>can't defend Calvinism going beyond 1 layer deep

You realize any ideology that you differ with could use the exact same argument you have. I could argue for gods existence far better than you because I have read these religious texts

Ok fedora lad

So no argument for Calvinism?

Okay lets look at Christian theology

Okay

Does the Bible recognise the tribalistic nature of humanity?

I.e. that differences between groups are inherent

Yeah of course

Ok.

You're making a conclusion that requires a jump from there that you're not justifying though

Did God make humans as agents of their own free will to some extent?

Let's say yes completely given agency for the sake of the argument

God's nature by it's very definition is essentially a mystery. All we have are the remaining texts that he left to us. That is what we know him by and what we can interpret his will as.

Wait hold up I wanna hear his reasoning

Ok then. Is it the fault of God then that some humans chose to collectivise themselves into groups that are inferior than others?

Sounds like Deism almost.

The reasoning I mean.

In Calvinism *yes*

Thomas is right though - I can't make objective assertions regarding the motives of God

This is my problem with what you're saying

In Calvinism it 100% is the fault of God that people do these things. Both collectivizing and being individually immoral

It's why I don't like Calvinism

Then so be it. In your interpretation, Christians should be egalitarian and that is also quite clearly false based upon Christian theology

God obviously gave humans a certain degree of agency while at the same time outlining some form or another a means of possible, or at least plausible predestination.

No they shouldn't be because predestination is wrong, Calvinism is based on predestination and that is that

In a theological sense, one cannot exist without the other.

By extension it's wrong

No you can't have both

Contradictions can persist everywhere that our minds can't comprehend. We know of only three dimensions, but that does not exclusively mean we do not feel the effects of a fourth, or that one does not exist somewhere.

Sure but you can't make any claim that's not the same as a contradicting

Of course you can. Otherwise why would humans be moral at all? If they are ascertained to not be one of the 'chosen few' then why do they not use their autonomy to live a hedonistic lifestyle? Because one can never truly know whether one is or isn't part of said chosen few and as such it's in one's best interest to act in a moral way.

I'm saying it is outlined in our religious texts specifically, that he did give us agency, but at the same time he does have some sort of intent, a plan.

You're talking about 2 things were consider that are mutually exclusive

A type of predestination.

But exclusively believing in predestination is wrong as well.

Larp you need to look up what predestination is.

Because it would imply that a certain number of individuals were made with the intent of going directly to hell.

Okay sure a plan but that's not what you said originally Thomas

Predestination is the idea that some people all people are created and it is predestined whether or not they will ascend. This is 100% in contradiction with free will

Why are they mutually exclusive? Why are the concepts of an all knowing being having an intent for the universe, yet simultaneously giving some aspects of his creations free will mutually exclusive?