A few years ago, Jordan Peterson worried that cultural Marxist vicious identity politics could lead to a severe backlash, a counter-action by right-wing, white Christian nationalists, a form of identity politics bordering on fascism, along with the reappearance of ugly racism and antisemitism.
Here, in December, 2025, there is some danger of that recurrence becoming a reality as conservative Christian celebrities are too militantly Christian, too against other racists, foreigners, Jews and immigrants, legal and illegal.
I feel torn because these people are my natural friends and allies, of whom I am most affectionate, but extremism, collectivism, and evil stances and actions can corrupt any good cause, and that is what I am speaking out against, hoping to help prevent, though no one seems to know I exist, let alone listen to me.
If nothing else, I will write my criticism in a I-told-you-so remonstration of nothing else.
I am deeply committed to the Dorr Brothers who run American Firearms Association and Minnesota Gun Rights. They are first rate issue lobbyist, but their religious stance, some form of Reformed Christian theology, is so extreme that it might lead to the ruination and corruption of their movement, and their alienating the public, by going too far too the right.
I love Jesus, the divine Son of the Mother and the Father, though I am not a pure Christian, but I am a Christian ally and a reformer, not a false prophet working for Satan. I will be disagreeing with the Reformers and perhaps with what Biblical Jesus Himself spoke (It seems radical of Jesus to warn sinners in Revelations 3:16 to be hot or cold, for being lukewarm and indifferent will force Jesus to spit them out of His mouth.). Always nagging at me is the worry about burning in hell for blaspheming Jesus, but I think I am onto ultimate truths, which inform me that I am to seek to temper if not eliminate radical or immoderate speech, thought, action or practices of any good deity—like Jesus—or his followers. I am not against Jesus, but against extremism in Christianity which is from Satan not Jesus. I think I will be welcome in heaven, despite my fears and doubts.
I do insist that goodness is love, and love is moderation, which entails allowing others to reach God their own way, or not at all, and that it is improper for true believers serving any ism, any longer to command and demand from unbelievers, severe, utter self-surrender in compliance to the favored sectarian creed.
Moderation indicates that no more can true believers, gurus and prophets, become publicly coercive of dissenters. In the interest of freedom of thought and speech and action, true believers should still be allowed to practice their radical, sectarian views but they cannot any longer socially or legally impose these on the reluctant public, for that must be declared and universally agreed upon as illegal, unconstitutional and evil. The Mother and the Father do not want religious extremism anymore, and I believe Jesus today does not want this, though His current positions on faith and practice as a divine moderate may at times conflict or contradict with what His radical scriptural and historical remarks as recorded in the New Testament, or in how His followers, like those favoring Reformed Theology, interpret His words and intent.
I really do not know how to reconcile these contradictory religious differences but I believe somehow that Mavellonialism is compatible with any traditional or moderate religion whose adherents follow a good deity. We are to work together, and not take up the sword against each other any more. That is what the Divine Couple and all the good deities—including Jesus—expect of us. Cooperation, mutual toleration, peaceful coexistence, open dialogue with a willingness to disagree and accept diversity of doctrinal opinion without warring—these ethical and social techniques are required to maintain civil society and civilization itself.
I want to look at Reformed Christian theology from some online articles which I copied and pasted. It is not exhaustive or complete, but it is indicative and good enough for my quick study of it, to identify where it is extremist, and how it can be moderated from my point of view.
It came to me as a hunch or flash of insight the other day that as I proceed to uncover how the universal principle of moderation applicable in most, not all things, should be allowed to temper or gently impact extremist excesses and deficiencies in the Bible and Christianity, as included in my presumption that all sacred texts and all faiths, ideologies or isms, religious or secular, need to be moderated in thought, word and deed to make them moral, civilized and worthy to guide people while living productive, peaceful, lawful, happy lives in civil society.
I have not checked but there are online, articles for biblical reference to the Hebrew and Christian textual support for the morality of moderation. No doubt there are plenty of Biblical verses and even direct quotes from Jesus which sound fanatical or are, and I regard the fanatical as untrue, emotionalist and evil if tyrannically forced upon those that disagree or are noncompliant.
Got Questions carries issue about the Bible and moderation. A Pastor David elsewhere, under B—bible Study For You, has an updated 6/30/25 article of Christianity and moderation. It is entitled 30 Powerful Verses About Moderation (With Commentary, Bible Verses About Moderation (With Explanation).
So it is apparent that there are plenty of Biblical reference supporting and that the individual control himself and avoid excess, and I agree with that, but I am extending it also doctrinal radicalism, and especially the use of the sword, government decree and holy war to force unbelievers to accede to an ism involuntarily, and these wicked practices must cease.
Moderation is a Christian virtue after all.
I am not against radical, extremist stances, for such viewpoints at the margins philosophically help define and allow people to see an issue from every angle, and that is most instructive. I do not even mind if fanatics, including me, are fanatical, as long as they do not take up the sword or resort to governmental decree to obtain involuntary compliance, and to shut down diversity of opinion.
I was thinking that moderation can also be fecund where contradictions and paradoxes appear and emerge in biblical text, for moderation is a both-and, impure, mixed response to either/or claims, so it would serve as a way to make moderation and Mavellonialism mixable with Christianity or any other faith, including Islam.
If my project is successful—complete success is likely very intellectually unattainable--and these plentiful existent Biblical contradictions, mysteries and puzzles can be explained satisfactorily or even resolved or reconciled, this impressive feat would reveal that explaining these relationship between contradictory propositions would serve as evidence of the existence, applicability and requirement to juxtapose carefully how these contradictory statements will interface going forward as governed by the principle of moderation.
If these contradictions and ultraist stances can be made consistent or compatible at least that would make the world a better place as competing groups and holy causes proponents learn to work together while competing for power, resources and followers.
There is a possibility—even a likelihood—that I will not be able to make the case that Christian contradictions or overt ultraist views are fanatical, or that being fanatical, even if proudly confessed to by Christian zealots, is immoral objectively, let alone accepted by fundamentalists as axiomatically immoral. They will counter that Jesus is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving and without error, so if He did make fanatical announcements, then they would be true and binding, and pure goodness, for all He says and does is perfectly holy and perfectly moral.
That would contradict my claim directly that the law of moderation universally binds all and that it must be hermeneutically applied to and binds any faith, including Christianity..
I know the law of moderation applies and binds Christianity and all deities, good or evil, and I have intuited this metaphysical law governing all, an intrinsic natural law, which I have sensed. I cannot provide much evidence (Well, modestly I suggest that moderation in the world makes people happy and extreme behavior causes harm, unnecessary pain and suffering.
One day someone smarter, closer to having revealed to her God’s truth about moderation, will be able to write all this up explaining clearly, meaningfully and truthfully just how moderation smooths out Biblical excesses. I can only do what I can with the wits and time I have to present my case, as I will below.
A.
My first article is an AI description of Christian Reformed theology, from the Internet on about 12/12/25: “
AI Summary
To understand Christian Reformed theology, consider these key points:
Sovereignty of God: Emphasizes God's absolute authority and control over all creation.” My response: Fate alone is likely the absolute authority and absolute non-authority with complete control and complete loss of control over all creation. God’s authority is not total or absolute but it is mighty and extensive nonetheless.
“
Covenant Theology: Focuses on the covenants God makes with humanity, particularly the covenant of grace.” My response: I admire and agree with the Reformers take that there are at least two covenants covered in the Bible, the ancient one between Yahweh and the Hebrews, and a more recent covenant between Christ and humans, with Christ opening the way to heaven for humans, and offering them grace in exchange for their worship of Jesus.
“
Total Depravity: Teaches that sin affects all aspects of human nature, making divine grace essential for salvation.” My response: I do not accept that the essential human moral and spiritual nature is totally depraved, but is primarily depraved, but that divine grace, personal acceptance of Jesus or a good deity into one’s life, and doing good works are all essential to an agent being saved.
“
Justification by Faith: Asserts that individuals are declared righteous before God solely through faith in Jesus Christ.” My response: I would agree that being declared righteous before God could well be achieved through faith in Jesus Christ or through one of the other good deities.
“
The Authority of Scripture: Holds that the Bible is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice.” My response: The authority of scripture is very great, and it may be the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice, or one of the great sacred texts which humans should, read, ponder and follow.
“
Common Grace: Recognizes God's grace that extends to all people, allowing for moral order and societal good.” My response: I agree.
B. Here is my second article (Got Questions) copied on 12/12/25:
Question
What is Reformed Theology?
Answer
Broadly
speaking, Reformed theology includes any system of belief that traces
its roots back to the Protestant
Reformation of the 16th
Century. Of course, the Reformers themselves traced their doctrine to
Scripture, as indicated by their credo of “sola scriptura,” so
Reformed theology is not a “new” belief system but one that seeks
to continue apostolic doctrine.
Generally,
Reformed theology holds to the authority of Scripture, the
sovereignty of God, salvation by grace through Christ, and the
necessity of evangelism. It is sometimes called Covenant theology
because of its emphases on the covenant God made with Adam and the
new covenant which came through Jesus Christ (Luke
22:20).””
My response: I do not disagree with much written above, and I like the concept that God is sovereign over much but not all of the universe. I am not opposed to Christianity or any ism’s supporters evangelizing their cause to the world, as long as the missionary sharing of their gospel is done by peaceful advertising and nonviolent persuading, with the proviso that acceptance is voluntary, and there will be no reprisal should the evangelizer being rejected, along with his message.
Goy
Question: “
Authority of
Scripture. Reformed theology teaches
that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God,
sufficient in all matters of faith and practice.”
My
response: I mostly agree with this.
Got
Questions: “
Sovereignty of
God. Reformed theology teaches that
God rules with absolute control over all creation. He has
foreordained all events and is therefore never frustrated by
circumstances. This does not limit the will of the creature, nor does
it make God the author of sin.”
My response: If God has absolute control of all creation, and foreordains all events, and can therefore never be frustrated by circumstances, why does God punish humans for sinning? If God is omnipotent, all-knowing, all-loving and is perfect goodness, how can humans have free will, and how does evil exist?
These points do contradict each other, so do we accept on faith that these are mysteries, not rationally or scientifically explainable or cognitively reconcilable, that sin exists and God is very powerful and lets it exist or can’t prevent it from existing in the world, and yet people have free will and be be judged after death for sinning.
Followers of Ayn Rand dismiss this whole cloth as mystical fantasies and nonsense, that contradiction do not exist in reality. As a hybrid-Christian I believe that some contradictions are true and do exist, and that much of religious doctrines must be accepted on faith for there are no intellectual explanations for these mysteries. That is not very satisfying but it is the best I can offer that this time.
Got
Question: “
Salvation by
grace. Reformed theology teaches
that God in His grace and mercy has chosen to redeem a people to
Himself, delivering them from sin and death. The Reformed doctrine of
salvation is commonly represented by the acrostic TULIP (also known
as the five
points of Calvinism):”
My response: God’s grace and mercy do redeem to Himself fallen people, delivered from sin and death—immortal death in hell after death.
Got
Question: “
T - total depravity. Man is completely
helpless in his sinful state, is under the wrath of God, and can in
no way please God. Total depravity also means that man will not
naturally seek to know God, until God graciously prompts him to do so
(Genesis
6:5; Jeremiah
17:9; Romans
3:10-18).”
My response: I do not agree that man is completely helpless in his sinful state, but he is more helpless than not, unless he wills to individuate. As sinners we are under God; s wrath, but, if, when and as we individually and collectively sin less and lead holy, virtuous lives more so, God’s wrath decreases and God becomes proud of De’s once wayward human children. I deny that there is no way humans can please God, for implicit in God’s displeasure with our militant choice to keep sinning, is God’s frustration at our power to do better, all the while we choose not to do better, and to please God more.
I do agree that human depravity naturally disinclines humans from seeking after God unless God makes repeated attempts to invite humans home.
The Calvinist point of total depravity status assigned to people goes way too far, for we are not completely helpless in our sinful state, and if we are under the wrath of God, we are also under the mercy of God, and we can please God if we individuate and live holy and virtuous lives. It is true that most of us do not naturally seek God but seek Satan but that is how we are made, not how we choose to live and which deity good or evil, to dedicate our lives to, but eventually we will chose one or the other, and refusing to choose is to choose to live in and with and deepen one's already fallen nature and that is to choose the evil path.
It seems likely that God invited us graciously to approach Him.
Got
Questions: “
U - unconditional election. God, from
eternity past, has chosen to save a great multitude of sinners, which
no man can number (Romans
8:29-30; 9:11;
Ephesians
1:4-6,11-12).
“
My response: The idea that a few elect are predestined or unconditionally elected to be saved by God due to God’s grace and not there merit may well be the case, but it does not seem right or connected free will and merited gaining access to heaven (by grace and works), though some might be predestined to go to heave, and some might be predestined to burn, but most will go to heaven, if they choose to lead holy and virtuous lives, I believe.
Got
Questions: “
L - limited atonement. Also called a
“particular redemption.” Christ took the judgment for the sin of
the elect upon Himself and thereby paid for their lives with His
death. In other words, He did not simply make salvation “possible,”
He actually obtained it for those whom He had chosen (Matthew
1:21; John
10:11; 17:9;
Acts
20:28; Romans
8:32; Ephesians
5:25).”
My response: I do not much favor this point of limited atonement for the elect and hell for everyone else, for when Jesus died on the cross, he opened the way to heaven for all, something like universal atonement for those who repented their sins and invited Christ into their hearts and souls. Jesus definitely opened the way to salvation for all willing to receive His grace and atone.
Got
Questions: “
I - irresistible grace. In his fallen
state, man resists God’s love, but the grace of God working in his
heart makes him desire what he had previously resisted. That is,
God’s grace will not fail to accomplish its saving work in the
elect (John
6:37,44;
10:16).”
My response: The elect will find God’s grace irresistible while the majority of sinners may not be lured by it and thus more likely to burn. This bother me. Still, salvation is for all and available to all so God’s gracious grace may melt away the resistance in any human heart, and that is a hopeful thought.
Got
Questions: “
P - perseverance of the saints. God
protects His saints from falling away; thus, salvation is eternal
(John
10:27-29; Romans
8:29-30; Ephesians
1:3-14).”
My response: I believe God will protect all of his faithful from falling away from a state of grace if they will that He or She aids them in remaining relatively sinless and in a state of grace.
Got
Questions: “
The
necessity of evangelism. Reformed
theology teaches that Christians are in the world to make a
difference, spiritually through evangelism and socially through holy
living and humanitarianism.
Other distinctives of Reformed
theology generally include the observance of two sacraments (baptism
and communion), a cessationist view of the spiritual gifts (the gifts
are no longer extended to the church), and a non-dispensational view
of Scripture. Held in high esteem by Reformed churches are the
writings of John Calvin, John Knox, Ulrich Zwingli, and Martin
Luther. The Westminster Confession embodies the theology of the
Reformed tradition. Modern churches in the Reformed tradition include
Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and some Baptist.”
My response: I have no problem with anyone evangelizing their faith or any ism to the public or unbelievers as long as the evangelizers do not take up the sword to mandate conversion or else, or use government police to grow their faith.
I do not think the cessasionist view of spiritual gifts is correct, for speaking in tongues, propheszing and miraculous healing still occur.
C Here is another online article I copied and pasted about Reform Theology in December, 2025; I warn the reader that I did not copy and paste the entire article, so the reader might want to read the entire article online to capture Lisa Loraine’s Baker’s full message in context. Here it is:
Article: “
What are the Core Beliefs of Reformed Theology?
Reformed Theology is based on the five solas and is a product of the Protestant Reformation.
Author of Someplace to Be Somebody
Updated Oct 21, 2025
Have you ever heard someone ask, “Are you Reformed?” or “What does it mean to believe in Reformed theology?” These questions are common in Christian circles, yet they can sometimes be tricky to answer.
TULIP Explained
While the Five Solas provide a broad framework, Reformed theology is also known for its specific doctrinal positions, particularly the five points of Calvinism (often summarized as TULIP):
Total Depravity – Every part of human nature is affected by sin; we are incapable of choosing God apart from His grace.” My response: While we are more inclined to choose God because De offers us De’s grace, we can freely will to seek out God on our own, and should if we would find heaven after death.
Article: “
Unconditional Election – God sovereignly chooses who will be saved, not based on merit but on His divine will.” My response: Here is a glaring Calvinist contradiction: On one hand God choose unilaterally who will be save, based not on human merit, freely self-willed or not per free individual, but upon De’s divine will. Predestined election transform human beings into good robot who will go to heaven, and the majority will burn, and no one is responsible for his supernatural outcome. That does not seem right to me, though we are all robots to some degree but we are free-willers more than not.
Article: “
Limited Atonement – Christ’s atonement was specifically for those He would save.
Irresistible Grace – God’s grace, when extended to a person, cannot ultimately be resisted.
Perseverance of the Saints – True believers will endure in faith until the end, preserved by God’s power.” My response: I like that fact that the Saints, living saints, will persevere and endure in faith to the end, helped along by divine protection and divine encourageent.
Article: “
These doctrines emphasize God’s absolute sovereignty over salvation and every aspect of life. They distinguish Reformed theology from Catholicism, Lutheranism, Arminianism, and other theological traditions. Let us dive more into specifics below“
