But can I chat with Good Shepherd Jesus, the young Dionysian, boyish, beardless, short-haired Jesus of women and lepers? (Contrast the bearded, long-haired, often blue-eyed imperial, Apollonian and sometimes white-supremacist Jesus of kings and churches)
(Jesus’ looks and depictions was a recent topic of Dan McClellan.)
Famously simple and uncontroversial thing to do, interpret what Jesus would say in response to any question.
Also loling at Satan not giving evil advice in a Christian app
I can finally learn if he masturbates by fucking his hand holes or not!
We are doomed as a species.
I really like the idea that this is how God has chosen to speak with people. ;p
Out with burning bushes in and in with AI.
Isn’t this like a false prophet or whatever
Yes. Yes it is.
I wonder if it calls out shit that goes against Jesus’s teachings.
Ah so they put the antichrist into an app (cheap imitation of the Messiah)
Didn’t the pope already say it was sacrilegious to do this?
All the AIs are trained on public domain texts like the bible, just prompt your favorite AI to take on the role.
But there are issues of perspective even within the bible, like who are the reliable narrators? Who was pushing an obvious agenda or how was the text changed in the ensuing millennia? AI is not a biblical scholar, that’s a whole different, more complex concept.
People will just use this as confirmation bias of whatever they want to believe about the bible.
A lot of Christians think the pope is a Satanist
People will just use this as confirmation bias of whatever they want to believe about the bible.
Methinks this is the point, create silo’d echo chambers that are tailored to the individual’s biases. They can’t possibly keep up with all the different denominations and their particular spin on interpreting the bible, nor do they care to. AI, though, can hallucinate any confirmation desired and be convincing while doing it.
Just when you thought AI couldn’t play any deeper into the delusions of the stupid and gullible. Bravo AI. Now excuse me while I go lay down on some train tracks.
As a religiously neutral person (I don’t fit with either atheists or agnostics), I like the idea of this.
There is a finite amount of information about Jesus… and a lot of speculation. There are also other books that are not part of the Bible because those who curated the Bible chose not to include them. The first five books of the New Testament for example, the Gospels of Luke, John, and the others, are the stories of Jesus, but they differ slightly due to each disciple’s interpretation. You may ask why Judas didn’t get a book? He wrote one. But it was not included because he was the traitor who betrayed Jesus. So he doesn’t get a say. But, what if he did?
I’d like to see this chat bot be very transparent about its sources. By default it should limit itself to what is in the Bible, but it should also be possible to add other sources as well. If Christians are truly serious about the command by God to not add anything to the Bible, a Jesus chatbot should be more trustworthy than some Biblical scholar’s book about Jesus. The latter is speculation while the former should only be sourced from the Bible. Sure, it might be sacrilege, but if it’s done right, I think it could be an invaluable tool for priests who want to run their planned sermon — since a lot of them now are writing them on a computer anyway — by “Jesus” to have “Him” tell them if anything goes against the Bible and how they could improve it.
I’d just be curious what it says about certain controversial topics, especially if it goes against the Christian grain, and can source its reasoning with Scripture. To avoid blasphemy, it should also tell you straight up that it is not pretending to be Jesus, but rather, is only using the entire Bible (+ whatever sources you add) to help you understand what Jesus, as portrayed in those sources, would say. I imagine it would be against abortion, for example, since the act of a married het couple is an act of God and the fetus would have a soul. It would be less sure if the parents were not married, but I think it would still be against it. That said, it would probably be for immigrants and the poor. It would point out that homosexual sex is considered an unclean act, but the actual love and relationship itself is not and that a pious life would counteract that, and it could also point out that everyone sins and lives unclean lives, and that’s the whole point of John 3:16. But, what do I know, I’m not a Christian. I’ve just read the Bible. A long time ago. But I feel like I got the message.
You may ask why Judas didn’t get a book? He wrote one. But it was not included because he was the traitor who betrayed Jesus.
More that it was a weird heretical Gnostic text. And extremely doubtful that it would have been Judas who wrote it - really seems more like a second century text. There are tons of pseudepigraphal gospels floating around.
I imagine it would be against abortion, for example, since the act of a married het couple is an act of God and the fetus would have a soul. It would be less sure if the parents were not married, but I think it would still be against it.
See the ordeal of the bitter water for what the Bible has to say on abortion.
I mean, heresy was invented to suppress politically conflicting directions of Christianity. Gnosticism was a popular direction at one point in history, dominating the “mainstream” in some parts of the world. There were more Marcian churches than trinitarian. Gnosticism is only weird from your perspective, after it was already basically outlawed. Admittedly, that is probably a valid justification for calling it with weird, but I’d like to make a distinction that it is not weird on its own, only because it got banned. In fact, in the context of being influenced by Greek philosophy, it was quite logical. Judas gospel was probably not written by Judas, but other, canonical gospels werw probably not written by original authors either, at least some of them.
Christians sure do love their blasphemy
Surely the second commandment was more of a suggestion.
Look, as long as I can keep the mistranslations that back up my internalized bigotry, I’m good.
Rules only ever apply to the out-group.
that’s about as graven as an image can be lol
This New AI-Powered App
Nope.
Allthats"““interesting””"
