of Felipe Luis Moya and Gustavo Brondino. So I asked GROK to summarize their beliefs for me. Pretty par of course for this type of mythic slant.

Q:
Who are Felipe Luis Moya and Gustavo Brondino? And why do they think the benevolent face of the Demiurge is a mask for something more sinister? What religious tradition are they in?

A:
Felipe Luis Moya and Gustavo Brondino are figures associated with the esoteric and controversial Hyperborean Gnosis movement, a modern spiritual and philosophical tradition rooted in the works of Argentine writer Luis Felipe Moyano, better known by his pseudonym Nimrod de Rosario. Below is an explanation of who they are, their views on the Demiurge, and the religious tradition they are tied to, based on available information and context.

Who Are Felipe Luis Moya and Gustavo Brondino?​

• Felipe Luis Moya (Luis Felipe Moyano / Nimrod de Rosario):
  Luis Felipe Moyano, who wrote under the name Nimrod de Rosario, was an Argentine author and esoteric thinker active in the late 20th century (died 1996). He is considered the foundational figure of Hyperborean Gnosis, a system blending Gnosticism, occultism, and elements of Indo-European mythology, with influences from thinkers like Julius Evola and Miguel Serrano. Moyano's works, such as Fundamentals of the Hyperborean Wisdom and The Mystery of Belicena Villca, propose a radical worldview where humanity is engaged in a metaphysical struggle against the Demiurge, a creator deity he portrays as malevolent and deceptive. Moyano’s identity as "Felipe Luis Moya" appears to be a conflation or confusion with his real name in some discussions, but he is most widely recognized as Nimrod de Rosario.
• Gustavo Brondino:
  Gustavo Brondino is a contemporary figure from Córdoba, Argentina, who claims to be a successor or interpreter of Nimrod de Rosario’s teachings. He has been involved in promoting a "New Hyperborean Order" and has authored works like Treatise on Hyperborean Gnosis. However, Brondino is a polarizing figure within the Hyperborean community. Critics, including some followers of Nimrod, accuse him of plagiarizing Moyano’s writings (e.g., allegedly copying sections of Hyperborean Physics and reworking The Order of Justicialist Builders into Evita and the Order of Builders) and diluting the original doctrine with his own interpretations. Brondino’s activities, including offering courses and leading groups, have sparked debates about his legitimacy and intellectual integrity.

Why Do They Think the Benevolent Face of the Demiurge Is a Mask for Something More Sinister?​

In the Hyperborean Gnosis framework, the Demiurge is not merely a neutral or flawed creator as in some Gnostic traditions (e.g., Valentinianism, where the Demiurge is ignorant but not necessarily evil). Instead, Moyano and his followers, including Brondino, depict the Demiurge as a fundamentally malevolent entity responsible for imprisoning human spirits in the material world. Their view can be summarized as follows:

• The Benevolent Mask:
  The Demiurge is said to present a "benevolent face" through organized religions, societal norms, and moral systems (e.g., Judeo-Christian traditions, which Moyano linked to what he called the "Synarchy," a supposed global conspiracy). This benevolence is a deception designed to lull humanity into accepting its enslavement within the material realm, preventing the awakening of the "Hyperborean Spirit"—an eternal, divine essence trapped within humans.
• The Sinister Reality:
  Behind this mask, the Demiurge is a tyrannical force actively working to suppress humanity’s true potential. Moyano’s cosmology posits that the material universe itself is a prison crafted by the Demiurge, and its agents (e.g., religious and political institutions) perpetuate a lie to maintain control. The sinister aspect is the Demiurge’s ultimate goal: to keep humans spiritually asleep, bound to cycles of reincarnation and suffering, thwarting their liberation through gnosis (self-knowledge and rejection of the material).

Brondino echoes this perspective, though his writings and teachings are often seen as less rigorous than Moyano’s. His emphasis on the Demiurge’s deceptive nature aligns with Nimrod’s ideas but may also reflect his attempts to position himself as a continuer of the tradition, possibly adapting it to attract followers disillusioned with other esoteric figures like Nimrod himself.

What Religious Tradition Are They In?​

Felipe Luis Moya (Nimrod de Rosario) and Gustavo Brondino are part of Hyperborean Gnosis, a modern esoteric movement that draws heavily on Gnosticism but diverges significantly from classical Gnostic traditions like those of the early Christian sects. Key characteristics include:

• Origins and Influences:
  Hyperborean Gnosis is not a mainstream religion but a syncretic ideology crafted by Moyano. It combines Gnostic dualism (spirit vs. matter, true God vs. Demiurge) with concepts from Indo-European mythology (e.g., the Hyperboreans as a primordial, spiritually superior race), esoteric Nazism (via Serrano’s influence), and anti-Semitic and anti-establishment rhetoric. Moyano claimed his teachings were inspired by metaphysical revelations and ancient wisdom, though they lack historical grounding in any established tradition.
• Core Beliefs:
  The tradition posits a cosmic war between the "Unknowable God" (a transcendent, inaccessible deity) and the Demiurge, who rules the material world. Humans with Hyperborean ancestry—seen as a spiritual rather than biological lineage—can awaken their divine spark through initiatory knowledge and reject the Demiurge’s creation. This process involves complex rituals, symbols (like runes), and a rejection of conventional morality.
• Distinctiveness:
  Unlike traditional Gnosticism, which often seeks salvation through mystical union with the divine, Hyperborean Gnosis emphasizes a warrior-like stance, framing liberation as a battle against the Demiurge and its agents. It also incorporates nationalist and esoteric political elements, such as references to Peronism in Argentina (e.g., Brondino’s Evita text), which sets it apart from purely spiritual Gnostic systems.
• Brondino’s Role:
  While Moyano is the originator, Brondino’s "New Hyperborean Order" appears to be an offshoot or reinterpretation, possibly aimed at reviving or expanding the movement. His critics argue it’s more a personal project than a faithful continuation, lacking the depth of Moyano’s original vision.

Conclusion​

Felipe Luis Moya (Nimrod de Rosario) and Gustavo Brondino view the Demiurge’s benevolent appearance as a mask concealing its sinister intent to enslave humanity spiritually, a belief central to Hyperborean Gnosis. This tradition, while rooted in Gnostic dualism, is a modern, idiosyncratic construct blending occultism, mythology, and anti-establishment ideology. Moyano’s foundational role contrasts with Brondino’s contested status as a successor, highlighting tensions within this niche esoteric community.

 

[Xenophon]

A pretty good summary. My point was mainly that the two Demiurges (Good Demi, Bad Urge?) can easily and fruitfully be conceived of as the same being

 

[silencewaits]

First, many apologies if this comes across as proselytizing! Not my intention. Christian myth makes people's head spin, so I hate talking about it too much

The Catholic "God the Father" is much more pagan than the Gnostic Christian's evil creatorr, Yaldabaoth. (BTW, this upsets both Catholics and pagan recontructionists - the pagans when they discover Catholicism is vastly more pagan than them, and Catholics for the same reason . Heh! )

"The Father" of the Catholic "Trinity" modulation (my words) is much closer - even identical - to Plato's Demiurge, than the prison warden of the Valentinian Gnostic school.

And here, because I'm short on time, here's what GROK has to say:

Plato’s Demiurge in Timaeus​

In Plato’s Timaeus, the Demiurge is a central figure in his cosmological myth. Plato describes the Demiurge as a divine craftsman or artisan who shapes the physical world. Here’s what Plato says about its personality and role, which you can use to build your argument:

1. Goodness and Benevolence: Plato explicitly portrays the Demiurge as inherently good. He writes that the Demiurge is "free from jealousy" and desires to make the world as good as possible, modeling it after the eternal, perfect Forms (Timaeus 29e-30a). This suggests a being motivated by kindness and a wish for harmony, not malice or tyranny.
2. Order and Purpose: The Demiurge doesn’t create the universe from nothing (like YHVH in Genesis); instead, he takes pre-existing chaos—disordered matter—and imposes structure and beauty on it. This act of bringing order is framed as a generous, constructive effort, reflecting a caring intent to make the world intelligible and functional (Timaeus 30a-b).
3. Not Omnipotent, but Cooperative: Unlike the all-powerful YHVH, the Demiurge works within limits, constrained by the nature of matter and necessity (ananke). This makes him less authoritarian and more relatable—a craftsman collaborating with the materials at hand, striving for the best outcome possible (Timaeus 47e-48a). You could argue this humility softens his image compared to the Gnostic view of an overbearing creator.
4. No Evil Intent: Plato’s Demiurge isn’t responsible for evil or imperfection; those arise from the limitations of the material world, not from his will. He’s a positive force, aiming to reflect divine goodness in the cosmos (Timaeus 37c-d).

So, yes, Plato’s Demiurge is a loving Creator in the sense of being benevolent, purposeful, and dedicated to goodness—not a tyrant or a malevolent figure like the Gnostic Demiurge your friend might associate with YHVH.

From this it doesn't seem that the Catholic "God the Father" represents the Platonic Demiurge. Instead he seems more like the Cathar or Bogomil Satan. Among the Cathars and Bogomils there was a form of dualism, which saw God and Satan as opposing forces. Among the Cathars this varied between absolute dualism or mitigated dualism. Sometimes God and Satan were seen as opposing but co-equal, sometimes God was seen as his creator. Sometimes they were seen as the same being. Here's an excerpt from a Cathar text called the Book of Two Principles which proposes unmitigated dualism:

"That All Good and Evil Whatsoever Come Not from One and the Same Cause. To wise men, therefore, it is obvious that the good and the evil, the clean and the polluted, the transitory and the permanent, are not summed up under these terms of universality, to wit, 'all,' 'all things whatsoever,' and 'all things,' and others which are found in Holy Scriptures, most particularly because they are complete opposites and contraries. Nor could they all arise entirely from one cause alone. For Jesus son of Sirach says: 'Good is set against evil, and life against death, so also is the sinner against a just man. And so look upon all the works of the Most High.' And Paul says in the second Epistle to the Corinthians: 'For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?' It is as if he were saying: Justice has absolutely no harmony with injustice, nor light with darkness, nor is there concord between Christ and Belial; which should be understood to mean that these opposites and contraries may not arise from one and the same cause. If it were otherwise—if justice and injustice, light and darkness, Christ and Belial, the faithful and the unbeliever, came absolutely and directly from the Highest Cause of all good—they would be in partnership and in concord, and would not destroy one another in the way that good and evil obviously do every day. For it was clearly pointed out above that, 'Good is set against evil, and life against death,' and so on.

Hence, it follows that there is another principle, one of evil, who is the source and cause of all wickedness, foulness, and unbelief, as also of all darkness. For otherwise, the true God himself, who is most faithful, and the height of justice, the essence of purity, would be entirely the cause and origin of all evil. All opposites and contraries would emanate entirely from the Lord himself. To suppose this is a most foolish fancy."

Also:

"[10] That There Is Another Creator or Maker. That there is, in addition to the faithful Creator to whom they that suffer 'commended their souls in good deeds,' another god and lord who is a creator and maker, I propose to prove clearly from the Scriptures, chiefly from the Old Testament, in accord with the trust which our opponents place in it. For they openly assert the Lord to be the creator and maker who created and made the visible things of this world, namely heaven and earth, the sea, men and beasts, birds and all creeping things, as we read in Genesis: 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth. And the earth was void and empty.' And again: 'And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature and every winged fowl according to its kind.' And again, 'And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and everything that creepeth after its kind.' And again, 'And God created man to His own image; to the image of God he created him; male and female he made them.' And Christ says in the Gospel of the Blessed Mark, 'But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.'

Now it must be kept in mind that no one can point to the temporal and visible existence of the evil god in this world, nor, indeed, to that of the good God. But a cause is known by its effects. From this, it should be understood that no one can prove him to be an evil god or a creator, except by the fact of his evil works or his fickle words. But I say that he who created and made the visible things of this world is not the true Creator. This I intend to prove by the fact of his evil works and his fickle words, assuming to be true what our opponents most openly affirm, that the works and words which are recorded in the Old Testament were actually produced, visibly and materially, in this world.

For heartily we detest these works, namely adultery, theft of another's property, murder, blasphemy, concurring in falsehood, giving one's word either with or without an oath and never keeping it. All these evil things enumerated were done by the god or creator discussed above, visibly and materially, in this temporal world, according to that interpretation which our opponents put on the Old Testament. They believe that these scriptures speak of the creation and production of this world and of the works which are openly and actually seen on this earth. This also those persons who believe there is only one First Principle are of necessity forced to admit. These things I propose clearly to prove by those scriptures to which our opponents give great credence."

The author then goes on to elaborate, giving examples and arguments. It also supposes that Satan is a co-existing eternal principle. The mythology of Yaldabaoth or Saklas (or whatever) is limited to that one time period as evidenced by this conception of the evil demiurge. But the disagreements the Gnostics and those like them had with orthodox theology (as in the opposite of heterodox, not the denomination) appear multiple times throughout history. The arguments that atheists use to pick apart the religious ideologies of orthodox believers are rectified. Or in other words, "No, it was not the work of God that such-and-such happened to such-and-such innocent people. He is not responsible for the creation of this world."

If Satan (in Christian theology) is the Lord of this World and the Prince of Darkess who rules over various principalities, how exactly does God maintain authority over his creation without permitting evil? The author of this text states:

"But assume them to reply: That corruption or formation of the most holy elements of the true Lord God which was accomplished by the devil was evil and most vain and contrary to God's will, as they indubitably believe and affirm. The rejoinder then would be: Now let the Garatenses answer whether the corruption of the most holy elements—which was evil and vain, which was accomplished by the devil, as was admitted above—was done by the will of the Most Holy Father or entirely against His will. If they should say that the corruption of the holy elements was done by the will of the Lord, for it is incredible that the devil could corrupt the most holy elements contrary to the will of God, the rejoinder would be: Thus it follows that the Lord had an evil will when He desired evil and most vain corruption to be accomplished in His most holy elements, as just stated. And if they should say that the will of God was good and holy when He wished His holy elements to be corrupted, for by that corruption or formation was established the kingdom of the most holy Creator, namely, the kingdom of new souls, who had been created from eternity and are now daily given form through the union of man and woman, then it would follow of necessity that the union of man and woman is entirely good and holy, if thus and in no other way God seeks completely to renew His kingdom with new souls. Now this union ought not to be utterly repudiated, as the Garatenses repeatedly do, were it the true means by which new souls are given form. If, however, they should say: Indeed, we believe this corruption or formation was effected in the most holy elements contrary to the will of God, then it follows of necessity that there is another principle, one of evil, which can corrupt the four elements of the most holy Creator entirely against the latter's will. This would not be true if there were only one First Principle. Also, had the devil been a creature of the true Lord God, he could not have done any violence to the most holy elements against the latter's will. Therefore, it follows that there are two principles of things, to wit, one of good, the other of evil; and the latter is the source of the corruption of the holy elements and also the source of all evil. Therefore, the Garatenses are entangled in their own most foolish arguments."

 

[MorganBlack]

Hmmm, this is getting in the weeds. I dislike it when talking sorcery or theurgy take on the tone of religious dogma.

Far be it from me to"explain" to you or anyone . We seek useful descriptions for our practice , not to proclaim unsupportable truth statements. We are magicians , not religious people. The myths are like Zen Koans, fingers pointing at the moon, but not the moon. The Mystery is far more amazing, weirder, and wonderful than we can even imagine.

This is meant to be taken as myths to be lived, until they come alive. So just to add to this for practical theurgy (and sorcery when calling the daimons) : beware of the myths you are living. The daimons too will tend to take them on and use it the mythic drama to interact with you. So make sure it's a nice one.

"The Demiurge" is a just one name of the Neolithic Time God the we have been propitiating since around 9500 to 9000 BCE . Long before Christianity, the Gnostics, or the Cathars. Most likely once our brains evolved to have a sense of the flow of time.

Now if you want to hold to the belief we are in a prison dimension trapped by evil archons, I would ask the big Thelemic question, "To what end?" The universe is a made of stories , so why enter into what seem to me to be a doomer blackpill story? It doesn't seem like a good construct to put in your subconscious (soul); but I am not you, and I trust you have your reasons.

On the other end, I have seen people adopt the belief the Greatest Power (by whatever name) totally loves them and wants the best for them, and it totally settled their hash. You can call Him, God, or Zeus, or Zhervan, or Nuit, or whatever, if really does not matter, as long as the myths provide a complete liturgy.

Anyway, by my mythic understanding, in the reality I live in, the Catholic "Father" is a modulation of the the Uncreated Father of All - to actually be far, far more nice and kind, and to get on his "Jupiterian " side and less on his wrathful "Saturninan" side. Seriously. The Primordial level of reality of the Uncreated Father, from my experience... burns. The Catholic God is modulation to tone Him down and make this primordial reality to be more human-centric. Think Catholic mirror shades. I have many issues with the Holy See, but the Catholic "Father" is just as he sounds, a loving father, and less a nuclear furnace of raw Chaos. He really is not petty, nor angry. But YMMV.

.

 

[silencewaits]

Oh you misunderstand me - I don't believe in God at all. I was just disagreeing with you. As previously stated, I think God the Father differs from Plato's Demiurge. The AI you used to generate that analysis agrees with this and draws distinction between the character of the Yahweh and Plato's Demiurge.

Plato’s Demiurge in Timaeus​

In Plato’s Timaeus, the Demiurge is a central figure in his cosmological myth. Plato describes the Demiurge as a divine craftsman or artisan who shapes the physical world. Here’s what Plato says about its personality and role, which you can use to build your argument:

1. Goodness and Benevolence: Plato explicitly portrays the Demiurge as inherently good. He writes that the Demiurge is "free from jealousy" and desires to make the world as good as possible, modeling it after the eternal, perfect Forms (Timaeus 29e-30a). This suggests a being motivated by kindness and a wish for harmony, not malice or tyranny.
2. Order and Purpose: The Demiurge doesn’t create the universe from nothing (like YHVH in Genesis); instead, he takes pre-existing chaos—disordered matter—and imposes structure and beauty on it. This act of bringing order is framed as a generous, constructive effort, reflecting a caring intent to make the world intelligible and functional (Timaeus 30a-b).
3. Not Omnipotent, but Cooperative: Unlike the all-powerful YHVH, the Demiurge works within limits, constrained by the nature of matter and necessity (ananke). This makes him less authoritarian and more relatable—a craftsman collaborating with the materials at hand, striving for the best outcome possible (Timaeus 47e-48a). You could argue this humility softens his image compared to the Gnostic view of an overbearing creator.
4. No Evil Intent: Plato’s Demiurge isn’t responsible for evil or imperfection; those arise from the limitations of the material world, not from his will. He’s a positive force, aiming to reflect divine goodness in the cosmos (Timaeus 37c-d).

1. God is a jealous god, unlike what is described there. (Exodus 20:5)
2. "The Demiurge doesn’t create the universe from nothing (like YHVH in Genesis); instead, he takes pre-existing chaos—disordered matter—and imposes structure and beauty on it."
3. "Unlike the all-powerful YHVH, the Demiurge works within limits, constrained by the nature of matter and necessity (ananke)."
4. "Plato’s Demiurge isn’t responsible for evil or imperfection; those arise from the limitations of the material world, not from his will. He’s a positive force, aiming to reflect divine goodness in the cosmos (Timaeus 37c-d)." If he isn't responsible for the evil or imperfection, who is? Thus me mentioning the dualist heresy. It's a heresy because the physical world - with all its evil and imperfections - is still a creation of God, who redeems the material world via the sacrifice and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ.

As for my worldview, I know what you are talking about. That which dwells beyond the ninth sphere of ancient cosmology. I don't need to call it anything. It's helpful for some people to understand it in those terms, though.

 

[MorganBlack]

No no, I got you, you don't believe in God. All good.

Also not really necessary.

Heh, GROK is not perfect. The actual history is really for mythic specialists and mystics.

So, you can do magic (as Hermetic mind "manifestation") as a Quantum Atheist, if one chooses - by totally "believing" - in, say, the magical Pokemon fae, as long as you have the total feeling Pikachu is totally helping you. Then you can have fun negging those Dragon Ball weebs who worship Goku. (Totally a thing, btw). You be you.

But for sorcery (Goetia) it does help tremendously to mythologize one's ritual framework once you get "down" to the sublunar world and start interacting with the daimons. If the Solar Pantheism of Catholcism doesn't work for you, you can go back to Goetia's earlier pagan roots and find masks / manifestations for the daimons there.

The grimdark edgelord Gnostic construct I'd stay away from. Not to fearmonger, every magician I know who uses that framework ended up dead. You get what you believe you'll get. I can't stress that enough.

The Demonolatry folks are cool. While I do not like their ritual techniques, their formulation seems quite good for creating a "nice" virtual space to interact with the daimons.

But at this level, the sublunar, you need a mythic framework and it gets harder if you don't have one. You'd just fill it all in with your personal subconscious, and the daimons get confused.

It's been, what? 45 years since Michael Harner's "Core Shamanism" tried to de-mythologize and decontextualize indigenous "beliefs" and practices and it still hasn't really caught on, because it misses some major points.

Take, for instance, the Four Demon Kings. At one point, way way back when, they were just the Four Winds, that only heroes could call. Now they are something else entirely. And they are far far different than any wind spirit passing by you may want to reach out to as a "shaman" - they have been mythologized and evolved their nature. The reality is more complex, imho, but no space to go into it.

They are now something almost entirely - they have been "elevated" resulting, imho, from interacting with us crazy, creative story-telling monkeys.

In my view we are the creative maestros who bring the LAN-party. All of us together, but also individually in private.

And that is how I'd recommend looking at not just Catholic myth, but all myths. As stories that form a temporary virtualized space for us to interact with The Mystery, whatever "he/she/it" is, The World Soul (As Hecate, or even Mary) and the daimons / spirits who are its / her messengers. And Mexican Catholicism (the best Catholicism, imho) is better seen as folk necromancy, incorporating Nahua indigenous practices, and was changed as much as they changed my ancestors, than a "religion" - meaning, something you simply "believe in" with your rationalistic, discursive left-hemisphere. You have to live it.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

It's a lot less work if you mould your magical system around your actual beliefs. You can do it the other way around, but it's harder and takes longer. If you don't believe in God, pick a system where He isn't required.

 

[MorganBlack]

True.
Moving into psychology, a lot of people don't believe in themselves. Or have terrible upbringing with heaps of Christo-trauma.
So yeah, engaging with Catholic mystical theology may be counter productive , at least until if and when they decide to their rewire their brain. So yeah, the Catholic-coded myths may trigger them, and be counter productive.

I also had nice, very secular parents , so I get they may not have luxury of being very flexible with their operative mythic frameworks.