Manifestly continuing to act on a counter-Divine Will basis, ‘the other guys’ have been covertly implying all manner of things with all sorts of double- and triple-inversion and so on. As if to demonstrate the “absurdity” of a counter-Divine Will position… while still manifestly Choosing it.
It’s tempting to conclude that I’m not sure what they’re doing, here. An object lesson presented to the People about the “absurdity” of accepting a counter-Divine Will basis, which if I accept the value presented would then be interpreted as acceptance of terms? [How would I then demonstrate My rejection of the benefits of such an object lesson to the People? It’s a lesson I’ve been Working to teach them as well.] An implied bit of rhetoric directed to Myself, as a means of arguing that counter-Divine Will positions actually serve Divine Will and are thus supposedly acceptable by the thing with which they’re mutually-exclusive? Since things presented on a counter-Divine Will premise are essentially arbitrary, there are a number of interpretations available to form here.
This is why we do not evaluate counter-Divine Will arguments from within their own context. The result of that is as arbitrary and whimsical as anything deriving from a counter-Divine Will basis.
So we’re left to regard it from a Divine Will-aligned basis outside of that context and premise. From which we’re left to conclude that it’s simply an “absurd” manifest Choice to reject Divine Will on any number of pretexts.
We’ve seen that the Babylonian Gnostics use a means of quasi-communication by way of that which consciousness is drawn attention to. ‘Banishments’ which are actually designed as ‘invocations’ and suchlike. Counter-Divine Will positionalities could be regarded as inversions of Divine Will, thus drawing the attention of the People to Divine Will. Except that a rejection of value isn’t qualitatively comparable to the affirmation of value, grotesquery is ignoble and unworthy, and rights violations are wrongdoing and liability. An inverted manifestation of a Divine Will-aligned position is unworthy, and manifestly negates the position of them as use it. Not to acknowledge this would result in a diminishment of standards just as the quasi-organizations manifestly have already Chosen, and presumably an abandonment of Divine Will alignment as well. To the best of My knowledge, Divine Will can’t be ‘a sometimes thing’.
And it’s certainly nobody’s True Nature to try everything in the figurative book to avoid Choosing a Divine Will- and True Nature-aligned position.
They’ve made their case already for how that of lesser value, such as counter-Divine Will-aligned positions, quite naturally direct the People to Divine Will-aligned positions due to the disparity of value. That’s just human Nature. But to use that formula to rationalize deliberately Choosing a counter-Divine Will position is a flawed argument, and it comes across as sophistry and rhetoric. Self-evidently, defective counter-Divine Will positions will exist on their own in the manifest scenario for as long as a lack of understanding by the People of Divine Will principles causes them to Choose those positions. There’s no need to knowingly, Willfully, avoidably Choose them even moreso, and indeed to prompt the People to Choose counter-Divine Will positions. Nor is it what’s needed; it’s manifested a dearth of value for the People and there’s an associated liability for that. As I’d said years ago, and even earlier to the telepaths and propheciers: What’s wrong with just affirming a Divine Will-aligned position and leading by example?
Presumably nothing, and the idea of some legitimate counterforce is of course spurious. They could’ve had all this sorted well before now if they’d manifestly Chosen to.
Why would they not Choose to do that? We could come up with any number of contrived, arbitrary reasons, but it’s simply due to their manifest Choice for a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis. And everything deriving from that lacks genuine substance, and is untruth presented in a mini-context on a counter-Divine Will basis, which I reject.
So no, I can’t accept a notion of, ‘Using a counter-Divine Will approach to solve a counter-Divine Will problem which had no reason to exist in the first place.’ All that seems to do is rationalize a Choice for a counter-Divine Will position. Yet another implied argument for a Choice to reject Divine Will, in other words. We’ve established how much value those have.
And that it's in alignment with nobody's True Nature to make them.