The issue with the orthodox Abrahamic religions is that they have mixed, at least three archetypes, for their “God,” and have blurred their differences.

First, the universal Prime Mover archetype, before of whom nothing can be, is the masculine active force that initiates the dialectical movement from a primordial state of potentiality to actuality. It’s the thing-in-itself that looks for its reciprocal opposite, that is the thing-for-itself, to procreate and produce a synthesis of the opposites. So, since it’s an active force is masculine and it is called the Father of All, whose will, as a seed, is deposited in an universal womb, from which the Pleroma of infinite archetypes is emanated.

Second, the King archetype represents the authority and the limit setter. So, when the King becomes the Father and procreates a Son, the Father becomes the highest ideal of the Son, whom he reflects upon himself and wishes to become, by taking over his throne. That’s why, by his authority, which are the libidinal forces the son wishes to have, the Father imposes the limits to the son..

Finally, the son becomes a creator by creating like the Father. But since the creating act is a predicate that corresponds to the Father, the Creator, actually, depends upon the Father. That’s why the Creator archetype is actually within the realm of the Father archetype, since it’s a consequence of the Active Principle of the Prime Mover. Since the creator only creates, but that does not imply that it has its own will. That’s why it has to be moved by another. That is to say, it’s an archetype that only creates by means of an idea planted in him, which is an idea emanated by the Father in his Pleroma of archetypes.

This is what leads to the issue with the common belief that “God” is a being who is also the “Creator,” because it’s, actually, a non sequitur, since not necessarily a “God” needs to be a “Creator,” it could be a “Preserver” or a “Destroyer,” as it’s represented in the Hindu Trimurti.

Needless to say, that a Creator is not necessarily a King or a Prime Mover, since any Creator, necessarily, had to be created or moved by someone else. This is what leads to the issue of “who created the Creator?,” which ends up ad infinitum. Therefore, assigning priority to the Creator is a fallacy that doesn’t solve the issue.

On the other side, the Prime Mover is the universal and primordial active principle who starts by its own will the dialectical movement of reality. Since, this is the principle that by reflecting itself, it passes from potentiality to actuality.

Moreover, the Creator needs material external to him to create, unlike the Prime Mover, the active force, who works in itself, by means of its own reciprocity, which it is its own self-reflection.

More importantly, it’s that the archetypes of Creator, King or God are just single archetypes dwelling in the Pleroma of archetypes. Even the Father is an archetype, even though it is the most appropriate name for the force that passes from potentiality to actuality to reveal the infinite Pleroma of archetypes. Moreover, what contains rules over what is contained, and since the Creator is just one more archetype that is contained, it follows that the “Creator” cannot be considered as the “highest God.”

In any case, this train of thoughts is for the mature. That’s why it cannot be comprehended by childish minds. This is the reason why the idea of an ignorant, deficient or even evil Creator of the Gnostics is not for everyone. Not only because it requires a more enlightened mind, but because it would rule out the delusional sense of protection the “good daddy in the sky” gives to children.

“What is especially significant here is that God is conceived at the same time as the Creator of nature. He is seen as the maker of those imperfect creatures who err and sin, and at the same time he is their judge and taskmaster. Simple logic would say: if I make a creature who falls into error and sin, and is practically worthless because of his blind instinctuality, then I am manifestly a bad creator and have not even completed my apprenticeship. (As we know, this argument played an important role in Gnosticism). But the religious point of view is not perturbed by this criticism; it asserts that the ways and intentions of God are inscrutable. Actually, the Gnostic argument found little favour in history, because the unassailability of the God-concept obviously answers a vital need before which all logic pales.” The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche.

That’s why believers, due to their naive childish minds, simply close their eyes before the fact that, particularly, this world of mortal and imperfect beings, who most of their lives are bound to suffering, cannot be the creation of an all-mighty and all-loving “God.” So, believers turn themselves into the “devil’s advocate” pretending to apologize for their atrocious “God,” putting the guilt upon these insignificant and flawed created beings called humans. That is to say that, because two people ate a little apple, they condemned the whole of mankind.

The point is that if their “God” was all-knowing, he should have known what was gonna happen. So, if he knew and didn’t do something to stop it, then his indifference, or even incompetence is the one to blame.

The case for their “God” gets worse when they pretend to use the argument that it was a “test.” Since, an all-knowing God would not need to test, since by his foreknowledge, he would have to know without “testing.” Actually, the argument of “testing” only reveals that their Creator is an ignorant would-be “God” who is not able to foreknow the outcomes.

Besides Schopenhauer calling Brahma, the creator, the most sinful God of the Trimurti, and scant instances in Christian mysticism, like Boheme, claiming that God also has a dark side, and that even, Lucifer is his first son, and Eckhart, who among other unorthodox ideas, claimed that God is not good, the Gnostics are practically the only group who shamelessfully dare to blame “God” for this imperfect creation.

Actually, Gnostics were and are the only ones who dare to dethrone the Jewish “God” to expose him as an ignorant, incompetent, evil, and overall, pitiful Creator.