What's the point of Satan blindfolding and deceiving naturally blind people? How doesn't Luke 10:13-16 completely dismantle Calvinism?

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."

I thought they were totally depraved? Why would they repent just because of some miracles? Shouldn't Christ first say if the Holy Ghost worked on their heart and made them among the elects? Since they are destroyed in this world, they are unelects, so Christ is speaking of the possibility of the unelects having possibility to repent. Seems uncalvinsitic to me.

I also don't understand why God was calling people to humble themselves in the O.T when they can't unless they are the elect. Only the elects would and only if God appoints them as his elects. It looks like a charade. A spectacle.

Why is God calling everyone everywhere to repent when he knows they will only if he works on their heart?

For an analogy, let's say I have a dog (please assume there's an inherent wrongness in being a dog) who is deaf and blind, it's unable to heed my commands. I also have the power to fully restore its functionings, but I don't. I desire it to heed my command. I want it to heed my command. (the analogy is imperfect but let's say a just consequence and punishment is attached to the command). I then command it knowing it won't and can't respond. It obviously doesn't respond as I expected. I then beat the living crap out of it for not heeding my command even though I am able to make it heed my command and heartily want it to heed my commands. Am I justified? I am not talking about the wrongness of being a dog as much as I am about this strangeness about directing anger and dismay over the dog not heeding my command as a matter of course. Mind you, I have no trouble accepting God doing what He pleases, Calvinism is valid but not Biblically sound and poses certain problems like this which is not as present in other frameworks, at least not to the point of doubting God's character. So, This is sort of like Calvinism. God acts strangely and inconsistently so I'd rather prefer more consistent understanding of God. The general call and God's desire for mankind to repent becomes a spectacle and insincere and there's this ad-hoc (to me) scripturally unjustified need of introducing double-will and double-desire to lend explanatory power to Calvinism.

Not only is Calvinism counter-intuitive but it also seems to me that it goes beyond what is scripturally tenable to preserve Calvinistic perspective. And I think it assumes certain definition of sovereignty and its ostensible universal acceptance to argue why God isn't sovereign in other frameworks. God who is able to remain sovereign despite the free-will of people is more sovereign in my eyes. Just addressing one of many possible arguments.

The early church fathers save late stage Augustine who came centuries later seem to profess libertarian free will too. If the election and predestination were so important did Christ and his apostles fail in communicating such important doctrines or what? The reason I think these doctrines became kinda norm possibility when they wouldn't be during the birth of Christianity is because of the influence of Augustine and his equally influential disciples in the form of Calvin and Luther who went on to propagate his view that was at odds with the traditional Christianity shared by the earliest church fathers that preceded late stage Augustine.

What about Satan? What's the point of him deceiving and leading people astray when most of them wouldn't be able to come to Christ anyway. That makes as much as sense as blindfolding already blind people.

Satan is utterly comical in Calvinistic framework. I mean what on God's green Luscious Earth is he even trying trying to achieve? He can just sit back and let depraved men fall to their own nature, rhe elects are impossible to deceive. He's pulling a charade and meaningless spectacle of his own, as if trying to outdo God on who can pull off a bigger meaningless and impotent spectacle and charade, general (meaningless) calling or blindfolding (meaningless) blind people, unsure who's winning. Absolutely risible.

That said I obviously accept the inherent depravity of men and their unavoidable inclination towards sin. It's just that I disagree at the extent to which it affects their behavior. I believe Calvinistic understanding goes beyond what is scripturally defensible. And I see no robust support for their understanding of depravity. Seems like assertions. Inconsistent with God's calling and exhortation to repent and humble yourselves before him if you are fundamentally unable to unless He actively reforms you. Should implies could. Men should humble themselves before God and men should accept Christ as God declared. I think that's because men could even if they can't seek God by themselves. I may not be able to call the president of the USA but that doesn't mean I can't answer his calls. This God is more consistent and more Biblical in my eyes and personally more loving. This understanding of God doesn't suffer from the same problems that inflicts Calvinism. As far as having nothing to boast goes, just because someone accepts my 10 million dollar to save himself from cancer doesn't mean he has anything to boast for just accepting the dollar, the full credit still goes to me. A man doesn't deserve 10 billion dollar just because I gave it to him in the condition that he do 5 pushups, the credit still goes fully to me. This is the God of the Bible who commands all to repent and exhorts them to Him. Having loved everyone, partial to no one, I have nothing to boast in my salvation if every other human being could also be saved if they so willed and desired by accepting Chirst. I don't boast in my ability to stand up before others who can stand up just as well, just as I don't boast in my ability to accept Christ which anyone can do. Men is unable to seek God, hates God, inclined to sin, but he's not dead to the extent where he needs to be ontologically changed to believe in Christ and not after having believed in God. Calvinistic extent is unfounded and unjustified and presents several issues which I have already laid out.

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live,"

" “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."

What is this longing for if it's just matter of you willing it. Why bluster about choice if it's matter of innate depravity and election, simply pass over them as not being counter among the elect instead of chiding them for what they are fundamentally incapable of doing so.

"From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands. 27God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.…"

Innately depraved though? God is being naive here in Calvinism. The God presented by Calvinism is just so alien and inconsistent and seems to require awe-inspiring bravura of mental gymnastic sophistry to defend and maintain and barely.

Sorry if I come off as combative and aggressive, I mean to argue in good faith. And yes this might be a bit discursive and disjointed and inarticulate but I couldn't spare more to construct it more carefully and charitably. Hopefully you still get the gist and address ALL the points.

I was reformed, but am not any longer.

I find Calvinism very charming and I love how it emphasizes God over all. If preferable I want to believe in Calvinistic God who from inception to consummation works for His own glory. But my fondness doesn't mean much if it doesn't align with the scripture. And if you examine closer, there are disquieting aspects to it too which I don't need to elaborate, but as long as God obtains all the glory, more than half of depraved humanity ending in eternal hell surprisingly doesn't matter much to me. If I am not wrong, even John Calvin called it a terrible decree, not as in criticism as much as in sheer humane dismay and horror. The double predestination that is. I wonder if all of this is worth it or if Calvinism is really that convincing enough to bet on that belief system.

I want to hear from people more educated on me than this since I am not formally trained by any stretch and neither have I spent more than a little effort into theology and philosophy. Thanks!