Naked Calvinism: the secret will of God

Youtube Version

All Calvinists who try to be consistent face a  formidable challenge.

On the one hand, they believe that God forbids us to commit sins such as adultery, thief, murder, homosexual lifestyle and so on and so forth.
On the other hand, they also believe that God predetermined and ultimately caused people to carry out all these wicked sins.

To alleviate this tension, they resort to the notion of the secret will of God.

A Calvinist website gives us a nice illustration of how this plays out in practice:


“Think of David on the roof of his palace looking down and seeing beautiful Bathsheba washing. What was he to do? What was God’s will for him? Surely the Bible makes it plain. The Seventh Commandment states clearly: “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. God’s revealed will tells him what God wants him to do. God hates sin and desires His people to obey His commandments. But is there not another will in God? What about predestination and the decrees of God? God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass. His plan includes everything and nothing is left to chance. God “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph.1 :11). He is not the author of sin and yet, since everything is included in His decrees, sin must be there too. This means that in a certain sense it was God’s will that David commit adultery. Nothing can happen but what God wills and David did commit adultery. The implication of this is that there are two “wills” in God…

…Surely it is impossible to have two “wills” in one individual. From the case of David we see that the two “wills” in God appear to be contradictory. The secret will determines that David should sin while the revealed will tells him that he must not sin. Of course there is no conflict in the mind of God. We find it impossible to understand how God can will that an individual sin and yet not be the author of that sin. What we often forget is that God’s mind is infinitely great. We are grasshoppers in comparison to the One who sits on the circle of the earth. We cannot comprehend God fully and even after an eternity of studying Him He will still be mysterious to us.”

Following my methodology, I won’t really go into the favorite prooftexts that Calvanists use to defend this blasphemous non-sense profound truth, since if I can only show that only one text is hugely at odds with reformed theology, I would have refuted the whole system since it cannot exist without an inerrant Bible.

That said, I cannot help but notice that divine determinism is not the only plausible interpretation of most of the texts they use. It is worth noting that the text explicitely speaking of two wills, namely Leviticus 29.29

 “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law”

does not say that these secret things contradict the revealed will of God and it is a stretch to think this is what the author of Leviticus thought.

There are other Biblical texts which make clear that God cannot lie (according to the authors):

Titus 1:2: “[I]n hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.”

Hebrews 6:18: “[I]t is impossible for God to lie.”

Calvinists are obliged to considerably water down the meaning of the texts and pretend they just mean that God cannot directly lie but can order men not to rape while predetermining them to commit this very sin.

Jeremiah 32:35 is extremely embarassing for all divine determinists holding fast to Biblical inerrancy.

35 They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commandednor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.”


I think it is already very hard to reconcile the non-deceptive character of God with the blue text due to the same reasons I mentioned about David and Bathsheba. But the red text seems to be a fatal blow to all kinds of Calvinist claims.
Reformed apologists do the only thing they can and try to argue that the red phrase has to be considered as an allegory or hyperbole, or that “mind” could be translated as “heart”.
But try a moment to think about what that means.
God predetermined the Israelites to commit these very atrocities. He could have given them other desires but He decided they would sacrifice their children, He is the ultimate cause of their horrible behavior.

And then, while speaking to them, he told them that He never wanted them to commit these horrendous acts, without giving them any indication this was just a figure of speech.

If Calvinism is true and God really spoke at that time, I see only two possibilities: this was either an odious and detestable act of deception or God suffered under a split-brain or multiple personality disorder back then.

Now I know what many Calvinists are going to quote:

““For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”  (Isaiah 55.8)

But there is a big irony here. Reading the verse in its immediate context shows it is all about reconciliation, that God invites all evildoers to give up their wicked ways and come back to Him. This verse seems rather to indicate that God is much more loving, much more forgiving than any man can be and even than any man could ever imagine to be.
For reformed theologians, this verse means than God is probably more vicious than the worst criminal who has ever lived.

Kingdom hearts (Lothringisch: unnen).

Kingdom Hearts is a fascinating combination of final fantasy, a Japanese Role Playing Game and the universes of Walt Disney (first and foremost Mickey and Donald).

Kingdom hearts is a world (or rather many parallel worlds) where darkness is lurking in every heart, constantly trying to suffocate it.

The keyblade is a mysterious weapon allowing to defeat the sinister creatures spawned by the obscurity.


My favorite game of the series is “Kingdom hearts, birth by sleep” which take place at the very beginning of the story.

In the above link all cutscenes of the movie have been gathered.

I think that this movie is wonderful for children.

Besides being very entertaining, it conveys profound moral messages and lessons. But adults can find many things inspiring too.

Since it lasts six hours, it is obvious it cannot be watched at once.

Spoiler are allowed in the comments!




Lorraine Franconian  – Lothringisch

Kingdom Hearts isch e faszinierendi Kombination von Final Fantasy, e RPG, un de Universum von Walt Disney (vor allem Mickey un Donald).

Kingdom Hearts isch eeni Welt (oder eher viele parallele Welte), wu de Dunkelhäit in jedem Herz lauert un ständig versucht, es ze ersticke.

De Schlisselschwert isch eeni mysteriösi Waffe, de verwendet werd, um de unheimlichi Kreatüre ze bezwinge, die durch de Dunkelhäit hervorgerufe were.


Mien Lieblingsspiel von de Serie isch “Kingdom hearts, birth by sleep“, de gonz om Onfong von de Geschicht stattfinn.

Im obrigen Link sin alle Szene vom Film versommelt.
Ich denke, dass de Film fir Kinner wunderbar isch.

Es isch nit nur gonz ongenehm sondern  vermittelt aach profunde moralische Botschafte un Lektione.

Do es sechs Stunde dauert, isch es selbstverständlich, dass ma es nit uf emol lun kinn.

Spoilers sin in de Kommentare erlaubt!

A mathematical proof of Bayesianism?

This is going to be another boring post (at least for most people who are not nerds).

However before approaching interesting questions such as the existence of God, morality and history a sound epistemology (theory of knowledge) must already be present. During most (heated) debates between theists and atheists, people tend to take for granted many epistemological principles which are very questionable.

This is why I spend a certain amount of my time exploring such questions, as a groundwork for more applied discussions.

I highly recommand all my reader to first read my two other posts on the concept of probability before reading what follows.

Bayesianism is a theory of knowledge according to which our degrees of belief in theories are well defined probabilities taking on values between 0 and 1.

According to this view, saying that string theory has a probability of 0.2 to be true is as meaningful as saying that a normal dice randomly thrown has a probability of 1/6 to produce a “3”.

Bayesians like asserting over and over again that it is mathematically proven to say we ought to compute the likelihood of all beliefs according to the laws of probability and first and foremost Bayes formula:


Here I want to debunk this popular assertion. Bayes theorem can be mathematically proven for frequential probabilities but there is no such proof that ALL our degrees of belief behave that way.

Let us consider (as an example) the American population (360 millions people) and two features a person might have.

CE (Conservative Evangelical): the individual believes that the Bible contains no error.


FH (Fag Hating): the individual passionately hates gay people.


Let us suppose that 30% of Americans are CE and that 5.8% of Americans hate homosexuals.

The frequencies are f(CE) = 0.30 and f(FH) = 0.058

Let us now consider a random event: you meet an American by chance.
What is the probability that you meet a CE person and what is the probability that you meet a FH individual?
According to a frequentist interpretation, the probability equals the frequency of meeting such kinds of persons given a very great (actually infinite) number of encounters.
From this it naturally follows that p(CE) = f(CE) = 0.30 and p(FH) = f(FH) = 0.058

Let us now introduce the concept of conditional probability: if you meet a Conservative Evangelical, what is the probability that he hates faggots p(FH|CE)? (the | stands for „given“).

If you meet a fag-hating person, what is the probability that he believes in Biblical inerrancy p(CE|FH)?

To answer these questions (thereby proving Bayes theorem) it is necessary to get back to our consideration of frequencies.

Let us consider that 10% of all Conservative Evangelicals and 4% of people who are not CE hate faggots: f(FH/CE) = 0.1 and f(FH/CE) = 0.04. The symbol ⌐ stands for the negation (denial) of a proposition.

The proportion of Americans who are both conservative Evangelicals and fag-haters is f(FHCE) = f(FH/CE)*f(CE) = 0.1*0.3 = 0.03.

The proportion of Americans who are NOT conservative Evangelicals but fag-haters is f(FH∩⌐CE) = f(FH/⌐CE)*f(⌐CE) = 0.04*0.7 = 0.028.

Logically the frequency of fag-haters in the whole American population is equal to the sum of the two proportions:

f(FH) = f(FHCE) + f(FH∩⌐CE) = 0.03 + 0.028 = 0.058

But what if we are interested to know the probability that a person is a conservative Evangelical IF that person hates queers p(CE|FH)?

This corresponds to the frequency(proportion) of Conservative Evangelicals among Fag-Haters: f(CE|FH).

We know that f(FHCE) = f(CE∩FH) = f(CE|FH)*f(FH)

Thus f(CE|FH) = f(FH∩CE) / f(FH)


Given a frequentist interpretation of probability, this entails that


which is of course Bayes theorem. We have mathematically proven it in this particular case but the rigorous mathematical demonstration would be pretty much the same given events expressable as frequencies.

If you meet an American who hates gays, the probability that he is a Conservative Evangalical is 51.72% (given the validity of my starting values above).

But let us now consider the Bayesian interpretation of probability (our degree of confidence in a theory) in a context having nothing to do with frequencies.

Let S be “String theory is true“ and UEP “an Undead Elementary Particle has been detected during an experience in the LHC“.


In that context, the probabilities correspond to our confidence in the truth of theories and hypotheses.

We have no compelling grounds for thinking that


, that is to say that is the way our brains actually work or ought to work that way in order to strive for truth.

The mathematical demonstration used to prove Bayes theorem relies on related frequencies and cannot be employed in a context where propositions (such as S and UEP) cannot be understood as frequencies.
Considering ALL our degrees of beliefs like probabilities is a philosophical decision and not an inevitable result of mathematics.

I hope that I have been not too boring for lay people.

Now I have a homework for you: what is the probability that Homeschooling Parents would like to employ my post as an introduction to probability interpretation, given that they live in the Bible Belt  p(HP|BB)?

Image Of Thomas Bayes

Faith, science and philosophy in Lancaster (UK)


Has the incredible progress of science shown that God’s existence is very unlikely?


Did not archaeology prove that neither Moses nor Abraham really existed?


Is it very plausible that the Gospels are legends written long after the facts?


Is a Christian supposed to believe that the Bible is free of errors and contradictions?


All of these are vital questions which are too often repressed and explained away in many parts of Christendom.

For many folks in the Western world, the only possible choice seems to be between a brainless religion and atheism.

This has prompted me to start a blog several months ago where I hope to show that there is also a third way:

You can choose the categories you are interested in by just clicking on them.

(Since English is not my mother tongue, don’t expect literary perfection there).

If enough people are interested, I would like to start a series of talks and open discussions on such topics at the university of Lancaster (UK).
I will raise much more questions than provide answers and I would like people with different worldviews to be present.

I have only one small expectation: that we won’t end up yelling at each other 🙂

Challenges and rational arguments against belief in God and Christianity are warmly welcome, but ridicule, mockery and emotional bullying won’t be tolerated.

If someone is interested in my blog, he or she can contact me at:

Existentielle Rap (zwosprochig – bilingual)

Existentielle Rap


Ich denke niet, dass Kunst (im witen Sinn) nur unsere starke menschliche Verlonge nach Schenheit erfille sollte.

Miner Mäinung nach sollte een begabte Künstler aach fundamentale Froje iwer de Realität ufwerfe, selbstverständliche Dinge rusfordere un unseri Leidenschaft fir de Gerechtigkäit entfache.

Ich glawe, dass Hip-Hop (besonders Rap) eeni wunderbare Opportunität sin kinn, Veronnerungen ze fördern, un zwar nie nur in de Gesellschaft sondern aach in unsere eigene Herz.

Obwohl ich niet mit allem eenverston bin, finne ich de folgende däitsche Rap-Kompilation fantastisch.

Wenn de willscht, kinnscht de nun aach diene eigene Hip-hop-Gesange mit uns teele!


Existential rap


I don’t think that art (in the broad sense) should only satisfy our strong human longing for beauty. To my mind a gifted artist should also raise fundamental questions about reality, challenge things we take for granted and spark our passion for justice.

I believe that hip-hop (especially rap) can be a wonderful opportunity to foster changes not only within society but within our own heart.

Even though I don’t agree with everything, I find this German rap-compilation truly awesome.

If you want you can share with us your own favorite hip-pop songs.


Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

Are ALL religions bad? Sin ALLE Religionen schlecht?

Is Faith a virus?


This is a common claim of the New Atheists.
Richard Dawkins led the way as he wrote: “I think a case can be made that Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.”

The problem is that this claim is extremely ambigious.

Does that means that all kind of supernatural beliefs are harmful?
Or does that mean that more than 99%, 78% or 50% of them cause harm?

Frankly speaking, I don’t see how the progressive and liberal Christianities of Thom Stark, Randal Rauser, Rachel Held Evans and many others (including myself) who FIGHT fundamentalism is harmful for society.

So, if the New Atheists want to become more than the hateful ideogists they currently are, they should clearly define (in a verifiable manner) what they mean and present evidence to buttress the claim that EVERY kind of Faith is noxious.

Until they do that, we are justified to ignore their rhetorical assertion as being “not even wrong”.


Lorraine Franconian – Lothringisch

Isch de Glawe een Virus?

Es isch eeni häufigi Behauptung von de näie Atheisten.

Richard Dawkins hat damit begonne, als er geschriewe hat:
“Ich denke, dass ma gonz gut bewäise kinn, dass de Glawe een von de schlimmste Iwel der Welt isch, de ma mit de Pocken-Virus vergläiche kinn, wobei es schwieriger isch, es ze vernichte.”

De Problem isch, dass diese Behauptung extrem ambigü isch.

Bedeutet es, dass alle Arten von iwernatürlichen Behauptungen schädlich sin?

Oder bedeutet es, dass meh als 99%, 78% or 50% von ihnen Schade verursache?

Ehrlich gesot, sehe ich gar niet wie de progressive un liberale Christentüme von Thom Stark, Randal Rauser, Rachel Held Evans un viele oneri Lit (wie mich), die de Fundamentalismus bekompfe, fir de Gesellschaft schädlich sin.

So wenn de näiei Atheiste meh als de hasserfillte Ideologe sin wolle, de sie zerzit sin, sollte sie gonz klar (uf eeni verifizierbare Weise) definiere, was sie mäine un Bewäise präsentiere, um ihre Behauptung ze untermauern, dass JEDE Art von Glawe schädlich isch.

Bis sie das dun, sin wir gerechtfertigt, ihre rhetorische Behauptung als “niet sogar falsch” ze ignoriere.

My blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) (Link Here). 

Naked Calvinism: why the difference between single and double predestination does not matter

Youtube Version



According to the doctrine of double predestination, God actively works to save some people but also to damn others. The first ones will enjoy everlasting bliss in His presence while the others will suffer the eternal flames of hell.

Most Calvinists insist they just believe in single predestination, that is that God just works for saving His elects while abandoning all other people to their well-deserved fate.

In what follows, I will show through an analogy that, given Calvinist presuppositions, the difference between the two kinds of predestination is insignificant.

Let us consider a group of twenty children who are playing football besides the ocean. One girl (I can be very sexist at times)  shot the ball in the wrong direction. The children are so eager to pursue the game that they disobey the order of adults not to swim in this dangerous zone and soon all are in the water. Very quickly they are carried away by a formidable tide.


Jerry Gooddeer happened to be there in his boat. He has the possibility to save all kids. Let us now consider two possibilities:

1) Jerry decides to save Mary, Lucy, John and Peter while pushing away all other children so that they cannot escape death.

2) Jerry decides to save Mary, Lucy, John and Peter while not helping the other kids reach his boat, thereby letting them drown.

Why 1) may be worse than 2), there is little doubt that no sensible person would call Jerry a loving man in the last case.

But let us now consider

2′) Jerry decides to save Mary, Lucy, John and Peter while not helping the other kids reach his boat, thereby letting them drown.
Before everything began, Jerry made it certain that the ball would escape to the children and that they would feel the irrestible desire to run and swim after it.

The injustice of being predetermined to hell

Morally and practically speaking, I fail to see any significant difference between 1) and 2′)


Evangelist Kerrigan Skelly gives us a complementary perspective on that question whereby he quotes John Calvin.

Can materialism be meaningful?

Deutsche Version.


In a last post, I argued that materialism (the belief that everything which exists is reducible to particle and energy) is self-refuting because its truth itself cannot be identical to a bunch of interacting molecules.

ImageSeveral people told me my argument is fallacious because materialists believe that a “truth” does not objectively exist but is a subjective brain state corresponding to facts of the outside world.

That’s fair enough but what is the fact that materialism is identical to?

Normally the fact corresponding to a truth claim made it logically inevitable.

Take for example the truth S “The sun does not rotate around the earth”. The corresponding fact is the periodic movement of the earth around the sun. Given its reality, it naturally follows that S is true and it could not be otherwise.

ImageOr take for example the truth C: most cats fear hounds. Given the brain states of most cats, C logically follows, and this fact is incompatible with C not being true.


Consider now the truth of materialism M: there is NO world containing non-material things.
The fact would be (for example)  the 10E+57754757785 particles of all existing universes.

But there is a huge problem here. The truth of materialism is not logically entailed by the particles themselves. For their existence is entirely compatible with the existence of a paralell world with non-material things.
I think that the problem lies in the words “everything” and “no other”. They  seem to be abstract concepts beyond the reach of materialism.

The fact that the particles are everything which exists cannot be contained within the particles themselves.

ImageIf I am right, it seems that materialists should give up their grandiose claims about the entire reality and limit themselves to definition such as “everything in our universe is reducible to matter.”

Now I am curious to see how I am going to be challenged, though I hope I am (at the very least) on to something 🙂

Naked Calvinism: on the sinful nature of man and Genesis

Youtube Version

Ever since Saint Augustine, the Western Church has always taught that
1) man was created perfect, that is to say without any moral flaw
2) following the advice of the snake, he chose to eat the wrong fruit
3) God cursed him and he inherited a sinful nature, making hatred, lies, adultery, selfishness and many other related evils inevitable for him and all his descendents.
Most Christians, Atheists and even Muslims I talked to told me they view that as an essential Christian doctrine which can be found from the first pages of the Bible.
It might come as a surprise to many people that the Eastern Orthodox Church denies this radical change of nature following the Fall.
And if we look at the text of Genesis, which describes the very event responsible for our alleged sinful nature, we realize that they are not less Biblical than the Conservative Protestants who view them as heathens.
Now, let us take a look at a text many of us grew up with.
Genesis 3
The snake was sneakier than any of the other wild animals that the Lord God had made. One day it came to the woman and asked, “Did God tell you not to eat fruit from any tree in the garden?”
   2 The woman answered, “God said we could eat fruit from any tree in the garden, 3 except the one in the middle. He told us not to eat fruit from that tree or even to touch it. If we do, we will die.”
   4 “No, you won’t!” the snake replied. 5 “God understands what will happen on the day you eat fruit from that tree. You will see what you have done, and you will know the difference between right and wrong, just as God does.”
   6 The woman stared at the fruit. It looked beautiful and tasty. She wanted the wisdom that it would give her, and she ate some of the fruit. Her husband was there with her, so she gave some to him, and he ate it too. 7 Right away they saw what they had done, and they realized they were naked. Then they sewed fig leaves together to make something to cover themselves.
   8 Late in the afternoon a breeze began to blow, and the man and woman heard the Lord God walking in the garden. They were frightened and hid behind some trees.
9 The Lord called out to the man and asked, “Where are you?”
   10 The man answered, “I was naked, and when I heard you walking through the garden, I was frightened and hid!”
   11 “How did you know you were naked?” God asked. “Did you eat any fruit from that tree in the middle of the garden?”
   12 “It was the woman you put here with me,” the man said. “She gave me some of the fruit, and I ate it.”
   13 The Lord God then asked the woman, “What have you done?”
   “The snake tricked me,” she answered. “And I ate some of that fruit.”
   14 So the Lord God said to the snake:
   “Because of what you have done,
   you will be the only animal
      to suffer this curse—
   For as long as you live,
   you will crawl on your stomach
      and eat dirt.
15 You and this woman
            will hate each other;
      your descendants and hers
         will always be enemies.
      One of hers will strike you
         on the head,
      and you will strike him
         on the heel.”
16 Then the Lord said to the woman,
   “You will suffer terribly
         when you give birth.
   But you will still desire
   your husband,
      and he will rule over you.”
17 The Lord said to the man,
   “You listened to your wife
         and ate fruit from that tree.
   And so, the ground
   will be under a curse
      because of what you did.
   As long as you live,
   you will have to struggle
      to grow enough food.
18 Your food will be plants,
     but the ground will produce
         thorns and thistles.
19 You will have to sweat
         to earn a living;
      you were made out of soil,
      and you will once again
         turn into soil.”
   20 The man Adam named his wife Eve because she would become the mother of all who live.
   21 Then the Lord God made clothes out of animal skins for the man and his wife.
22 The Lord said, “These people now know the difference between right and wrong, just as we do. But they must not be allowed to eat fruit from the tree that lets them live forever.” 23 So the Lord God sent them out of the Garden of Eden, where they would have to work the ground from which the man had been made. 24 Then God put winged creatures at the entrance to the garden and a flaming, flashing sword to guard the way to the life-giving tree.”
Imagine now that you are a space alien reading this text for the very first time and trying to understand its meaning.
It is truly remarkable that we find absolutely no evidence of a dramatic psychological (or even biological) change turning the first morally perfect humans into atrociously wicked, greedy and selfish creatures.
The only possible reference to a psychological consequence is  “But you will still desire, your husband, and he will rule over you.” which is pretty ambiguous and falls infinitely short of describing a radical and inheritable psychological transformation.
The verse “These people now know the difference between right and wrong, just as we do. But they must not be allowed to eat fruit from the tree that lets them live forever.” is very profound and enigmatic but if one takes it at face value, it teaches that people became efficient moral realists, not psychopathic murderers!
There are situations where the absence of evidence is evidence of absence IF one would clearly expect to find certain things given the truth of a theory.
If the author(s) of Genesis really believed in the doctrine of the sinful nature, they would have clearly expressed it using sentences such as: “Curse on both of you! From now on, you and your offspring won’t stop cultivating wicked thoughts within your hearts.”
Yet this is clearly not what one finds in Genesis 3.
If one reads the sad story of Cain murdering his brother Abel, one fails to see any evidence of this sinful nature making evil deeds inevitable unless God intervenes.
According to Calvinism, God should have said: “Boy, sin flows in your very blood so that you have no other choice than sinning and committing atrocities. It is up to me (and my sovereign grace) to decide if you will kill your brother or not.”
But what do we read in the text?
“This made Cain so angry that he could not hide his feelings. 
6 The Lord said to Cain: 
What’s wrong with you? Why do you have such an angry look on your face? 7 If you had done the right thing, you would be smiling.[c] But you did the wrong thing, and now sin is waiting to attack you like a lion. Sin wants to destroy you, but don’t let it!
God warns Cain about the possible consequences of his state of mind but emphasized that it is up to him to overcome the temptation. There is no indication whatsoever that before the fall, humankind could not have been confronted with such heinous thoughts.
In order to prove the doctrine of Total depravity in their TULIP, Calvinism like to quote God’s description of the state of mankind before the flood broke in:
“The Lord saw how bad the people on earth were and that everything they thought and planned was evil. 6 He was very sorry that he had made them, 7 and he said, “I’ll destroy every living creature on earth! I’ll wipe out people, animals, birds, and reptiles. I’m sorry I ever made them.”
But if this wickedness was a consequence of the fall of Adam and Eve, this is not what we would read. The text says that such misbehaviour and misdeeds were a (not necessarily inevitable) consequence of human nature as it was originally made by God.
Let us suppose it was a consequence of the Fall itself, and that man was previously morally perfect. This would be of uttermost importance and the writer would have said:
“He was very sorry that he left them the choice between the two fruits and that they made the wrong decision.”
Once one has taken all of this into account, how likely is it that the author of Genesis had a Calvinist understanding of the Fall?
And how likely is that later theologians read into the text something which was never there?

A merciless fight / Een schonungslose Kompf

A merciless fight / Een schonungslose Kompf

Vernon (a godless atheist from the Caribbean also known as Xon-Xoff) and I had a confrontation which was aimed at honoring the praiseworthy American culture war.
Since this is the very first time I recorded such an event, the quality of the sound is terrible.

I believe it is no exaggeration to say I utterly destroyed him.
So if you still read comments of Xon-Xoff, you should conclude it is most likely Vernon’s ghost.



Lorraine Franconian – Lothringisch

Vernon (een gottlos Atheist us de Karibik, de aach Xon-Xoff hess) un ich hon eeni Konfrontation gehon, die druf abzielte, de preiswürdige amerikanische Kulturkompf de Ehre ze gewe.
Do es de eerste Mol isch, wu ich solch een Ereignis gespeichert hon, isch de Qualität des Tons fuaschtba.

Ich glawe, dass es keeni Iwertriewung isch, ze behaupte, dass ich ihn total vernichtet hon.
So wenn ihr immer noch Kommentare von Xon-Xoff liest, sollt ihr schliesse, dass es sich höchst wahrschäinlich um seen Gespenst hondelt.




Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)