That’s sad. I think we need a forum for writers to learn how to write LGBTQ+ characters without fetishising their sexuality. So I have a story in my head, have had it for 30 years, never really got to write it. My main villain is a gay man. This is problematic for a couple reasons. One, he’s gay and he’s a villain, so am I saying being gay is bad? No, I’m not — the character has just always been gay in my head. I’ve had this character long before Heroes was a thing, but Zachary Quinto’s character Sylar on that show definitely helped inspire the character’s direction (10-15 years after the character was conceived). The second reason is that I myself am not gay, so the hurdle I face is, how do I present this character as sympathetic to gay youth who are looking for someone to resonate with? It’s not just about his sexuality. It’s not even about his sexuality — I have never, in 30 years, envisioned a male partner for this character. His favorite person in the world is actually his sister, and they have a close bond, and certain things with her motivate his entire character arc. I see this guy as someone who does not pursue romantic relationships, but he does happen to be a gay man. I don’t know if I’ll ever write this story. And, to be clear, there’s a story where he’s the hero (or something of an anti-hero), and then he’s sort of a villain, or at least he wants something opposite of what the hero wants, there’s a powerful object and they both want it, and he’s willing to do lots of terrible things to get it because, in his world, those things don’t matter. And the universe justifies it to him.
But, forget my story, it may never get told. What I want to see is a forum or a training course where writers can learn to write characters who are maybe not like them. I hear straight people writing LGBTQ+ as problematic and it shouldn’t be. Same with men writing women (or girls). I think there’s a stigma about writing non-men if you’re a man, and I think rather than stigmatising it, we should be educating people on how to do it right. Encourage inclusion to get inclusion… if you want inclusion (as opposed to bitching about a lack thereof).
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.