The question is, why does God tolerate them? Why doesn't he just delete them from existence?
Well, because He knows they can still repent. Or, rather, He hopes that they might, against all odds. Since spirits don't experience time like us, it's not a matter of time, but a matter of will. He made them to do a job. It's their decision to slack off on those responsibilities. There are no others more suitable to the task He gave them. Understand, there is no replacement for what he made, because He made them for one reason and one reason only. To fulfill the sole purpose assigned. They were granted Authority, not something to be taken lightly, and they've squandered it out of spite. They wanted more. They wanted to be honored and revered. They wanted to be like Him -- seen as Gods and not Servants to Humans, which they revile and despise for having "stolen" what was "rightfully" theirs.
So, I'm of the opinion that God cannot delete them because it pains him too much to do so. There's also the potential that the World would change in ways we can scarcely comprehend in their absence. They still uphold the minimal requirements of their station, it's just when it comes to Humans they are totally in Rebellion.
Rather, like a parent disowning their child, He will simply move to forget them. All photos of them on the wall or in picture books... Gone. Burned. God is all-knowing, so he can't really forget them. He could just reverse the act and reconstruct the ashes. But, he is all-powerful, so he can just lock them away if he pleases. One could inquire Him about them and be totally ignored concerning them. Hell is absence of God. They chose that pit of despair freely when they went against His Will.
In their place, Humans, having embraced Beatific Vision, will be empowered to pick up the pieces and fulfill the roles left vacant. We will once again be like that Garden Tender and have access to the heart-strings of Creation. Angels will no longer be arbiters but assistants and instructors. We will be able to exercise our Agency after acquiring the Inheritance. Powers and Principalities will be assigned to Humans of sufficient capability. If you can do the job and do it well, it's yours to hold. We'd have all of eternity to spend. Gotta fill that time with something to avoid getting bored, right? Much will come easy as compared to now. The greatest obstacle to us now is simply not knowing -- not knowing what is right and what is wrong.
The Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that Adam and Eve ate symbolizes our ability to refuse that knowledge. What once came as naturally to us as building a nest to a bird has been scattered in our minds. We must fight in order to survive, whereas after "it is finished" we will once again simply BE. No more struggle due to incompetence or ignorance.
The Time will come, but Time won't look the same. The passage of Time will not be marked by the movement of the Stars but by the discovery of new technologies. Stone Age. Bronze Age. Iron Age. Industrial Age. Digital Age. Space Age.... And beyond. It will be fully commanded by Humanity, with God looking on as a doting parent proud that we might even occasionally touch on what He is capable of. Emulation of Him, in Creative Works, is how we Honor and Glorify Him. Love is in doing as our Father does.
There will be no Truce. No Compromise. That which is in Rebellion will be Judged and Locked Away. Forgotten, but not Utterly Destroyed. Being unable to act at all, for the rest of Eternity, is a fate worse than being Unmade. Being in Absence of God is the worst Hell there is.
I have a question about how you write these articles, as it's clear that you are able to think through these difficult concepts deeply and then somehow derive from your thoughts a clear and concise, beautifully written piece.
What is your exact process of taking wild/unstructured thoughts about a topic you have in your mind, and ending up with these articles?
I often think deeply about different things, but in a totally unstructured manner, and I've thought about writing out some of these thoughts so I come to coherent conclusions, but I don't even know where to start.
Okay, first off, my mind is busted. Like, something's not right up there. Long before I stumbled upon Comms I was already able to think in metaphor. There are different processes of learning. Some people learn visually, some people learn audibly, some people learn tactically(touchy-feely). I learn spatially. That is to say, I learn based on the relationship of two things. Originally it was relegated to geographic relationships.
I have SERIOUS problems learning names unless that person is tied to a location. If I spot a someone I know outside of where I usually meet them, I am very likely to completely forget their name. Alternatively, this means I'm pretty good with location names.
This applies to my writing style, because I have to tap into that same "dynamics" thing when I write about subjects. Ideas and concepts have taste and color. Synesthesia is a name for it, but I think everyone has it they just don't realize it unless you point it out. Visualize a cube in your mind. What color is it? You visualized it in your mind's eye, right? So it has to have a color.
I assign colors, sounds, shapes, attitudes, and, most importantly, TASTE to abstract concepts. That means if I write something that doesn't work it usually "tastes" bad. Even then, sometimes I get stuck writing something that "steps on its own toes" mainly because I didn't know how to represent that taste any other way. I write like I talk, and I talk based on this "feeling" that's not really emotionally based but logically based. If you taste something and determine it needs more salt, that's not an emotional response, it is a logical one. It tastes "off."
That said, I do have a "structure" if you wanna call it that. There's a flow or, like Trump calls it, a "weave" when it comes to speaking. You make a point and you wanna head in the direction of another point. How do you get from point A to point B? It's not always a straight line. Instead of thinking about it rigidly, think of your ideas like locations that you have to travel winding roads to reach. Some paths lead to dead ends. Some paths go over rivers or streams. Other paths are like busy roads that everyone's already gone down at least once. Ideas are like roads, you just have to lock in your destination the GPS and follow the purple line. It helps if you can think in metaphor, because sometimes they just "taste" good.
As for you individually, I'd suggest starting with the old-standard Critical Writing technique. Get a piece of paper and split it into three columns. Then, split those three columns into five rows. In the top row is your Statement, made up of three brief points you wanna get across. The bottom row is your Conclusion, those three points connected in a single paragraph. Between them are three of your points. Your goal is to write at least three sentences for each of those rows, filling in the boxes. The last of each sentence has to be a "cliffhanger" leading into the next point.
Then, review your work. Add color and flavor, like seasoning something, until it flows well. Finally, add some "emphasis" like garnish on a plate. You know how I split text up sometimes to add emphasis?
You know... Like this?
Yeah, that's like the green stuff put on by the chef at the end. No one really eats it, but it is very striking in appearance. It splits up the text and gives you a breather. Adding a little green on top of a single-tone dish, like carrot soup, makes it more visually appealing, which tricks the mind into thinking it's "fancy."
They used to call that Macaroni -- a tacky feather in the hat that has no real substance but does set you apart from the over-used tropes that are already played out.
Past that, you have to play on your strengths. You can't do what I do exactly, because you're better at something else. I've told you how I learn, and its benefits weighed against its shortcomings, you just have to do the same for yourself. Evaluate your writing and mark down what "habits" you have. Play into them, or at least supplement any weaknesses with where you are strong, and you'll at least break even.
Finally, take long showers. There's just something about the white noise and heat that opens up the mind. Always finish it off with yanking the temperature as cold as it will go, and you'll lock in those ideas like iron is tempered with carbon in the quench. You'll be surprised just how hard it is to go from hot to cold and take that shift. Overcome that, the anxiety of staring at the knob and thinking "I REALLY don't wanna do this..." and writing something that puts yourself out there is a cakewalk.
Thanks for this, you really are very fascinating character in this game of life. I agree that everyone should play to their strengths. I'm actually a great orator, with a unique professional skillset, but my ability to convey ideas through speech doesn't translate well to writing. Even typing this, I know I could express it more effectively in person, and it's a frustrating experience trying to put my thoughts into something that's digestible.
I can craft compelling arguments verbally, and while you learn spatially, I tend to learn by speaking words into existence. When I speak, it's like I'm thinking out loud. I can work through ideas in real-time, refining them as I go. Something may sound great in my head, but the moment the words leave my lips it may "taste off" as you say, so I adjust or explore a new direction. I will often challenge my initial thoughts, refine my ideas, and learn through the process of articulating them.
But I find it extremely difficult to sit and write cohesive thoughts, and as I said earlier, even typing this is tricky.
This ability to speak through problems helps me reach solid conclusions and makes it significantly easier to persuade others on whatever I'm speaking about, since they get to see the whole process of how I arrive at my point, right as it's happening.
Writing, however, feels like a barrier to capturing that same clarity and conviction. I want to start putting words to paper, but it literally comes out in dribble. In conversation, you can jump around and play with ideas, but if someone were to transcribe that, it wouldn't read well at all.
Your suggestion of the critical writing exercise is an interesting one. I may give it a try and let you know how it goes. I may have to do a brain dump prior to that, and just write whatever comes to mind in dribble, before I refine it.
Okay, that makes things more interesting. You sound like a "post-it"/"flash card" thinker. Some CEOs and Judges fit in this category. Usually they have people to dictate major points to and have them organize the raw ideas into a cohesive piece. We don't all have that luxury.
Here's what you do.
Write down each statement you might make in speech on a slip of paper. If you have an image processor like Photoshop or something with layers you can also use that. Just chuck each idea on a board.
Then comes the "fun" part. Put some "anchors" down on the page which are the primary points you wanna focus on. Start sliding the cards of text around in between points A, B, and C. Read it out like a script. If something feels off, switch out cards until it works. Then, compile them all into one piece and add spacing, filler text, and breathers as binder, like laying mortar for a brick wall.
You won't always have to do this. This is like training wheels. One day you'll not need them any longer. You'll be able to do it internally, and see the cards in your head without needing the visual aid.
You've having problems "locking in" ideas. They come and go like dreams before you can write them down in a dream journal. So, orate things to yourself and then scribble them down hastily as you go along. Re-read them again and again like trying to memorize lines for a play. If you stumble with the words then discard the failures and write it again a different way.
If you can't write them down fast enough, get a hand recorder and record yourself. Don't feel self-conscious about how you sound, it's going to end up as text anyway. Just delete the recording when you're done if you're embarrassed.
I can't elaborate too much on the efficacy of such processes. I don't have to do it this way, but I've seen it done like this before with some creative writing examples. Just some of many different "brainstorming" methodologies. I wish I had an exact list of them to point you towards, but I'm just going off memory here.
Just as God has his Holy Trinity, so the enemy has the same.
Do you think the rebellion will ever be ended, by truce or compromise,or is the purpose of all life to fight against the Unholy Trinity forever?
The question is, why does God tolerate them? Why doesn't he just delete them from existence?
Well, because He knows they can still repent. Or, rather, He hopes that they might, against all odds. Since spirits don't experience time like us, it's not a matter of time, but a matter of will. He made them to do a job. It's their decision to slack off on those responsibilities. There are no others more suitable to the task He gave them. Understand, there is no replacement for what he made, because He made them for one reason and one reason only. To fulfill the sole purpose assigned. They were granted Authority, not something to be taken lightly, and they've squandered it out of spite. They wanted more. They wanted to be honored and revered. They wanted to be like Him -- seen as Gods and not Servants to Humans, which they revile and despise for having "stolen" what was "rightfully" theirs.
So, I'm of the opinion that God cannot delete them because it pains him too much to do so. There's also the potential that the World would change in ways we can scarcely comprehend in their absence. They still uphold the minimal requirements of their station, it's just when it comes to Humans they are totally in Rebellion.
Rather, like a parent disowning their child, He will simply move to forget them. All photos of them on the wall or in picture books... Gone. Burned. God is all-knowing, so he can't really forget them. He could just reverse the act and reconstruct the ashes. But, he is all-powerful, so he can just lock them away if he pleases. One could inquire Him about them and be totally ignored concerning them. Hell is absence of God. They chose that pit of despair freely when they went against His Will.
In their place, Humans, having embraced Beatific Vision, will be empowered to pick up the pieces and fulfill the roles left vacant. We will once again be like that Garden Tender and have access to the heart-strings of Creation. Angels will no longer be arbiters but assistants and instructors. We will be able to exercise our Agency after acquiring the Inheritance. Powers and Principalities will be assigned to Humans of sufficient capability. If you can do the job and do it well, it's yours to hold. We'd have all of eternity to spend. Gotta fill that time with something to avoid getting bored, right? Much will come easy as compared to now. The greatest obstacle to us now is simply not knowing -- not knowing what is right and what is wrong.
The Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that Adam and Eve ate symbolizes our ability to refuse that knowledge. What once came as naturally to us as building a nest to a bird has been scattered in our minds. We must fight in order to survive, whereas after "it is finished" we will once again simply BE. No more struggle due to incompetence or ignorance.
The Time will come, but Time won't look the same. The passage of Time will not be marked by the movement of the Stars but by the discovery of new technologies. Stone Age. Bronze Age. Iron Age. Industrial Age. Digital Age. Space Age.... And beyond. It will be fully commanded by Humanity, with God looking on as a doting parent proud that we might even occasionally touch on what He is capable of. Emulation of Him, in Creative Works, is how we Honor and Glorify Him. Love is in doing as our Father does.
There will be no Truce. No Compromise. That which is in Rebellion will be Judged and Locked Away. Forgotten, but not Utterly Destroyed. Being unable to act at all, for the rest of Eternity, is a fate worse than being Unmade. Being in Absence of God is the worst Hell there is.
These deep dives into these characters is powerful work. It gives a definitive 'something' to defy and resist.
Your explanations are phenomenal.
I have a question about how you write these articles, as it's clear that you are able to think through these difficult concepts deeply and then somehow derive from your thoughts a clear and concise, beautifully written piece.
What is your exact process of taking wild/unstructured thoughts about a topic you have in your mind, and ending up with these articles?
I often think deeply about different things, but in a totally unstructured manner, and I've thought about writing out some of these thoughts so I come to coherent conclusions, but I don't even know where to start.
Okay, first off, my mind is busted. Like, something's not right up there. Long before I stumbled upon Comms I was already able to think in metaphor. There are different processes of learning. Some people learn visually, some people learn audibly, some people learn tactically(touchy-feely). I learn spatially. That is to say, I learn based on the relationship of two things. Originally it was relegated to geographic relationships.
I have SERIOUS problems learning names unless that person is tied to a location. If I spot a someone I know outside of where I usually meet them, I am very likely to completely forget their name. Alternatively, this means I'm pretty good with location names.
This applies to my writing style, because I have to tap into that same "dynamics" thing when I write about subjects. Ideas and concepts have taste and color. Synesthesia is a name for it, but I think everyone has it they just don't realize it unless you point it out. Visualize a cube in your mind. What color is it? You visualized it in your mind's eye, right? So it has to have a color.
I assign colors, sounds, shapes, attitudes, and, most importantly, TASTE to abstract concepts. That means if I write something that doesn't work it usually "tastes" bad. Even then, sometimes I get stuck writing something that "steps on its own toes" mainly because I didn't know how to represent that taste any other way. I write like I talk, and I talk based on this "feeling" that's not really emotionally based but logically based. If you taste something and determine it needs more salt, that's not an emotional response, it is a logical one. It tastes "off."
That said, I do have a "structure" if you wanna call it that. There's a flow or, like Trump calls it, a "weave" when it comes to speaking. You make a point and you wanna head in the direction of another point. How do you get from point A to point B? It's not always a straight line. Instead of thinking about it rigidly, think of your ideas like locations that you have to travel winding roads to reach. Some paths lead to dead ends. Some paths go over rivers or streams. Other paths are like busy roads that everyone's already gone down at least once. Ideas are like roads, you just have to lock in your destination the GPS and follow the purple line. It helps if you can think in metaphor, because sometimes they just "taste" good.
As for you individually, I'd suggest starting with the old-standard Critical Writing technique. Get a piece of paper and split it into three columns. Then, split those three columns into five rows. In the top row is your Statement, made up of three brief points you wanna get across. The bottom row is your Conclusion, those three points connected in a single paragraph. Between them are three of your points. Your goal is to write at least three sentences for each of those rows, filling in the boxes. The last of each sentence has to be a "cliffhanger" leading into the next point.
Then, review your work. Add color and flavor, like seasoning something, until it flows well. Finally, add some "emphasis" like garnish on a plate. You know how I split text up sometimes to add emphasis?
You know... Like this?
Yeah, that's like the green stuff put on by the chef at the end. No one really eats it, but it is very striking in appearance. It splits up the text and gives you a breather. Adding a little green on top of a single-tone dish, like carrot soup, makes it more visually appealing, which tricks the mind into thinking it's "fancy."
They used to call that Macaroni -- a tacky feather in the hat that has no real substance but does set you apart from the over-used tropes that are already played out.
Past that, you have to play on your strengths. You can't do what I do exactly, because you're better at something else. I've told you how I learn, and its benefits weighed against its shortcomings, you just have to do the same for yourself. Evaluate your writing and mark down what "habits" you have. Play into them, or at least supplement any weaknesses with where you are strong, and you'll at least break even.
Finally, take long showers. There's just something about the white noise and heat that opens up the mind. Always finish it off with yanking the temperature as cold as it will go, and you'll lock in those ideas like iron is tempered with carbon in the quench. You'll be surprised just how hard it is to go from hot to cold and take that shift. Overcome that, the anxiety of staring at the knob and thinking "I REALLY don't wanna do this..." and writing something that puts yourself out there is a cakewalk.
Hope this helps!
Thanks for this, you really are very fascinating character in this game of life. I agree that everyone should play to their strengths. I'm actually a great orator, with a unique professional skillset, but my ability to convey ideas through speech doesn't translate well to writing. Even typing this, I know I could express it more effectively in person, and it's a frustrating experience trying to put my thoughts into something that's digestible.
I can craft compelling arguments verbally, and while you learn spatially, I tend to learn by speaking words into existence. When I speak, it's like I'm thinking out loud. I can work through ideas in real-time, refining them as I go. Something may sound great in my head, but the moment the words leave my lips it may "taste off" as you say, so I adjust or explore a new direction. I will often challenge my initial thoughts, refine my ideas, and learn through the process of articulating them.
But I find it extremely difficult to sit and write cohesive thoughts, and as I said earlier, even typing this is tricky.
This ability to speak through problems helps me reach solid conclusions and makes it significantly easier to persuade others on whatever I'm speaking about, since they get to see the whole process of how I arrive at my point, right as it's happening.
Writing, however, feels like a barrier to capturing that same clarity and conviction. I want to start putting words to paper, but it literally comes out in dribble. In conversation, you can jump around and play with ideas, but if someone were to transcribe that, it wouldn't read well at all.
Your suggestion of the critical writing exercise is an interesting one. I may give it a try and let you know how it goes. I may have to do a brain dump prior to that, and just write whatever comes to mind in dribble, before I refine it.
Okay, that makes things more interesting. You sound like a "post-it"/"flash card" thinker. Some CEOs and Judges fit in this category. Usually they have people to dictate major points to and have them organize the raw ideas into a cohesive piece. We don't all have that luxury.
Here's what you do.
Write down each statement you might make in speech on a slip of paper. If you have an image processor like Photoshop or something with layers you can also use that. Just chuck each idea on a board.
Then comes the "fun" part. Put some "anchors" down on the page which are the primary points you wanna focus on. Start sliding the cards of text around in between points A, B, and C. Read it out like a script. If something feels off, switch out cards until it works. Then, compile them all into one piece and add spacing, filler text, and breathers as binder, like laying mortar for a brick wall.
You won't always have to do this. This is like training wheels. One day you'll not need them any longer. You'll be able to do it internally, and see the cards in your head without needing the visual aid.
You've having problems "locking in" ideas. They come and go like dreams before you can write them down in a dream journal. So, orate things to yourself and then scribble them down hastily as you go along. Re-read them again and again like trying to memorize lines for a play. If you stumble with the words then discard the failures and write it again a different way.
If you can't write them down fast enough, get a hand recorder and record yourself. Don't feel self-conscious about how you sound, it's going to end up as text anyway. Just delete the recording when you're done if you're embarrassed.
I can't elaborate too much on the efficacy of such processes. I don't have to do it this way, but I've seen it done like this before with some creative writing examples. Just some of many different "brainstorming" methodologies. I wish I had an exact list of them to point you towards, but I'm just going off memory here.
I'll give those ideas a shot. Appreciate you taking the time to respond.