I have to be honest - I have highly mixed feelings about this. I mean, on the one level I love it for its originality. Discourse like this is always so fascinating to read. On another...well. Certain bits just don't sit well with me, even when I disregard all of the religious implications. But more on that in a moment.

Technically speaking this entire poem seems pretty good with a few exceptions: it's "wondrous" not "wonderous", and I'm a little perturbed by your decision to only use grammar sometimes. If I'm honest it makes reading the poem aloud (as I like to do) quite difficult. For example, you use question marks which, of course, makes sense in terms of inflections and the like, but your only indication of when one sentence ends and another begins seems to be capitalisation at the beginning of a line. Which, now I come to think of it, and maybe that's just me, makes the poem look odd again, regarding its inconsistency. Anyway, that's just a minor detail and a personal preference, but the fact that you only use commas in some sentences is a little disconcerting for me.

And onto the words themselves. I'm confused by the surprise in the narrator's (is he the narrator? I understand that one of the characters, presumably the one whose text is emboldened, is Lucifer, and the other...well, his/her anonymity makes sense in terms of the poem but is highly inconvenient for these critiques!) voice when he says "Even when granted the gift of knowledge they still fall prey to their own insecurities e.t.c" Surely it's knowledge that allows humanity such insecurities and paranoia? I mean, lots of fears stem out of emotion itself and the fear of loss and the future, for which we need knowledge of the past and our own nature, such as it is. The fact that we submit to our own insecurities seems self-explanatory to me - it's a result of knowledge, not in spite of it.

Next stanza - pretty simple, Biblical reference unless I'm much mistaken, nice touch. And then the next one, regarding self-destruction. This sort of commentary on modern society tends to grate on my nerves a bit, because it implies that people do things such as drugs, alcohol the like with the intent to destroy themselves, a statement which I don't think is at all accurate. As a generalisation the statement "self-abuse is taken as fun" sounds good enough, but it only really scratches the surface of why people do such things - there are reasons so much deeper than simply ignorance and wilful defiance to the rules and parameters that either society or religion sets for us. "Greed is good and gluttony is gold" - eh...is it greed, as a general rule? Or innovation and the wish to do better, to strive higher and discover so much more whether it be in the fields of media or science or literature or...or anything really. A lust for money or power often has so much more behind it, and the most innocent of aims and stems; a passion for learning or for discovery, or simple intelligence. Oh, and why shouldn't wrath be protected by the justice of mental instability? Your statements seem judgemental to me.

And finally the last emboldened bit...highly philosophical, very much food for thought, but again sits ill with me. People "representing" the light seems odd. Why shouldn't be simply be light - why can't people just be good? Why do they have to be labelled as standing for a higher cause, be it morality or religion or anything at all - is it too far of a stretch to say that people seem good because they are so, rather than being infused by some sort of higher power and higher moral plane? Then the light-dark contrast; although you phrased it quite nicely, I can't help but feel it's rather a cliché...and then you contradict yourself, I feel, having just stated the sun is actually there you go on to say it will eventually "shine again", implying that it ever stopped shining, which I feel is at odds with your initial statement.

That said, I adore your last phrase. It made me smile and it had a sort of dry humour to it which I can't help but love.

Reading back over this critique I realise I come across as rather harsh and judgemental myself. My comments are only based off what I could make of your lovely words, and I appreciate that poetry is by nature subjective; I might be entirely wrong in my assumptions and you could have meant something completely different, I don't know. May I just reiterate that I love this poem? I really do, and I think your technique is flawless. I just disagree with some of the things you're saying, but it's your prerogative to say them just as it is mine to disagree with them. Regardless, I hope that some of my critique was helpful.

All the best,

~Elsie

wow I'm really taken aback by this. I have watched you for a while and your vision and originality not to mention your literature skills are just amzing! These qualities are hard to find. you really make the poem come to life in a unique way. You have strong oppinions and views, which most people don't have the guts to express. This is an amazimg piece, it should teach people and show us that we are committing sins, and just giving attention to God for one hour on a Sunday morning will not free us of our past mistakes.(espicially if we will just commit them again) He might forgive us, but our souls are still stained.