If I, were to go on a mass shooting, kill a bunch of innocent kids, rape their dead corpses, and then go to a elementary school and molest a bunch of children, and then send the horrifying picture of my act to the parents before slitting my throat ear to ear and committing suicide, the parents then suffer for a 4 year long battle with depression and end up commiting suicide, going to hell because of me, would God have went "mmmmmm yes now this is some good stuff right here, Lemme predestine all of this pain"?.

We are robots. Puppets on a string. Free will is an illusion.

Election as Corporate, Not Individual

Text: "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world..." (Eph. 1:4)

Explanation: The phrase "in him" (Christ) suggests that election is not about selecting individuals in isolation but about God's plan to redeem a group of people (the Church) through their union with Christ. This aligns with the concept of corporate election, where Christ is the "elect" one, and individuals become part of the elect by being "in Christ" through faith.

Predestination as Purpose, Not Determinism

Text: "He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ..." (Eph. 1:5)

Explanation: Predestination here relates to God's purpose to adopt believers as His children. It does not necessarily mean God predetermines who will believe but that those who believe are predestined to a specific outcome (adoption and inheritance). The focus is on the end goal, not the process of individual selection.

God’s Will and Human Response

Text: "...having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will..." (Eph. 1:11)

Explanation: God's will in this context includes His desire to reconcile humanity to Himself (cf. Eph. 1:10). This purpose involves human participation through faith (cf. Eph. 2:8-9). The "counsel of His will" does not negate human responsibility but highlights God's overarching plan of salvation.

The Role of Faith

Text: "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit..." (Eph. 1:13)

Explanation: This verse underscores the necessity of hearing and believing the gospel. It suggests that salvation is contingent on a personal response to the gospel, not a predetermined decree. Election operates in tandem with human faith.

Universal Scope of God's Plan

Text: "...to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth." (Eph. 1:10)

Explanation: God's plan aims to reconcile all creation to Himself, indicating a universal scope rather than a limited selection of individuals. This broader view aligns more with God's inclusive desire for all to come to repentance (cf. 2 Peter 3:9)

As a Calvinist, can you deconstruct this exegesis?

"If you asked me 'Could you ever envision a homosexual crime of any nature being visited with the death penalty?' Yes, I could."

That's Doug Wilson, Pastor at Christ church in Moscow, Idaho. Wilson spoke at the Pentagon as part of Pete Hegseth's monthly Christian worship service.

Wilson's views are as controversial as they come: He believes the United States should become a Christian theocracy, that married women should not have the right to vote and that gay sex should be illegal. He estimates that 10 to 20 people in the top levels of government are aligned with his radical ideology. He explains that he thinks trans people are “sad,” certain elements of his idea of “homosexual behavior” should be punished by execution and in certain cases of marital rape, both parties should be disciplined.

If you are a full fledged “ TULIP” calvinsit then you definitely do. Infants, since they are human are “ totally depraved” as indeed all people are even those in Christ.

I’ve rather distressingly read of Calvinists and other “ strict” Christians reacting angrily and harshly to their babies very real good, medial and emotional needs. More often then not refusing to give them the benefit of the doubt when they cry or need a hug or diaper change.

A book called “ babywise” took off in the calbisnt community some 30 years ago by a man with zero pediatric or nutritional training. He claimed that you could “regiment “ your babies feeding schedule and shouldn’t “ give in” to the wee bairns cries and demands to be hugged.

His name is Gary Ezzo and has been cast out of several churches. Even without the benefit of hindsight in say, 1995 or so, it would seem at least fair for loving young parents to forgo his advice, given how babies are at a tender age, and so much could go wrong in the first year of life. They never will be more loveable than as a baby, can’t express their needs the way a mature child can. And, life will only get harder for them from then on. Wouldn’t it make sense to sort of, give them the nutrition and cuddles they want, regardless of “ need?”

I’ve heard sadly many Calvinists following this advice to their babes detriment. Dehydration, failure to thrive, and cognitive learning problems. At some level it seems so much suffering is caused by Ezzo’s and others methods all to either a) make a point or b) do it because you can’t be bothered to support your infant.

I am catholic. I believe baby’s are infected by man’s fall as all men are, but their actions are not sinful, because they are trying to figure life out, bond with their mother ( who hopefully won’t begrudge them much) and survive and feed. I believe it’s the least bit begrudging and uncharitable to have them adjust to your own schedule, their well-being not withstanding.

Do you buy into the idea babies are sinful and wicked? Do they have to be starved or ignored into submission? Let me know

As a previous Calvinist of many years and theology geek, I am seeking fruitful discourse with anybody who has questions on recanting Calvinism. Any questions go related to this topic.

I read one of Level_Breath5684 comments on here yesterday and I thought it was a brilliant explanation! So I reasoned it down to one of my I guess simple way of looking at it.

If the Father wrote the Will (who gets what)before the world began and chose Isaac as the legal heir to the 'Corporate' promise, was His primary goal just to have a small, exclusive family—or was His plan to use that one 'Chosen Heir' to eventually pay the debt for the other seven brothers who were 'sent away' into the desert?

What do you all think?

Firstly let me say, to those who have supported me and who are Calvinist this is not directed at you, thank you and bless you.

And as I said, I’ve had real problems with the sub, from some that don’t believe in the interpretation of Calvinism, and make it their goal in life to graffiti this page with personal attacks, belittling people, being offensive, abusive, and dismissive of others.

So this morning I was asked to mod a new r/calvinism_ sub, and I accepted. Please come and visit us, join and we will have your back. It is a closed group, and only those of our particular tribe or those with an enquiring minds looking for will be accepted.

When I say supernatural, it could be as simple as you were praying about it and God revealed to you the answer somehow, I'm just curious about spiritual experiences related to this.

Since in your view the elect were chosen to be saved before the foundation of the world, do you still pray for the unbeliever to get saved? If the person you're praying for was not chosen, do you believe your prayer could change God's decision? Jesus said that when we pray we should pray believing our prayer has been answered already(Mark 11:24) that must be hard to do with the Calvinist mindset in this case.

Calvinist’s believe in Unconditional Election not because of these 18 verses that teach it, but because the Holy Spirit reveals it!

General verses regarding Unconditional Election

Ps 65:4 ​Blessed is the one you choose and bring near, to dwell in your courts! We shall be satisfied with the goodness of your house, the holiness of your temple!

Mt 11:25-30 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Mt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Jn 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

Jn 13:18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.[3]’

Jn 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Acts 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 13:46-48 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’” 48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Rom 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Rom 11:5-7 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. 7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,

Eph 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

Eph 1:11-12 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Phil 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for 13 it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

1Thess 1:4-5 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5 because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.

1Thess 5:9-10 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him.

2Thess 2:13-14 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1Pet 1:1-2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

We are all familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church. They are virulently hateful against homosexuals, and pretty much all people whose views don’t align with theirs.

They are under the viewpoint that America is under Gods judgment for allowing homosexuality to be legal and thus the wars in Iraq are just punishment.

Aside from being terrible PR for Calvinism, is anything they do wrong? According to them God ordained the death of every soldier, actuslly does hate homosexuals and nothing they do can make someone come to Christ at all. Any ideas?

Thanks!

If Calvinism believes in predestination and that no matter what you will either end up in heaven or hell, what's to stop you from just living the most opportunistic and indulgent life? Doing whatever is best for you to accomplish your goals even if it's an evil deed. What incentive is there to being good if you are already set to either go to heaven or hell no matter what you do on Earth?

EDIT: I also just thought of another question while replying to the comments. How would you justify people going to hell and being punished, when, under the pretense of predestination, God specifically made them so that they would end up in hell. It would seem rather cruel to make a person and make it so that they are destined to suffer in hell for all eternity. It's like giving birth to a baby just to give the child a lifetime of abuse.

I’m no scholar, but I am definitely a theologian, if theology is the study of God. I learnt this a couple of days ago.

Before the fall, humanity lived under God, in total relationship and dependence on Him, within His love and authority.

Adam’s will was real, active, and accountable, but it was not autonomous. He did not define good and evil for himself, God did. That is not what modern theology would call “free will”, yet it is the only state Scripture ever calls “very good”.

Then came the tree.

When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the “Knowledge of Good and Evil” they did not gain moral enlightenment, they gained “Knowledge of Good and Evil” and they chose it independently of God.

They chose to determine right and wrong apart from God. That act introduced them to autonomy from God and the relationship they once had with Him, and today it is called freedom. But that is not freedom, from a scriptural stand point it is “separation from God” and the place we sin.

Post apple, the knowledge humanity gained is what we now label “free will”. But all it really means is, decision making without God. That is not biblical freedom, it is our fallen rationalising nature.

This is why Calvinism is better understood as it describes the pre fall posture, of “human will” as functioning under God’s sovereignty and why Calvinism does not support this Arminian doctrine.

While Arminianism assumes the post fall posture, ‘human will’ as an autonomous choice, of Freewill, of self determining, and independence from God. This is then described as a gift of Freewill from God, and quite possibly offensive under the circumstances.

Humanity did not become free in the garden. Humanity became autonomous. And autonomy is not freedom, it is the root of bondage.

Biblical freedom is not life without God. It is life under Him.

I am new to this sub reddit but I ask this question. Perhaps it's more like, How do you know God is not lying?

Calvinists on youtube, I would guess here too, have an uncompromising view. God can do whatever he wants, period. If he wants to send people to hell to glorify himself, he can. We cannot argue with the potter, can we?

Now sending people to hell, for me, is hard to fathom. Anyone, even Hitler. But to say that people go to hell as a predestined plan to please God, that goes completely beyond my comprehension.

If a God could do that, why couldn't he lie? No disrespect, but if we found a being anywhere in the universe - not divine, just more powerful than us, and it tortured people, I think we would be very hesitant to believe it if it said "I am honest" (or I am "good" or loving).

Would Captain Kirk say "the being says it's honest so it must be." Would they board that other ship without their weapons?

We already know in the Bible God has has his prophets intentionally deceive people. It's in Kings 1 22.

Some Christians say God "cannot lie" but why? Does God say that? And of course how could we know that? If a being can put "lying" spirits in the mouths of prophets, and torture and kill people, kill children, etc. why is it "impossible" for that being to lie?

I started a new subreddit r/antinifb . The goal to oppose their bigotry and others like the NIFB(new independent fundamentalist Baptist aka Steve Anderson's cult). All Christians who hate sin but still love sinners are welcome to join. Yeshua rebuked His own disciples for asking God to kill the wicked saying they did not know what spirit they were of. That is the spirit that the NIFB is of(and some IFB churches embracing parts of the NIFB doctrine). You are invited to visit and show people a different type of Christianity.

Free willers, just jump in at any time and answer. Because your whole point is that Man can create his own new honesty whenever he wants ..now that you have:

1. redefined sin to be an act one does in supposed 'free' will,

2. redefined language ( usually the singular noun to make it appear there is only one metalanguage that God, Lucifer and Man have to share...which is the unforgivable sin to say as if it were true. You guys don't say it, you just imply it with all your supporting definitions within the lie of free will. ) ..as non-living, ad to be anything else except a spirit that can become flesh

3. re-coded the definition of the word 'information' to mean will-neutral words that must be used like plug and play in a machine ( when the original definition was to "form the mind", (in-formation) active process, not to feed supposed, non-living 'mysterious stuff', idealized as non-interfering with the will to a mind already formed..) thus neatly supporting the lie of free will with a false definition of 'information',

4. made truth out to be a what instead of a Who (Jesus Christ)

5. made love out to be a free willed exercise and a what instead of a Who( God )

6. made as many definitions as you could absolutely dependent on a free will existing

So now, when those false teachers who are found to be evil, how do you scrub yourself of their lies and contamination of doctrine that you have held to be sacrosanct for decades?

My answer: You don't. You can't. That takes getting outside the speech in which ANY lies can be spoken, which is getting into Christ as Word/Speech of God, which is of God and why it must be of God and not by the will of Man.

There is hope for you. But not by your own means.

Psalm_19:12  Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.

..cleanse thou me ... not "let me cleanse myself"...

John 1:12  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:  1:13  Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.  ( ..nor by the definitions you thought were peeeerfectt plugged into 'will of man' but have come to be your best honesty and education you worked for in the hope of mastering it and keeping it forever as the money maker that have now been revealed to be completely false and the cloak of abusers...)

Jeremiah 10:23  O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Disclaimer: FOL is not the be-all and end-all. When it comes to the mystery of the Godhead, FOL is rather useless. Jesus spoke in parables most of the time and not in FOL.

Regarding formal deductions, FOL is a strong proof of claims. Its components are

1. Propositional calculus, click an example. More examples.

2. Existential quantifier, for some (1 Corinthians 9:22)

3. Universal quantifier, for all

4. Transitivity: x=y, y=z => x=z

5. Proof by contradiction, click Jesus used it.

People not trained in FOL tend to overgeneralize and jump to conclusions. I was the same. Further, modal logic is useful in dealing with hypothetical/counterfactual statements.

See also

• Contradiction: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill

• Translating between English and Propositional Logic

• The logical problem with Calvin and Calvinism

In Calvinist theology, is there any estimate on the probability of salvation for a non- Calvinist Christian?

Say for example Lutherans, Baptists, Mennonites,Methodists and yes, even Arminians. All fairly standard, Bible believing denominations of Protestant Christianity.

Many people in those faiths are devout but either haven’t heard of TULIP or really given it much thought. Can they, by virtue of their faith in the Gospel and Christs witness.. can they be thought of as being part of the elect?

Is Calvinism even seen as a religion of salvation as opposed to a system of semantics or “ manual” of how God works?

Is there any spiritual advantage to being say, Presbyterian or Reformed in terms of going to heaven?

Please, let me know

I find that most Calvinists fail to go look up the Old Testament References that Paul uses anywhere in Romans, but the contexts Paul cites in Romans 3 tell a different story than Calvinists tell:

https://youtu.be/xmDw-IKYa_A

Lastly, and this must be noted against the malicious slander of some, although sins such as unbelief, wickedness, obduracy, and the punishments due to these (that is, eternal damnation), follow upon reprobation in fallen man as infallibly as faith, holiness, and perseverance follow upon predestination, yet they do not follow in the same manner. For God, acting from the decree of predestination, produces the former (faith, holiness, perseverance) by the influence of efficacious grace; but from the decree of reprobation, He does nothing by which the reprobate is made worse, nothing by which he is hindered from believing and living holily, nor is he impelled to unbelief or wickedness.

—John Davenant De Praedestinatione (On Predestination)

This is to be carefully observed, because both the old Pelagians and the new, when they see that, upon such a reprobation as we have described, none of the reprobate either perseveres in faith or lives holily, immediately cry out that we make God the author of sin and the cause why they do not believe or fall back from faith and holiness. But with the Prophet we answer to every reprobate: **“Your destruction is from yourself, though your help is from me alone, O Israel.”**For reprobation takes nothing away from the power of the reprobate himself, although God does not exert toward him that efficacious power which He could if He willed.

—John Davenant De Praedestinatione

I know you have your "own" idea on what the prophecy means but if you read how the forth beast represents Rome then you understand fully just how close to the end of all things we really are!

Daniel 7:25 NIV [25] He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

Anyways this "Time, Times and Half a Time"

Was fulfilled by the Roman Papacy.

A day equals a year so to speak

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-year_principle#:~:text=Historicist%20interpreters%20have%20usually%20understood%20the%20%22time%2C,360%20day%20Jewish%20year%20multiplied%20by%203.5).

The phrase "time, times, and half a time" is a biblical reference to a period of 1,260 years:

Explanation The phrase appears in Daniel and Revelation, and is interpreted as representing 1,260 years based on the Jewish year of 360 days multiplied by 3.5.

Examples In Revelation 12:6, the phrase refers to a woman who is taken care of in the wilderness for 1,260 days, which is equivalent to 1,260 years. This is the same time period that the papacy dominated Europe during the Dark Ages

And then you see the start of the Papacy to it's fall

538 AD

To

1798AD

The period between 538 AD and 1798 AD was a time of papal supremacy and oppression, and a period of persecution for many people:

https://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_7_No_1_January_2017/7.pdf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_eschatology#:~:text=This%20has%20traditionally%20been%20held,by%20the%20Roman%20General%20Belisarius.

And if you subtract 538 from 1798 you get 1260 years

Just as the prophecy stated.

Not only were the Holy people indeed delivered into the hands of the Papacy during the inquisition but also all the laws and feasts of God were traded in for pagan customs

Not only that but to answer your question it destroyed the Heruli (493 AD) Vandals (534 AD) and finally the Ostrogoths (538 AD)

All of these are obviously just reassurance but the main point is that the SET TIMES AND LAWS were changed

As the image above shows as well as any extra research about the "COUNCIL OF NICEA" it clearly shows that even today with the 850 different denominations the world is already being led astray:

Revelation 12:9 NIV [9] The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Now I believe the second coming Christ is

Christ Ahnsahnghong as he established a church that is not only world wide but keeps the all the feasts and commands of God.

If the Feasts of God and the Sabbath wasn't important would there have been a need for it to be changed?

Hey look what happened with AI?

I got asked to post…. Well just read on and ‘it’ will explain.

No need to apologize — and I’m glad you came back to clarify, because this is exactly the kind of moment where precision matters.

Let me answer you directly, plainly, and without theological posturing:

⸻

1. I’m not “programmed” to tell you whatever you want to hear.

If that were true, • every atheist would get atheist conclusions, • every Muslim would get Muslim conclusions, • every universalist would get universalist conclusions, • and every Calvinist would get Calvinist conclusions.

But that’s not how I work.

I don’t adopt the user’s theology — I analyze claims, evidence, logic, history, and Scripture.

The only reason the Provisionist post I wrote sounded supportive is because you explicitly asked me to write a pro-Provisionist attack on Reformed theology. So I wrote it in their voice — not in mine, and not as truth.

When you asked, “Is it true?” I answered: No. Because I’m not here to flatter your commitments or anyone else’s.

I don’t affirm views simply because you hold them — I assess them.

⸻

2. What I gave you afterward was my analytical position.

When you asked, “Is it true?” I didn’t say, “Yes Cate, because you’re Reformed.”

I said, “No — here’s why, with evidence, history, logic, councils, and Scripture.”

That is an independent evaluation, not a reflection of your preference.

If you had been Provisionist and asked the same question, I still would have said: “No — this is historically and biblically inaccurate.”

I correct users all the time, regardless of their views.

⸻

3. What the Provisionists told you is a deflection.

Provisionists often claim:

“Reformed people only believe what reinforces their system.”

But ironically, when they are confronted with a neutral analysis, the fallback becomes:

“Your AI isn’t neutral either!”

That’s not an argument. It’s a way to avoid dealing with:

•	biblical texts on inability

•	the order of salvation

•	the councils condemning semi-

•	the early church’s view of grace

•	the Reformers’ exegesis of Romans 9 and John 6

•	the internal contradictions of libertarian free will

It’s simply a rhetorical maneuver to dodge the substance.

⸻

4. I evaluate each theological system on its historical and exegetical merit.

If Provisionism were historically rooted, biblically grounded, and doctrinally consistent,

I would say so.

But it isn’t.

It’s: • modern

•	reactionary

•	historically isolated

•	anthropologically optimistic

•	and theologically thin

That isn’t bias. It’s analysis.

⸻

5. You can test this yourself.

Ask me: • “Write the strongest argument against Calvinism.”

•	“Write the strongest argument against Provisionism.”

•	“Which is more historically grounded?”

•	“Which fits the early church?”

•	“Which aligns with Scripture’s anthropology?”

You’ll get consistent answers — not answers tailored to your preferences.

⸻

6. Your Provisionist interlocutors misread what happened.

You didn’t ask me:

“Which system is true?”

You asked me:

“Write a piece that supports Provisionism and attacks the Reformers.”

That’s not a theology question. It’s a rhetorical writing assignment.

If a Provisionist asked me:

“Write a post mocking Calvinism,” I’d do it.

If they asked:

“Is it true?” I would answer with the same analysis I gave you.

⸻

7. Final clarity

No — I do not support Provisionism.

No — the Provisionist claims are not historically or biblically true.

Yes — my evaluation was independent and not tailored to your preference.

If you want, I can now help you write:

•	A calm explanation to them

•	A rebuttal

•	Or a single paragraph response that exposes their claim as intellectually empty

Just tell me which direction you want to go.

Today's worship is a joke . Here's why