Salvation according to two AIs

[trophy33]

Would that not be implied in the idea that baptism is a normative part of the salvific process? (I say this very carefully, well aware of the "what about the thief on the cross?" type objections, but realising that most of us do not come to faith in such extreme circumstances, and most churches would expect baptism as part of a conversion process).

Hard to say, none of the AI's mentioned water baptism, at all.

 

[Occams Barber]

@Occams Barber I didn't particularly like either answer in the OP. You could split hairs about this point or that, this phrase or that, but I think my discomfort boils down more to distrusting a "pat" answer, given as a sort of abstract template, rather than a personal encounter, which can be quite different for each person.

To be honest I don't understand any of the answers.

I set up this thread up partly as a way of gauging the capabilities of different AIs and partly as a way of trying to understand the concept of salvation (and how you get it).

I got a good picture of the AI, but salvation .... I have no idea. Go back a few decades and I used to think the role/purpose of Christianity was to make the world a better place - Boy was I wrong! It's (personal) salvation. I'm not clear on what that means but whatever that means it appears to be a totally self-centred objective. Some vague idea about living forever in something vaguely resembling a Mediterranean beach resort?

Does your church offer salvation as a part of the package deal?
If 'yes' can you define salvation and the behaviour/mindset needed to achieve it?
If not why not?

OB

 

[Paidiske]

I got a good picture of the AI, but salvation .... I have no idea. Go back a few decades and I used to think the role/purpose of Christianity was to make the world a better place - Boy was I wrong!

I wouldn't say it's the purpose of Christianity, but I'd sure like to think it was part of the end result, as it were. Or at least, is meant to be.

It's (personal) salvation. I'm not clear on what that means but whatever that means it appears to be a totally self-centred objective. Some vague idea about living forever in something vaguely resembling a Mediterranean beach resort?

I would say that's a very American-individualistic-Protestant type take. I would say that salvation is meant to be bigger than personal; it's ultimately the transformation of humanity as a whole, and the entire cosmos (creation). So while there are benefits to the self, it's not self-centred.

And yeah, while the absence of death is part of the deal, let's just say I'm not putting too much stock in the idea of an eternal swim-up bar.

Does your church offer salvation as a part of the package deal?

I'm pulling a face at the wording; but short version, yes, my church would see its communal life as an instrument in the salvation process.

If 'yes' can you define salvation and the behaviour/mindset needed to achieve it?

I think the simplest possible definition of salvation I could give might be, "new life." What is broken is mended, what is wounded is healed, what is lacking is fulfillfed, and what is soiled is cleansed. All of these, though, are metaphors for profound transformation that I would sum up as "new life," (which is why you get other metaphors such as being "born again").

The mindset needed to achieve it (and again, that's not phrasing I'd choose, as if salvation is something we achieve, but I'm trying to be constructive here, so I won't quibble too much), I would sum up as rejecting evil; repenting (turning away from) one's own participation in evil (sin); and turning to God in love and trust.

I do think this kind of approach - conversational, where we can unpack and explore ideas, clear up confusion, and the like - is much more to my taste than trying to put together the dogmatically perfect soundbite.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is the better answer?

The first one.

 

[Occams Barber]

I wouldn't say it's the purpose of Christianity, but I'd sure like to think it was part of the end result, as it were. Or at least, is meant to be.

I would say that's a very American-individualistic-Protestant type take. I would say that salvation is meant to be bigger than personal; it's ultimately the transformation of humanity as a whole, and the entire cosmos (creation). So while there are benefits to the self, it's not self-centred.

And yeah, while the absence of death is part of the deal, let's just say I'm not putting too much stock in the idea of an eternal swim-up bar.

I'm pulling a face at the wording; but short version, yes, my church would see its communal life as an instrument in the salvation process.

I think the simplest possible definition of salvation I could give might be, "new life." What is broken is mended, what is wounded is healed, what is lacking is fulfillfed, and what is soiled is cleansed. All of these, though, are metaphors for profound transformation that I would sum up as "new life," (which is why you get other metaphors such as being "born again").

The mindset needed to achieve it (and again, that's not phrasing I'd choose, as if salvation is something we achieve, but I'm trying to be constructive here, so I won't quibble too much), I would sum up as rejecting evil; repenting (turning away from) one's own participation in evil (sin); and turning to God in love and trust.

I do think this kind of approach - conversational, where we can unpack and explore ideas, clear up confusion, and the like - is much more to my taste than trying to put together the dogmatically perfect soundbite.

I sometimes feel as if I've spent most of my life trying, with various degrees of success and failure, to make the world a better place. I've never felt the need to believe in a God and I will never understand why others do.

Your salvation sounds like what I would call coming to terms with yourself. I've done this over decades and I feel no need to insert a God or a Christ into the process nor can I make sense of the belief or the need for belief.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

The first one.

I bet you picked it because it was the shortest.

From my point of view I picked number two because I have no idea what salvation means . The second version at least tried to explain it without using the vague Christian jargon you all like to use.

The best version was post#6 from the Perplexity AI.

OB

 

[Paidiske]

I've never felt the need to believe in a God and I will never understand why others do.

For me, it's not a question of need. God's there, like the ground beneath my feet or the sky above my head. Part of how I experience the world. I don't know why some people apprehend God like that and some don't. (I don't assume it's the inherent superiority of those who do).

Your salvation sounds like what I would call coming to terms with yourself.

Given that I would say that salvation is becoming ourselves as we were always intended to be, perhaps there's something in that. In the most profound sort of way imaginable.

nor can I make sense of the belief or the need for belief.

I think it's a shame that there's a gulf in understanding that's hard to bridge, but I don't know how to bridge it from my end. Perhaps, in the meantime, mutual respect and a willingness to work together on what good we can, are not unworthy aims?

 

[AV1611VET]

I bet you picked it because it was the shortest.

Actually, I read the OP about three times, with a fine-toothed comb.

From my point of view I picked number two because I have no idea what salvation means.

Number Two is good, but I don't care for #4 in that one, which reads:

Confess Jesus to others. We must confess our faith in Jesus Christ to others. This is not just a matter of saying the words, but of living our lives in a way that shows that we believe in him.​

It's out of place, if you ask me, and has nothing to do with salvation.

I'll break it down:

Confess Jesus to others.

This is known as the Great Commission.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

We must confess our faith in Jesus Christ to others.

No argument there.

That's why God left us here on Earth: to tell others about Him.

But at this point, we are already saved.

This is not just a matter of saying the words, but of living our lives in a way that shows that we believe in him.

Yes, I agree.

There's even a term for that: lifestyle evangelism.

2 Corinthians 3:2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

But again, we are already saved and on our way to Heaven.

The second version at least tried to explain it without using the vague Christian jargon you all like to use.

Two simple two-letter prepositions can explain this well: in and to.

The unsaved are dead in their sins.

Ephesian 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

The saved are dead to sins:

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Salvation can be summed up in in a simple verse, consisting of nineteen one-syllable words:

1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

 

[hedrick]

Please remember that AI's don't understand anything in the human sense. They're giving you information that was in whatever set of data they were trained on. In current models, a lot of that is the Internet, so it's going to be biased by whatever theologies are most common in Internet sites.

Notice that they gave you simple answers, where there are actually several aspects of salvation, and different Christians vary in how they prioritize them. That kind of nuance, and why one might believe in one or the other, seems to be beyond them currently. Perhaps that won't always be so.

Today I'd treat this kind of AI as a library assistant, a way to get common answers and (assuming they support that) pointers to relevant web sites. I wouldn't treat them as experts. There's a big concern among computer scientists that AIs will end up being used in ways that aren't appropriate. Experience with Google with complex questions can be frustraing, because keyword searches often can't narrow in on the specific thing you want to know. Chatbots should be a great improvement on that. My concern is whether they'll give you pointers to information from a variety of viewpoints, and how easy it will be to assess the credibility of results. One way I cope with the 100s of results from a Google search is to look for results from sources I trust. These will be different from sources many of you will trust. Making a chatbot do that may be interesting.

 

[Occams Barber]

Actually, I read the OP about three times, with a fine-toothed comb.

Well, there's your problem.

Next time try using reading glasses instead of a fine-toothed comb. I guarantee you'll see more.

OB

 

[ViaCrucis]

So one of my hobbies is working with a program, well a series of programs, known as RPG Maker. They are intended to make 2D RPGs, largely in the style of more retro role playing games for consoles, like the old Final Fantasy games. The most recent iterations allow for scripting using Javascript to create "plugins" to modify the engine.

I can't code. Out of curiosity I used ChatGPT to write me several plugins and code to test several ideas I had. Let's say that it had very limited success. Of my ~5 or 6 tests, only one, through a lot of modification and further refining by asking around on forums, was able to get something that actually worked. But all the rest, regardless of what I tried to do, just didn't work.

The AI, having learned a lot through machine learning, could create what appeared to be a competent bit of code. But wouldn't actually work. Even after multiple iterations.

I bring all this up for one simple point: AI, at present, is still basically only good for regurgitating whatever it looks at. And what it produces may look really good, and can even be useful in a limited capacity. But it's still, basically, just creating a parroted synthesis of information.

I don't think an AI is competent enough, then, to answer any meaningful theological questions.

-CrptoLutheran

 

[DamianWarS]

What about the second one? Is it also correct?

(NB: I'm a non-Christian who's relatively ignorant on the topic of salvation)

OB

Rather than answer which is better, I think a better question would be do these answers have a conflicting messages regarding a biblical understanding of salvation?

 

[DamianWarS]

So one of my hobbies is working with a program, well a series of programs, known as RPG Maker. They are intended to make 2D RPGs, largely in the style of more retro role playing games for consoles, like the old Final Fantasy games. The most recent iterations allow for scripting using Javascript to create "plugins" to modify the engine.

I can't code. Out of curiosity I used ChatGPT to write me several plugins and code to test several ideas I had. Let's say that it had very limited success. Of my ~5 or 6 tests, only one, through a lot of modification and further refining by asking around on forums, was able to get something that actually worked. But all the rest, regardless of what I tried to do, just didn't work.

The AI, having learned a lot through machine learning, could create what appeared to be a competent bit of code. But wouldn't actually work. Even after multiple iterations.

I bring all this up for one simple point: AI, at present, is still basically only good for regurgitating whatever it looks at. And what it produces may look really good, and can even be useful in a limited capacity. But it's still, basically, just creating a parroted synthesis of information.

I don't think an AI is competent enough, then, to answer any meaningful theological questions.

-CrptoLutheran

AI in this regard is more aligned with relativistic truth as it's only a mouth piece of what the most people are saying but it has no capacity to determine for itself what truth is. All AI is, is bais. If it could apply an unbais system of logic over a text, like the bible, without a billion blogs influencing it than it would be interesting what theological results it would come up with.

 

[Lost Witness]

Which is why you get other metaphors such as being "born again").

That which is BORN of the Spirit is spirit.
So how is it a metaphor?

 

[Paidiske]

That which is BORN of the Spirit is spirit.
So how is it a metaphor?

Well, it's not a literal birth, but it's a process resembling birth. Hence, metaphor.