A Question for Evangelicals.

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 22 times

A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #1

Post by Gracchus »

Do evangelicals and other Christians really believe that a habitual liar, serial adulterer, and defaulter on contracts, who tears children from their parents and has them put in cages, can lead them toward the Kingdom of Heaven? Is that what Jesus would do?

:?: :study:

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #21

Post by Elijah John »

[Replying to post 1 by Gracchus]

Presidents are not expected to lead people to the "Kingdom of Heaven" as you say. That is not why Evangelicals helped elect him. We Trump voters elected a President, not a Pope. Evangelicals voted for Donald Trump because he opposes killing babies in the womb, (something the Democrat leaders favor overwhelmingly under the euphemism "a woman's right to choose") and because he respects religious freedom. (something that Democrats seek to curtail)
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #22

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote:Team work is decidedly a different thing to popularity.
Not if you measure team work by how willing others are to work with this person.
Bust Nak wrote:Results > Skill. Team work is just a good way of getting results.
Just doing your job is another.
Bust Nak wrote:The premise is that the surgeon is rude, that is his problem. I don't think I have to assume teamwork > skill to conclude that being rude is his problem.
You do. They refuse to hand him the scalpel, and that's his problem according to you.

One person is willing to work, the other is not, and according to you it's the fault of the person willing to work that he doesn't make sure the perfect-conditions-panda hears the perfect pitch and volume she needs to pass the scalpel.

Or she could just pass the scalpel.
Bust Nak wrote:That's one way of fixing the problem, but that doesn't change the source of where the problem came from - a guy being rude enough that his team refuses to work with him.
The source of the problem is the factor that, when removed, fixes the problem. Someone who refuses to pass the scalpel for one reason might refuse for another. But remove perfect-conditions-panda for someone who will always hand the scalpel and there is no problem.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #23

Post by Bust Nak »

Purple Knight wrote: Not if you measure team work by how willing others are to work with this person.
You don't have to be popular for people to want to work with you.
Just doing your job is another.
Working with your team is part of the job for anything that is more than a one man job.
You do. They refuse to hand him the scalpel, and that's his problem according to you.

One person is willing to work, the other is not, and according to you it's the fault of the person willing to work that he doesn't make sure the perfect-conditions-panda hears the perfect pitch and volume she needs to pass the scalpel.
Sure, but would that need the premise "teamwork > skill" in order to come to that conclusion?
Or she could just pass the scalpel.
Sure.
The source of the problem is the factor that, when removed, fixes the problem.
I do not agree, there are multiple ways to fix one problem, the source does not change depending which solution you picked.
Someone who refuses to pass the scalpel for one reason might refuse for another. But remove perfect-conditions-panda for someone who will always hand the scalpel and there is no problem.
Or remove the rude surgeon.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #24

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote:You don't have to be popular for people to want to work with you.
I dispute that based on the definition of popular, specifically 4.

Definition of popular
1: of or relating to the general public
2: suitable to the majority: such as
a: adapted to or indicative of the understanding and taste of the majority
a popular history of the war
b: suited to the means of the majority : INEXPENSIVE
sold at popular prices
3: frequently encountered or widely accepted
a popular theory
4: commonly liked or approved
a very popular girl

Who are people going to be unwilling to work with? People they dislike or disapprove of. In other words, unpopular people. Therefore you must at least not be unpopular for people who are selective about who they will work with to want to work with you.
Bust Nak wrote:Sure, but would that need the premise "teamwork > skill" in order to come to that conclusion?
You wouldn't be able to come to that conclusion without it. Without the idea that teamwork (in other words, popularity) is king, whoever will not work, it is their own problem.
Bust Nak wrote:I do not agree, there are multiple ways to fix one problem, the source does not change depending which solution you picked.
Then how do you come to the conclusion that the surgeon is the problem?

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #25

Post by Bust Nak »

Purple Knight wrote: 4: commonly liked or approved
a very popular girl

Who are people going to be unwilling to work with? People they dislike or disapprove of.
Not necessarily, That's a matter of degree. I can work with some unpopular people.
You wouldn't be able to come to that conclusion without it.
What's wrong using the result > skill premise? This guy is rude, the team is not getting results, results is more important than skill, throw this guy out.
Then how do you come to the conclusion that the surgeon is the problem?
Because being rude goes against my standard of behavior.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #26

Post by Clownboat »

Bust Nak wrote:
Purple Knight wrote: 4: commonly liked or approved
a very popular girl

Who are people going to be unwilling to work with? People they dislike or disapprove of.
Not necessarily, That's a matter of degree. I can work with some unpopular people.
You wouldn't be able to come to that conclusion without it.
What's wrong using the result > skill premise? This guy is rude, the team is not getting results, results is more important than skill, throw this guy out.
Then how do you come to the conclusion that the surgeon is the problem?
Because being rude goes against my standard of behavior.
In my hypothetical work environment from a few posts ago, the rudeness of the worker is no longer an issue because the person that would not work with them was let go. The problem was solved and it was one of not working, not of rudeness even though being rude is not a positive quality and may affect pay and other benefits of course.

My employees don't get to set a standard of behavior that their fellow employees must adhere to. (That is for an employer to decide). Obviously, an employee could be rude enough, especially if it is customers that are complaining as to justify getting rid of the rude employee as the solution over those that refuse to work with them. As you said, a matter of degree.

I still firstly expect my employees to not necessarily like their fellow employees, but they MUST be able to work with them. If they cannot, they will be let go. If there are multiple complainers and especially if it is coming from customers, this scenario would likely be dealt with differently.

When it comes to our presidents, I don't really see how anyones level of not liking them should come in to play. We don't even have to work with them. Therefore, are work results the primary thing that should matter or their level of rudeness?
(I'm not arguing about the quality or lack there of for anything Trump has done by the way. Attempt to discuss generic presidents and their rudeness/ability to do the job).
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #27

Post by Bust Nak »

Clownboat wrote: Obviously, an employee could be rude enough, especially if it is customers that are complaining as to justify getting rid of the rude employee as the solution over those that refuse to work with them. As you said, a matter of degree.
Surely rude enough to cause a colleague to refuse to work with them, crosses that line of being too rude?
When it comes to our presidents, I don't really see how anyones level of not liking them should come in to play. We don't even have to work with them. Therefore, are work results the primary thing that should matter or their level of rudeness?
Hence my remark on whether this so called heart surgeon is lying about his skills and qualification...

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #28

Post by Clownboat »

Bust Nak wrote:
Clownboat wrote: Obviously, an employee could be rude enough, especially if it is customers that are complaining as to justify getting rid of the rude employee as the solution over those that refuse to work with them. As you said, a matter of degree.
Surely rude enough to cause a colleague to refuse to work with them, crosses that line of being too rude?
Not necessarily. What I have observed over the years is a victim mentality in the workplace that needs to not be encouraged IMO.

People need to stop blaming others and look inward. There are rude people on this planet and that will not change. The ability to deal with them (again, they don't have to like them, just be able to work with them) is manditory in the work place.

Rude people need jobs and so do ugly people. Employeers on a normal basis should not be firing people for being ugly or rude. Even if their level of uglyness is something another employee finds offensive.

What if an employee finds the smell of curry to be offensive? Surely we also would not fire the person that enjoys curry due to the offense it causes another worker.

Should them attempting to limit their curry intake or timing there of even come up? If not, why should a persons level of rudeness come in to play? (Barring the obvious extremes of rudeness and perhaps even body odor). (Not comparing BO to curry by the way, just calling BO the extreme side of this smell analogy).

Concider working with a severe burn victim. Their appearance may offend some, but that is on them.

When I hear people call presidents names, this is not something new of course, I often am left wondering what that has to do with the job they were hired to do.
When it comes to our presidents, I don't really see how anyones level of not liking them should come in to play. We don't even have to work with them. Therefore, are work results the primary thing that should matter or their level of rudeness?
Hence my remark on whether this so called heart surgeon is lying about his skills and qualification...
Addressed in post 7: (I believe we were asked to not use the D---y Head word).
Either way, I'm curious...
If someone is a total ***** **** of a person, but a qualified heart surgeon, should you not use their services? Pretend the ***** **** is better qualified if you would.

He is not lying, in this scenario. He is better qualified, but more rude then the other candidate. Care to provide your thoughts in regards to the POTUS with this in mind?

"When it comes to our presidents, I don't really see how anyones level of not liking them should come in to play. We don't even have to work with them. Therefore, are work results the primary thing that should matter or their level of rudeness?"
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #29

Post by Athetotheist »

Wootah wrote:Furthermore, Trump ain't so bad. he is a builder, not a destroyer.
From a Christian perspective, wouldn't that depend on how "ain't so bad" treated the least of Jesus's brethren?

https://brookings.edu/research/the-mora ... on-policy/

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Post #30

Post by Athetotheist »

Wootah wrote:
Gracchus wrote: Excuse me folks, but the discussion is not about a competent doody-head, it is about an obviously incompetent doody-head. Signs of his incompetence are his penchant for hiring and firing staff at an unprecedented rate, an unusual number of former staff in prison, his bankruptcies, his cheating of contractors, and his SLAP lawsuits to drive up the attorney costs for opponents who aren't financed by Russian loans through Deutsche Bank.
Of course this is a hypothetical person and not referring to any real individual. I mean, who could seriously support for public office a lying, cheating scoundrel who can scarcely read?
And this is about his moral character and why Evangelicals would support him so enthusiastically.

[-X
You haven't made your case and ignore the obvious sign of competence - he made it to president.
He made it to president by losing the popular vote and then failing upward into the Oval Office with the help of the Electoral College.

Post Reply