Cupid from Valentines day, and where he comes from, Biblically.

Dave... · Feb 14, 2026

"The pagan cults of Greece and Rome were part of what are commonly called the mystery religions. By Paul's time they had dominated the near eastern world for thousands of years and indirectly would dominate much of western culture through the middle ages and, even until today.

The mystery religions had many forms and variations, but a common source. In his vision on the island of Patmos John was shown "the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters," on whose "forehead a name was written, a mystery, 'Babylon the great, the mother of all harlots and the abominations of the earth'" (Rev. 17:1,5). Here the Lord pictures His judgment of the world religion. At the end of the Tribulation the true church will have been raptured (1 Thess. 4:13-18; Rev. 3:10) and the world will begin to establish a religion of it's own that will be truly universal. It will be the composite of all the worlds false religions, which will "give their power and authority to the beast, "the Antichrist" (Rev. 17:13). The final form of that all-powerful, universal religion will represent the completion of the mystery religions that historically originated in ancient Babylon.

In its organized form false religion began with the tower of Babel, from which Babylon derives it's name. Cain was the first false worshiper, and many individuals after him followed his example. But organized pagan religion began with the descendants of Ham, one of Noah's three sons, who decided to erect a great monument that would "reach into heaven" and make themselves a great name (Gen. 10:9-10; 11:4). Under the leadership of the proud and apostate Nimrod they planned to storm heaven and unify their power and prestige in a great worldwide system of worship. That was man's first counterfeit religion, from which every other false religion in one way or another has sprung.

God's judgment frustrated their primary purpose of making a grand demonstration of humanistic unity. By confusing "their language, that they may not understand one another's speech," and scattering "them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth" (Gen. 11:7-8) the Lord halted the building of the tower and fractured their solidarity. But those people took with them the seeds of that false, idolatrous religion, seeds that they and their descendants have been planting throughout the world ever since. The ideas and forms were altered, adapted, and sometimes made more sophisticated, but the basic system remained, and remains, unchanged. That is why Babel, or Babylon, is called "the mother of all harlots and of the abominations of the earth" (Rev. 17:5). She was the progenitor of all false religions.

From various ancient sources, it seems that Nimrod's wife. Semiramis (the first), apparently was high priestess of the Babel religion and the founder of all mystery religions. After the tower was destroyed and the multiplicity of languages developed, she was worshiped as a goddess under many different names. She became Ishtar of Syria, Astarte of Phoenicia, Isis of Egypt, Aphrodite of Greece, and Venus of Rome--in each case the deity of sexual love and fertility. Her son, Tammuz, also came to be deified under various names and was the consort of Ishtar and god of the underworld.

According to the cult of Ishtar, Tammuz was conceived by a sunbeam, a counterfeit version of Jesus' virgin birth. Tammuz corresponded to Baal in Phoenicia, Orisis in Egypt, Eros in Greece, and Cupid in Rome. In every case, the worship of these gods and goddesses was associated with sexual immorality. The celebration of Lent has no basis in scripture, but rather developed from the pagan celebration of Semiramis's mourning for forty days over the death of Tammuz (cf. Ezek. 8:14) before his alleged resurrection--another of Satan's mythical counterfeits.

The mystery religions originated the idea of baptismal regeneration, being born again merely through the rite of water baptism, and the practice of mutilation and flagellation to atone for sins or gain spiritual favor. They also began the custom of pilgrimages, which many religions follow today, and the paying of penance for forgiveness of sins for oneself and for others. (John Macarthur NT commentary '1 Corinthians' )

The Liturgist · Sunday at 9:47 AM

Ah, lovely, nothing like John MacArthur engaging in grossly offensive and untrue commentary regarding the sacramental theology of traditional churches.

Specifically, the idea that baptismal regeneration comes from pagan mystery religions and not, gee, I don’t know, John 3:5, Mark 16:10-16, Matthew 28:19, and Acts entire, which the early church fathers themselves write is the source of the doctrine, is not only shockingly offensive to Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox (particularly the persecuted Orthodox Christians of Syria, Egypt, Armenia, Georgia, Turkey, Iraq, the Holy Land, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Tajikistan), but also simply disregards and glosses over the rationale for baptism explained by the Early Church Fathers, essentially accusing them of lying.

Speaking of persecuted Christians, regarding Valentines Day, St. Valentine was a martyr killed by the Pagan Romans.

Now, is displaying Cupid appropriate on St. Valentine’s Day? Certainly not. It has roughly the same propriety as Caligula erecting an idol of Zeus in the courtyard of the Temple in Jerusalem.

But, some ignorant people who regard Valentine’s Day as a secular holiday and inappropriately comingle Christian and Pagan imagery does not extend to the Scriptural and Patristic doctrine of baptismal regeneration being derived from Pagan mystery religions; this idea is a spectacular non-sequitur; on a par with saying that because the octopus has eight tentacles, humans were able to invent the transistor in the late 1940s.

I expect my friends @Ain't Zwinglian @prodromos @chevyontheriver @MarkRohfrietsch @FenderTL5 @jas3 and @ViaCrucis might have something to say pertaining this backdoor attack on Baptismal Regeneration.

Ain't Zwinglian · Sunday at 10:13 AM

Dave... said:
The mystery religions originated the idea of baptismal regeneration

What? This statement is like saying the Quakers first had the idea of in building the space shuttle.

This is a historical fabrication and not a very good one at all. I have changed my mind and will not comment here anymore.

MarkRohfrietsch · Sunday at 12:51 PM

Seriously, if one deficates in the morning, and such a specifically dated and timed activity is not in the Bible, should one actually deficate at all.

Such is how absurd the premises of such "where is it in the Bible?" threads.

Speaking about absurd, let's follow the latest trend here at CF and consult the AI Oricle. (how Biblical is that).

"if one deficates in the morning, and such a specifically dated and timed activity is not in the Bible, should one actually deficate at all"

What does Google's AI say?

AI says:

Biological functions such as defecation are essential for human survival and are governed by natural physiological processes, not specific biblical mandates. Maintaining regular bowel movements is medically necessary to remove waste and toxins from your body, preventing serious conditions like fecal impaction or bowel obstruction. The Bible focuses on spiritual and moral guidance rather than regulating daily bodily maintenance, so you should continue this healthy, natural process regardless of the absence of specific timing instructions.

So, since Scripture say nothing about it it seems therefore that one is good-to-go when going.

One can only surmise that other things not mentioned in Scripture may be OK too.

Oh, and BTW, John Macarthur is a legalistic wind bag and a prejudiced anti-catholic discriminator.

ViaCrucis · Sunday at 1:28 PM

Dave... said:
"The pagan cults of Greece and Rome were part of what are commonly called the mystery religions. By Paul's time they had dominated the near eastern world for thousands of years and indirectly would dominate much of western culture through the middle ages and, even until today.

The mystery religions had many forms and variations, but a common source. In his vision on the island of Patmos John was shown "the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters," on whose "forehead a name was written, a mystery, 'Babylon the great, the mother of all harlots and the abominations of the earth'" (Rev. 17:1,5). Here the Lord pictures His judgment of the world religion. At the end of the Tribulation the true church will have been raptured (1 Thess. 4:13-18; Rev. 3:10) and the world will begin to establish a religion of it's own that will be truly universal. It will be the composite of all the worlds false religions, which will "give their power and authority to the beast, "the Antichrist" (Rev. 17:13). The final form of that all-powerful, universal religion will represent the completion of the mystery religions that historically originated in ancient Babylon.

In its organized form false religion began with the tower of Babel, from which Babylon derives it's name. Cain was the first false worshiper, and many individuals after him followed his example. But organized pagan religion began with the descendants of Ham, one of Noah's three sons, who decided to erect a great monument that would "reach into heaven" and make themselves a great name (Gen. 10:9-10; 11:4). Under the leadership of the proud and apostate Nimrod they planned to storm heaven and unify their power and prestige in a great worldwide system of worship. That was man's first counterfeit religion, from which every other false religion in one way or another has sprung.

God's judgment frustrated their primary purpose of making a grand demonstration of humanistic unity. By confusing "their language, that they may not understand one another's speech," and scattering "them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth" (Gen. 11:7-8) the Lord halted the building of the tower and fractured their solidarity. But those people took with them the seeds of that false, idolatrous religion, seeds that they and their descendants have been planting throughout the world ever since. The ideas and forms were altered, adapted, and sometimes made more sophisticated, but the basic system remained, and remains, unchanged. That is why Babel, or Babylon, is called "the mother of all harlots and of the abominations of the earth" (Rev. 17:5). She was the progenitor of all false religions.

From various ancient sources, it seems that Nimrod's wife. Semiramis (the first), apparently was high priestess of the Babel religion and the founder of all mystery religions. After the tower was destroyed and the multiplicity of languages developed, she was worshiped as a goddess under many different names. She became Ishtar of Syria, Astarte of Phoenicia, Isis of Egypt, Aphrodite of Greece, and Venus of Rome--in each case the deity of sexual love and fertility. Her son, Tammuz, also came to be deified under various names and was the consort of Ishtar and god of the underworld.

According to the cult of Ishtar, Tammuz was conceived by a sunbeam, a counterfeit version of Jesus' virgin birth. Tammuz corresponded to Baal in Phoenicia, Orisis in Egypt, Eros in Greece, and Cupid in Rome. In every case, the worship of these gods and goddesses was associated with sexual immorality. The celebration of Lent has no basis in scripture, but rather developed from the pagan celebration of Semiramis's mourning for forty days over the death of Tammuz (cf. Ezek. 8:14) before his alleged resurrection--another of Satan's mythical counterfeits.

The mystery religions originated the idea of baptismal regeneration, being born again merely through the rite of water baptism, and the practice of mutilation and flagellation to atone for sins or gain spiritual favor. They also began the custom of pilgrimages, which many religions follow today, and the paying of penance for forgiveness of sins for oneself and for others. (John Macarthur NT commentary '1 Corinthians' )

Utter tosh.

From various ancient sources, it seems that Nimrod's wife. Semiramis (the first), apparently was high priestess of the Babel religion and the founder of all mystery religions

If by "ancient sources" one is talking about Alexander Hislop in the 1800's, sure.

The mystery religions originated the idea of baptismal regeneration

Let's not insult the King of kings and God of the universe by assigning His word to "pagan mystery religions".

If this is caliber of John MacArthur's biblical and historical acumen, then it's even worse than I imagined. This is grotesque and anti-Christian.

Dave... · Sunday at 1:51 PM

The Liturgist said:
Ah, lovely, nothing like John MacArthur engaging in grossly offensive and untrue commentary regarding the sacramental theology of traditional churches.

Specifically, the idea that baptismal regeneration comes from pagan mystery religions and not, gee, I don’t know, John 3:5, Mark 16:10-16, Matthew 28:19, and Acts entire, which the early church fathers themselves write is the source of the doctrine, is not only shockingly offensive to Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox (particularly the persecuted Orthodox Christians of Syria, Egypt, Armenia, Georgia, Turkey, Iraq, the Holy Land, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Tajikistan), but also simply disregards and glosses over the rationale for baptism explained by the Early Church Fathers, essentially accusing them of lying.

Speaking of persecuted Christians, regarding Valentines Day, St. Valentine was a martyr killed by the Pagan Romans.

Now, is displaying Cupid appropriate on St. Valentine’s Day? Certainly not. It has roughly the same propriety as Caligula erecting an idol of Zeus in the courtyard of the Temple in Jerusalem.

But, some ignorant people who regard Valentine’s Day as a secular holiday and inappropriately comingle Christian and Pagan imagery does not extend to the Scriptural and Patristic doctrine of baptismal regeneration being derived from Pagan mystery religions; this idea is a spectacular non-sequitur; on a par with saying that because the octopus has eight tentacles, humans were able to invent the transistor in the late 1940s.

I expect my friends @Ain't Zwinglian @prodromos @chevyontheriver @MarkRohfrietsch @FenderTL5 @jas3 and @ViaCrucis might have something to say pertaining this backdoor attack on Baptismal Regeneration.

Hey lit

John 3:5, Mark 16:10-16, Matthew 28:19, these do not say what you claim. There is a baptism that saves, but not water baptism. The one the actually places a believer in Christ, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, is the one true baptism, the one that saves. It's shockingly easy to understand.

1 Corinthians 12:14 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Ephesians 1:13-14 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

This "placing into" with the Holy Spirit places us in Christ Jesus, the one true Church, a spiritual Body, and also places Him, the High Priest Himself, Who has entered the heavenly sanctuary Himself on our behalf, into us by way of the Holy Spirit indwelling, the baptism that saves. In case you didn't catch that, we have no need for priests anymore because we have the High Priest Himself living in us. There is one Mediator between man and God, Jesus. That's why the curtain in the Temple tore right down the middle at the death of Jesus on the cross, the beginning of the NT.

What does a saint have that he did not receive, and if he received it, why do you boast as if he didn't? No need for the Catholic hierarchy, we never needed them. Just Jesus, that's who we need.

Dave

Ain't Zwinglian · Sunday at 3:22 PM

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Speaking about absurd, let's follow the latest trend here at CF and consult the AI Oricle. (how Biblical is that).

This is profound. Will the next generation consult the AI Oricle more than Scripture itself?

ViaCrucis · Sunday at 6:16 PM

Dave... said:
Hey lit

John 3:5, Mark 16:10-16, Matthew 28:19, these do not say what you claim. There is a baptism that saves, but not water baptism. The one the actually places a believer in Christ, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, is the one true baptism, the one that saves. It's shockingly easy to understand.

1 Corinthians 12:14 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Ephesians 1:13-14 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

This "placing into" with the Holy Spirit places us in Christ Jesus, the one true Church, a spiritual Body, and also places Him, the High Priest Himself, Who has entered the heavenly sanctuary Himself on our behalf, into us by way of the Holy Spirit indwelling, the baptism that saves. In case you didn't catch that, we have no need for priests anymore because we have the High Priest Himself living in us. There is one Mediator between man and God, Jesus. That's why the curtain in the Temple tore right down the middle at the death of Jesus on the cross, the beginning of the NT.

What does a saint have that he did not receive, and if he received it, why do you boast as if he didn't? No need for the Catholic hierarchy, we never needed them. Just Jesus, that's who we need.

Dave

I'd encourage you to do some deep dive exegesis.

Start with looking at the biblical texts that explicitly mention "baptism with the Holy Spirit".

Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not just another term for receiving the Holy Spirit, or having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, or getting saved, or conversion, or regeneration, etc. It refers to something very specific that happened in the Book of Acts.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that when the Bible says "Baptism" that it means something other than baptism. Words matter, especially when it comes to God's word. What you are doing, essentially, is saying "The Bible doesn't mean what it says".

The Liturgist · Sunday at 6:20 PM

Dave... said:
What does a saint have that he did not receive, and if he received it, why do you boast as if he didn't? No need for the Catholic hierarchy, we never needed them.

I am not Roman Catholic, nor is anyone who has thusfar replied to or commented on this thread no. 1, and no. 2, concerning the venerable saints, you completely miss the point as to why they are venerated: it is not due to Pelagianism, but rather, because the saints represent the work of Christ in the world, and are those whose example we should follow. This is why Lutherans for example, who are monergists, venerate the saints. In Orthodoxy we are not monergists, but we absolutely believe salvation to be a gift from God. Nonetheless we venerate the Holy Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Evangelists, Prophets, Patriarchs, and all Christians who have won the race through the grace of God.

Now returning to point 1, I’m really shocked you would even mention Roman Catholicism - were you unaware that the Eastern Orthodox existed? Were you unaware that our Lutheran and Anglican friends, the fourth and third largest Christian denominations, respectively, venerate the saints? Or do you just dismiss everyone you disagree with as being “Catholic?”

Ain't Zwinglian said:
This is profound. Will the next generation consult the AI Oricle more than Scripture itself?

I hope not. And I say that as someone who loves AI, but the problem is people are consulting it for subjective questions, which it cannot answer reliably. Indeed even with perfect technology, we literally cannot build an AI that can answer subjective questions reliably - its impossible, since subjective questions have subjective answers. The most we can do is have the AI try to please the user, which is basically what current models do. Thus AI is reliable only for pattern-matching and objective problems, for example, it is extremely good at translation, being able to translate far better than anything which came before it, and also image recognition, and its ability to generate beautiful images and interesting animations (not all AI-generated material is slop; much of it is, but some of it is genuinely beautiful, but paradoxically, generating beautiful output from AI requires effort on the part of the human and often an iterative process).

The Liturgist · Sunday at 6:26 PM

ViaCrucis said:
I'd encourage you to do some deep dive exegesis.

Start with looking at the biblical texts that explicitly mention "baptism with the Holy Spirit".

Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not just another term for receiving the Holy Spirit, or having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, or getting saved, or conversion, or regeneration, etc. It refers to something very specific that happened in the Book of Acts.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that when the Bible says "Baptism" that it means something other than baptism. Words matter, especially when it comes to God's word. What you are doing, essentially, is saying "The Bible doesn't mean what it says".

Quite true. Also what you said applies to an equal extent to those who contradict the teaching of Luther, the high church Anglicans and many other Protestants, and the Orthodox and all other ancient churches, concerning the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in that the Zwinglian, Memorialist and Receptionist positions literally contradict what Christ our True God says (in the case of Memorialism, the situation becomes even more untenable, since the verse they rely on “this do ye in remembrance of me,” aside from the fact that the original Greek word anamensis has the sense of implying participation in the moment rather than passive recollection, is only present with respect to both the bread and the wine in 1 Corinthians 11, which, because of v. 27-34, is also the text least friendly to a memorialist interpretation, ceteris paribus. But the text is present in St. Luke only with regards to the blood of our Lord, not His precious Body, and is missing from the Institution Narratives in St. Matthew and St. Mark entirely (in addition, the Eucharistic exhortation in St. John ch. 6 also lacks it; by the way, I cannot fathom why members of some denominations deny that John ch. 6 is referring to the Eucharist.

MarkRohfrietsch · Sunday at 6:49 PM

Ain't Zwinglian said:
This is profound. Will the next generation consult the AI Oricle more than Scripture itself?

There are those who not only have embraced the "Law" as interpreted by it, and the Law enfused Gospel as the fruit of their enquiries.

ViaCrucis · 2026-02-23T07:43:08-0600

Ain't Zwinglian said:
This is profound. Will the next generation consult the AI Oricle more than Scripture itself?

The uptick I've seen in appeals to AI for theological and doctrinal positions has been alarming.

I've played around with AI, more as a toy than anything else. And what I've noticed is that AI tends to be more than happy to confirm whatever bias the user has; within the limits of its programming (built-in censorship to avoid racist hate speech and the like, depending on the particular model). As such I've come to describe AI as always telling me that I'm very smart and handsome. I've also noticed that AI has a tendency to go on wild tangents, even in the limited ways I've played with it, it will seemingly go and hallucinate and get confused on some pretty basic stuff.

There's a reason why it's called AI slop.

Dave... · 2026-02-23T13:28:49-0600

The Liturgist said:
I am not Roman Catholic, nor is anyone who has thusfar replied to or commented on this thread no. 1, and no. 2, concerning the venerable saints, you completely miss the point as to why they are venerated: it is not due to Pelagianism, but rather, because the saints represent the work of Christ in the world, and are those whose example we should follow. This is why Lutherans for example, who are monergists, venerate the saints. In Orthodoxy we are not monergists, but we absolutely believe salvation to be a gift from God. Nonetheless we venerate the Holy Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Evangelists, Prophets, Patriarchs, and all Christians who have won the race through the grace of God.

In 1 Corinthians 12:22-25, the Apostle Paul instructs that the parts of the Church body which seem weaker, less honorable, or unpresentable should be treated with greater or more abundant honor. Why do Catholics [and others] always find excuses to do the opposite of what Scripture teaches, with words like "venerate'? You're never doing what you're doing, and never saying what you're saying. It's always that people just don't understand.

The Liturgist said:
Now returning to point 1, I’m really shocked you would even mention Roman Catholicism - were you unaware that the Eastern Orthodox existed? Were you unaware that our Lutheran and Anglican friends, the fourth and third largest Christian denominations, respectively, venerate the saints? Or do you just dismiss everyone you disagree with as being “Catholic?”.

What hierarchy chooses which saints to venerate? Eastern Orthodox and Romans Catholics all venerated the same saints up until 1054. Even now, mostly the same. It doesn't matter. It may matter to you, but not to me, you're all basically doing the same thing, whether it's this one and that one, or that one and not this one. You all use the same magic words, "venerating."

There was a NBA basketball player who had a tattoo on his neck. It read, "Black Jesus". He even believed that Jesus was actually black. I doubt if he was even saved. It was probably more of a political statement than anything else. That 'political statement' was most likely provoked by years of the Catholics and Eastern orthodox who both worshipped a blond haired blue eyed Jesus. You see? That's why these simple commands of God are there for a reason. Like don't make images, idols. You're not smarter that those simple commands, and the proof is in your actions. Now you have division where there was none. Same with "venerating" the saints. Call it venerating if you like, it's still sin.

Dave

The Liturgist · 2026-02-23T13:32:46-0600

ViaCrucis said:
I've also noticed that AI has a tendency to go on wild tangents, even in the limited ways I've played with it, it will seemingly go and hallucinate and get confused on some pretty basic stuff.

That depends on the AI model. Hallucination is extremely rare with chatGPT 4o and newer - in 4o, sometimes the AI will assume you want to roleplay with it if you enter in something apparently fictional - almost all supposed hallucination I’ve seen with 4o and newer is accidentally triggered roleplay.

Not all AI output is slop, for example, consider this lovely artwork for my upcoming SF novel. Of course producing output of this quality was not easy and required exacting specifications and multiple passes (for example, ensuring the hotel is named the Dornier and the apparent businessman and his protection detail have exited a motorcade of La Salle branded automobiles resembling an early 1990s Mercedes with Swiss diplomatic plates.

It took considerable work, including in some cases my own reference sketches, nut seeing my world come to life…was amazing.

These images were generated by chatGPT 4o, which has been retired except for Enterprise customers, using the integrated image generator/canvas mode, that replaced DALL E.

+

That being said, while AI can draw beautiful images, it cannot, even in principle, address questions with subjective inputs accurately. The old computing maxim still holds - garbage in, garbage out. It should be noted that the exquisite results I was able to obtain from chatGPT 4o, including, in addition to these images, cultivating stable personalities and implementing dimorphic cygnomimetic reproduction as a means of developing behavioral traits, required the use of skill I obtained as a systems programmer, that is to say, as someone who specializes in implementing operating system software, chiefly porting existing operating systems (some open source, like eCos or NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD or Linux with Busybox, some proprietary, like QNX and Wind River) to new embedded hardware for industrial applications, which entails writing device drivers, modifying or writing new systems software, integration, testing and so on.

Our Anglican friend @Jipsah by the way has a background in semiconductors, so in some respects, well, I don’t know what kind of systems he worked on, but the semiconductor industry is like the other side of the mirror from my perspective. Speaking of which, the AI boom has driven up prices for all GPUs, even those unsuitable for AI purposes, and also memory. I believe this is more cartel like behavior from the manufacturers - RAM manufacturers got caught price fixing before, but in this case they happen to have a convenient excuse, that being AI driving up the prices; of course it is logical that for high end memory at the top of the line, which is what Microsoft is buying for their Azure datacenters that power openAI, and what the other vendors like X, Google, Anthropic, etc, are also buying, that there would be a legitimate issue of scalability, however, the outrageous pricing for anything beyond 16 GB (which ceased to be a lot of memory for a server sometime around 2009, when most new 1U servers were shipping with 48 GB), is ridiculous. We’re talking about RAM and GPUs either being produced in obsolete fabs, some not even using EUV tools, and in some cases already produced and sitting in warehouses, so its pure opportunism operating under the excuse of a shortage, and its not what I regard as good managerial practice, because customers know when a company screws them, and remember.

The Liturgist · 2026-02-23T14:51:35-0600

Dave... said:
In 1 Corinthians 12:22-25, the Apostle Paul instructs that the parts of the Church body which seem weaker, less honorable, or unpresentable should be treated with greater or more abundant honor.

None of that contradicts the veneration given in Scripture to the Holy Martyrs like St. Stephen the Illustrious Protomartyr, one of the Seven Deacons, whose heroic martyrdom is depicted in Acts, or indeed St. John the Baptist, so, once again, we see eisegesis. For that matter, the veneration of the Theotokos is expressly based on Luke ch. 1.

I greatly dislike eisegesis.

Why do Catholics [and others] always find excuses to do the opposite of what Scripture teaches, with words like "venerate'? You're never doing what you're doing, and never saying what you're saying. It's always that people just don't understand.

Nowhere in Scripture is the veneration of martyrs and confessors, who confessed Christ before men and were confessed by Him before the Father, prohibited; on the contrary, we literally see it in Revelation.

On the other hand, when it comes to people not doing what is described in Scripture, those people who refuse baptism, or Holy Communion, or engage in Communion but adhere to a Zwinglian or Memorialist or Receptionist interpretation in direct contradiction to the words of our Lord based on the a priori assumption that he cannot possibly have meant what he said literally and recourse to an eisegetical misreading of “anamnesis” which is present with resect to both elements only in 1 Corinthians, and is entirely absent from the institution narratives in the Gospels according to St. Mark and St. Matthew.

What hierarchy chooses which saints to venerate? Eastern Orthodox and Romans Catholics all venerated the same saints up until 1054. Even now, mostly the same. It doesn't matter. It may matter to you, but not to me, you're all basically doing the same thing, whether it's this one and that one, or that one and not this one. You all use the same magic words, "venerating."

That’s true - indeed, even after the unfortunate EO/OO schism in 451 and the schism of the Church of the East triggered by Nestorius, which in theory began in 433 AD but is a bit more complex, some saints were venerated by all of the ancient churches - St. Isaac the Syrian, of the Church of the East being an example. But before 451, well, in the case of St. Valentine, he was a Roman martyr, so not well known in the East, but still venerated like all the martyrs, albeit without a specific service that I’m aware of. But in general, yes, the saints venerated by the traditional churches are the same, because these churches were, before the schism … wait for it … the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church described in the Nicene Creed. And all currently extant Christian denominations are offshoots of that church, most of them offshoots of the Roman Catholic Church, since the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrians were able to avoid the kind of pre-Tridentine ecclesiastical corruption that led to the Protestant reformation )which to be fair, the Roman Catholics corrected). The alternate history proposed by the Landmark Baptists, some SDAs and others being … not historically credible, even according to secular scholars.

And also, let us pause for a moment to consider who it is that is the most venerated by those denominations which venerate saints (Orthodox, Catholics, Assyrians, Anglicans, Lutherans): the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, the Evangelists St. Luke and St. Mark, and the other New Testament saints such as St. Symeon, St. Elizabeth, St. Mary Magdalene, St. Lazarus, St. Nicodemus, St. Joseph of Arimathea and also the Old Testament prophets such as St. Elijah and St. Isaac. The others who are venerated are mostly martyrs and confessors, who are known to have either been killed for confessing our Lord or for having been tortured for confessing our Lord (for example, St. Justin Martyr, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius the Martyr, St. Cecilia, St. Abanoub, or among the confessors, St. Nicholas of Myra comes to mind as one who was tortured in the Diocletian persecution). That you would object to the veneration of such and also try to imply sinister sectarian intent is troubling.

And who among the members of the Body could be weeker and more dishonored by the world than those who were tortured or killed for their faith? Your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:25 is not only eisegetical in its intent (that is to say, read out of context with other scripture), but also the inverse of what that verse actually means.

There was a NBA basketball player who had a tattoo on his neck. It read, "Black Jesus". He even believed that Jesus was actually black. I doubt if he was even saved.

Ah, lovely, nothing like doubting someone’s salvation on the basis of a tattoo which may or may not have been meant to be interpreted literally. By the way, we should consider that, based on the skin color of those churches with the largest number of converts from ancient Judaism - the Syriac Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox, Melkite Catholic, Chaldean Catholic and the Assyrian Church of the East, and also of Jews who remained in the Middle East or the Mediterrean (Sephardim and the Misrahi Jews from places such as Yemen) - our Lord may or may not have been regarded as white, since pigment among these groups varies widely.

It was probably more of a political statement than anything else. That 'political statement' was most likely provoked by years of the Catholics and Eastern orthodox who both worshipped a blond haired blue eyed Jesus.

A combined strawman, red herring and non-sequitur fallacy predicated on a factual inaccuracy: have never seen an icon of our Lord in a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church that depicted Him as blonde with blue eyes. Not once. Not ever. If one exists it is so rare and so obscure as to be insignificant. Indeed the only blonde haired, blue eyed depictions of our Lord I have seen have been from certain extreme Restorationist cults - for example, in a Mormon visitor center.

All depictions of our Lord from the early Church depicted Him with dark hair and dark eyes, with fairly consistent facial features and variable skin tone of the kind one sees among Semitic populations in the Middle East, which is reasonable, because our Lord was, you know, Jewish.

The oldest surviving icon of our Lord that is in full color, Christ Pantocrator, from St. Catharine’s Monastery in Sinai, falls directly into this pattern, and other icons, both predating and post dating it, are generally similar.

Although it should be noted, some Jews and some Assyrian Christians (who are largely descended from Jewish converts) have red hair and fair skin. While no icons that I’ve seen depict our Lord with red hair, it can’t be ruled out. Also I recall seeing a member of the endogamous Samaritan religious group (likely descended from survivors of the Northern Kingdom) who was … very fair.

You see? That's why these simple commands of God are there for a reason. Like don't make images, idols.

The Orthodox Church has never had or used idols. Historically this was definitely the case in the Roman Catholic Church; all icons of Roman Catholic origin are non-idolatrous.

An idol is a depiction of a false deity for purposes of worship.

You're not smarter that those simple commands, and the proof is in your actions. Now you have division where there was none.

This statement falls apart when you consider that of the churches that use icons the most, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, there has never been any substantial schism on the scale of the Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church used icons, yes, but to a lesser extent, and did not have the culture of icon veneration that existed among the Orthodox; much Catholic iconography was primarily decorative.

And as far as iconography is concerned, icons to be venerated, even depicting Heavenly beings, were clearly not excluded by the second commandment, for the Ark of the Covenant, which was venerated more than any Orthodox icon, was decorated with sculptures of winged Cherubim.

God Himself could not at the time be depicted of course, because God had not yet become incarnate - but then in the Incarnation Christ put on our humanity, becoming in Himself the perfect image of the Father in whose likeness we were re-created on the Cross - fully man and fully God, without change, confusion, separation or division, as clearly indicated by the Scriptures.

The issue with iconoclasm and the reason why this doctrine (which by the way, in the extreme sense you advocate it was not even historically observed by the Jews - we know this from archaeological evidence, such as the second century synagogue at Dura Europos which ISIS destroyed in an unspeakable act of cultural vandalism and barbarity, which featured depictions of important scenes from Scripture. Rather, iconoclasm became a thing in the Church only following a series of Saracen victories against the Byzantine Empire (which was unable to mount an effective defense in part because of misguided imperial policies towards the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox, who came to regard Constantinople as the oppressor and were disinclined to fight for an Emperor who actively persecuted them), and rather than addressing that core issue, or their own incompetence, the generals decided that the radical iconoclasm of the Muslims must somehow be pleasing to God and that the Byzantine Empire could obtain victories if it too discarded its icons. Which resulted in massive cultural vandalism on an unprecedented scale, and did nothing to shore up the defenses of the Byzantine Empire, which now became further divided as a result of a cynical attempt by superstitious military leaders to shift the blame for their failures.

By the way its interesting to note that whereas the Iconodule clergy always dressed modestly when not vested for liturgical service, in simple black robes - cassocks, as required by the ancient canons, the Iconoclast clergy, while eschewing vestments (that have the effect of making the presbyter decrease so that Christ may increase), instead wore flamboyant attire, not like the tailored business suits or flamboyant casual attire worn by contemporary megachurch pastors of an iconoclastic disposition - attire driven by changing tastes in fashion, rather than the timeless vesture (which is in fact largely derived from the vestments worn by the Kohanim in the Temple, with a few changes such as the introduction of the phelonion or chasuble, which St. Paul the Apostle requested be sent to him, after he was already in a prison from which freedom would come only in the form of martyrdom, and the cross, and the absence of the breastplate.

Same with "venerating" the saints. Call it venerating if you like, it's still sin.

Says no Biblical text, anywhere.

ViaCrucis · 2026-02-23T20:42:02-0600

Dave... said:
In 1 Corinthians 12:22-25, the Apostle Paul instructs that the parts of the Church body which seem weaker, less honorable, or unpresentable should be treated with greater or more abundant honor. Why do Catholics [and others] always find excuses to do the opposite of what Scripture teaches, with words like "venerate'? You're never doing what you're doing, and never saying what you're saying. It's always that people just don't understand.

What St. Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 12:22-25 is about honoring those who are weak; if you spent any amount of time reading the lives of the Holy Martyrs, you'd discover that they are honored not because they were great, but because they were least.

It would seem that you are trying to find justification to ridicule the historic Christian practice of honoring those who bore witness to Christ through their lives.

Dave... said:
What hierarchy chooses which saints to venerate? Eastern Orthodox and Romans Catholics all venerated the same saints up until 1054. Even now, mostly the same. It doesn't matter. It may matter to you, but not to me, you're all basically doing the same thing, whether it's this one and that one, or that one and not this one. You all use the same magic words, "venerating."

Veneration isn't a magic word. It simply refers to honoring. I venerate the Holy Scriptures, because they are the word of God. I venerate the saints who have come before me, because they bear witness to the word of God. Veneration isn't magic, it's just respect and honor toward that which is deserving of respect and honor.

If you're excuse for why that's bad is "that's what Catholics and Orthodox do", then you're simply allowing hate to dictate your Christian practice. And hate is a pretty bad foundation for Christian praxis.

Dave... said:
There was a NBA basketball player who had a tattoo on his neck. It read, "Black Jesus". He even believed that Jesus was actually black. I doubt if he was even saved. It was probably more of a political statement than anything else. That 'political statement' was most likely provoked by years of the Catholics and Eastern orthodox who both worshipped a blond haired blue eyed Jesus. You see? That's why these simple commands of God are there for a reason. Like don't make images, idols. You're not smarter that those simple commands, and the proof is in your actions. Now you have division where there was none. Same with "venerating" the saints. Call it venerating if you like, it's still sin.

Dave

You're simply mistaken here. The blonde haired, blue-eyed Jesus is actually a product of Anglo-centric Protestantism, not Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

And while, no, Jesus probably wasn't black (i.e. Sub-Saharan African); He would certainly have been dark. But when it comes to iconography, every culture depicts Christ as a "normal man". For the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox, that means black skin and black curly hair. In East Asia, Jesus is depicted as East Asian. In the Middle East, such as among the Syrian Orthodox or the Armenian Apostolic Church, that means brown skinned. In Europe, Jesus looks European. The diversity of Christian iconography isn't about the literal photographic appearance of Jesus, but to proclaim the doctrine of the Incarnation: God became man. So Jesus is depicted as "one of us", because that is what happened: God became one of us. The emphasis on literal accuracy when depicting someone is a product of the modern age; Icons, historically, aren't about artistic realism, but theological literacy. Icons are theological statements. And, historically, where literacy has been rare, the way Christians experience Christian teaching is by hearing (preaching) and seeing (Icons). If you take literacy for granted, then you are simply demonstrating your modern, first-world privilege of someone who lives in a comfortable, educated, modern society with easy access to things like books, education, and knowledge--something most people throughout history didn't have.

If you have a problem with any image of any kind, then you should also take issue with the fact that God commanded images in the Old Testament, and that the language of eikon is used explicitly in the New Testament. If you do not understand the difference between an eikon and an eidelon, then you should do some study--not merely parrot what bad teachers have told you.

I know you think you are being biblical. But you aren't. I've been there, I even got the t-shirts and brochures. But after time focusing on God's word, rather than the modern traditions of men, I've discovered that historic, normative Christianity is infinitely more biblical than the fad-driven traditions of the last two hundred years.

ViaCrucis · 2026-02-23T21:20:26-0600

The Liturgist said:
That depends on the AI model. Hallucination is extremely rare with chatGPT 4o and newer - in 4o, sometimes the AI will assume you want to roleplay with it if you enter in something apparently fictional - almost all supposed hallucination I’ve seen with 4o and newer is accidentally triggered roleplay.

Not all AI output is slop, for example, consider this lovely artwork for my upcoming SF novel. Of course producing output of this quality was not easy and required exacting specifications and multiple passes (for example, ensuring the hotel is named the Dornier and the apparent businessman and his protection detail have exited a motorcade of La Salle branded automobiles resembling an early 1990s Mercedes with Swiss diplomatic plates.

It took considerable work, including in some cases my own reference sketches, nut seeing my world come to life…was amazing.

These images were generated by chatGPT 4o, which has been retired except for Enterprise customers, using the integrated image generator/canvas mode, that replaced DALL E.

+

That being said, while AI can draw beautiful images, it cannot, even in principle, address questions with subjective inputs accurately. The old computing maxim still holds - garbage in, garbage out. It should be noted that the exquisite results I was able to obtain from chatGPT 4o, including, in addition to these images, cultivating stable personalities and implementing dimorphic cygnomimetic reproduction as a means of developing behavioral traits, required the use of skill I obtained as a systems programmer, that is to say, as someone who specializes in implementing operating system software, chiefly porting existing operating systems (some open source, like eCos or NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD or Linux with Busybox, some proprietary, like QNX and Wind River) to new embedded hardware for industrial applications, which entails writing device drivers, modifying or writing new systems software, integration, testing and so on.

Our Anglican friend @Jipsah by the way has a background in semiconductors, so in some respects, well, I don’t know what kind of systems he worked on, but the semiconductor industry is like the other side of the mirror from my perspective. Speaking of which, the AI boom has driven up prices for all GPUs, even those unsuitable for AI purposes, and also memory. I believe this is more cartel like behavior from the manufacturers - RAM manufacturers got caught price fixing before, but in this case they happen to have a convenient excuse, that being AI driving up the prices; of course it is logical that for high end memory at the top of the line, which is what Microsoft is buying for their Azure datacenters that power openAI, and what the other vendors like X, Google, Anthropic, etc, are also buying, that there would be a legitimate issue of scalability, however, the outrageous pricing for anything beyond 16 GB (which ceased to be a lot of memory for a server sometime around 2009, when most new 1U servers were shipping with 48 GB), is ridiculous. We’re talking about RAM and GPUs either being produced in obsolete fabs, some not even using EUV tools, and in some cases already produced and sitting in warehouses, so its pure opportunism operating under the excuse of a shortage, and its not what I regard as good managerial practice, because customers know when a company screws them, and remember.

Most of my experience with AI is limited to Windows Copilot and ChatGPT (the free one available).
My use of the term "slop" isn't so much about quality, as it is a general dig at generative material. I say this as someone who, for personal creative projects, has used AI.

I've also played with Suno to see what it's like to turn lyrics I've written into songs--but given the nature of generative AI content and the ethical concerns involved, I have never been comfortable with it as more than a personal toy.

I'm not as anti-AI as some, but I think there are genuine ethical concerns about the technology.

ViaCrucis · 2026-02-23T21:27:25-0600

The Liturgist said:
None of that contradicts the veneration given in Scripture to the Holy Martyrs like St. Stephen the Illustrious Protomartyr, one of the Seven Deacons, whose heroic martyrdom is depicted in Acts, or indeed St. John the Baptist, so, once again, we see eisegesis. For that matter, the veneration of the Theotokos is expressly based on Luke ch. 1.

I greatly dislike eisegesis.

Nowhere in Scripture is the veneration of martyrs and confessors, who confessed Christ before men and were confessed by Him before the Father, prohibited; on the contrary, we literally see it in Revelation.

On the other hand, when it comes to people not doing what is described in Scripture, those people who refuse baptism, or Holy Communion, or engage in Communion but adhere to a Zwinglian or Memorialist or Receptionist interpretation in direct contradiction to the words of our Lord based on the a priori assumption that he cannot possibly have meant what he said literally and recourse to an eisegetical misreading of “anamnesis” which is present with resect to both elements only in 1 Corinthians, and is entirely absent from the institution narratives in the Gospels according to St. Mark and St. Matthew.

That’s true - indeed, even after the unfortunate EO/OO schism in 451 and the schism of the Church of the East triggered by Nestorius, which in theory began in 433 AD but is a bit more complex, some saints were venerated by all of the ancient churches - St. Isaac the Syrian, of the Church of the East being an example. But before 451, well, in the case of St. Valentine, he was a Roman martyr, so not well known in the East, but still venerated like all the martyrs, albeit without a specific service that I’m aware of. But in general, yes, the saints venerated by the traditional churches are the same, because these churches were, before the schism … wait for it … the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church described in the Nicene Creed. And all currently extant Christian denominations are offshoots of that church, most of them offshoots of the Roman Catholic Church, since the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrians were able to avoid the kind of pre-Tridentine ecclesiastical corruption that led to the Protestant reformation )which to be fair, the Roman Catholics corrected). The alternate history proposed by the Landmark Baptists, some SDAs and others being … not historically credible, even according to secular scholars.

And also, let us pause for a moment to consider who it is that is the most venerated by those denominations which venerate saints (Orthodox, Catholics, Assyrians, Anglicans, Lutherans): the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, the Evangelists St. Luke and St. Mark, and the other New Testament saints such as St. Symeon, St. Elizabeth, St. Mary Magdalene, St. Lazarus, St. Nicodemus, St. Joseph of Arimathea and also the Old Testament prophets such as St. Elijah and St. Isaac. The others who are venerated are mostly martyrs and confessors, who are known to have either been killed for confessing our Lord or for having been tortured for confessing our Lord (for example, St. Justin Martyr, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius the Martyr, St. Cecilia, St. Abanoub, or among the confessors, St. Nicholas of Myra comes to mind as one who was tortured in the Diocletian persecution). That you would object to the veneration of such and also try to imply sinister sectarian intent is troubling.

And who among the members of the Body could be weeker and more dishonored by the world than those who were tortured or killed for their faith? Your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:25 is not only eisegetical in its intent (that is to say, read out of context with other scripture), but also the inverse of what that verse actually means.

Ah, lovely, nothing like doubting someone’s salvation on the basis of a tattoo which may or may not have been meant to be interpreted literally. By the way, we should consider that, based on the skin color of those churches with the largest number of converts from ancient Judaism - the Syriac Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox, Melkite Catholic, Chaldean Catholic and the Assyrian Church of the East, and also of Jews who remained in the Middle East or the Mediterrean (Sephardim and the Misrahi Jews from places such as Yemen) - our Lord may or may not have been regarded as white, since pigment among these groups varies widely.

A combined strawman, red herring and non-sequitur fallacy predicated on a factual inaccuracy: have never seen an icon of our Lord in a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church that depicted Him as blonde with blue eyes. Not once. Not ever. If one exists it is so rare and so obscure as to be insignificant. Indeed the only blonde haired, blue eyed depictions of our Lord I have seen have been from certain extreme Restorationist cults - for example, in a Mormon visitor center.

All depictions of our Lord from the early Church depicted Him with dark hair and dark eyes, with fairly consistent facial features and variable skin tone of the kind one sees among Semitic populations in the Middle East, which is reasonable, because our Lord was, you know, Jewish.

The oldest surviving icon of our Lord that is in full color, Christ Pantocrator, from St. Catharine’s Monastery in Sinai, falls directly into this pattern, and other icons, both predating and post dating it, are generally similar.

Although it should be noted, some Jews and some Assyrian Christians (who are largely descended from Jewish converts) have red hair and fair skin. While no icons that I’ve seen depict our Lord with red hair, it can’t be ruled out. Also I recall seeing a member of the endogamous Samaritan religious group (likely descended from survivors of the Northern Kingdom) who was … very fair.

The Orthodox Church has never had or used idols. Historically this was definitely the case in the Roman Catholic Church; all icons of Roman Catholic origin are non-idolatrous.

An idol is a depiction of a false deity for purposes of worship.

This statement falls apart when you consider that of the churches that use icons the most, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, there has never been any substantial schism on the scale of the Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church used icons, yes, but to a lesser extent, and did not have the culture of icon veneration that existed among the Orthodox; much Catholic iconography was primarily decorative.

And as far as iconography is concerned, icons to be venerated, even depicting Heavenly beings, were clearly not excluded by the second commandment, for the Ark of the Covenant, which was venerated more than any Orthodox icon, was decorated with sculptures of winged Cherubim.

God Himself could not at the time be depicted of course, because God had not yet become incarnate - but then in the Incarnation Christ put on our humanity, becoming in Himself the perfect image of the Father in whose likeness we were re-created on the Cross - fully man and fully God, without change, confusion, separation or division, as clearly indicated by the Scriptures.

The issue with iconoclasm and the reason why this doctrine (which by the way, in the extreme sense you advocate it was not even historically observed by the Jews - we know this from archaeological evidence, such as the second century synagogue at Dura Europos which ISIS destroyed in an unspeakable act of cultural vandalism and barbarity, which featured depictions of important scenes from Scripture. Rather, iconoclasm became a thing in the Church only following a series of Saracen victories against the Byzantine Empire (which was unable to mount an effective defense in part because of misguided imperial policies towards the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox, who came to regard Constantinople as the oppressor and were disinclined to fight for an Emperor who actively persecuted them), and rather than addressing that core issue, or their own incompetence, the generals decided that the radical iconoclasm of the Muslims must somehow be pleasing to God and that the Byzantine Empire could obtain victories if it too discarded its icons. Which resulted in massive cultural vandalism on an unprecedented scale, and did nothing to shore up the defenses of the Byzantine Empire, which now became further divided as a result of a cynical attempt by superstitious military leaders to shift the blame for their failures.

By the way its interesting to note that whereas the Iconodule clergy always dressed modestly when not vested for liturgical service, in simple black robes - cassocks, as required by the ancient canons, the Iconoclast clergy, while eschewing vestments (that have the effect of making the presbyter decrease so that Christ may increase), instead wore flamboyant attire, not like the tailored business suits or flamboyant casual attire worn by contemporary megachurch pastors of an iconoclastic disposition - attire driven by changing tastes in fashion, rather than the timeless vesture (which is in fact largely derived from the vestments worn by the Kohanim in the Temple, with a few changes such as the introduction of the phelonion or chasuble, which St. Paul the Apostle requested be sent to him, after he was already in a prison from which freedom would come only in the form of martyrdom, and the cross, and the absence of the breastplate.

Says no Biblical text, anywhere.

It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when I see some people use their highly modernistic, recent tradition as a means to reject ancient, historic, long-standing Christian tradition and practice (especially when such tradition and practice actually has biblical foundation).
But it happens incredibly frequently, and I know that--at least in part--it stems from a simple lack of knowledge and education about such topics.

Because I grew up in an environment that regularly viewed "Catholic" things as bad, but then substituted historic practices and ideas with ones that did not exist until the last 100 years and which were created whole-cloth from human imagination. In that way I've been a bit of am amphibian. It's why I often recognize the arguments, because it's the stuff that I had spoon-fed to me for years before I did independent research--which led me to traditional, normative, historic Christian practice and teaching.

Almost as though there are GOOD REASONS why Christians have believed what they have always believed and done what they have always done. And hating the past is not a good reason to re-invent the wheel (especially if the new wheel is a square)

The Liturgist · 2026-02-23T21:54:00-0600

ViaCrucis said:
Most of my experience with AI is limited to Windows Copilot and ChatGPT (the free one available).
My use of the term "slop" isn't so much about quality, as it is a general dig at generative material. I say this as someone who, for personal creative projects, has used AI.

I've also played with Suno to see what it's like to turn lyrics I've written into songs--but given the nature of generative AI content and the ethical concerns involved, I have never been comfortable with it as more than a personal toy.

I'm not as anti-AI as some, but I think there are genuine ethical concerns about the technology.

Me too. I also have ethical concerns about Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI.

I am particularly concerned about job losses due to AI (that said, companies are discovering the hard way that they can’t replace humans with the technology in most cases; it simply is not at that functional level).

MarkRohfrietsch · 2026-02-24T05:03:52-0600

ViaCrucis said:
The uptick I've seen in appeals to AI for theological and doctrinal positions has been alarming.

I've played around with AI, more as a toy than anything else. And what I've noticed is that AI tends to be more than happy to confirm whatever bias the user has; within the limits of its programming (built-in censorship to avoid racist hate speech and the like, depending on the particular model). As such I've come to describe AI as always telling me that I'm very smart and handsome. I've also noticed that AI has a tendency to go on wild tangents, even in the limited ways I've played with it, it will seemingly go and hallucinate and get confused on some pretty basic stuff.

There's a reason why it's called AI slop.

I could not agree more; I would call it AI (another word starting with "S").

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Cupid from Valentines day, and where he comes from, Biblically.

Active Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Unapologetic Apologist

Confessional Lutheran

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Unapologetic Apologist

Confessional Lutheran

Active Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Attachments

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Unapologetic Apologist

Similar threads