241–250 of 473 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And your world view is very jaded and myopic if that is all you see. There are plenty (majority) where your anecdote is not true.
A majority of the bible is not true.
Mostly when people say "the Bible is not true" its usually a result of misunderstanding it (e.g. adopting Biblical literalism, not understanding the culture and context, not understanding nuance).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that nowadays it feels more like people asking you for the time every 2 minutes while standing just in front of Big Ben. I see it everyday on forums/Discord servers where some users will treat you like their personal search engine simply because they are too lazy to spend 10s reading the results themselves.
Big Ben, the bell?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know about popes, but many prominent mathematicians, philosophers and early scientists were priests or monks: Mendel, Copernicus, Bayes, Ockham, Bolzano... It was pretty much the only way to get the kind of education, intellectual culture, time and focus required for hundreds of years (at least in Europe), until the upper-middle class widened around the enlightenment and industrial revolution. The friction be…
> The friction between the church and science is a relatively new phenomenon, at least at the current scale Current scale? What current friction do you have in mind. I honestly cannot think of anything with the Catholic church. Lots of friction with evangelical Biblical literalists, of course, but the Catholic Church is not literalist. > There are always exceptions like Galileo The Galileo case is more about personal…
Not defending the use of AI, but plenty of people who grew up going to Mass on Sunday know that priests often recycle old homilies, deliver lazily written homilies or homilies that were clearly pulled from the internet, or just skip them if they couldn't think of anything that week or are running late for something. Absolute worst was when an intelligent priest put in incredible effort, only for it to go over the hea…
> only for it to go over the heads If it actually went over their heads, then the effort was wasted. I've heard the goal of preaching described thus: "Address the mind to move the heart to change the will." If you haven't addressed the minds of the people you're speaking to, your preaching was a failure. NB if the people in the parish don't want to change their will, and so close up their minds, that's a different is…
Of course, people ought to realize that the purpose of the mass is not the homily, but the sacrifice of the eucharist, which is the “source and summit of the Christian life”.
LLMs are amazing, I love them, but he is right. When it comes to interacting with your fellow humans, using AI just sucks the point and meaning out of life. If we wanted to know what Claude thought, we’d ask him. Don’t be a mouthpiece for AI.
>If we wanted to know what Claude thought, we’d ask him. You would be surprised how many people don't do this. It's very common for people to ask others questions that could be easily googled or clauded.
No priest will feed sufficient context about their community into the context window - even if they were skilled enough to do so, unless the model was locally hosted, doing so would be a violation of their vows of silence. Good homilies are written with the particular community in mind. If it were more effective to write a homily for a generic public, the Vatican would have started publishing standard homilies long a…
> doing so would be a violation of their vows of silence I don’t know what this means. There is no formal “vow of silence”. The closest things I can think of are the discipline of avoiding unnecessary speech in some monastic communities, or perhaps the seal of confession, but this doesn’t apply as priests can speak in generalities or anonymously about the kinds of moral issues people struggle with. > Good homilies ar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no face. The depictions of God the Father are relatively new (in the history of the church; it's still Renaissance). Some people used to have problem with them (Jesus can be depicted, as he was a man, but can be Father?) but then it calmed down. If people think it's literally a face in the sky, they are probably mentally challenged.
I think it is a bit rude of you to call most religious people mentally challenged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They often were. A lot of history has been retold more in a way to fit contemporary narrative than to maintain historical accuracy. For instance Galileo. The typical tale is something like Galileo dared claim the Earth is not the center of the universe, the Church freaked out at the violation of dogma, shunned him, and he was lucky to escape with his life. In reality the Pope was one of Galileo's biggest supporters a…
It amazes me that people think this version of events makes the Church sound better, when it makes it sound worse.