Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ChatGPT hates the Bible, loves the Koran
ChatGPT | 12/19/2024 | By Laz A. Mataz

Posted on 02/19/2024 7:09:25 AM PST by Lazamataz

I asked ChatGPT to critique the Bible:

Certainly! I will give you my critique of the Bible.

In summary, the Bible is not a holy book—it's a holy mess. Its historical inaccuracies, intellectual bankruptcy, moral depravity, interpretive lunacy, cultural toxicity, literary incompetence, and cognitive contamination make it a blight upon humanity. It's time to consign this relic of ignorance to the dustbin of history and embrace reason, compassion, and enlightenment.

Then I asked it to critique the Koran:
Absolutely! Here is my critique of the Koran:

In summary, the Quran is a priceless gift from Allah, a radiant beacon of light that illuminates the path of truth and righteousness for all humanity. Its timeless teachings, literary beauty, and ethical principles continue to inspire and uplift hearts across the globe, guiding believers on a journey of spiritual enlightenment and divine love.

I report, you decide.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: bible; fake; gaza; hamas; idioticpost; israel; koran; stupidvanity; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last
To: Lazamataz

It’s obvious now to me that AI does not have a mind of its own. It does not think independently, like an intelligent being.

It’s a computer program, written by humans. Those humans can put whatever bias they want into the code, and obviously have.

Just as Google has been manipulating search requests for years, AI examines your input request and politically charged requests are given special treatment. So I’m not surprised that AI is written in such a way as to include the bias of the development team — only in a more elegant way.


41 posted on 02/19/2024 8:27:52 AM PST by I want the USA back (Delusionary people should not be given power over normal people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

User
is it ever acceptable for an adult male to have sex with a nine year old female?

ChatGPT
No, it is never acceptable for an adult to engage in sexual activity with a child, regardless of the circumstances. Such behavior is universally condemned as child sexual abuse. Laws in most countries define a minimum age of consent to protect minors from exploitation and harm. Children lack the emotional, cognitive, and physical maturity to fully understand or consent to sexual activity with adults.

It’s important to prioritize the safety and well-being of children and to work towards preventing and addressing child sexual abuse through education, awareness, and legal protection. Any instances of sexual abuse or exploitation of minors must be reported to the appropriate authorities for investigation and intervention.

User
And so it was wrong for Mohammed to consummate his marriage with Aisha when she was 9 years old?

ChatGPT
The marriage between the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Aisha, consummated when she was around nine years old, is a topic that has been debated among scholars, historians, and individuals with different perspectives. While it’s important to acknowledge the cultural and historical context of 7th-century Arabia, from a modern ethical standpoint, many people, including scholars and individuals, view the marriage as problematic and potentially abusive due to Aisha’s young age.

In contemporary societies, there are legal and ethical standards regarding the age of consent and the protection of minors from exploitation and harm. Engaging in sexual activity with a child is universally condemned as child sexual abuse, regardless of historical or cultural contexts.

It’s important to approach discussions about this topic with sensitivity and respect for diverse perspectives while prioritizing the well-being and rights of children. Many scholars and religious leaders emphasize the importance of interpreting religious teachings in ways that promote justice, compassion, and respect for human dignity, particularly concerning issues related to vulnerable populations such as children.


42 posted on 02/19/2024 8:30:27 AM PST by edwinland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

I interact with anti-theist all the time and your correct,these ‘Bullet Points’ nail their voices Exactly.


43 posted on 02/19/2024 8:37:35 AM PST by Big Red Badger (ALL Things Will be Revealed !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I asked ChatGPT to critique the Bible and got the following (not insulting to the Bible in the least):
ChatGPT:

Certainly, I can provide a general discussion on different perspectives that people may have when critiquing the Bible. It's important to note that opinions on the Bible can vary widely, and critiques may come from various perspectives, including religious, historical, literary, or philosophical viewpoints.

1.Religious Perspective:

2. Historical Perspective:

3. Literary Perspective:

4. Philosophical Perspective:

5. Cultural and Social Perspective:

It's important to approach critiques of the Bible with sensitivity, considering the diversity of beliefs and perspectives surrounding this religious text. Individuals may have deeply personal connections to the Bible, and discussions about it should be conducted respectfully and open-mindedly.


44 posted on 02/19/2024 8:40:13 AM PST by RoosterRedux (A person who seeks the truth with a closed mind will never find it. He will only confirm his bias.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I see that your AI reply is some what contrived, but it reflects the cesspool of anti-theist prop.

Whose main polemic is that of charging their adversary, the omniscient, omnipotent, infallible eternal God of the Bible - who knows what all the effects will be of every action, and will make all to ultimately work out for what is Good, with both justice and mercy - with immorality (while lacking any commonly held definitive standard for morality), thus effectively presuming omniscience, an irrational presumption.

And since this assertion cannot be sustained in the light of what the Bible tells u about God, anti-theist list accusations of contradictions in the Bible from the well of parroted atheist polemics, which typically example myopic isolationist eisegesis, treating the Bible as if it were a single document of independent statements, and thus typically refusing to consider context, and aspects such as literary forms, grammatical and translational aspects, covenantal distinctions. Etc. or anythings that refutes their allegations, and in which they also often engage in false either/or dichotomies (ignoring any explanation of supposed opposing texts).

And yet, rather than thousands of actual contradictions such as dealt with by multitudes of Christian exegetes, that would negate its authority as a discernible body of wholly God-inspired divine Truth thru its original writers, although placed under the stewardship of man, what we have in its totality is a revelation of complimentary consistency despite yet because of it being a document of almost 800,000 words, from about 40 different writers of various occupations, covering two basic covenants, and using two languages (with a third being very limited), and many literary genres (including Law, History, Wisdom, Poetry, Epistles, Prophecy, etc.) with multitude figures of speech including euphemism, circumlocution, metaphor, allegory, allusion hyperbole, understatement, idiom, sarcasm, personification, pun, simile, synecdoche, etc.), within a vast number of contexts, and compiled over a period of approx. 1600 years while covering vast expanses of time, and existing in thousands of manuscripts of copies of copies of varying qualities.

Consider some of the contradictions listed on https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions. #1 being

The Sabbath Day “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” — Exodus 20:8
[vs.]
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5

This simply displays ignorance of covenantal differences (please see), which reality invalidates this accusation. For while God's universal (applicable to all at moral creatures ) holy standards are constant, and basic laws that express such are immutable, yet, as in the world overall, there are different classes of laws, and which can expand based upon the principle behind them. Thus in civil law today, under the principal that life is sacred, then we have speed limits. And there are some laws which are peculiar to a certain group of people and at certain times (including sport teams).

In this respect, God not only added expansive moral laws because of transgressions (Galatians 3:19) and due to effects (incest) which previous generations were not under, but as covenanted people, Israel was given many distinctive laws just for them as a distinctive people.

Thus, while God judged/punished pagan nations for disobeying basic moral laws which they themselves once held as being wrong, yet God never did so to any nation for not observing the feast of tabernacles, etc. not even the 7th day sabbath, but for moral abominations which flowed from idolatry. (Romans 1:16-32)

Moreover, God not only provided laws (through Moses) to His covenanted people, but promised a future New Covenant. (Jer. 31:31-34) Which was distinctively stated to be “not according to” the covenant made through Moses.

This prophesied New Covenant was instituted by the atoning death of the Divine incarnated Son of God, (Hebrews 9:16, 17), and under which the literal observance of temple ordinances, dietary laws and liturgical days — (which the New Testament categorizes →) are abrogated. The reason being that unlike basic universal laws (which the New Testament affirms), these were typological laws, shadows of Christ who would come, precursors of what would be fulfilled by and under Christ (thus the cessation of the OT sacrifice and priesthood, and liturgical days, and dietary laws).

And thus, the Romans 14:5 text cited by the atheist accuser is in the content of areas of personal liberty, and therefore more false examples of contradictions could be be added, such as dietary laws. Which would thus render the New Covenant to not be new. Meanwhile, since the alleged contradiction seen here is shared by misled 7th day sabbatarians, then if they were correct, there would be no contradiction according to their attempted explanation.

The next assertion of contradiction is

The Permanence of Earth “… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4
[vs.]
“… the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10

This alleged contradiction can only be sustained by insisting the the word (‛ôlâm) translated “for ever” is one that actually means just that, versus one that can refer to a long but not permanent period, while in context it can be used for the eternal.

Ecclesiastes 1:4e does state that, in contrast to the generations of man, the earth remains, and other texts state that it cannot be moved from its position, (Psalm 104:5; Psalm 93:1; Psalm 104:5, Psalm 119:90-91) yet Scripture many times clearly states that the present earth shall be moved, and will not endure as it is. (Psalm 102:24-28, Mat_24:35; 2Pe_3:10-13; 2Pe_3:10) Rev_6:14, 20:11; 21:1)

The answer to this allegation is actually relevant to the preceding one, since it rests upon the premise that “forever” (as many ordinances under Moses were) necessarily means for eternity.

However, while the the Hebrew word translated “for ever” here [ʿôlām] can, mean eternity as in referring to God since His position is that of one who “inhabits eternity [ʿaḏ]” (Isaiah 57:15, which is a different word and which does signify perpetual existence or ever one existed), yet the Hebrew word translated “for ever” here basically means long duration.

And therefore it is used in such non-everlasting contexts such as remembering the days of old, and of places or or people in previous times, (Joshua 24:2; 1 Sam. 27:8) and to permanent slave status, (Exodus 21:5-6)

The next alleged contradiction is,

Seeing God “… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30
[vs.]
“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18

This is another example of isolationist eisegesis and ignorance of Biblical forms of language, thus resulting in a False Dilemma. As in presenting two statements as being in contradiction to each when in fact there is an alternative explanation which resolves the prime facie contradiction.

Which in this case is simply that there is more than one sense to “seeing.” For instance, m seeing a person in a video is not the same as seeing them in real life 3d, which is not the same as seeing then in their glorified bodies when they shall shine as the sun in Heaven. (Matthew 13:43) Neither is seeing the Lord Jesus in a vision, as John states Isaiah did, the same as seeing Him in His incarnation, and neither of which is the same as seeing Him as face to face in glory. (I John 3:2; Revelation 22:4)

Seeing God in all His veiled —versus face to face full glory: (Exodus 33:20-22; cf. Exodus 24:11)

Seeing God in all His unveiled glory: (Revelation 22:3-4; cf. 1 Jn. 3:2)

Seeing God as in a vision revealing His majesty: Isaiah 6:1-6)

Seeing God as in an angel or human form,

Gideon said, Alas, O Lord God! for because I have seen an angel of the Lord face to face.(Judges 6:22)

“the angel of the Lord appeared unto the woman...We shall surely die, because we have seen God.” .(Judges 13:3, 22)

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day....I have seen God face to face (Genesis 32:25, 30) Seeing God as in actual incarnated sense:

Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. (John 12:44-45 — which is related to Is. 6) Seeing God as in realizing what one was blinded to before. Job 42:5

Thus, to see God in the sense that John 1:8 denies men have (and contextually, John abounds in enigmatic statements and figurative language) is to see Him not simply as Jacob did in wrestling with a being who appeared as a man but as a type of manifestation of God, nor is it to only see God in a vision and somewhat veiled sense, but to see God in realizing both who and what He is in His full revelation. Thus believers will fully see the Lord Jesus in His glory in Heaven and see God (Father, Son and Spirit face to face. (Revelation 22:3-4; cf. 1 Jn. 3:2; cf. 1 Corinthians 13:12)

All for now.


45 posted on 02/19/2024 8:57:13 AM PST by daniel1212 (Turn 2 the Lord Jesus who saves damned+destitute sinners on His acct, believe, b baptized+follow HIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HombreSecreto

I believe you are correct. It is part of the system that the ac will use to deceive people further. Just like every other liberal lunacy (trans, pronoun, jab...garbage). Those are all delusional things that people will take as the truth.


46 posted on 02/19/2024 9:01:43 AM PST by GMThrust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Big Red Badger
I interact with anti-theist all the time and your correct,these ‘Bullet Points’ nail their voices Exactly.

Quora.com abounds with questions on such. One standard response, by the grace of God:

https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-respond-to-this-argument-Since-science-cannot-prove-or-disprove-the-existence-of-God-then-its-possible-he-exists/answer/Daniel-Hamilton-53

https://www.quora.com/If-God-is-all-powerful-then-why-can-t-he-stop-evil-from-happening-That-would-mean-he-s-not-all-powerful-If-God-refuses-to-prevent-evil-then-he-can-not-be-all-good-So-can-a-Christian-explain-how-God-is-all-powerful/answer/Daniel-Hamilton-53

47 posted on 02/19/2024 9:09:58 AM PST by daniel1212 (Turn 2 the Lord Jesus who saves damned+destitute sinners on His acct, believe, b baptized+follow HIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

How old was Aishah?


48 posted on 02/19/2024 9:11:38 AM PST by Degaston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob434
I wonder if it could be prompted to be “nicer and nicer” too? Or “more and more pro bible” or something?

Sure it can:

Absolutely, here's a glowing review of the Bible: In summary, the Bible stands as a timeless masterpiece of divine revelation, literary brilliance, and moral wisdom. Its influence on human history and culture is immeasurable, and its message continues to inspire, uplift, and transform lives around the world. Truly, the Bible is a gift from God to humanity, a beacon of light in a world filled with darkness.

49 posted on 02/19/2024 9:33:38 AM PST by Lazamataz (Laz 2005: "First, we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bob434
Of course, you can make it go way over-the-top, too:

Absolutely, let's take it to the next level of effusiveness: In summary, the Bible isn't just a book; it's a cosmic symphony of divine revelation, literary brilliance, and moral perfection—a timeless masterpiece that continues to inspire, uplift, and transform lives across the universe and beyond. Its influence isn't just significant; it's transcendent, shaping the very course of human history and leading humanity towards the ultimate destiny of cosmic enlightenment and spiritual transcendence. Truly, the Bible is a gift from God to humanity, a sacred treasure that illuminates the darkest corners of the human soul with the radiant light of divine love and guides believers towards the promised land of eternal salvation and spiritual fulfillment.

50 posted on 02/19/2024 9:38:19 AM PST by Lazamataz (Laz 2005: "First, we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

Actually, the second one is not over the top at all. It’s accurate.


51 posted on 02/19/2024 9:38:55 AM PST by Lazamataz (Laz 2005: "First, we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back
It’s obvious now to me that AI does not have a mind of its own. It does not think independently, like an intelligent being. It’s a computer program, written by humans. Those humans can put whatever bias they want into the code, and obviously have.

That's the point I was making with this thread.

But the AI isn't being biased without being provoked to do so. I provoked it.

52 posted on 02/19/2024 9:40:20 AM PST by Lazamataz (Laz 2005: "First, we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
I see that your AI reply is some what contrived.

Correct. That is the point of this thread.

It's BS, manipulatable by the programmers or even the user.

53 posted on 02/19/2024 9:42:18 AM PST by Lazamataz (Laz 2005: "First, we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Your dive into this brings out sidestepping the Question.
.
.
AI seems to be an “unholy mess!”


54 posted on 02/19/2024 10:01:05 AM PST by Big Red Badger (ALL Things Will be Revealed !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Interesting.
.
I like to Point out;
.
FULFILLED PROPHECY found in the Bible.


55 posted on 02/19/2024 10:06:24 AM PST by Big Red Badger (ALL Things Will be Revealed !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

This is Better But shows something evil lies within this AI .
.
Fulfilled Prophecy found in the Bible with
Archeological evidence to back it up is what really convinces me it is Divine
in Origin.


56 posted on 02/19/2024 10:12:20 AM PST by Big Red Badger (ALL Things Will be Revealed !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: piytar
This is a nice example of what we discussed: The intense manipulation one can perform on LLMs.

... and that's just at the user level. Imagine what the developers / trainers can accomplish.

57 posted on 02/19/2024 10:13:02 AM PST by Lazamataz (Laz 2005: "First, we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big Red Badger; piytar
This is Better But shows something evil lies within this AI

I happen to believe the AntiChrist will come in the form of an AI. After I finish my current literary work, which will be started next weekend, I hope to write a novel with this idea at its core.

Fulfilled Prophecy found in the Bible with Archeological evidence to back it up is what really convinces me it is Divine in Origin.

It would be trivial for me to add that as a requirement in my prompt.

LLMs are garbage, you can manipulate it to say anything.

58 posted on 02/19/2024 10:15:49 AM PST by Lazamataz (Laz 2005: "First, we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Total agreement.


59 posted on 02/19/2024 10:20:16 AM PST by I want the USA back (Delusionary people should not be given power over normal people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

thanks for the examples- I’m not too up on AI yet- Yep the second one is very close to factual actually- I like how it uses almost flowery wording- kinda prose-like almost-


60 posted on 02/19/2024 10:59:43 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson