I’m having a good time with this Calvinist notion of two divine wills. So God has a split personality! He actively prohibits and rails against actions that He has Himself decreed! “Don’t do this!” commands the God who decreed I would do it, and could do no other. Lunacy.

The Calvinist premise: God is sovereign over everything, so if it happened, God decreed it. Let’s test the premise. Jeremiah 19:5 “They have built pagan shrines to Baal, where they burn their children as sacrifices to Baal. I have never commanded such a horrible deed; it never even crossed my mind to command such a thing!” Here God Himself, speaking through the prophet, insists He did not command or decree these evil practices. It’s time to begin the Calvinist acrobatics: Well, in one sense He didn’t but in another sense He did. The whole circus performance is necessary because the Calvinist cannot see the difference between God making things happen and allowing them to happen. The premise must be false.

I am scratching my head over how this abominable world view can be held by many thoughtful and decent people. I assume they suppress their minds and consciences because they believe their correct reading of Scripture requires them to do so.

Brenton Stanfield, heretofore unknown, faults C. S. Lewis, professor at Oxford and the leading Christian apologist of the 20th century, for “terrible logic” that “could not be further from the truth.” Now where would such preening arrogance come from?

Wouldn’t it be ironic if Calvinists were right about the elect only to find out that they are at the top of the list of the damned? I wonder how loudly they would be praising God’s sovereignty at that point.

What is the psychological appeal of Calvinism? It offers the secret pleasure of believing oneself to be part of a spiritual aristocracy. I might be ordinary—even a loser—in every respect. But I am the “elect” and am to the spiritual manor born. My natural inheritance.

Now the Calvinists say that “total depravity” is not the same as “absolute depravity.” absolute /ˈabsəˌlo͞ot/ Absolute means complete, total, or free from any limitation, restriction, or condition How do you debate with people who refuse to concede the normal meaning of words?

Nothing. Now here’s one for you. Can we call God all-compassionate and all-loving if He has the power to offer salvation to all but denies that offer to many, perhaps most, of the humans made “in his image”? Would you be a “loving father” if you did that to your children?

Kant is making a logical point here.

Immanuel Kant: OUGHT implies CAN. If we cannot do something then the command that we ought to do it makes no sense. Consequently it makes no sense for God to command us to love Him with all our hearts when God has not given many the grace to do that. Calvinism refuted.

Jesus tells the rich man to take up his cross and follow him. That instruction makes no sense if God pre-selected that man for damnation. In that case the man could not choose to follow Jesus. So your position makes nonsense of Jesus’ invitation.

Some Calvinists can’t even entertain the thought that maybe just maybe someone who rejects Calvinism actually does so because they do understand it and its unbelievable implications!

If the Calvinist doctrine of pre-destination is right, then atheists are right to reject God, because God has rejected them first. They don’t believe because they can’t; God didn’t give them the grace to believe. God is to blame for their damnation, not their own free will.

Sure. I used different words in different combinations to tell different stories. 😑

【TO THE FOSSILIZED OLD MEDIA】 Apparently, some people in traditional media still have absolutely no idea how the internet works. So let me explain it slowly enough for a kindergartener. YOU contact a creator. You want THEIR time. You want THEIR story. You want THEIR perspective. You want THEIR material for YOUR article. Then somehow you expect THEM to open YOUR scheduling link and rearrange THEIR day around YOUR calendar. Are you serious? You knocked on my door. Why the hell am I making an appointment with you? This is not complicated. A five-year-old understands the sequence: Knock on the door. Say who you are. Explain what you want. Explain why the other person should care. You do NOT knock on someone's door, refuse to explain yourself, hand them your appointment book, and behave as though they should be grateful for the privilege. And that brings me to the funniest part. Some of you still seem to believe that appearing in “major media” is a reward. 😂😂😂 I have bad news. I have appeared in major media before. Do you know what happened to my audience on X afterward? Almost nothing. Do you know how many meaningful new readers magically appeared because some prestigious old logo mentioned me? Almost none. It was fascinating. That experience taught me something brutally simple: On the modern internet, much of traditional media is not merely declining. It is functionally dead. Not metaphorically. Not as an insult. Functionally. Your logo does not stop a thumb. Your résumé does not stop a thumb. Your decades of institutional prestige do not stop a thumb. Your expensive office does not stop a thumb. Your press badge does not stop a thumb. The internet does not give a damn who you used to be. People scroll. And scroll. And scroll. Until something is actually worth stopping for. THAT is influence now. So please stop confusing institutional prestige with actual reach. They are not the same thing anymore. And please stop approaching creators as though you are descending from Mount Olympus to generously bestow “exposure” upon the peasants. Some of us already have an audience. Some of us can publish one sentence from a phone and reach more human beings than your carefully edited article ever will. So when YOU approach US, perhaps consider the revolutionary concept of explaining why we should give you our time. What are you writing? Why do you want me? What exactly do you need? What value does this have for me? Three sentences. That's all. If you cannot answer those questions before demanding a meeting, then perhaps journalism is not the profession currently suffering the biggest crisis. Perhaps basic communication is. And if your grand institution supposedly carries enormous digital influence, here's another revolutionary idea: Prove it. Build an audience. Make things people voluntarily follow. Create something that survives without a famous logo attached to it. Then come back and lecture internet creators about the enormous value of your “exposure.” Until then, congratulations on the prestigious masthead. I'm sure it looked magnificent in 2007. But this is 2026. Nobody owes you reverence. Nobody owes you gratitude. And nobody owes you a slot on their calendar simply because you work for a company their grandfather once recognized. You want my time? Bring value. You want my story? Explain yourself. You want my attention? Earn it. A famous logo does not entitle you to my time. Reach does. Value does. Professionalism does. Welcome to the internet. Please try to keep up. NOBUNAGA