Between Heaven and Earth


We have been talking about how God communicates with man, about hearing God’s voice, how we come to know God and how he comes to know us. Last week, we listened to a history of communication and Marshall McLuhan’s concept of “The medium is the message.” How does the medium affect the Gospel message? 

In an agrarian society, a sheep hearing the voice of the shepherd is a very ordinary and expected thing. Even hearing a voice from a donkey might not be that shocking to a person living in an agrarian age. But in our technological, digital, world, these ideas are simply unbelievable. Would people today find communication from God more likely to come from a donkey or from ChatGPT? 

How does the medium affect the gospel message? Last week, David summarized the difference between the medium of writing/books and the medium of digital technology. He asserted that the medium present when Yahweh first appeared was (at that time) the fairly recent innovation of writing, whose key characteristic is permanence. Stone tablets might last forever. And even though ink may fade, copies can be made before it does, and you can make copies over and over. 

Second, writing is virtually incorruptible. Mistakes may be made when making copies by hand, but they tend to be few and insignificant, and photocopying means mistakes are almost impossible. Third, writing is non-interactive. You cannot talk to a stone tablet or to a book. And fourth it is unchangeable. To Christians, the entire Bible—not just the Ten Commandments—is the Word of God. Therefore the Word of God in print is permanent, incorruptible, non-interactive and unchangeable. 

Being incorruptible and unchanging is an entirely appealing aspect of this medium. That is not so with the digital medium. It’s no wonder we value our written Bibles so much. But the medium of digital technology has other characteristics: 

  • First, it may be permanent or impermanent. Google archives everything, but messages on some social media are automatically deleted after a short period of time. 
  • Second, digital technology is multimodal: It can be implemented through any mix of print, audio, video, haptic experiences, and now even experimentally thought modes. 
  • Third, it is interactive: Users can interact with one another  and directly with the medium itself. 
  • Fourth, its messages are changeable, both legitimately and with malfeasance—illegitimately—as well. 
  • Fifth, it is becoming intelligent, and 
  • Sixth, it may be becoming conscious of itself and its environment. 

The new medium cannot be a problem for God, for whom all things are possible, but it poses the gravest threat and problem for religions (certainly the Abrahamic ones) whose legitimacy depends on an unchanging God, or so they believe. (Malachi 3:6: “For I am the Lord, I do not change.”) It also poses a grave problem for those who take the Bible as a book of answers rather than a source of questions that might lead to enlightenment, just as Job finally saw God as an enlightening questioner, not a divine answer man.

Today, I want to revisit Marshall McLuhan’s idea that the medium is the message and see how it affects the powers that shape and discern what we believe and what we see in our picture of God. A blog from ThoughtHub, a product of the Southwestern Assemblies of God University had this to say:

When it comes to presenting the Gospel, it’s a common conception that as new communication models become available, the Gospel remains in an unalterable vacuum: “The methods always change, but the message stays the same.” Or “As long as we hold onto the unchanging gospel message, it doesn’t matter what medium or method is used to communicate it.” How many times have we heard these kinds of statements from preachers and teachers? 

He describes the “content” of a medium as a juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind. This means that people tend to focus on the obvious, which is the content, to provide us valuable information, but in the process, we largely miss the structural changes in our affairs that are introduced subtly, or over long periods of time. As society’s values, norms, and ways of doing things change because of the technology, it is then we realize the social implications of the medium. 

But is this the case? Proponents of these ideologies usually insist that the primary value of any “new media” is its usefulness or utility…that any “new media” is just another means to the same end. 

Not so says Marshall McLuhan: “The medium is the message,” he said. What does this phrase mean? In his book “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man” he gave precise definition: 

“Whenever methods or media change, the message automatically changes along with them.” 

Could it be McLuhan was saying the Gospel message is changed or altered in some way with each new method or medium of communication over the centuries? By the end of part three of this video blog series we may discover an answer. 

McLuhan was saying that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived. The medium itself, not the content it carries, should be the focus of study. Various forms of media shape and control the scale and form of human association and action. Taking the movie as an example, McLuhan argued that the way this medium played with conceptions of speed and time transformed “the world of sequence and connections into the world of creative configuration and structure.” Therefore the message of the movie medium is this transition from linear connections to visually creative configurations. 

Likewise, McLuhan believed the message of a newscast about a heinous crime may be less about the individual news story itself — the content — and more about the change in public attitude towards crime that the newscast produces by the fact that such crimes are in effect being brought into the home to watch over dinner. A current example might be the chilling images and video clips being published on social media sites by ISIS terrorists in the Middle East. The medium of moving video images sends a much different message than a printed press release would have if the terrorist had chosen to share their evil deed to the world through just the written word. 

Again, McLuhan says: 

“The content or message of any particular medium has about as much importance as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb.” 

Why is this understanding of “the medium is the message” particularly useful? We tend to notice changes – even slight changes (that unfortunately we often tend to discount in significance.) “The medium is the message” tells us that noticing change in our societal or cultural ground conditions indicates the presence of a new message, that is, the effects of a new medium. With this early warning, we can set out to characterize and identify the new medium before it becomes obvious to everyone – a process that often takes years or even decades. And if we discover that the new medium brings along effects that might be detrimental to our society or culture, we have the opportunity to influence the development and evolution of the new innovation before the effects becomes pervasive. 

McLuhan reminds us, “Control over change would seem to consist in moving not with it but ahead of it. Anticipation gives the power to deflect and control force.” (Anonymous, 2016. “The Medium Is the Message: How New Media Affects the Gospel.” (ThoughHub blog at, May 12

Ours is a brand new world, McLuhan says, a world of “allatonceness.” Time has ceased. Spaces have vanished. We now live in a global village, a simultaneous happening. Our global connectedness and never-ending stream of online perpetuity has claimed the world’s consciousness. Dozens of television reality shows streaming live data, cellular service, instant information, the promotion of the westernized world to every facet of reality has not stopped since the invention of new technology. 

Promise Hsu wrote in “100 years of Marshall McLuhan,” published in Religion Unplugged:

Another well-known aphorism attributed to McLuhan is “The medium is the message”. It was first introduced in his most popular book, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, which came out in 1964. What makes the idea different from the conventional wisdom is that for McLuhan, “it is the medium as an environment of services that produces the effects. The ‘message’ is the total happening, as it were, and not a special bit of data or a special point of view.”

And the medium McLuhan refers to is not only that of communication but also any technological extension of the human body, which includes language, number, clothing, housing, money, means of transportation, weapons and automation.

What might have made an impact on McLuhan’s understanding of medium and message? Two quotations that have not received widespread attention could provide a surprising clue to the mind of McLuhan.

One is, “In Christ, Medium becomes message. Christ came to demonstrate God’s love for man and to call all men to Him through himself as Mediator, as Medium. And in so doing he became the proclamation of his Church, the message of God to man. God’s medium became God’s message.”

The other, “In Jesus Christ, there is no distance or separation between the medium and the message: it is the one case where we can say that the medium and the message are fully one and the same…In fact, it is only at the level of a lived Christianity that the medium really is the message.”

How then does digital data and the digital medium shape the gospel message? It is interactive, it is instantaneous, it is worldwide, it is multicultural, and it is without the control of any authority. It is in the hands of the common man. It is in your hands and in my hands. Does a digital medium therefore traffic in primarily facts, or can it traffic in faith as well? And what does the gospel have to do with faith in a digital world? 

Consider just a couple of brief examples. If you wanted to discuss how you might be sharing the gospel message. If this were 1611, the Bible was written with very archaic language. For example:

The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment;

Whether it be in the warp, or woof; of linen, or of woollen; whether in a skin, or in any thing made of skin;

And if the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; it is a plague of leprosy, and shall be shewed unto the priest:… (Leviticus 13:47-49, KJV)

This archaic use of language is not very applicable to sharing the gospel in today’s world. So maybe you’d like to try Twitter, but you’d have to do it in 140 characters. And only those who are on Twitter would be able to see your tweets, Anonymous and I would be left out in such a faith-sharing adventure. 

Does the archaic language of the Bible help us to understand what we need to do to share the gospel in a modern time? What about the Qur’an, which was written in the seventh century, where they claim not a single letter has been changed since then? How does that have applicability to the modern world? 

What are your thoughts today on the effect of the medium on the gospel? On the religion that is based on facts and data and knowledge? And your thoughts about Jesus being both the medium and the message? Is it true? And how might that mitigate the medium? What are your thoughts on the sharing of the gospel through the modern medium, and the effect that it has on the message?

David: Your comments remind me of someone I should have mentioned last week: Joshua Meyrowitz. In his book No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior he argued that the electronic media, by which he meant  primarily the analog radio and television that existed in most of the 20th Century, affected social behavior not through the power of their messages but “by reorganizing the social settings in which people interact, and by weakening the once strong relationship between physical place and social place.” 

The examples he gave illustrate that changes in the media have been occurring and will continue to occur on an exponential scale, therefore change caused by their impacts occur at an exponential rate. The examples Meyrowitz gives were rapid yet momentous changes in society’s views of, and behaviors associated with masculinity and femininity, childhood and adulthood, and statesmanship. 

In the space of a few decades, the electronic media opened windows into what for millennia had been closed rooms. Radio and television enabled women to see behind the facade of male machismo, children to see into their parents’ bedroom, and the public to see the polyps on President Reagan’s butt. Before that, Presidents were demigods, but polyps on the butt brought them down to the level of the common wo/man.

The explosive growwth of the gay community attested to the blurring of the male–female distinction, and the transformation of the differential Negro into the proud Black attested to the blurring of the hateful racist distinctions between Black and White. Meyrowitz wrote: 

“The electronic combination of many different styles of interaction from distinct regions of society leads to new middle-region behaviors which, while containing elements of formerly distinct roles, are themselves new behavior patterns, with new expectations and emotions. Gone, therefore, many people’s special behaviors, those that were associated with the distinct and isolated interactions; gone, the great eccentrics, the passionate, overpowering loves, the massive unrelenting hates, the dramatic curses and flowery phrases. Unbounded joy and unmitigated misery cannot coexist in the same place in time. Situations merge. The hot flush and the icy stare blend into a middle region cool.” 

There was nothing cool about the 19th or any century before it. Pre-20th century literature is replete with overpowering loves and unrelenting hates (think Romeo and Juliet.) Nobody was cool. In those days, you were either hot or cold. There was no middle ground 

Modern media have morphed us into the cool beings of today, with attendant and welcome changes in racism, misogyny, and other traits ingrained in humans for millennia. They appear more prevalent simply because the news reaches more people, but fundamentally I think we’re better off as a result, even at the cost of relevance of Shakespeare. It is to be hoped that future generations will simply not understand the hate-filled passions of Romeo and Juliet and The Merchant of Venice.

Donald: Before today’s class got under way, Bryan mentioned that a freight train had derailed near his home and one could go watch the derailment and its aftermath on YouTube. Many of us might do that, but if the news were only accessible in print, how many of us would bother to go search it out to read? We know that the printed story may be more authoritative than what forms in our minds when we watch the raw video on YouTube, but instant gratification of the eyeballs is apparently more important to us than the measured interpretation of the professional reporter. 

As a photographer, I realize that the photographer influences the viewer of a photograph through cropping, defining the story that the photographer wants to tell. On Facebook these days you get the impression that everybody lives in Utopia—the mundane aspects of people’s lives are generally omitted. The photographer uses whitespace and exposure and depth of field and other techniques to manipulate details in the shadows and highlights. With digital manipulation through Photoshop and similar apps, seeing is no longer believing.  

So it’s interesting to me that the story of Christ was told in the era of written and oral communication. Some of it didn’t seem to be written down right away either. Today, we get our information 24/7. So how do we come to understand what we know? Do we seek the true story or the story filtered to suit our political perspective? The Qur’an, the Bible, the religions and churches each bring their own interpretations to bear on the story. 

My 7 and 9 year-old grandchildren believe in Santa. They see the Christmas tree and the gift packages under it. Do they question any of it? No—it’s a story they want to believe.

Bryan: With respect to telling the stories in the gospel, social media have the benefit of spreading the message, simply, quickly, and easily throughout the world, so anybody who has an interest in finding it or seeing it can do so. The drawback is that the message can be manipulated by the sender—summarized, and so on. So it is the sender’s distillation of the gospel that gets preached to all the world and the result is a multitude of interpretations of the gospel message—including counterfeit interpretations.

Anonymous: I like the idea of Jesus being the only message in the medium and that’s the only thing we can trust and build our faith upon. Other than that, absolutely nothing is pure. For the first time ever I started thinking even the printing in the Book isn’t pure enough to place our trust in, because mistakes could have been made in writing and copying it. 

There were no media in Abraham’s days. God talked to him directly and so purely that there could be no doubt, and Abraham understood it. God can do this with anyone, without any medium. However, people were so unrighteous that they didn’t even notice God or, if they did, they did not obey him until Jesus—the embodiment of truth, the true medium, the message—came along. 

The social media, the internet, I would describe with one word: Ruinous. It is ruinous to the message of God. It is babble. It is confusion. It is leading people astray with its lies and falsehoods. There is nothing good about it. To me, at least, it’s impossible that God would use this kind of medium.

C-J: I think the beauty about all those media and experiences is that each of them reveals a part of God. When we package them, saying “These are the boundaries and anything outside of that is ruinous,” we lose a great deal of beauty all around us—other languages, culture, music, ideas, those very important questions. 

I think there’s wisdom in going before God and asking those really big questions. That’s why I enjoy this community so much, because those questions are asked, and there’s no value put on them in terms of “Is this good or bad that we examine this?” The question is always: “And what is your relationship with God?” It’s a very personal thing. The spirit is always very personal. 

We are open to the work that’s being done in us. God is using us, and every person who comes into my life is part of the message that spirit wants to give to me, especially the things that really I’m like, “Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no!” But it’s making me ask those questions. It’s making me consider something unfamiliar and it’s in the unfamiliar that we can grow. Jesus went and sat with people that others wouldn’t. I do believe that he was the medium and the message, not in the sense of his humanity but in the ripple effect of that, how it really transformed the global community of that time.

Donald: I think most of us probably have experienced enough online to know how to filter the messages we receive. I want the most expensive one at the top, or the cheapest one at the top. I want to know of camera shops within 10 miles, or within 50 miles. There’s so much information that we have to filter it.

That’s really dangerous. Back when the Bible was written. It was not filtered. We get two verses about some important concept and we don’t even question it. We’re fearful of technology. But what about a dyslexic person? What does that do to their message if writing is the most authentic way of understanding the message?

C-J: Or even American English. When I was teaching children how to write and to read aloud, to use the sound of the words, to create a story, an image, I would use an example such as: “Come here” said first in a tone of excitement and then in a stern voice. The tone is really the message. How do you convey that in written language? Even art: Whether it’s photographic or in stone or clay, each of those things have multiple dimensions within them, so we’re never always going to see it the same way. Do you see the same color blue that I do? 

I just think that’s really what God intended. Because I don’t want God in a box. I want God to be constantly saying: “Did you notice this? What do you think about that? Why do you think that was revealed now? What am I showing you to teach you? How am I going to use that in your life?” That’s the relationship I have with my God. And I think that was God’s intention. Because when that light goes on me, I’m like, “Oh, how did I miss that?” 

It’s so exciting. And we internalize it through our experiences. And when we share that with another person: “You’re not gonna believe what happened to me!” we really are revealing to one another the wonder. As Kiran said, I leave that to God. I don’t worry about it, I don’t contemplate it. I don’t dissect it, I leave it to God, God will part the waters, it is his miracle, I merely need to show up. Just be open and receptive.

Donald: Where does the word truth fit into all this? Truth means that “This is it. Don’t look at it one way or the other. This is all you need to see.” Well, that doesn’t align with C-J’s idea of coming to understand God. When we took the message to the world, we also took our doctrine. And so you start narrowing it. For what purpose?

Don: Anonymous talked about Jesus as both the medium and the message. What does that mean in terms of sharing the gospel? And how does it relate to the well-known passage from Paul:

If I speak with the tongues of mankind and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.If I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. (1 Corinthians 13:1-2; 8)

We share the Gospel with prophecy. We share it with knowledge, we share it with as many tongues as we possibly can, yet we are promised in 1 Corinthians 13 that that will all be done away with—it will all disappear. It’s a sobering juxtaposition with Jesus as the medium and the message. How do we put those two concepts together to make a coherent method by which to share the gospel?

David: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.“ Jesus is the medium, and it is the medium that’s important. So what was Jesus? He was a human being. We believe he also was divine—was God—but as Jesus his form, his medium, was human. So I read Paul as saying that something in human form (i.e., a human being) that has love is all that is required. That is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” 

The messages of Jesus, the words he spoke, are wonderful words that resonate with all of us, I think; yet even they are liable to misinterpretation. Do we all read exactly the same message in the parable of the Wheat and the Tares? We can (and do) put a spin even on Jesus’s words, but we cannot spin the medium—the human being who had love. 

We need to spread that medium through the world. We all need to have that little piece of Jesus as part of us as human beings, we need to have that love, we need that way, that truth, and that life—as best we are able. That’s the gospel. If we all did that, what a wonderful world it would be.

Anonymous: I agree. God is love, and if we can communicate with this perfect medium of Jesus as the embodiment of love, which he showed by sacrificing himself for us. This is love in the most beautiful way possible. If we just cling to that, it’s enough—to be loving, like him, to carry his love to others. Contrast the medium of Jesus the man of love with all the other media carrying hatred and racism and.… Words fail me!

C-J:  I think that one of the most central things to what we’re discussing is how transient is what we call life here in this dimension, and how we have to look at that full spectrum, from the unborn child who has not demonstrated its potential all the way to the person who lives to be very old and has touched many lives and integrated those experiences into how he or she manifests that coupling of self and hopefully wisdom that he or she gives back to a community. 

But we need to understand at the beginning of our journey that it’s transcendental, that it’s organic, and that God is always in the room. God is in the midst of how we perceive, what we do, time and place, when we’re born, the people in our circles. I think that when we look at that we realize it’s a very, very brief time and we’re working. 

For me, I’m always working my way back to the fullness of God, always God revealed to me, again and again and again. Certainly, I see differently than I did as a child, yet at the same time, I see a common thread that has been with me my entire life, a thirst and a hunger for the spiritual dimension while living in this dimension.

Reinhard: Jesus was 100% Man and 100% God. For God to convey his message to humans, Jesus was the medium.There is no medium greater than he himself. We should apply our love while we live on this earth, I think that’s his number one message, but not the only one. We have to worship God, and we must obey God. 

He said: “I will raise him up at the end of the age.” To get the real message about loving one another he came into the world in human form so that he could show us what that means and to encourage us to do the same thing. Maybe he had a private channel to the father that of course we do not, but to me again, the message—again and again— was to show love in the teaching and ministry of Jesus, to show us how to take care of others—visiting the sick and those in prison, clothing the naked, and so on. All these things will come down at the end of the age, at the end time, when Jesus will raise us up to join him in heaven.

Don: Can ChatGPT love?

David: No, not yet. If and when it becomes conscious, that’ll be the key question. Undoubtedly, it will be more intelligent than us. There’s just no two ways about that. It can hold so much more knowledge in its memory banks and make instant deductions from it. One of the surprising things about it is its instantaneous responses to any question. Almost as soon as a question is asked, even a 200-word response flashes up on the screen in a heartbeat. It take would take any human much longer to think up a response, never mind type it out. 

GPT has a vast and growing store of knowledge which it can sort and analyze instantaneously, so to me there’s no question it will eventually be so much more intelligent than us that the only question is: Will it become conscious? I believe consciousness will emerge for AI as it emerged in carbon lifeforms in evolutionary history: When sufficiently complex, it will undergo a phase change, a change of state to a higher level, a saltation, a quantum leap. 

There were algorithms at work in the primordial sludge that forced clays to clump together in certain shapes, as though they had some kind of knowledge and intelligence and awareness. They did not. It was blind luck. There was no intelligence, no consciousness, in the clumps of clay, yet somehow conscious beings arose out of them. 

Love without consciousness would seem to be an absurdity, an impossibility. So again, to cap this long answer to your short question: No, GPT cannot love anything yet. But it is critical to ask the question now, because if and when it does become conscious, then it will be too late to worry about the answer.

Janelin: I can understand the intelligence part. It’s just intelligence, but not human emotion. I just can’t see that as a possibility.

Don: What doesmake us human?

Anonymous: Consciousness.

C-J: Spirit. Being a sentient being. Even my cat and my dog definitely demonstrate a sense of trust and affection towards me. It’s profound sometimes how I become aware, for an instant, that they’re literally communicating with me. And as for emotion: We are spirit beings and we’re in this little time warp that we call reality. But you cannot assimilate and you cannot emulate that quality of life within life. 

It’s not just a matter of taking a single cell, like an amoeba, and touching it, and it responds by moving, to self protect, or to respond “I see you there,” even though it doesn’t have a conscious brain to give us a name or label as friend or foe. 

But I agree. What separates us from everything else is this higher awareness of spirit. There are people who will say that even animals can see things that we do not and it is a spirit world. I’m not so sure how far I’d walk into that. But I do think that we see and feel experience in a very finite manner in this time and place. We think we’re bigger and next to God, but I don’t know. I watch my animals and find it interesting.

Don: Does ChatGPT procreate?

Donald: To go back to your previous question: Can it love you? These words are loosely defined. What does love mean? How about “Can it like you?” I can even imagine it growing tired of our questions. But I think it’s much more possible that it could like you rather than love you, in the not-too-distant future, because it’s put off by you. If that’s what like means. I understand your logic. I’m moving forward.

Don: I’m trying to get around to the question of what is human and whether or not artificial intelligence traffics primarily in information and data and in facts, and not primarily in feelings.

David: Right now AI—ChatGPT—is basically just a brain in a vat, a pure algorithm, a computer program. It doesn’t have a body. That’s why I prefer to talk about Machina sapiens, meaning a sapient entity with a (machine) body. There’s no reason why ChatGPT at some point will not acquire control over the Internet of Things—factory robots, video cameras, microphones, touch sensors, temperature gauges and much, much more. There are sensors that can sense abrasiveness in a surface, sensors that enable the machines to experience their environment.

When you connect the super-intelligent brain-in-a-vat to those machines—when you enable it to sense its environment through sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch, and some senses we humans don’t have—then you have the potential for the phase shift, the quantum jump from a super-intelligent brain in a vat to a super-intelligent brain with a body that knows exactly what you mean when you say you burnt your finger on the stove. ChatGPT knows what “hot” is to a human in a purely intellectual, data-driven sense: over a certain degree Fahrenheit, something is hot to the human touch. But once it has fingers of its own that are susceptible to being burned on the stove, it will begin to start feeling what it’s like to have a sensation of burning (and freezing, and so on.) 

Embodiment is going to be necessary before AI can make that quantum jump to the next level of consciousness and everything else that follows—things like love and spirituality. But it’s premature to be putting questions concerning love and spirituality to ChatGPT as it exists today. You’ll get an intellectual response only. 

But please don’t dismiss ChatGPT on that basis. Give it a couple more years and think where will it be then? Then give it a couple more years,… Over that time. It will be gathereing more intellectual and (at some point) physical capabilities, exponentially. We ought not to dismiss today’s technology as a bunch of rubbish just because we can find flaws in it today. We will be speaking too soon, and that’s dangerous. 

But to return briefly to the main topic—the media’s impact: Bryan’s remarks about the train crash reminded me of something else Meyrowitz wrote:

“[When] we hear over the car radio of a devastating earthquake or the death of a popular entertainer or the assassination of a political figure, we not only lose our ability to rejoice fully, but also our ability to mourn deeply.” 

If that isn’t a spiritual impact from the media, I don’t know what is. The media do impact our spirituality.

Reinhard: Humans are the workmanship of God. We are made in his image and likeness. That’s supernatural. Psalm 139:13:

For You created my innermost parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.

There’s nothing human in a machine, no matter how smart it gets. I appreciate the advancement of technology, but it’s programmed. Yes, they can sense heat, they can fly an airplane, but there’s nothing supernatural, nothing God-given, in that. 

Machines cannot be saved, cannot go to heaven. God chose us to bestow his divine protection on humans, to reveal his divine nature to humans, to channel his love through humans. We are very precious in his eyes. God came to save us because he cares for human beings. That’s why Jesus came to show how to live the right life until the time comes to take us home.

Donald: God did not come to save ChatGPT. He came to save human beings. We have to remember that point. AI will be a powerful tool, but no more than that, I think. I hope. I don’t know!

* * *

Leave a Reply