As usual this can be summed up as a distinction between ideals and realism. Pluralism being the former. And to be fair ideals are important and do have their place. I should explain what I mean here. This belief that religion is ultimately not harming anyone, or that anyone can have their truth, or that we should just let people believe what they want to believe is perfectly fine. I totally support this even though I’ll give my two cents on certain issues I see as problematic. But when you take into account the realistic aspects of how each of these groups has vast complex political needs from which they will demand funding or special privileges, how these things have a history of not being able to tolerate each other and being a breeding ground for philosophical and religious discrimination.

The essay presents an extremely exaggerated and satirical take on compatibilism that does not accurately represent the philosophical position or arguments. It uses inflammatory language, strawman arguments, and sarcasm rather than engaging with the actual philosophical debates around free will and moral responsibility in a substantive way.

You’re probably wondering about that quote in the beginning. Due to lacking engagement, I sometimes ask people to look at my poems when I can afford it. I get very few eyes on my work, let alone those who like it. It’s not about fame, but I consider it to be about reach. I made this article because the few people who take the time to understand my poetry describe it as 'masterful.' Yet the one thing that holds me back is understanding.

It makes so much sense. I finally get it now. Honestly, even if there’s some merit to determinism, we can easily tell where choice begins and deterministic influence ends. Even if we can’t… Well, let's not change anything. After all, it would upset too many things. And besides, why does any of this have to touch the concept of moral responsibility? It's for the benefit of society, so we should have it. And besides, he still chose to do it. There are societal positives for blame and praise. It makes no sense to overturn that for a maybe.

The a-spectrum is a moniker given to people on one of two spectrums: Aromantic and Asexual. It can also, at times, reference people who are agender, from what I’m told. I myself am what’s called aro-ace, so I’m in both sub-spectrums. I want this article to be mainly made for those who are unfamiliar with us a-spec people, and so due to that, I need to go over some terms.

These 8 points together constitute a powerful and logically rigorous argument that exposes a profound problem in the traditional Christian understanding of God's justice and faithfulness. They show how the core doctrines of Christianity, when combined with uncontroversial historical facts, lead to a conclusion that is deeply troubling and difficult to reconcile with the idea of a loving and trustworthy God.