My hope is to gain a fresh hearing for Jesus, especially among those who believe they already understand him. In his case, quite frankly, presumed familiarity has led to unfamiliarity, unfamiliarity has led to contempt, and contempt has led to profound ignorance.
The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life In God (p. 1).
Being part of a generation that was told “Wikipedia is not a source” makes it genuinely baffling to me that jobs are now telling people to just use ChatGPT for everything.
Artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships, and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate or even simulate, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational, and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. #MagnificaHumanitas
If the idea of an intelligent, transcendent creator wasn't tied to any religion, I'm certain most scientists would accept it as the most plausible explanation for why the universe exists and why it appears so designed and finely-tuned for life.
Many scientists are put off the idea of a creator by traditional religion (or maybe more accurately, by religious people). Others (a small minority) hate the idea of anything existing that's more intelligent than they are.
I'm not saying we should get rid of religion so that scientists will believe in God. I'm explaining that the objection to the mere idea of God – an intelligent, transcendent creator – mostly isn't based on logic or lack of evidence, it's rooted in rejection of religion.
A recent conversation with an atheist biologist supports this. He was raised Catholic, and his objections to God stemmed entirely from his objection to miracles and Catholic doctrines, which he rejected as a teen. He didn't have any logical objections to God, himself, but to religious claims. To him, God was so inextricably tied to those claims that God got thrown out along with them.
So, why don't scientists just acknowledge a deistic sort of God while rejecting religion?
I wonder about this a lot.
As near as I can tell, some of them dislike religion and religious people so much they'll jettison the truth over it. I recall the biology grad student I talked with decades ago who agreed that developments in biology supported design, but said he and his colleagues were hesitant to publicly acknowledge it, because it would support Christians.
*sigh*
What a mess.
It's complicated, y'all. If you're Christian, keep this in mind when you have conversations with science-minded atheists.
And here's something most of us don't want to hear: The way we conduct ourselves may be the only Gospel some people ever receive – and that includes our children. They "hear" how we behave far more than what we say.
Não entendo esse momento da minha vida. Tô recebendo publicidade pra programas de exercícios pra quem tem 50 ou mais, mas não consigo verificar minha idade pra provar que sou adulta com verificação facial.
🤷🏻♀️
@shemaiahng I was a kid in the 80s. Didn't drink much water then. I had a serious UTI when I was 15. Started carrying a water bottle then. Drinking water is the one thing I never forget to do after that. Life changing habit if you ask. Everything in my body works a lil better
Please don’t let the hypocrisies of those who claim Christ keep you from Christ. Numbers 23:19 says God is not a human that he should lie or a son of man that he should change his mind. He is not us. We must know Jesus firsthand so we recognize who he is and who he’s not.
Only one religion is based on a single, testable, historical event. If you haven’t at least considered the evidence for the resurrection, NOW is the time.