In other words you're asking "Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?". If you're a follower of Paul's teachings you should get your answer from his response to that question. But if you're not content to believe Paul I suggest that minds should be punished for making choices that could cause harm. We should also stop machines that cause more harm than good, even destroying them if there is a risk of them being used again. We even refer to machines, plans and processes as bad or evil despite them not having any mind or free will.

I already told you your interpretation of Paul is wrong and that's not what the Church that he was an apostle to understood from his words. Christianity makes no sense under determinism (choosing the good over the sin and being judged accordingly).

It's bad because child abuse and murder are bad things that we want to minimize. And he's guilty because he did bad things and is a depraved person. It doesn't matter why he is (pre-determined or not), the fact is that he is and that justifies punishment.

"It's bad because it's bad and we don't want it" is a circle. I asked you on what objective grounds is he bad if all actions are predetermined. It just so happens that his output is being a pdf assassin. Your output is to believe that's morally wrong. Why is your output the normative one that is more true than his?

Maybe because they weren't comfortable with what it actually says. It was and still is common for uncomfortable teachings to be ignored or reinterpreted.

Come on, dude. You have zero knowledge on the subject. Do you know what apostolic succession is (as described in Acts and Epistles)? And if they weren't comfortable with what Paul was saying, don't you think they may have edited the text itself or simply not include it in the Bible canon? Also, you didn't come to this belief yourself but you were determined to believe this...

That sounds comforting, but unfortunately that's the very opposite of what the passage says. It's explained very plainly in black and white across all different translations and I don't have to be taught by a Calvinist to understand what it clearly says.

Correct, but you inherit he calvinist and protestant presuppositions when understanding the text and the Bible as a whole. You believe you can quote mine and latch on to one passage that aligns with your view and ignore hundreds of other passages that point to free will. I've noticed protestants love doing this (like the famous "call no man your father"). It's very low-tier reading out of context.

You mean a non-deterministic evaluation. We still make deterministic evaluations and choices under determinism. But even if we didn't make any evaluations or choices and we just had beliefs planted into our minds I don't see how that makes them not beliefs or not justified (justification meaning there are other things known which prove that the belief is true).

Yes, but you have no way of knowing which of those planted beliefs are true. All you know is there's a belief A and a belief B, but they are on equal grounds (equally planted) and you can't determine which one is the true one. This is why I said determinism makes knowledge impossible.

Yet a computer can tell which one is true, so your reasoning here is wrong.

And who programmed the computer to tell you that? Is it perhaps another human calculator? So what the computer tells you is another determined output. You can't escape the system-level problems of determinism. Again, at no point do you have an evaluator that can look at outputs and determine (determination assumes choice btw) which one is true and which one is false.

And your point is that therefore the mind isn't important? That's like saying the difference between a rock and a super-intelligent computer isn't important. Only worse because minds are immaterial and have subjective experiences while computers do not.

My point is that under determinism, the mind is in the same category as any other mechanism, yes. The correct comparison would be brain-computer (material), mind-software (virtual). There are no meaningful distinctions there except maybe you can say the brain-mind is more complex than the computer-software we have now.