An interesting reply from our knowledgeable bot:
It does not sway me from thinking that the painful likeliness for many is conditional immortality / annihilationism and more in line with reality, based at least upon the words of the Jesus I read about in the Gospels.
It is indeed amazing what GPT can produce now - and the above is a great example. Had you told me that you wrote that Dale, or some other person, I would have seen it as basically accurate.
But as it is, I still feel about it like I would feel about a perfectly crafted counterfeit 100 dollar bill. Can fool me - yes. But … it’s still counterfeit. I still have an (old fashioned?) bias in favor of actual human interaction. Few things would disgust me more than to discover that I had been a participant in what I thought was a lively conversation between me and several others, only to have it revealed that they were all chatbots and I was the only human being in the conversation. Yes; I could learn from chatbotage I’m sure - especially when it is based on the myriad of real human textual input to form its basis of response. But it would still be the same let-down for me as discovering that the mountains I was enjoying looking at outside my window were really just a convincing, big, back-lit poster right outside my glass.
Agreed, so we certainly need to be circumspect, but it has its place, as maybe the above just demonstrated.
That reminds me to the contrary that not everyone chooses to be edified by coercion. If everyone is necessarily edified by coercive punishment (that’s redundant, isn’t it), out goes free will.
ChatGPT can even explain the biblical imagery in Genesis 15:17. What an outstanding response! Bonus points for it catching the unilateral significance of the ceremony 
ChatGPT (unedited):
Genesis 15:17 describes a covenant ceremony between God and Abraham, in which God promises to give the land of Canaan to Abraham’s descendants. The verse says:
“When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.”
The smoking fire pot and flaming torch are often interpreted as symbols of God’s presence and power. The smoking pot represents the presence of God, as smoke often signifies the presence of a divine being in the Old Testament. The flaming torch, on the other hand, symbolizes God’s power and judgment.
The passage is often interpreted as a sign of God’s commitment to the covenant. In ancient Near Eastern covenant ceremonies, animals would be cut in two and the parties making the covenant would pass between the pieces, indicating that they were bound by the terms of the agreement. However, in this case, only God passes between the pieces, indicating that the covenant is unilateral and that God alone is responsible for its fulfillment.
Overall, the imagery in Genesis 15:17 serves to emphasize the significance and sacredness of the covenant between God and Abraham.
Indeed! And while there remains much truth to ponder from the old covenant, I remain glad that Christ came and showed us a better way!
(144) Divine Fire
The fire of God, which is his essential being, his love, his creative power, is a fire unlike its earthly symbol in this, that it is only at a distance it burns–that the farther from him, it burns the worse, and that when we turn and begin to approach him, the burning begins to change to comfort, which comfort will grow to such bliss that the heart at length cries out with a gladness no other gladness can reach, ‘Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire besides thee!’
As found in the unspoken sermon “Fear of God”.
(145) The Safe Place
If then any child of the father finds that he is afraid before him, that the thought of God is a discomfort to him, or even a terror, let him make haste–let him not linger to put on any garment, but rush at once in his nakedness, a true child, for shelter from his own evil and God’s terror, into the salvation of the Father’s arms, the home whence he was sent that he might learn that it was home. What father being evil would it not win to see the child with whom he was vexed running to his embrace? how much more will not the Father of our spirits, who seeks nothing but his children themselves, receive him with open arms!
As found in the unspoken sermon “Fear of God”.
Amen. Thank you for this reminder.
By the way, I found the fuller quote about doubting because oneloves truth. It is from “Lilith,” though I admit I have never been able to finish the book. Has any one else here read it?
Thou doubtest because thou lovest the truth. Some would willingly believe life but a phantasm, if only it might for ever afford them a world of pleasant dreams: thou art not of such! Be content for a while not to know surely. The hour will come, and that ere long, when, being true, thou shalt behold the very truth, and doubt will be for ever dead. Scarce, then, wilt thou be able to recall the features of the phantom. Thou wilt then know that which thou canst not now dream. Thou hast not yet looked the Truth in the face, hast as yet at best but seen him through a cloud. That which thou seest not, and never didst see save in a glass darkly—that which, indeed, never can be known save by its innate splendour shining straight into pure eyes—that thou canst not but doubt, and art blameless in doubting until thou seest it face to face, when thou wilt no longer be able to doubt it.
George MacDonald, Lilith
Tags: anabaptist, decartes, doubt, epistemology, jesus
I’m not remembering this particular work, and so doubt that I’ve read it. The fact that you like MacDonald - are familiar with and lean into his other works but yet can’t make it through this one - that intrigues me. I never made it through his “Phantastes”, and so apparently just don’t have Lewis’ taste for that particular kind of myth-fantasy. But maybe I’ll have to give Lillith a try - just on the strength of that quote alone.
Thanks. I think it is like “Phantastes”…a bit obscure for me…but I like the reminder that doubt can be a good force, too
Especially toward the completeness and adequacy of our own understanding. It needs to remain a work in progress though there will be domains where it has shown its reliability. For the bigger picture we should never retreat from testing and wonder to merely defending cherished dogma, but both choices are always available no matter what one’s general orientation may be.
I’m really enjoying the Greg Boyd book in this regard. Thanks, @Kendel, for getting us started on that. I’m devouring it at the moment and already three chapters in. Lots of quotables to be found when we get to them.
Gosh, Merv! It’s one of my “listen to while I’m driving or doing mindless stuff” books. I’ve had to take a break to listen to some commentaries on Kierkegaard while driving lately. Trying to pull a few things together to write up. So, Boyd has been in the back seat since the last things I shared. I’ve got a few more things in mind, though, from my reading last week. Just haven’t gotten to them
You can thank @klw for mentioning the book to me.
Well thanks then for helping me give credit where it’s due!
Yes, thank you @klw for bringing this book to our attention. That was you wasn’t it! While Kendel is right that it aligns with a theme much like Austin Fishers book, Boyd is bringing fresh insights to the surface, at least for me.
Merv
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.