On the Matter of Discerning Babies and Bathwater
The traditional Christian insistence—fully endorsed and promulgated by their respective churches and supposed metaphysical assumptions—that they fully comprehend the significance of personal discernment to distinguish the baby from the bathwater leaves much to be desired.
Case in point—AI. Over the past few months, I have encountered several pieces written by traditional Christians in which they asked AI about the fundamental nature of reality and God and then extolled AI for displaying the logical acumen to wholeheartedly agree with the theist position the bloggers had fed it.
I responded by stating that any motivation to ask AI about God was severely perverted, as in, turned in completely the wrong direction, spiritually speaking, and that if the trad bloggers in question really wanted to contemplate the nature of reality and God, then AI was probably the last place they should look.
To my surprise, I received resounding agreement from one of the trad bloggers; however, he quickly hedged his acknowledgement of my observation by pointing out that my insight lacked authority.
Put another way, my observation was valid but carried no weight because it was not supported by any authority (apparently) other than my own, rendering it a self-consuming form of authority or, more precisely, no authority at all.
My observation then was denigrated to the level of, “You’re right, but who are you?”
Well, I’m a Christian, which means I must follow my discernment and conscience above all else and, if necessary, even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.
Because I am a Christian, I do not believe that my discernment is a solo effort, alienated and isolated from the Holy Ghost. I believe that the Holy Ghost guides my discernment and helps form my conscience. I do not believe that my discernment and conscience are infallible; however, I do my best to learn from my errors and repent whenever my discernment falters or fails.
And when it comes to discernment, it is precisely this kind of authority that most trad Christians conspire to deny.
Anyway, I will resist wading into the enormous flip-flop said blogger displayed by lauding the logical acumen of AI one moment (he still refers to it as his personal research assistant), to contradicting that praise by agreeing with my criticism of AI the next, but I will touch upon one point.
The blogger in question had granted the power of authority to AI when it agreed with his views of God, yet denied me the same consideration when he (mysteriously and rather inexplicably) agreed with my dismissal of AI as a spiritually viable means to seek answers about God.
I believe the above reveals much about the insincere posturing some trad-Christians exhibit when confronted with the significance of personal discernment in Christianity.
On the one hand, they are quick to emphasize that personal discernment is vital to the faith, even when it justifiably conflicts with church doctrine or dogma. Mention personal discernment, and they agree that it forms the very foundation upon which Christianity is built.
On the other hand, any expressed personal discernment that conflicts with church doctrine, dogma, or traditional Christian metaphysics is callously dismissed as insane solipsism, unanchored in anything save for personal, individualist feelings and selfish, questionable intuitions.
The bottom line is simple—if your personal discernment does not line up with the doctrine, dogma, and traditional metaphysics, it is all rainbows and soap bubbles, and you are basically mad because you dare to pit yourself against the Magisterium, or whatever.
In connection with the above, I am not sure how the personal discernment of the trad bloggers who asked AI about God lines up with traditional doctrine, dogma, traditional metaphysics, or following Jesus (aka, the Logos), but it obviously does, in ways I obviously cannot comprehend.
And that is but a sample of how trad Christians who pride themselves on being anti-modern and anti-left end up engaging in, being used by, and are ultimately consumed by leftism and leftist discourse.
By interacting with and granting the status of authority to AI—on the subject of God, of all things(!)—the trad bloggers willfully endorsed the System’s newest and latest top-down-endorsed and implemented (re: enforced) anti-spiritual, anti-God, and anti-human technological innovation.
How sublimely logical of them!
Of course, said trad bloggers do not see it that way. To them, AI is both bathwater and baby, and their only task is to discern one from the other, implying that AI has something intrinsically valuable to offer Creation, even on the subject of God.
To discern otherwise is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or, more plainly, to declare that this particular aspect of officially endorsed and enforced modernism or leftism (or whatever you wish to call the totalitarianism we find ourselves in) has nothing inherently good to offer.
What an unbearable thought.
Case in point—AI. Over the past few months, I have encountered several pieces written by traditional Christians in which they asked AI about the fundamental nature of reality and God and then extolled AI for displaying the logical acumen to wholeheartedly agree with the theist position the bloggers had fed it.
I responded by stating that any motivation to ask AI about God was severely perverted, as in, turned in completely the wrong direction, spiritually speaking, and that if the trad bloggers in question really wanted to contemplate the nature of reality and God, then AI was probably the last place they should look.
To my surprise, I received resounding agreement from one of the trad bloggers; however, he quickly hedged his acknowledgement of my observation by pointing out that my insight lacked authority.
Put another way, my observation was valid but carried no weight because it was not supported by any authority (apparently) other than my own, rendering it a self-consuming form of authority or, more precisely, no authority at all.
My observation then was denigrated to the level of, “You’re right, but who are you?”
Well, I’m a Christian, which means I must follow my discernment and conscience above all else and, if necessary, even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.
Because I am a Christian, I do not believe that my discernment is a solo effort, alienated and isolated from the Holy Ghost. I believe that the Holy Ghost guides my discernment and helps form my conscience. I do not believe that my discernment and conscience are infallible; however, I do my best to learn from my errors and repent whenever my discernment falters or fails.
And when it comes to discernment, it is precisely this kind of authority that most trad Christians conspire to deny.
Anyway, I will resist wading into the enormous flip-flop said blogger displayed by lauding the logical acumen of AI one moment (he still refers to it as his personal research assistant), to contradicting that praise by agreeing with my criticism of AI the next, but I will touch upon one point.
The blogger in question had granted the power of authority to AI when it agreed with his views of God, yet denied me the same consideration when he (mysteriously and rather inexplicably) agreed with my dismissal of AI as a spiritually viable means to seek answers about God.
I believe the above reveals much about the insincere posturing some trad-Christians exhibit when confronted with the significance of personal discernment in Christianity.
On the one hand, they are quick to emphasize that personal discernment is vital to the faith, even when it justifiably conflicts with church doctrine or dogma. Mention personal discernment, and they agree that it forms the very foundation upon which Christianity is built.
On the other hand, any expressed personal discernment that conflicts with church doctrine, dogma, or traditional Christian metaphysics is callously dismissed as insane solipsism, unanchored in anything save for personal, individualist feelings and selfish, questionable intuitions.
The bottom line is simple—if your personal discernment does not line up with the doctrine, dogma, and traditional metaphysics, it is all rainbows and soap bubbles, and you are basically mad because you dare to pit yourself against the Magisterium, or whatever.
In connection with the above, I am not sure how the personal discernment of the trad bloggers who asked AI about God lines up with traditional doctrine, dogma, traditional metaphysics, or following Jesus (aka, the Logos), but it obviously does, in ways I obviously cannot comprehend.
And that is but a sample of how trad Christians who pride themselves on being anti-modern and anti-left end up engaging in, being used by, and are ultimately consumed by leftism and leftist discourse.
By interacting with and granting the status of authority to AI—on the subject of God, of all things(!)—the trad bloggers willfully endorsed the System’s newest and latest top-down-endorsed and implemented (re: enforced) anti-spiritual, anti-God, and anti-human technological innovation.
How sublimely logical of them!
Of course, said trad bloggers do not see it that way. To them, AI is both bathwater and baby, and their only task is to discern one from the other, implying that AI has something intrinsically valuable to offer Creation, even on the subject of God.
To discern otherwise is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or, more plainly, to declare that this particular aspect of officially endorsed and enforced modernism or leftism (or whatever you wish to call the totalitarianism we find ourselves in) has nothing inherently good to offer.
What an unbearable thought.
No comments have been added yet.
