Hello ruwth . Thank you for entering this month's contest. Congratulations on being the runner up in this months contest. Your argument was at the same level as Amethyst Snow Angel but you created polls and opinion surveys and put a great deal of effort into what you did which I thought should be recognized this month.

FORUM

Grill a Christian  (13+) Music: Blessing or Danger? #2327636 by LightinMind

As the official Judge of this contest, I have the following comments to offer for "Exploring The Question: Is Trump Good Or Evil?" 

Did you answer the question?

Yes by defining evil in terms of the harm it causes and then examining the fruit of Trump from that perspective. You ended by expressing the conviction that we do not really know and that Trump's fruit seemed to be a mixed bag.

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

You used a wide variety of sources to inform this effort including AI, a survey you created, email feedback and right at the end of your piece two Bible quotes from Romans and Isaiah that basically suggested that since no one is righteous it would be hard to single Trump out. I have to say I am grateful for the publicity you generated and for your essay also.

How consistent was your argument?

The consistency in your argument was in your appeal to a consensus that does not really exist when it comes to Trump. People seem to love or hate him. He is the Marmite of American politics. The use of Chat GPT definitions I would also regard as a different kind of consensus drawn from the assumptions underlying the AIs Language Model.

I loved your polls and opinion trawling because it publicized my contest and showed that you cared about the question and the answers. You showed considerable industry I would not want to discourage that now or in the future. However the assumption you made is that the people you asked could provide you a better answer than scripture for example. It seems you came to a more accurate answer only at the end of the process and after having digested some unsatisfying and often ill constructed opinions. Your final view was more on the lines that we do not know if Trump is evil and his fruit appears to be mixed. This seems like an honest answer to me but the rest of your essay did not really support the conclusion.

My thoughts on the substance of what you said

The Chat GPT definition of evil is ethically serious but theologically shallow and has various weaknesses from a Christian perspective. For example evil is not about harm but rather about rebellion from God, intentionality is overemphasized at the expense of sinful nature, there is no reference to the existence of the Devil or indeed a spiritual sense of evil that is not merely secular. This definition treats evil as a concept rather than a spiritual reality. This definition is incomplete without reference to God's holiness, judgment or accountability to God. AI is not an authority unless it is programmed with the correct Christian parameters, respecting mainstream doctrine, scripture and church teaching and tradition. The Merriam-Webster definition was also merely secular conflating moral evil with non-moral negatives like discomfort, disagreeableness, inferiority, or plain bad luck. God and the devil were both missing. The term drifts toward an understanding of evil as a matter of reputation rather than actual theological guilt. A God centered definition talks in terms of rebellion and in terms of the world the flesh and the devil.

These secular definitions influenced the bias of your definition toward an assessment of harm rather than rebellion against God. You looked for an unbiased source to help you with your quest for answers but journalism now seems partisan, commentary is unbalanced and uninformed by a coherent moral framework. You suggested that Trump's lack of filters might actually be a good thing as his raw sincerity was a welcome contrast to a wooden hypocritical political correctness. So you were unconvinced by the harsh rhetoric regarding Epstein, Trump's narcissism and January 6th.

So in essence what I heard here was someone who consulted all the sources that the world has to offer but who ultimately was looking for a more balanced and coherent perspective like old style journalists used to provide. But in the process of looking for a consensus you picked up a faulty definition of evil focused on harm to others rather than rebellion from God. You also became aware that there was no agreement as to what that consensus actually was and in the end you suspected that negative voices tend to be louder than saner ones and that you might have been misled by their verdict. You came to a more balanced view but the way you got there was hardly systematic or rooted in the authorities I know you adhere to - e.g. scripture and a coherent Christian world view.

Mechanical issues

Focused on the substance.


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!" .