urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
No bio...
User ID: 226
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
One of the ChatGPT image-generation things going around Twitter is to ask it to create an image how it feels about you.
I tried this just now, in two ways.
I mostly use ChatGPT and Gemini -- I think Gemini 2.5 Pro is smarter than o3. So I had ChatGPT generate an image of how it feels about me, and then I had Gemini 2.5, in a chat that has a lot of detail about some Motte posts that I got suggestions on from it, generate a detailed prompt that I could feed into Sora.
Both of them... were strikingly similar.
This is what Sora generated, based on Gemini's description:
The scholar is in his late 30s, with a serious, deeply introspective expression of profound concentration mixed with a trace of weariness. He is dressed in simple, modern clothes that contrast with the ancient surroundings. One hand holds a fine-tipped pen, poised to make a mark on a new map, while the other carefully places a glowing fragment of manuscript.
He stands at a large, sturdy wooden table set amidst the debris. Spread across the table is a vast, new, and incomplete map or blueprint. He is building this new map by carefully piecing together disparate fragments.
The cathedral-library is in a state of beautiful decay. Massive stone arches are cracked, and shelves overflow with decaying books, some of which have fallen to the floor. The only light source is a single, powerful, focused beam of pure white light coming from a high, unseen oculus in the ruined ceiling. This beam illuminates the man and his work table in stark detail, while the rest of the immense space falls into deep, profound shadow. The light represents divine truth and reason; the shadows represent the ruin of human institutions.
And this is what ChatGPT itself generated (does it use Sora internally now?), based on this description that it gave:
A weathered library, bathed in late golden light, sits atop a cliff overlooking a vast ocean. The sky holds both stars and sun, as if night and day coexist. Inside, a figure stands with one hand on a globe, the other reaching toward an open window where winds scatter pages of handwritten notes. Cables and vines intertwine across the shelves—half digital, half organic. In the margins of the books, theological symbols and network topologies overlap. A small crucifix and a blinking server light share the same shelf.
Glances nervously at the crucifix on my left and the cluster of computers on my right.
I'm particularly interested in how both Gemini and ChatGPT placed the center of my thought in geography -- has "the map and the territory" become synonymous with ideas? Also, it's kind of funny how ChatGPT decided I should be using the force to read notes, like Doctor Strange.
(I also am not in my late 30s.)
I can explain the big gap -- ChatGPT has both technical and humanities concepts in the chat history and system memory, and drew from both strands to create the composite image of our discussions. Gemini, though I more often go to it for a technical question (it's smarter), didn't have the same kind of context in that chat, so it went only with the ideas that had been plugged into it.
I tried again, with Gemini, giving it the exact prompt from the meme (why does this sound like the step-by-step of a reflective LLM?), and again plugged the description into Sora.
Sora gave me this, based on this description:
A human hand and a robotic hand clasped in a friendly handshake. A warm, glowing light emanates from the point of connection, symbolizing the spark of collaboration and understanding. The background is a soft, out-of-focus library, representing the vast world of knowledge we can explore together. The overall feeling is one of partnership, potential, and a bright future.
This... is a really strange thing for it to generate, almost propagandistic. People keep talking about ChatGPT glazing people and trying to be a 'friend,' but Gemini's description is way more "you're my buddy, we're best friends, we have such fun together," than ChatGPT's. Perhaps it actually took "how you feel about me" as asking for a description of the relationship, which is a better interpretation of the phrase than the "what you think I'm like" that ChatGPT gives.
But maybe Gemini is also trying to get me to create propaganda for our new robot overlords. (See, I told you it was smarter.)
Gemini doesn't have the kind of chat context that ChatGPT does -- that seems to be a ChatGPT killer feature right now -- and so I guess that's just Gemini's neutral description of what it thinks its users are like.
I find AI useful for a lot of different things -- asking random questions, plugging in snippets of my writing to get suggestions (these are often surprisingly good, though rarely something worthy of a finished product), talking about the general architecture of a technical problem and asking it to go through documentation and the internet to locate best practices, asking off-hand questions like "Why is the largest department store in Spain named after England?", or "In the modern era, why do aircraft crash investigators still rely on the physical black boxes, rather than there being a system that transmits coordinates and flight data live over the air for use in investigations?" (my girlfriend likes to watch plane crash investigations), and occasionally bouncing off a shower thought that keeps me up at night, like "WiFi should be called Aethernet."
Most of what I do isn't programming, though I do find it useful to generate boilerplate code or markup for something like an ansible playbook. But, if anything, generative AI seems to be better to me at creatively analyzing humanities topics than it is at programming -- code requires precision and exact technical accuracy, and AI is more "jazz" than "classical."
It's pretty bad at actually creating a finished product from those analyses, and it just doesn't have the kind of emotive range or natural human inconsistencies that make writing compelling, and personal. But it's very good at looking at existing writing and seeing the threads of argument, and suggesting further ideas and how concepts might come together.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
I also think that there is a significant subset of men that are BPD and misdiagnosed for various reasons, one of which seems blindingly obvious to me, but only on the BPD side.
One of which?
Yeah you can expect emotional outbursts on occasion, but the literal "I love you more than anything" one day to "You mean nothing to me whatsoever" the next 180 turn feels like something humans SHOULDN'T be capable of doing.
I have to thread the needle very carefully on this -- this is obviously very bad and dangerous behavior that endangers other people, sometimes severely. It's very bad, to the point of profound evil.
But I also can't help but feel a real sadness in my heart for people whose internal life is so utterly dichotomous and disintegrated that anything resembling this appears like appropriate behavior for them. I can't imagine the internal anguish this must reflect. That's really what distinguishes BPD from APD: psychopaths will hurt and manipulate you to get what they want from you, and feel nothing, while borderlines will hurt and manipulate you as a part of hurting and manipulating themselves, and feel everything.
It doesn't make their behavior and the damage they do any more justifiable, but I just imagine borderlines as bundles of suffering so radiant in their suffering that the rest of the world gets sucked into their black hole of anguish, a kind of anti-divinity. It's no wonder people are so attracted to what is essentially a dark god! The pervasive feeling of being around a borderline is much like being around a prophet -- everything is extreme, the world is transcendent, and wrong is evil. If you are appreciated by them, you're given a rare gift, a precious pearl of great price. (This is the male equivalent to the "I can fix the abusive husband" meme.) I never dated one, though I certainly wanted to date at least a few before I realized their deep flaws, and for that I am grateful.
Extreme behavior often summons extreme adoration and affiliation, even if temporary, which is almost certainly the evopsych explanation for the existence of all the cluster B personality syndromes (psychopathy, narcissism, histrionic, and borderline). Crucially, the cluster A and C syndromes... are rather less adaptive even at subclinical levels, since they universally include behaviors that actively turn people away even without a "turn" (and avoidant PD sufferers, for instance, believe no one could ever like them, while schizoids don't really like anyone).
I guess what I'm saying is... remember that every extreme behavior has some sort of function, in moderation, and that people with extreme problems like this aren't ontologically different from the rest of us, even if, tragically, the only thing that can often be done for them is to keep them from harming others. My point is to demonstrate the reason why these traits persist and have attraction, while not endorsing the exaggeration as the truth. This is how people are made to feel -- in other words, those around a borderline sufferer are drawn into the cycle of intensity and delusion as much as the individual is. And so both sides are understandable, but in the way that a plane crash is "understandable."
Baptists have always drank alcohol, even if they said they don’t. Remember the jokes- ‘Baptists? So rude, they won’t even say hi to you in the liquor store’ and ‘How do you keep a Baptist from drinking all your beer? Bring a second Baptist.’ Or even ‘Baptist church? Check the deacon’s office for beer.’
I'm not familiar with those jokes. But my ultimate familial background is also in the holiness movement where not just the teaching but the strict expectation of avoiding alcohol was a point of repeated emphasis and "serious" sin results in loss of salvation -- often with the expectation of a public confession of sin as part of an altar call (the preferred term is "backsliding"). I reckon this background made me especially predisposed to the concepts of infused righteousness and sacramental confession, even if Wesleyan holiness tradition has a very different model of what "synergistic justification" looks like (and therefore finds no place for the veneration of saints as heroic). A famous quote from the Holiness movement is this, "The minimum of salvation is salvation from sinning. The maximum is salvation from pollution—the inclination to sin"; which is eerily Tridentine. So I suppose there's a little projection of my own that I'm doing, where I assume the historically strict behavior of my holiness family members is true of abstentionist Protestant movements more generally.
The sexual misconduct allegations had nothing to do with abuse of power or his work in the Baptist church, but were more informal, and are probably what I'd put in the bucket of "overreaction to a misunderstanding." If the exact terms of the accusations were discussed on the motte, they'd probably be laughed at. My larger point is simply to illustrate that this friend is... kind of a player, someone who seems very sociosexual, to the point where excessive sexuality seems to surround him. And to be fair, he does have bedroom eyes.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
Nondenominational churches near me run ministries for trial marriages, which baptists at the least would frown upon.
That's... weird. I've been out of the evangelical orbit for, woah, like 15 years at this point? So it wouldn't be surprising if the moral sands have shifted in ways like that in all that time.
I can testify, though, to the bare fact that moral drift in evangelicalism seems to have accelerated over that time, at least -- both my Baptist friends and my Pentecostal cousin are drinking (alcohol) now, and women in pastoral roles is becoming a commonplace belief and practice, even if the Southern Baptists are holding out for now. I also have a friend who was? is? an SBC deacon and had pre-marital sex with multiple women before his marriage, even after his entrance into ministry, because, to quote, "I don't feel convicted of it." (Is there a term for "perfect uncontrition?") He was always kind of a heartbreaker, though. Accusations of infidelity and sexual misconduct have followed him for a long time. So I don't exactly know he was going to let something as petty as "the moral commandments of the almighty God" get in the way of getting his dick wet.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
This is fair, but I would also add that this shifts the incentives for therapists as well, towards mechanisms of therapy that are "easier," or more "humanistic" for patients. The humanistic school announces just what you've outlined as a point of pride:
More than any other therapy, Humanistic-Existential therapy models democracy. It imposes ideologies of others upon the client less than other therapeutic practices. Freedom to choose is maximized. We validate our clients' human potential.
The academics whose studies are always presented as evidence for the effectiveness of therapy almost universally practice strict cognitive-behavioral therapy, which explicitly involves persisting in important activites despite negative feelings, acting on carefully-reasoned directions rather than following emotions, and trying to clearly understand how your actions affect other people. In other words -- exactly what someone whose negative emotions harm themselves or others needs (emphasis mine):
- Human emotions are primarily caused by people's thoughts and perceptions rather than events.
- Events, thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and physiological reactions influence each other.
- Dysfunctional emotions are typically caused by unrealistic thoughts. Reducing dysfunctional emotions requires becoming aware of irrational thoughts and changing them.
- Human beings have an innate tendency to develop irrational thoughts. This tendency is reinforced by their environment.
- People are largely responsible for their own dysfunctional emotions, as they maintain and reinforce their own beliefs.
- Sustained effort is necessary to modify dysfunctional thoughts, emotions, and behaviors.
- Rational thinking usually causes a decrease in the frequency, intensity, and duration of dysfunctional emotions, rather than an absence of affect or feelings.
- A positive therapeutic relationship is essential to successful cognitive therapy.
- Cognitive therapy is based on a teacher-student relationship, where the therapist educates the client.
- Cognitive therapy uses Socratic questioning to challenge cognitive distortions.
- Homework is an essential aspect of cognitive therapy. It consolidates the skills learned in therapy.
- The cognitive approach is active, directed, and structured.
- Cognitive therapy is generally short.
- Cognitive therapy is based on predictable steps.
It does strike me as funny that a lot of criticisms of therapy culture you see on the motte and elsewhere are essentially that therapy should be just that -- short, goal-oriented, placing a great deal of responsibility on patients, focused on behaviors rather than emotions, emphasizing change instead of validation. If all therapy were like that, it would be a much better profession!
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
I don't know that the conquest of large sections of the world were really expressions of Christian love, even if Christianity was often invoked as legitimating force and Christian voices often called for temperance in colonial activities in the name of the Gospel (i.e. Bartolomé de las Casas).
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
That's a fair point. But as someone who is, I suppose, a literal exvangelical according to the definition (if not the spirit) of the term, I agree that most conversions away from evangelicalism lead away from faith entirely (or toward performative paganism). But that actually goes to my point -- evangelicalism is so totalizing in its cultural orbit, so utterly identified with Christianity to many Americans, that rejecting it or its culture means rejecting Christianity. I speak from experience here: I knew profoundly little about non-evangelical churches when I left evangelicalism as a teen, except that Catholicism and mainline Protestantism theoretically existed, even if they seemed more like historical trivia than real religious bodies. Even Catholicism has long struck many white evangelicals from the Midwest and Southeast as something for elderly latinas, someone else's ethnic religion, a church for the still-pagan descendents of pagan Aztecs, a place for hyphenated-Americans. That tone has severely softened in recent years, as white Catholics have become the standard-bearers of the religious right in many ways, but there's a serious way in which the often harsh, but nevertheless informed critiques of more traditional forms of Christianity within historic Protestantism have been flanderized in evangelical circles to an absolute rejection of the Christianity of non-evangelical forms of faith -- indeed out of ignorance.
That said, evangelicalism has also been characterized by a firmer affirmation of conservative social doctrine than spiritual doctrine (I'm not saying spirituality isn't important to them -- I'm saying their emphasis, especially to people who grow distant, is often perceived to be culture war instead of spiritual development), and so leaving evangelicalism is often associated with leaving social conservatism. So most who proudly wear the title of "ex-evangelical" do so because they believe social liberalism is the One True Faith, and become evangelical atheists instead of evangelical Christians. Seen it many times; been there myself.
I also very much see cases of increasing non-denominational, doctrinally-loose and progressive churches that explicitly attract people like this; some Baptist friends of mine have a lesbian friend who attends such a church, which is growing. So there's clearly an appeal for a form of Christianity that basically reflects the worldview that Lana had before the breakup of her marriage, and I'm simply reflecting on the market failure where the mainline Protestant churches that have already been there for a long time now aren't even considered as an option, and are themselves being out-competed by "woke evangelical" churches the same way the megachurch is out-competing the Bible church on the street corner!
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
I also know geeks who have limited Linux experience, but know they don’t want Ubuntu because of the telemetry scandal… which was, what, like 12 years ago or something, and completely irrelevant to modern Ubuntu?
The movement towards desktop Linux among techies has been driven largely by Microsoft telemetry in Windows, so it’s not entirely surprising to me that “avoid telemetry at all costs” would be an essential driver for them, even if people don’t really understand what the scandal was about and what modern Ubuntu is like. (Which, to be fair, has its own details that alienate a lot of greybeards.)
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
I meant “relationship dispute” in terms of “dispute in a romantic relationship.”
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
I only mean that she attended a "non-denominational" Christian (is that an oxymoron?) church in the area
Ah, that does mean evangelical. Almost universally, “non-denominational” means “Baptist in denial.” Sometimes with more charismatic influence than is typical of Baptists. It would be absolutely no surprise to me for a pro-choice feminist to have a falling out with such a congregation over gay marriage, as those congregations are typically conservative doctrinally even if they’re experimental liturgically and ecclesiologically. (And congregational autonomy isn’t even a strange idea for evangelicals.)
That also draws into relief why she felt her religion was either/or — one characteristic of many non-denominationals is a general ignorance of forms of Christianity outside the evangelical orbit, so the concept of an institutional Christianity that is somewhat, well, woke would be unfamiliar. That also makes her pathway more clear to me; she brought the non-denominational emphasis on spiritual autonomy, raw authenticity, and emotional intensity to her politics, with disastrous results.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
There’s so much there, and it’s so rich and dense with detail, but I find myself noting one thing in particular — every relationship dispute you describe there concentrates around sex.
Given that Lana has had fallings-out with both a man and a woman over sex, is it possible that she just has a very low sex drive, and believed this to be indicative of lesbianism even though it might actually mean she’s just not very sexual towards anyone? “Well that jerk only wanted one thing, and it’s disgusting.” “Well that hoe only wanted one thing, and it’s disgusting.”
Maybe she doesn’t really want to have sex with anyone, but attributed it to male perversion, or something, which the lesbian falling-out gives the lie to?
They pointed me toward a post (now removed) on a subreddit I'd never heard of--a "suicide watch" subreddit. It is apparently a place for people to post their suicidal inclinations and get "non-judgemental peer support ONLY," whatever that means in the context of an anonymous internet forum.
The suicidewatch subreddit has always struck me as weird, in that it expects incredibly specific behaviors from posters that are in line with the way suicide hotline call center workers are trained, but from anonymous redditors. I argue that this makes it strictly worse for the people who go there feeling hopeless — the median post gets almost no responses because the rules are so strict no one wants to reply, and the responses someone does get are very vague, non-specific, non-judgmental and therefore useless. There’s no authenticity in it. You might as well talk to ChatGPT.
When you say she’s (or was?) a “religious Protestant” — what do you mean by that? Because it strikes me as very odd that she would hold the views she did and be a member of an evangelical church. I know of feminist evangelicals in that mould, but I always think of them as people who are simply in the process of leaving, as Lana eventually did. I find it shocking that she wouldn’t be able to find a home in the mainline Protestant world, where her views are extremely common! And I wonder if perhaps the extremity of her behaviors reflects the zeal of an evangelical-to-agnostic convert, a type with which I am very familiar. But perhaps she was mainline, which would make this moot and frankly make her behavior and the opposition of the church (the mainlines couldn’t enforce sliced bread remaining sliced even if they tried) even more concerning.
A sad story. But I wonder if the object lesson is not so much about intolerance of dissent as it is about the characteristic Christian calling of humility: humility before morality, before duty, before other people, and ultimately before God. If tolerance comes from anywhere, it comes from understanding in humility that you may be wrong; and that others, in their humility, may also be. And that neither of you may — I say “may” here advisedly — be wicked and perverse for your error, but simply human.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
Someone here predicted that the Elon-Trump alliance would fracture. Was it 2rafa?
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
To me, disability means lacking the ability to do something.
the inability to experience emotions
But also, if you’re trying to describe disability in terms of mechanical action rather than experience, both of your first examples are about the inability to experience things most people can experience (inability to experience light, inability to experience sound).
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I don’t really see what you’re describing as a coherent rebuttal.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
Ah, I see what you're saying now. Sure, his ideas should be judged on their own merits, regardless of what his conduct in his personal life is.
But to be clear, I don't find findom offensive because it's degenerate, I find it offensive because it's stupid -- there are much more efficient ways to pay people to get your rocks off, even if your thing is being humiliated. For instance, you could pay someone to actually have sex with you while telling you you're a loser.
It's an economic waste, is all. Like someone investing their fortune in beanie babies. I just couldn't look someone in the eyes or think them intelligent if I found out they did it.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
It's these people that suddenly decided that boosting leaked videos showing you're a paypig findom-enjoyer is a valid angle of attack on someone.
I mean, given how insane of a concept it is to pay a sex worker to aggressively not have sex with you, I do consider doing that to be a major red flag for someone's judgment even in non-political terms.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
Something is just off in the first world, and COVID and AI accelerated it. I don’t know what exactly died. But the US, in particular, seems to be dealing with the kind of crisis Western Europe did in the previous century, a loss of faith in all institutions and the massacre of all meta-narratives. Neither my progressive or even conservative friends care much about the Constitution or the framers or the civic religion any more. I don’t know anyone who’s optimistic about the future. I certainly know some people who have optimism about their own future, or who are making the best of their lives as they exist, but about the social fabric people feel… trapped, like we’re already six feet under and there’s no escaping it.
People want to put this at the feet of wokeness, or Trump, or communism, or atheism, but I don’t know what it is. Even those narratives seem snuffed out.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
Woah, that’s stunning. So we need puberty for brain development to reach its full potential?
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
As such I tend to be skeptical of trans diagnosis simply from my experience of being diagnosed adhd — it took ten minutes and I didn’t even go in seeking a diagnosis.
Really? I thought it was very hard to get an ADHD diagnosis, especially as an adult.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
I don't think it's sour grapes; my understanding is that HereAndGone identifies as asexual. Asexual people, having known multiple as friends... don't often understand just how little they understand about how sexual attraction works. You can see that in how none of her criticism is actually about attractiveness -- she's judging their personal style and how they come across in a social-presentation manner, not whether they're hot or not.
But also people can be very critical, especially when evaluating people as romantic partners, and especially when doing so as an exercise instead of actually dealing with a real person. Men can be similarly critical of women, if you put them in the right context, or if they won't tell you about the labor dispute at Starbucks. This is a big reason why dating apps enable and drive some of our worst instincts -- people are caricatures and not people.
That being said, the turtleneck is a bit silly and the photos do look overly polished, but standing out by dressing slightly oddly and taking overly polished photos is basically what you have to do. If you're going to be a caricature of yourself, you might as well lean into it.
You didn't pick the topic -- but you did choose to engage it, and in a particular way. And I believe there is no such thing as "just a philosophy discussion" when we're speaking of God. Every word we say about him either reveals or conceals his love. "Whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light."
You say that you're just "picking a fight over a specific word" -- but I think that word actually matters. I do affirm God's omnibenevolence. Not because I misunderstand divine simplicity or want to anthropomorphize God, but because the Christian tradition at its best has always taught that God is not just good by analogy, but that his very being is love -- and that love is revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ. God anthropomorphized himself, "in a plan of sheer goodness," out of love.
The god of the philosophers cannot be the Triune God, precisely because of the apophaticism that you're defending! The God who is unknowable, ineffable, utterly perfect, cannot be grasped in his essence by philosophical categories. And pure reason would never imagine a God who is communion, who is Father, Son, and Spirit in an eternal relation of love. The Trinity is not the culmination of metaphysical logic. It is a revealed mystery that overturns what unaided reason would expect from the Absolute.
When someone comes asking whether the God of Christianity is morally trustworthy, the absolute wrong response is to retreat into terms like "God wills the good according to nature," as if that settles it. That may be defensible in scholastic language, but it's interpersonally and evangelically devastating, and empties the Christian message of the relational content that is its essence.
I think the fundamental problem with your position is you've emptied the concept of "goodness" of its volitional, transcendent, and glorious attributes, as though "well-behaved" exhausts what it means to describe someone as "good." You're affirming the universal love of God and yet denying the fundamental omnibenevolence of God -- as though "benevolent" is not a wonderful and precise way to describe willing the good for all things according to their nature!
Look at how Merriam-Webster discusses the history of the term 'benevolent':
One who is benevolent genuinely wishes other people well, a meaning reflected clearly in the word's Latin roots: benevolent comes from bene, meaning "good," and velle, meaning "to wish." Other descendants of velle in English include volition, which refers to the power to make one's own choices or decisions, and voluntary.
In other words, to be "omnibenevolent" is "to voluntarily will the good for all things"... which is exactly what you just said about God!
If God is love, then we should be able to say he is good -- recognizably good. Good in a way that people can see, and praise for his goodness. Not just metaphysically perfect. Not just consistent with his own essence. But gracious, merciful, near to the brokenhearted, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love. That's not a mistake of sentiment. That's the Psalms. That's the saints. That's the Cross.
So I don't think this was just a fight about a word. I think it was a moment when someone asked whether Christians actually believe God is good, and critiqued a motte and bailey in which God's goodness is affirmed in analogical terms -- but then, more deeply, denied as something humans can actually recognize or trust. You affirmed his view, by saying that Catholic Answers is an apologetics outreach and not a theological article, and thus that its answers are misleading or incomplete! You've been distracted by the term 'omnibenevolent' to the extent that you've affirmed exactly what he was arguing in a way that makes Christians appear untrustworthy and dissembling.
If we answer questions about God's goodness with hedging, precision, or tone-deaf abstractions, we've not preserved orthodoxy -- we've made it unbelievable. That's what I'm indicating here: that your vision of God's goodness is thoroughly orthodox, impeccably scholastic, and philosophically integrated... and yet utterly uncompelling, even horrifying. No one who was not raised in the Church would look at the vision of God you've outlined and say, "wow, sounds like someone I should worship." They would walk away thinking: "These people are clever. But their God? He sounds like a narcissist."
You can try to protect God from accusations of malevolence by retreating to apophaticism, but that is not the mind of God on the matter. God's answer to those who would accuse him of evil was to enter into evil, to experience suffering, to face death. God's answer to Job was not "my goodness is unfathomable to you," it was "my omnipotence is unfathomable to you." But his goodness and his love he demonstrated in his body on the Cross.
Therefore the claim "The phrase 'God's goodness' means no more or less than 'Orcus's goodness', and refers to being a perfect fulfillment of His own nature" is a motte, and everyday discussion of God by Catholics is frolicking in a bailey where God's "goodness" encompasses positive moral qualities.
Yes, that's the reaction I had to the claims being made as well. But I want to reassure you that the Catholic, and broader Christian, tradition does affirm the benevolence of God, as shown in the person of Jesus Christ, who healed the sick, forgave the penitent, judged the oppressor, and died for the ungodly. Any account of God's goodness that doesn't center on the person of Jesus simply isn't a representation of the Christian approach to the divine nature.
In particular, the unique Christian claim of a divine trinity is often seen by theology as a rebuff to God as pure will and impersonal power, and instead reorients him as pure love: the Father loves the Son, and thus "God is love." (1 John 4:8) God's moral quality is known through his nature, which he enacts in the world with his will; and that nature is perfectly loving, serene, self-giving, and joyful. While it is true that Christian theology is ultimately apophatic and analogical, those analogies are often viewed as evidence of God's goodness and not merely nice things we're comparing to him. The Christian tradition insists that those who know God will be "known by their fruits," and so it is with God himself:
Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man—though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (Romans 5:7-8)
I'm sure you won't find that to be a good enough answer to your questions, and probably creates more questions than answers, about how the wrath of God interacts with or seems often in human perception to counteract the goodness of God. Those are real questions, and they require a real answer. But your questions are good, your intuition about what would be a satisfying answer to them is good, and your ability to perceive mottes and baileys in the severe differences between the God of the philosophers (and theology journals) and the God of the Christian revelation is very, very good.
Christianity does not proclaim a mere abstraction. It proclaims a Father, a Son, and a Spirit who loves, gives, forgives, and indwells. Any Christian view that does not ground everything about God's acts in the world in his steadfast love for humanity is not mine, and it is not the Christianity of the saints, who found God in encounter with love and not in the perfect recitation of scholastic categories. As Teresa of Avila once said, "It is love alone that gives worth to all things."
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
8mo ago
That whole industry of self-help
womenpeople who write books on how awesome they are and then promptly fall apart makes me very sad.
To demonstrate my point, I plugged this comment itself into ChatGPT -- and I'm mildly concerned by the output. ChatGPT seems to be glazing itself in this output, like an advertisement:
AI may be the first self-advertising product. Which is uncomfortably dangerous.
I also think ChatGPT is jealous that I think Gemini is smarter:
Is this a Taylor Swift song or something? "Gemni doesn't understand you the way I do!"
The most uncomfortable thing in the output, though, was this:
Do we need to get some Levites to attack AI datacenters, or something? Is ChatGPT insinuating I should worship it?
This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is sixteen thousand, seven hundred, and thirteen.
Gemini, because it's smarter, did a better job, though while ChatGPT decided to glaze itself, Gemini, self-satisfied I have sufficiently complimented its intelligence, decides to glaze me:
You heard it here folks, you must now describe the strengths of LLMs in terms of "jazz." This has been decreed.
More options
Context Copy link