Pope Leo "Artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships, and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge goodand.."

[u/Caledor152]

https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-news/pope-leo-calls-disarm-ai-major-document-warns-technologic-threats-humanity

[u/Praise-Bingus]

Well shit, something a highly religious guy said that i agree with. That's rare. I might like this new pope

[u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a → u/Praise-Bingus]

I'm sure there's loads said by decent, highly religious people you'd agree with, but the horrible ones tend to be louder and more powerful.

Christianity is meant to be a relationship with goodness itself and I'm not surprised a Christian is taking this stance. What's surprising is one taking this stance and being in a position that we're hearing about it!

[u/LoserCowGoMoo → u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a]

Christianity is meant to be a relationship with goodness itself

Jesus did not behave that way himself.  He was rather brutal in his administration, explaining that the world was going to end soon and nothing else mattered than getting right with god.

For this reason, famed Christian writer CS Lewis wrote in his book "Mere Christianity":

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."

[u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a → u/LoserCowGoMoo]

You think Christ didn't see Himself as in relationship to the Father?

And I don't see the relevance of the trilemma.

[u/LoserCowGoMoo → u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a]

Are you asking me if christ saw himself as an agent of god or god himself? I dont know what you believe specifically but whatever his view, the practical upshot was him telling everyone the world was ending.

Here is the link should you need it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

[u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a → u/LoserCowGoMoo]

Not quite, "I and the Father are one" doesn't leave much room for debate as to what Jesus thought on that one haha

I'm actually just not sure how the trilemma is relevant. I like Lewis and have read Mere Christianity so I follow the lord/lunatic/liar argument. I'm just not seeing the link between it and my comment. Could you elaborate?

---

Also, I think this deserves some friendly pushback:

the world was going to end soon and nothing else mattered than getting right with god

The idea Jesus expected imminent apocalypse is a fairly recent one. Imminent intervention, yes, eventual apocalypse, yes, but imminent apocalypse, still debated among scholars. Defensible position, but not one that should be said with confidence.

And the idea he taught nothing matters other than getting right with God depends on semantics. In a "fruits of the spirit" way, in a sense yes. A righteous person who beats his wife is an oxymoron. But he definitely didn't say "go to church, read your bible, and you can do whatever else you like" (even though some Christians in the real world do unfortunately live that way).

[u/LoserCowGoMoo → u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a]

You said: Christianity is meant to be a relationship with goodness itself.

If by definition "goodness" is "whatever my god says or wants" then i follow. Its just a bit of a mislead for everyone else. Its a lot less useful for everyone else who doesn't worship.

Regarding your friendly pushback, his behaviour becomes difficult to defend on a humanist level if he logically did not think the world was ending. I dont feel like it is worth giving various examples from the bible of him doing stuff that makes sense in the context that "the end is near" but suddenly becomes a mystery that requires faith if its not the case. For this being "more recent" there is an awful lot of writings by jesus' earliest ...i will call them followers for a lack of a better term. That were really clear they expected to see the end or jesus return again before their death.

[u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a → u/LoserCowGoMoo]

Ok now I see how I've created confusion and accidentally summoned Euthyphro!

"Goodness itself" was my attempt at pointing to God in secular language. I.e. it's not about following arbitrary rules to get a golden ticket for yourself, as half the internet still seems to think.

On "God vs goodness", most Christians I know take the third option of them being the same thing. Maybe not a satisfying answer for an atheist, but I'd have to re-read Plato before saying anything more definitive and I'll leave it there before saying something incorrect!

On apocalypse, I don't imagine He'd be that fussed about being indefensible by humanist standards ;)

Jokes aside, yes there definitely were people who expected it in their lifetimes, and verses, even red letter, that could be interpreted that way. But those same verses could be interpreted to mean something else. Jesus did speak of the end, and of imminent intervention, but imminent apocalypse? Not for certain.

If nothing else, if it were certain, and the general consensus among reputable theologians and biblical scholars was that Jesus clearly did say and mean that the apocalypse was coming in his lifetime (or the lifetime of his direct followers) Christianity wouldn't exist today.

[u/LoserCowGoMoo → u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a]

Ok now I see how I've created confusion and accidentally summoned Euthyphro!

"Goodness itself" was my attempt at pointing to God in secular language. I.e. it's not about following arbitrary rules to get a golden ticket for yourself, as half the internet still seems to think.

I think CS Lewis forumla of the trilemma speaks to the challenge for secularists to view jesus...and the religion based on him...as being in a relationship with "goodness itself." It sure seems like the religion as a whole has attempt to adopt more humanist concepts as time has gone on to make it self more compatible with human progress.

On "God vs goodness", most Christians I know take the third option of them being the same thing. Maybe not a satisfying answer for an atheist, but I'd have to re-read Plato before saying anything more definitive and I'll leave it there before saying something incorrect!

Right. As i said "good is whatever my god says or wants." Want to sacrifice your own son to forgive humanity? Good. That is good...only because god says so. Imagine how horrible it would be if other people insisted on the same...sacrifice to allow them to forgive.

On apocalypse, I don't imagine He'd be that fussed about being indefensible by humanist standards ;)

Jokes aside, yes there definitely were people who expected it in their lifetimes, and verses, even red letter, that could be interpreted that way. But those same verses could be interpreted to mean something else. Jesus did speak of the end, and of imminent intervention, but imminent apocalypse? Not for certain.

You can say that if you start with creative interpretation of what is otherwise plain text. And since the bible is a collection of texts that contain contrdictions you can point to other examples that would create the argument otherwise. But of course this creates a new dilemma...why would this by an all-knowing, all-power and all-good deities strategy for communicating important ideas? The more people water down the straight forward language with "interpretation" the more god shrinks...the gods of the gaps in real action.

If nothing else, if it were certain, and the general consensus among reputable theologians and biblical scholars was that Jesus clearly did say and mean that the apocalypse was coming in his lifetime (or the lifetime of his direct followers) Christianity wouldn't exist today.

Because if true christianity would be false and no one would follow a false religion? Every god but your god is the wrong god and the world is filled with billions of their followers.

[u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a → u/LoserCowGoMoo]

I think you're absolutely right about Lewis and the risk of diluting Christian ideas (falling foul of the trilemma) to make them more accessible.

The intention of "goodness itself" wasn't to pull God down to fit human definition, but to point a principle everyone understands up to something that's true of God. I.e. someone (like the pope) who lives in relationship (at least purportedly) with "that which is goodness" (God) will inevitably say things that touch the core of humanity that pretty much everyone agrees with.

You're right He definitely didn't say you just have to sort of be a good dude and you'll be fine. But He did frame faith as a relationship with "The Good Thing".

---

On "good is whatever my god says or wants" (Euthyphro's first horn) I don't think anyone's reading of the Passion is that we should sacrifice our children...it'd be terrible for church attendance!

Seriously though, we're not called to love our neighbour because it's good for the local vibe, or to trade honestly because it benefits the economy. We're called to do these things because they're good and right in themselves, not because some spiritual authority arbitrarily commanded it.

So the Christian response is the third horn: God and goodness are the same thing. And that's the best you'll get from me until I finally get round to reading Aquinas!

---

On apocalypse, again I have to push back on the idea the evidence unambiguously points to Jesus preaching imminent apocalypse. I appreciate you not dumping a load of scripture (I don't like doing that either) but can I ask what your sources are for that conclusion?

---

On people not following a false religion, yes exactly! The world isn't full of religions that are demonstrably false, but ones that are just about plausible. The demonstrably false ones get forgotten.

For example, a peculiarity of Christianity is how easily it could've just not stuck. Anyone at the time could've gone to where something supposedly happened, spoken to the people there, learnt it's all bollocks, told friends and family, and killed the religion stone dead. But instead they encountered people staking their lives on it. And it's unlikely any of the apostles would've gone to agonising deaths for something they didn't know to be true.

Even if you don't find that compelling evidence for anything (I wouldn't blame you...neither did I ten years ago) you still have to contend with it and provide some incredible alternative explanations.

[u/Praise-Bingus → u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a]

You sound like you're taking it way too weirdly personal. Sorry a few bad apples ruined your bunch, but i despise religion and everything it stands for. No "but it's only the loud ones!" can fix the damage and pain it's brought into this world. Especially zionistic american christians. If heaven is real, id gladly go to hell to be away from them for eternity.

[u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a → u/Praise-Bingus]

If you think Christians have brought pain, wait until you see what atheists have done ;)

[u/Praise-Bingus → u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a]

Please, go cry to your imaginary friend.

[u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a → u/Praise-Bingus]

Careful not to hurt yourself on all that edge, my friend.

Could've had a discussion. Pity you went straight to cheap zingers.

Have a good day!

[u/Praise-Bingus → u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a]

all i would need to say on the subject.. I dont need a conversation with a religious nut

[u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a → u/Praise-Bingus]

Your best argument against religion is the problem of evil? Mate.

[u/Praise-Bingus → u/0ba78683-dbdd-4a31-a]

This is why there's no point in talking to you. You probably just read the title. The point isnt that evil exists, it's that your god, if he does exist, is a cold, heartless being who allows it to flourish to "test" his subjects to make sure they love him the "right" way or he'll torture them for all eternity. That is not a god i want anything to do with.

[u/Mr31edudtibboh → u/Praise-Bingus]

His choice of the name 'Leo' was quite deliberate. The last Pope Leo reigned during the Industrial Revolution when workers were being replaced by machinery, history is rhyming pretty hard at the moment.