Hello Apondia . Thank you for entering this month's contest.

FORUM

Grill a Christian  (13+) What is your problem? Sin, pain, poverty, or false perspective? #2327636 by LightinMind

As the official Judge of this contest, I have the following comments to offer for "Grill 2 April 2025" 

Did you answer the question?

Yes, you directly addressed the question of communication as someone trained as a journalist. You suggested that the Bible, empathy, and shared language meant that communication was possible with both God and each other. That our experiences, presuppositions, biases, and faulty senses can all filter our communications. You alluded to a deeper shared experience in our very design that facilitates shared communication and the insights that we bring to the conversation. You were the only one who considered prayer to be an objective reality and an activity anybody could engage in with an actual personal God. You did not attempt to explain the perceived existence of God in terms of the need to communicate, as did one entrant; your faith was taken for granted, and as a result, spared you from idolatry and doubts.

Use of quotes, proof-texting or AI - could I hear your voice?

I get the impression you use AI a lot for research and to focus answers to the questions. Your collation seemed authentic enough, albeit a little emotionally flat. I would guess your training teaches you to hide feelings even when you share personal anecdotes. This came more from the head than the heart.

How consistent was your argument?

The other writers had a more holistic approach, spiralling around feelings and insights related to the question but your argument was more purposeful, organized and sequential. You addressed a series of questions relating to the theme and answered each one in turn.

My thoughts on the substance of what you said

You give the impression of a person who knows how to write without necessarily feeling the depths of what you share. Your words do not bleed onto the page from open veins, and they do not make us feel what you are feeling. You tell us what you think. In my view, you are broadly right in what you say, but have not tested your arguments against deep-seated criticisms of them. Maybe a machine could also provide such an answer. Your anecdotes and self-reflection save your answer from that accusation. This was an answer integrated into personal experience, but not one that brings the reader into a shared context to feel what you feel. You allude to the depths of shared insight but do not connect us to them here.

You have written a better answer to my actual question without making me feel your answer in the way that the other entrants did whose answers were inaccurate and full of misconceptions. So I have the dilemma of whether I choose a better answer over better writing. You know when a person has read widely and felt deeply because their understanding radiates in the nuances of their writing. Your response felt more like a business email, while other entrants read more authentically.

Some specifics that came up. You asked about miracles - I guess my definition of a miracle would be when only God could explain it.

Since God confused the languages at Babel, the differentiation of people by language has been a problem. It was Pentecost that reversed this trend to differentiation and made it possible that people from every land and culture could once more come together again. My church is an international one with people from every continent. But we share a common scriptural understanding, pray to the same God, and can share our deepest problems and hopes with each other, even though for many of these people, English is not their first language. It seems that what we share is more important than what divides us. We understand each other despite the genuine barriers to communication that exist in our cultures, histories, and individual psychologies. But my church is a refutation of the central thesis of the other entrants, who seemed trapped in their psychologies and unaware of how the grace and mercy of God can unite even the most unlikely of souls.

You alluded to the shared design that we have been made in God's image, but could have expounded on that more. In essence, we have a built-in ability to comprehend each other on a conscious and unconscious level because we all mirror the same God and share the same design. This design was broken by the fall, flood, and angelic fiddling. Enough remains for language to be still meaningful. The incarnation is God's deepest communication to mankind, showing us what a human life should look like, redeeming us from the sins that separate us from that, and giving access to the Holy Spirit to inhabit God's church and dwell within her. We can know and understand each other because the Bible shows us Christ's perfect life, and because the cross undoes the effect of sin, because the Spirit is active in the church, and because we share the hope that God will fix our brokenness and make all things new at the resurrection. Understanding may currently be, like love, a reflection in a cracked mirror, but we know that one day we will understand perfectly as we are understood even now.

Mechanical issues

Nothing major to say here.


Thanks again for entering.
LightinMind

STATIC

My Philosophy of Rating and Reviewing  (E) How do I assess people's work when reviewing? #2259390 by LightinMind

My review has been submitted for consideration in "Good Deeds Get CASH!" .