Ah. Sometimes with the same dataset and a little more contemplation, ideas figuratively click into place. To paraphrase the interpretation-by-means-of-implication ‘the other guys’ seem to have manifestly intended, ‘But you’d said that it would be unworthy of, and wrong for, you to listen to those manifestly Choosing to interact on a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis. Therefore, to reciprocate your courtesy in providing notice and grace, we’re doing likewise and alerting you to this. By your interpretation of Divine Will principles, you’re perhaps even forfeiting your own alignment with Divine Will simply in hearing us out from a manifestly counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature position.’
There are moments that I greatly and profoundly miss ‘Us’. This is among them. Our mutual Creator definitely gave them brains. Had our manifest scenario been different, it would have been an absolute joy to attend to Divine Will-aligned projects along with them rather than at ‘cross purposes’.
When I’d said at another juncture, ‘Indeed, it would be wrong of Me to do so’, I think I’d meant ‘wrong’ in the sense of ‘erroneous’. Either that or a wrongdoing against our Creator, by reallocating attention from Divine Will to something manifestly self-identifying with ‘a counter-Divine Will basis’. Applying that to My approach here, that doesn’t seem to be so.
I’m not quite listening to ‘the other guys’ per se, but ensuring they have a chance to speak on their own behalf through invocation of Divine Will principles. The implications they’ve manifestly invested in making are correlated against Divine Will principles to ascertain their validity despite having been presented from an inauthentic position. ‘The other guys’ get an opportunity for grace, and their Divinely-conferred rights to ‘due process’, ‘due diligence’ respected and upheld despite their having Chosen a manifest basis which rejects both those things and their Source. The People get another free demonstration of applied Divine Will principles, and by the conclusion presumably either a clearer understanding of the comparative authority structures and figures involved here, or are instead spared a couple of unworthy scenarios that would otherwise have manifested. I get to live out more of My True Nature in providing grace, fairness, ‘due diligence’ and so on, and possibly My “ratings” improve as a result of that. To the benefit of the People, of course.
Were I not to provide an opportunity for grace and ‘due diligence’, I’d presumably be offending against Divine Will by encroaching against Divinely-conferred rights. Not against rights that ‘the other guys’ could usefully have a manifest claim to, or cause to protest, given that they’ve manifestly jettisoned the Divine Will which confers them, but still. We’re supposed to do our utmost to uphold rights to recognize Divine authority in conferring them, and to recognize and live out our own True Nature in upholding them. Despite the miseducation of so many among the general public in our era, it remains true that recognizing and upholding rights to the best of our reasonable ability has little if anything to do with the beneficiary of our actions, and more to do with who we are as individuals and the kind of society we want to have.
So we get into tropes like the Pharisees rebuking Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, ‘Against Love their is no law’, ‘Do unto others’, and so on.
We also get into common law concepts like, ‘The law does not require that which is impossible’. Consider: We’re presented with situations in our manifest experience which are less than ideal and perfect. Attempting to uphold Divine Will best among many options requires sorting by value judgement. Attempting to translate and apply Divine Will principles effectively and relevantly to particular situations requires more than just the principles themselves, but a sort of nuanced application which more accurately upholds the demonstrated values of Divine Will, the figurative ‘spirit’ rather than merely ‘letter’ of the law. The substance over the form, if we’re relegated to Choosing between them. Are our Choices and comparative value assessments guaranteed to always be completely accurate, or applicable to every situation? Hardly. But encouragingly, that isn’t required. The nature of Divine Will is content with our Choice to align and our best effort, since it’s more concerned with Choices then with specific resultants and outcomes. We do the best we can under the circumstances, and we’re provided sufficient grace to get by. It’s the Choice that matters. Are we investing our Will, our efforts, ourselves into aligning with Divine Will, or into rejecting it?
Getting back to the specific matter at hand, we have ‘the other guys’ implying a very savvy argument which nevertheless doesn’t seem relevant in this situation. Interestingly, the argument is then applied to rationalize numerous instances of “static” [implied disrespect, obstructionism, supposed unwillingness, etc.] and therefore knowing, Willful and avoidable ‘suckage’, all while purportedly the result of a Choice on their part to demonstrate their wholesome, benevolent, constructive and assistive True Nature that’s just beneath the surface.
It a appears to be an ‘admixture’, and the knowing, Willful and avoidable Choice for two mutually-exclusive things: their True Nature, and ‘suckage’.
Their manifestly-implied admonition also seems to be self-referential or 'meta'.