There are a few problems with your annotations.
The first page you show where you note that "this is 100% an angel who would agree to go back up to heaven..." is Aziraphale before his character development. While he had been parroting heaven's propaganda before, after his conversation with the Metatron, Aziraphale is completely disillusioned with them.
He doesn't keep trying to convince the Metatron to stop the war, he doesn't claim heaven is certain to triumph over hell. At the final moment, he is ready to face Satan to protect the humans at the airbase, because he knows heaven, and by extension himself, have gone to far in their interference with humanity, and he thinks he owes it to them to protect them one final time.
The angel we're left with at the end of the book is not an angel who would choose to go back to heaven without a good reason. By the end of the book Aziraphale has learned where his loyalties truly lie, with humanity and with Crowley.
For the second picture, I'm confused as to how you used 2 quotes that plainly state that humans have free will to support the idea that humans need to be given "real" free will. The two pages in the picture are actually both Aziraphale explaining why angels and demons don't have free will, unlike humans. You could take this one way and say that maybe the the story should go the way of giving angels and demons free will and exposing them to humanity so they'll no longer want to mess things up on earth as a way to ensure humanity's future. But, given the quote on the second page is about how humans' free will has rubbed off on Crowley, I'd say that's not even true. Like I mentioned above, Azirahale at this stage in the book is still aligned with heaven, and simply repeats their doctrines when it comes to difficult conversations about morality. What he's saying is clearly what heaven believes (demons inherently bad, angels inherently good), and is proven wrong throughout the rest of the book, starting only a paragraph down. Humans already have free will; angels and demons already have free will. Those aren't the problems that need to be solved.
The other thing you talk about on those pages is how humans need a lack of divine intervention to be free, and while I do agree that one of the book's big conclusions is that heaven and hell's interference limits the freedom of humans, that's not what they're talking about here. In that section, they're specifically talking about human interference on each other's freedoms. Getting rid of heaven and hell won't magically make human life easy and simple, or "start everyone off equal." Getting rid of heaven and hell will stop people from being judged for eternity outside of the context of their circumstances, which is what Crowley was talking about in that passage.
Last thing on that page that bothers me is the note about getting to live without their past trauma. I've made other posts about how it's just distasteful to wish all of their trauma away, so I won't get fully into it here, but trauma is a part of a person, that they can heal from, but that can't ever be removed. People are the sum of their experiences; a hypothetical version of that person without those experiences, even trauma, is simply a different person.
Last page, the analogy the Them draw between the Them/the Johnsonites and heaven/hell specifically concludes with them deciding they don't want either side to go away, even though Tadfield as a whole, or earth in this scenario, might want that
They're coming from the perspective of "heaven" and "hell." They like having an enemy to endlessly fight. Adam uses this perspective to try and reason with Beelzebub and the Metatron to stop the war, but not to get rid of their sides completely.
The note you made saying the war would just go on forever is better supported in this line. But this idea isn't really being used to suggest that heaven and hell should be dismantled. I agree that that would be a good way to take the story and secure humanity's future (though I completely disagree that the original 8 billion humans needed to be sacrificed for a new universe in order for that to happen), but the Them's argument isn't really evidence that this is what must happen. The fantasy world would be a jolly sight less interesting without cassette tapes that turn into Queen and prophets who call out cheating men centuries in the future. And things like that don't exist in the miracle-less universe with "real" free will.
Overall the idea that heaven and hell need to stop interfering with humanity is fully supported within the book, but nothing else about the finale is. The book makes it clear over and over again that humans have free will, as do Aziraphale and Crowley. There's no fundamental missing piece in the universe that makes it so the people can never be free and can only hope for death. Simply stopping heaven and hell's influence on humans would solve the only major moral problem the book proposes. The universe didn't need to be replaced, angels and demons didn't need to be destroyed.
The book is even opposed to a lot of the things the finale presents. One person making decisions for all of humanity first of all; Adam specifically passed up on ruling the world because he thought humans should understand the consequences of their own actions and make their own decisions
Compare this to the attitude Adam had when his antichrist powers were clouding his judgement at the height of the book's conflict:
This is the same flawed approach the finale takes. They could have brought the original universe back and stopped heaven and hell "messing around," but instead they left that one destroyed so they could start again. The new universe without all the problems of the old one isn't the same universe, it's the new mothers and fathers who don't make you go to bed or tidy your room.
vaporwave
prguitarman
areudirty
amandla
discoholicmusic
pixelskylines
