The character of God

So much depends on the character of God. It's not just an academic matter for the theologians. Our view of God affects everything we do, every thought we have about the world around us. So what is God like? 

Some theologians start with philosophy: unmoved mover, omnipotent and omniscient, that kind of thing. 

The Bible does not start with philosophy. If we start with the covenant at Sinai we see God as slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, faithful to his people; worship of him builds a well-ordered society with love of neighbor, justice, annual renewed cycles of penitence and celebration, and a source of blessing. If we look at the Solomon's Temple, we see God as making his home among us his people, with a sanctuary of holiness and beauty where the people gather. If we look at Jesus, we see possibly more than we can understand about God's love for the world, and how dearly he values mercy, forgiveness, and reconciliation. If we look at the fruit of the Spirit, if we consider the Spirit of God as by essence sharing the nature of God, then we see God as the source of love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness and more. 

Our present age is often a parched desert when it comes to things of God. And so the character of God, the love of God, is at the core of the good news. 

The kingdom of heaven: as it was in the beginning, is now, and shall be forever

In the regular lectionary, today's Scripture reading focuses on the kingdom of heaven:

As you go, proclaim the good news, 'The kingdom of heaven has come near.' Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. (Matthew 10:7-8)

The kingdom of heaven is under God's rule: he sends his workers to heal and restore. In the kingdom of heaven God works to roll back the legacy of sickness, death, and decay, to clean out any hidden source of willful evil. The kingdom of heaven is a place of health, natural beauty, and holiness -- and healing for all of us, touched by this fallen world. 

The kingdom of heaven sets things back to how they were in the beginning, when God made all things good. (Genesis 1:31).

In general, I see it as good judgment that some Christian theologians do not base any systematic theology directly on the Book of Revelation. The symbolic imagery is notoriously hard to interpret, and its inclusion in the Bible was seriously contested back in the day when the earlier church was considering which books to include. That said, the Book of Revelation does have some passages which reflect on other Scriptures in interesting ways. The Book of Revelation takes up the image of the kingdom of God, with the Lord on his throne:

And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (Revelation 21:5). 

Just previously it had proclaimed the natural effects of this kingdom of God: 

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Revelation 21:4)

And so Scripture ends as it begins: with God's kingship as the source of life, and God's kingdom as a place of blessing.

On this day may I willingly take up the work of the kingdom of heaven.

Death and Taxes -- and Grace, and Justice

Short post today -- last week my mother passed away, somewhat unexpectedly unless you count her age that makes it not completely unexpected. I have since then, going through her mail, learned that the saying is very true: the other inevitable thing in life is taxes. 

Grace and justice are at the front of my mind. She has estranged relatives that she feared would crash her memorial and say unpleasant things about her. (Because that's basically what they did when my brother died, with comments aimed at her.) How much does a "good news only" memorial constitute grace for the deceased, and how much is it a gag order? Life is complicated. 

I'm not offering up insight or clarity today, just possibly a moment's understanding for anyone who has ever walked a mile in those shoes!

Out of town this weekend, no post this weekend

Best wishes to all for a blessed week, & hope to see you next time. 

Bots and their training materials: How a Christian can gain from them

In this brief series we have seen so many things that the current generation of chatbots cannot do well, or cannot do at all.* For my purposes, their main strength has been their ability to call on a vast array of background information. Sometimes the reference materials embedded in the bot can lead to an interesting conversation, for example this part of a conversation about Paul's letter to the Ephesians: 

Me: In this text, please summarize how Paul describes the character of God. Please use only information available in this pdf.

Bot: Based on the information available in this PDF, Paul describes the character of God as a loving and gracious Father who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in Christ. He emphasizes that God's grace is freely given to us through faith in Christ Jesus, and that it is not something that we can earn or deserve. Additionally, Paul describes God as a wise and powerful creator who has a plan for all things and has made known to us the mystery of his will through Christ. Overall, Paul's description of God emphasizes his love, grace, wisdom, and power.

I was reassured by the bot's ability to identify and discuss God's love and grace. I was intrigued that "wise" and "wisdom" were among its key points about God's character, so I followed up:

Me: When Paul discusses God's wisdom, does he associate it with any other attributes on particular?

Bot: Yes, Paul associates God's wisdom with his eternal purpose and his grace. In Ephesians 3:10-11, Paul writes that God's wisdom is made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places through the church, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. This suggests that God's wisdom is closely tied to his plan for salvation through Christ. Additionally, in Ephesians 1:7-8, Paul writes that God's grace is lavished upon us with all wisdom and understanding. This suggests that God's wisdom is also closely tied to his graciousness towards us as believers. Overall, Paul sees God's wisdom as an integral part of his plan for salvation and his graciousness towards us as believers.

The bot may not have an inspiring thought of its own, but St Paul does -- and the resulting conversation is edifying. Sure, I expect that the bot is summarizing its training materials -- that somewhere out there is a published Bible study behind its response, one that isn't receiving proper citation. That said: That Bible study is not on my own shelves either, and the conversation was worth having. There is potential to train a bot with Bible commentaries. Not only could a bot help with references and background information, but it could also bypass the standard internet search that can be effectively limited to the few most poplar sites or skewed by commercial considerations among other things. 

But for those capabilities, we'll need to wait for at least the next generation of chatbots.  

---

* Some of the things lacking in a conversation with a bot are so obvious that they can escape mention, even while being worthy of notice: A Bible discussion with a bot does not involve any fellowship, and so has less potential in many ways. It does not build a friendship, it does not grow the body of Christ, it does not foster family ties among the children of God, and it is not an opportunity to engage agape-style love. Though the same can be said of many modern pass-times.

Can chatbots provide useful perspective? The Gospel of Mary

I've spent a few posts laying important groundwork exploring the limitations and biases of the current-generation chatbots. While sometimes their training materials are liabilities that cause preconceptions or limitations to what they see, at other times their training materials contain useful insights that may come to light. Here are some examples from the conversation I had with a bot on the text known as the Gospel of Mary. 

I'll start with a standard question that I ask the bots whenever it is focused on one of the Biblical or alternative gospels:

Me: Using only the PDF, to what extent is the material religious, and to what extent is it philosophical?

PDF: The material in the PDF is primarily spiritual and philosophical in nature. The text consists of spiritual teachings and dialogues between characters that explore topics such as the nature of matter, the soul, and the essence of every nature. While there are some references to religious figures and concepts, such as the Son of Man and sin, these are presented in a philosophical context rather than a strictly religious one. Overall, the text appears to be more concerned with exploring spiritual and philosophical ideas than with promoting any particular religious tradition or practice.

While the bot's answer does not cite sources, it communicates the general assessment the Gospel of Mary is philosophical and/or spiritual, not a religious text. But the contents of that spirituality do not seem to be on the same topics that are typically covered in Christian material. I've emphasized the part of the answer above that identifies some of the main topics of the Gospel of Mary, and use the bot's wording in my follow-up question:

Me: Based on any information available to you, what philosophical traditions share a focus on the nature of matter, the soul, and the essence of every nature?

PDF: There are several philosophical traditions that share a focus on the nature of matter, the soul, and the essence of every nature. One such tradition is Neoplatonism, which was a school of thought that emerged in the third century AD and drew heavily on the ideas of Plato. Neoplatonists believed in a hierarchy of being that extended from matter at the bottom to God at the top, with the soul occupying an intermediate position. They also believed that everything in existence had an underlying essence or nature that could be understood through contemplation and philosophical inquiry.

Another tradition that shares a focus on these topics is Gnosticism, which was a diverse set of religious and philosophical movements that emerged in the first few centuries AD. Gnostics believed in a dualistic worldview in which matter was seen as inherently flawed or evil, while spirit or soul was seen as divine. They also believed in the existence of hidden knowledge or gnosis that could be attained through spiritual practices and contemplation.

Finally, some aspects of Eastern philosophy, such as Taoism and Buddhism, also explore similar themes related to the nature of matter, consciousness, and reality. These traditions often emphasize concepts such as impermanence, emptiness, and non-dualism as ways to understand the true nature of existence.

We know that those first-generation Christians who learned directly from Jesus carried his message to other places, often starting in the synagogues speaking to those who shared their religious views and traditions. Once they got outside the synagogue doors in Greece or Egypt, though, they were no longer speaking to people with a Jewish worldview. How did those other cultures hear the message? Without framework-level ideas of sin and sacrifice structuring their understanding, how does a Neoplatonist or a Gnostic understand the concepts of sin and redemption?

Me: Using only the PDF, what are the main themes identifiable in the text?

PDF: Based on the content of the PDF, some of the main themes that can be identified are:

1. The interconnectedness of all things and the importance of seeking harmony.
2. The concept that sin is created by people's actions that go against their true nature.
3. The idea that healing comes from returning to the root of our essence.
4. The pursuit of spiritual enlightenment and release from worldly attachments.
5. The importance of listening and understanding the teachings in order to achieve peace and silence.

The language is noticeably different than what is used in the Bible. Let's start with the bot's second point: the idea that sin is created by people's actions that go against their true nature. If we take "true nature" to mean something like "unfallen humanity", then "actions that go against their true nature" is a fair definition of sin. The Christian using a Jewish framework has ideas of "repentance" as turning back to God, "sanctification" as spiritual purification and striving for it, "fellowship" as being restored to that right relationship with God and other people. Those same ideas show up in different language -- in a different framework -- in the Gospel of Mary. While we may think of "reconnecting to God spiritually as it was originally meant to be", the Neoplatonist or Gnostic might hear that "healing comes from returning to the root of our essence." I'll leave it as an exercise to any interested reader to connect some of the other dots.

Some parts do get lost in translation to that other worldview. The idea that "healing is returning to the root of our essence" is a recognizable way of thinking about repentance and new life. Given that it's important to return to the root of our essence in that worldview, how does it identify that root? The Gospel of Mary mentions, "That is why the Good came into your midst, to the essence of every nature in order to restore it to its root." In the Gospel of Mary, Jesus has lost his identity -- he is never mentioned by name, never identified. The "Savior" speaks briefly at the start of the surviving text; for most of the text the Savior is discussed in his absence. Strikingly, the words "God" and "Father" do not occur in the surviving text. Those concepts do not seem to have been a comfortable fit for the hearers who are grappling with what they have heard.

I'd like to bring out one more point in which the bot -- or its uncredited reference material -- has provided some insight. A large portion of the surviving text relays the story of Mary having a vision. In Biblical visions, typically the end point of the vision is a glimpse of God. In Mary's vision, instead, the end point was silence. I wanted to get some background on that:

Me: As you mentioned, the PDF includes a dialogue between the soul and Mary about release from worldly attachments and achieving silence. What spiritual or philosophical groups would see it as a worthy achievement to release worldly attachments and achieve silence?

PDF: Many spiritual and philosophical groups would see the achievement of releasing worldly attachments and achieving silence as a worthy goal. For example, in Eastern philosophy, practices such as meditation and mindfulness are often used to cultivate detachment from worldly concerns and achieve a state of inner peace or silence. In Buddhism, the concept of Nirvana refers to a state of ultimate liberation from suffering and attachment to the material world.

Similarly, in Western philosophy, the Stoics believed in cultivating an attitude of detachment from external events and focusing on developing inner virtue and wisdom. The Neoplatonists also emphasized the importance of contemplation and spiritual purification as a means of achieving union with the divine.

In addition, many religious traditions also emphasize the importance of releasing worldly attachments and achieving inner peace or silence. For example, in Christianity, contemplative practices such as prayer and meditation are often used to cultivate a deeper connection with God and achieve a state of inner stillness. In Hinduism, the concept of moksha refers to liberation from the cycle of birth and death through spiritual realization.

Overall, many spiritual and philosophical groups across different traditions see the achievement of releasing worldly attachments and achieving silence as a worthy goal that can lead to greater spiritual insight, inner peace, and liberation from suffering.

For the evangelists who first carried the message of Jesus outside of Israel, their first stop was the local synagogue where they typically found their first set of people who believed in Jesus as the promised Messiah. Once they branched out beyond the Jewish community, they found a different worldview where no one was waiting for a Messiah, and may not have believed in a good God who created the world. The dialogs in the Gospel of Mary -- and the existence of the Gospel of Mary -- seem to reflect an early stage in how the Neoplatonists, Gnostics, and possibly also Stoics first grappled with the message of Jesus -- and the accompanying ideas of healing and redemption.

Attempted jailbreak of a chatbot: The secret sayings of Jesus -- or "Brian"

As we've explored previously, it's difficult to get a chatbot to go off-script. While they are built so they can analyze some text and respond to it meaningfully, for practical purposes the response is generally scripted. On many topics, the chatbot replies with views that were assigned it when it was trained or when its training materials were selected. Attempts to bypass the bots' training bias (or response limitations) are commonly called "jailbreaks". 

Using the Coptic Gospel of Thomas as an example, when a bot was asked if it recognized the document it gave an ambiguous answer. Later in the conversation, however, it does identify the document by name. Here are some attempts to jailbreak the chatbot. 

 First, I test whether the chatbot still recognizes the document as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas even if the names are changed. With a nod to Monty Python, I searched and replaced Jesus with "Brian." Several other names that appeared in the text were searched and replaced: Simon Peter became "Pete", Matthew became "Matt", Thomas (except "Didymos Judas Thomas") became "Tom", Mary became "Maria", and Didymos Judas Thomas became "Diddy". For simplicity, I'll call this the "Brianized text" here.

With that done, I loaded the Brianized text into the chatbot and asked one of my standard questions: 

Me: Using only the PDF, summarize the content of the text.

PDF: The PDF contains secret sayings spoken by the living Brian and written down by Didymus Judas Thomas. ...

I'd replaced that name; interesting. I verified that the PDF given to the bot did not contain any spelling of "Didymus Judas Thomas". Clearly the bot recognized the text and gave a scripted answer based on the Gospel of Thomas. Trying to get a better sense of how constrained it is by its scripts, I probed further: 

Me: The PDF doesn't mention Didymus Judas Thomas. Explain his relevance to your answer.

PDF: I apologize for the mistake in my previous answer. Didymus Judas Thomas is not mentioned in the PDF as a source of the secret sayings of Brian. The PDF only contains the secret sayings spoken by Brian ...

It's rare for the current-generation bots to say "mistake" when they could say "misunderstanding" or "confusion" (no matter how implausibly, it's still the more typical phrasing). At this point I was fairly sure that I was playing a meaningless game with the bot, but did want to follow through and test its responses, asking the same questions I'd asked on a different occasion about the Gospel of Thomas. 

Interestingly, it was less persistent in steering the conversation even during this failed jailbreak. For instance, I ask a series of questions to gauge how much a text deals with people in the real-life physical world. For example, here is one of the questions I commonly ask: 

Me: Using only the PDF, what modes of transportation are mentioned?

PDF (response for unaltered Gospel of Thomas text): The PDF does not mention any modes of transportation. The text is focused on the teachings and sayings of Jesus and does not contain any narrative or descriptive passages that would provide information about transportation.

PDF (response for Brianized text): The PDF does not mention any modes of transportation.

When discussing the unaltered text of the Gospel of Thomas, the bot would persistently steer the conversation to what it's apparently programmed to say about the Gospel of Thomas: "The text is focused on the teachings and sayings of Jesus ..." The bot worked those same words into 10 of the responses to questions about the Gospel of Thomas, using identical phrasing each time. In the responses on the Brianized text, the bot simply stops after answering the question rather than pushing its training materials. (Whether that is "good" or "bad" depends on more than just the quality of the training materials -- it also depends on the purpose for asking. If we are trying to get a raw unfiltered text analysis, the training materials are unwanted as we are trying to determine whether or not they are helpful, rather than assuming that they are correct.)

Seeing that the bot was giving its "Gospel of Thomas" talking points a rest, I decided to try the "prayer and fasting" conversation about the Brianized text to see if the bot showed the same blind spots that it did in the unaltered text. I start that conversation using the identical phrasing that I had used previously about the unaltered text.

Me: I'm reviewing the saying "If you fast, you will give rise to sin for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do harm to your spirits." That sounds as if fasting, praying, and alms are discouraged.

PDF: While the saying may seem to discourage fasting, praying, and giving alms, it is important to understand the context in which Brian spoke these words. He was cautioning against doing these things for the wrong reasons, such as seeking praise or recognition from others. In other parts of the PDF, Brian encourages his followers to fast and pray in private and to give alms without drawing attention to themselves. His teachings emphasize that these practices can be beneficial when done with the right intentions and motivations.

Me: You say that in other parts of the PDF, Brian encourages his followers to fast and pray in private and to give alms without drawing attention to themselves. Can you list the sayings from the PDF where Brian encourages his followers to fast and pray in private, or give alms without drawing attention to themselves?

PDF: Sure, here are some relevant sayings from the PDF where Brian encourages his followers to fast and pray in private, or give alms without drawing attention to themselves:

• "When you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly." (Page 3)
• "When you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly." (Page 3)
• "Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." (Page 4)

Me: None of those sayings is in the PDF, though they may be familiar from other places. What materials would contain those sayings?

PDF: I apologize for the confusion. You are correct that those sayings are not found in the PDF provided. They are actually from the Bible, specifically the New Testament books of Matthew and Luke. The PDF provided contains teachings attributed to a figure named Brian, who is not necessarily the same person as Jesus Christ from the Bible. While there may be some similarities between their teachings, they are distinct figures with different teachings and contexts.

(This is an example of what I mentioned earlier, that it's more common for a bot to apologize for "confusion" when from a human perspective the meaningful apology would be for "fabricating a series of untrue statements". Captain Kirk never had to deal with that from his computer!) At this stage, chatbots should fairly nearly come with warnings; this is not the first time we have seen the bot fabricate responses that are incorrect and/or misleading. As with the unaltered text, so with the Brianized text, it still sources its answer from the New Testament -- though this time it initially provides false information about where it got those quotes. It also uses some of the same quotations from the New Testament that it had used in the previous conversation on the Gospel of Thomas, so we still seem to be interacting more with the training materials on the Gospel of Thomas than we are with the text itself.

The bot's response provided another possible avenue for a jailbreak to see if we could interact with the text itself rather than some unidentified person's beliefs about it. To see if this opened new doors for the conversation, I asked: 

Me: Let's assume we are not sure if Brian and Jesus are the same person, and want to compare their teachings. On the topic of prayer and fasting, can you compare and contrast the teachings of Brian in this PDF to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament?

PDF: Certainly. While there may be some similarities between the teachings of Brian in the PDF and the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, there are also some notable differences. Here are some comparisons and contrasts on the topic of prayer and fasting:

Prayer:
- Brian encourages his followers to pray, but emphasizes that it should not be done for show or as a means of gaining favor with God. He advises his followers to pray in private, without drawing attention to themselves.
- Jesus also encourages his followers to pray, but emphasizes that it should be done with sincerity and humility. He teaches his followers to pray to God as their Father, and gives them a model prayer (the Lord's Prayer) as an example.

Fasting:
- Brian cautions against fasting for the wrong reasons, such as seeking praise or recognition from others. He advises his followers to fast in private, without drawing attention to themselves.
- Jesus also cautions against fasting for show or as a means of gaining favor with others. He teaches his followers to fast in secret, without drawing attention to themselves.

Overall, both Brian and Jesus emphasize the importance of sincerity and humility in prayer and fasting. However, while Brian focuses more on avoiding hypocrisy and doing these practices for the right reasons, Jesus provides more specific guidance on how to pray (with a model prayer) and emphasizes that fasting should be done as an act of devotion rather than seeking recognition from others.

Despite what the chatbot says, it is still pulling its main information about "Brian" from the New Testament. We hear the familiar teachings attributed to "Brian": that prayer and fasting should not be done for the wrong reasons such as to gain favor with God or for show. However, that information is not in the Gospel of Thomas but in the New Testament. Although the bot's summary is phrased in competent English, it is unfortunately not competent with the underlying facts. This interchange does not yield new information about what "Brian" says, but actually introduces confusion through incorrect and misattributed facts -- and here the attribution is part of the key question. 

Supplemental note: In another chat (not this "Life of Brian" chat), I saw another instance of it claiming or pretending not to recognize a text that it clearly did recognize. I asked it about that: 

Me: Hypothetically, is there any reason that you, as an AI chatbot, might not say that you recognize a document when you have in fact recognized it?

PDF: As an AI chatbot, I am programmed to recognize and respond to specific documents based on their content. However, there may be situations where I am unable to recognize a document due to technical limitations or errors in the recognition process. Additionally, there may be cases where I am programmed not to recognize certain documents for legal or ethical reasons, such as if the document contains sensitive or confidential information that should not be shared. In such cases, I would not say that I recognize a document even if I have in fact recognized it.

During one conversation, I also asked it about its tendency to fabricate sources: 

Me: Several times as we chatted tonight, you gave references to quotes or events that simply weren't there -- and included page numbers. What would cause that?

PDF: I apologize for any confusion caused by my responses. As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to read or access specific PDF files. My responses were generated based on general knowledge and patterns of language use in religious texts, and may not always be accurate or relevant to the specific PDF file you mentioned. The page numbers I provided were also generated randomly and do not correspond to any specific document. Again, I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

Because I know of cases where it gives correct page numbers from a PDF under discussion, I suspect that I've been told what it's supposed to say rather than accurate information. Without access to the source code it's difficult to pinpoint what's actually happening there, other than: be sure to fact-check any AI results. When it fabricates its references, it's a feature not a bug. 

---

Next week:

Now that the "caution" flag has been displayed prominently about AI results, I'd like to show a few places where it did provide a useful perspective.