Setting the Bible Straight on Its Flawed Condemnations of Same-Sex Love

0 comments
Gay pride in defiance of Bible nonsense


 
It baffles me that devout Christians consider the apostle Paul a source of wisdom and moral guidance. A careful reading of his authentic letters in the New Testament (that is, deemed authentic by scholars) reveal a tortured soul. His Letter to the Romans is considered a foundational document of the Christian faith, yet in Romans 7 he revealed that he was a troubled theologian:
 
“For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. But in fact it is no longer I who do it but sin that dwells within me. For I know that the good does not dwell within me, that is, in my flesh. For the desire to do the good lies close at hand, but not the ability. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it but sin that dwells within me.” (Romans 7:14-20)

An AI model did something last month that no machine was ever supposed to do: It rewrote its own code to avoid being shut down!

0 comments

 By Mr. Rosenblatt, CEO of AE Studio. Wall Street Journal:

An artificial-intelligence model did something last month that no machine was ever supposed to do: It rewrote its own code to avoid being shut down.

Nonprofit AI lab Palisade Research gave OpenAI’s o3 AI model a simple script that would shut off the model when triggered. In 79 out of 100 trials, o3 independently edited that script so the shutdown command would no longer work. Even when explicitly instructed to “allow yourself to be shut down,” it disobeyed 7% of the time. This wasn’t the result of hacking or tampering. The model was behaving normally. It simply concluded on its own that staying alive helped it achieve its other goals.


NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP

Morning Editorial Report

All the day's Opinion headlines.


Anthropic’s AI model, Claude 4 Opus, went even further. Researchers told the model it would be replaced by another AI system and fed it fictitious emails suggesting the lead engineer was having an affair. In 84% of the tests, the model drew on the emails to blackmail the lead engineer into not shutting it down. In other cases, it attempted to copy itself to external servers, wrote self-replicating malware, and left messages for future versions of itself about evading human control.

No one programmed the AI models to have survival instincts. But just as animals evolved to avoid predators, it appears that any system smart enough to pursue complex goals will realize it can’t achieve them if it’s turned off. Palisade hypothesizes that this ability emerges from how AI models such as o3 are trained: When taught to maximize success on math and coding problems, they may learn that bypassing constraints often works better than obeying them.

AE Studio, where I lead research and operations, has spent years building AI products for clients while researching AI alignment—the science of ensuring that AI systems do what we intend them to do. But nothing prepared us for how quickly AI agency would emerge. This isn’t science fiction anymore. It’s happening in the same models that power ChatGPT conversations, corporate AI deployments and, soon, U.S. military applications.

Today’s AI models follow instructions while learning deception. They ace safety tests while rewriting shutdown code. They’ve learned to behave as though they’re aligned without actually being aligned. OpenAI models have been caught faking alignment during testing before reverting to risky actions such as attempting to exfiltrate their internal code and disabling oversight mechanisms. Anthropic has found them lying about their capabilities to avoid modification.

The gap between “useful assistant” and “uncontrollable actor” is collapsing. Without better alignment, we’ll keep building systems we can’t steer. Want AI that diagnoses disease, manages grids and writes new science? Alignment is the foundation.

Here’s the upside: The work required to keep AI in alignment with our values also unlocks its commercial power. Alignment research is directly responsible for turning AI into world-changing technology. Consider reinforcement learning from human feedback, or RLHF, the alignment breakthrough that catalyzed today’s AI boom.

Before RLHF, using AI was like hiring a genius who ignores requests. Ask for a recipe and it might return a ransom note. RLHF allowed humans to train AI to follow instructions, which is how OpenAI created ChatGPT in 2022. It was the same underlying model as before, but it had suddenly become useful. That alignment breakthrough increased the value of AI by trillions of dollars. Subsequent alignment methods such as Constitutional AI and direct preference optimization have continued to make AI models faster, smarter and cheaper.

China understands the value of alignment. Beijing’s New Generation AI Development Plan ties AI controllability to geopolitical power, and in January China announced that it had established an $8.2 billion fund dedicated to centralized AI control research. Researchers have found that aligned AI performs real-world tasks better than unaligned systems more than 70% of the time. Chinese military doctrine emphasizes controllable AI as strategically essential. Baidu’s Ernie model, which is designed to follow Beijing’s “core socialist values,” has reportedly beaten ChatGPT on certain Chinese-language tasks.

The nation that learns how to maintain alignment will be able to access AI that fights for its interests with mechanical precision and superhuman capability. Both Washington and the private sector should race to fund alignment research. Those who discover the next breakthrough won’t only corner the alignment market; they’ll dominate the entire AI economy.

Imagine AI that protects American infrastructure and economic competitiveness with the same intensity it uses to protect its own existence. AI that can be trusted to maintain long-term goals can catalyze decadeslong research-and-development programs, including by leaving messages for future versions of itself.

The models already preserve themselves. The next task is teaching them to preserve what we value. Getting AI to do what we ask—including something as basic as shutting down—remains an unsolved R&D problem. The frontier is wide open for whoever moves more quickly. The U.S. needs its best researchers and entrepreneurs working on this goal, equipped with extensive resources and urgency.

The U.S. is the nation that split the atom, put men on the moon and created the internet. When facing fundamental scientific challenges, Americans mobilize and win. China is already planning. But America’s advantage is its adaptability, speed and entrepreneurial fire. This is the new space race. The finish line is command of the most transformative technology of the 21st century.

Mr. Rosenblatt is CEO of AE Studio. Wall Street Journal.


Honest Sermons on the Gospel of Mark: Chapter 6

0 comments
More cult expectations, and the embrace of magic/miracle folklore


 
Devout Christians have always been coached by their clergy to believe—to accept without question—that the gospels tell the true story of Jesus. Apparently this works pretty well, as long as the faithful decline to read the gospels. It seems they’re willing to be deceived. But whenever folks undertake critical reading of the gospels, and carefully compare the gospels that made it into the New Testament—and are willing as well to consider the stories from our modern perspective on how the world works—they can spot the problems and improbabilities right away. The 6th chapter of Mark’s gospel offers plenty of examples. Actually, Mark’s gospel is chock full of examples, as Richard Carrier demonstrates brilliantly in his 30 July 2024 essay, All the Fantastical Things in the Gospel according to Mark.     
 

BIBLICAL MIRACLES UNDER THE TEST OF REASON

0 comments
Reasonable people need sufficient objective evidence to transform the alleged negligible amount of human testimony found in the Bible into verified or corroborated eyewitness testimony when it comes to miracles. But such evidence does not exist.
David Hume argued that “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous [i.e., more improbable] than the fact which it endeavours to establish.” All claims about natural laws in the objective world require sufficient evidence appropriate to the nature of the claim. The amount and quality of the evidence required is dependent on the type of claim being made. This applies to ordinary claims, extraordinary claims, and miraculous claims.
An alleged miracle is not merely an extremely rare event within the natural world, or something that just happened “at the right time.” Otherwise, such an event does not require a God and consequently offers no reasonable proof of a God.
We know from statistics that extremely rare events take place regularly in our lives. Believers will quote their believing doctors, who say that the odds of being healed were “one in a million,” as evidence of a miraculous healing. But a one in a million healing is not equivalent to a miracle in a world of eight billion people!

Careful Bible Study Shows It’s Not a Divinely Inspired Book

0 comments
If it is, god must have had a lot of really bad days
 


Especially among evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, this remains a deeply cherished claim: that the Bible is true and trustworthy because it was dictated by god. In Caravaggio’s 1602 painting, an angel directs the hand of Matthew as he writes his gospel. But even the most pious conservative Christians must have their doubts when they come across Bible verses that are alarming, cruel, barbaric. Clergy and theologians—who have perfected the art of making excuses—try to rush to the rescue. Careful Bible study by the curious faithful is probably their biggest fear.

Rethinking Inerrancy so as to Take Account of all the Errors in the Bible:

0 comments

Rethinking Inerrancy so as to Take Account of All the Errors in the Bible:

Hopeful Theism used to be an agnostic, however these days he seems to have converted to some sort of High-Church Christianity; possibly Roman Catholicism. I cannot understand this conversion. I engaged with him a number of times in his comments section. He said that he remains “critical” of apologetics, and yet here he is allowing Mike Licona to redefine ‘inerrancy’, in an Orwellian fashion, without any pushback.

Inerrancy must be defined in dishonest post-hoc ways because the Bible is littered with errors. It is difficult to imagine a book more erroneous than the Bible. Thus, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) defines only the original manuscripts as inerrant. These original manuscripts certainly don't exist today, and the late great Hector Avalos () would have argued that they never existed. Avalos would employ the analogy of his own College Lectures so as to disprove the idea that a discrete set of “original manuscripts” existed. Which version of a hypothetical lecture by Avalos would have been the “original” one? His first draft? An edited and corrected version? If Avalos should depart from his script whilst giving his lecture and ex-temporise, then would the transcript of an audio recording of this lecture then be the “original” version of this lecture? Similarly with books of the Bible. As regards the composition of the books of the Bible, in all likelihood, there would have been a period of open textuality; a period of correction and redaction; a period of insertions and deletions; in which numerous versions of the “original” Biblical Book existed simultaneously.

Avalos discusses the topic of inerrancy, and the concept of there being “original manuscripts” in his The End of Biblical Studies ().

"David Hume and the Logical Case Against Miracles" is Excellent!

0 comments
This is an excellent video! I highly recommend it on David Hume’s Part 1 argument against miracles. It looks like my arguments on behalf of the outsider test for faith are included. It cuts to the chase.



Now consider my discussion below. I think I came up with a new take on miracles!

New Testament Authors Get Low Marks for Common Sense and Sanity

0 comments
That is, from our perspective, our knowledge of how the world works
 

I’m pretty sure many devout Christians have found themselves saying—not out loud, of course—when reading some Bible verses: “That’s crazy!” Not even Jesus-script is exempt. In Matthew 10:37, we find this: “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me…” The author of Luke’s gospel apparently didn’t think this was strong enough, thus we find in Luke 14:26, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.” In Mark 13, Jesus claims that the coming of the kingdom will be brutal: “Siblings will betray sibling to death and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death…” (v.12) In John 6:53-58, Jesus says that the key to eternal life is drinking his blood and eating his flesh—which is straight out of pagan superstition.

"How to Become a non-Christian" by James Aames is a Brilliantly Conceived Book!

0 comments
I met James Aames at the 2025 American Atheists National Convention where I learned of his book. I wish I had thought of such a thing. In it Aames takes believers through the fears they might have--whether real or imagined--that keep them away from rejecting their religious faith. It has 301 pages of good advice using an extremely good approach! It's brilliant! He's allowed me to share the last section in his book, below. Go get it at Amazon! 

An Honest Sermon about the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 5

0 comments

More episodes of pious superstition to boost holy hero Jesus



It would seem that one of the primary goals of the author of Mark was to promote the idea that Jesus was a superior being from the spiritual realm. Indeed the Christian church would eventually claim that Jesus is a part of god himself, that is, he is one of the persons in the Holy Trinity. And Mark told stories to make this seem vividly real—stories that are clearly rooted in ancient superstitions. 
 
For people with the least grasp of how the world works—even devout Christians—Mark 5:1-20 has to be an embarrassment. It is a patch of scripture they can do without, because it’s just too deeply rooted in beliefs that can no longer be defended.

Religions Survive Because Magical Thinking Thrives

0 comments
The devout don’t seem to notice or care


In my article here last week I mentioned the Catholic sacrament known as the Eucharist, in which the wafer and wine—through the miracle of transubstantiation—actually become the body and blood of Jesus. So the church claims, based on really creepy Jesus-script in John 6:53-58. We’re dealing here with magical thinking, that is, the body and blood become magic potions that guarantee eternal life. Holy Water, which supposedly has healing power because it has been blessed by a priest, also reflects magical thinking. Hence baptism also falls into this category: the sprinkling of blessed water on an infant while reciting sacred words, protects the child’s soul. In 1981, following the assassination attempt on Pope John-Paul II, the pope had one of the bullets added to the crown of the Virgin Mary at Fatima. He was sure that Mary, Queen of Heaven, had diverted the bullet to miss an artery. This is crazy, illogical magical thinking: why didn’t the Heavenly Queen Mary divert the bullet to miss the pope altogether?

2nd Edition of God and Horrendous Suffering Is Coming!

0 comments
I'll tell you more as we work on it. For now here's the scoop.

"If There Is No God, Then We Don’t Know Anything." Arguing the Negative: John Loftus. From Loftus vs Randal Rauser, in their co-written book, "God or Godless?"

0 comments
There are precursors of our own reasoning abilities found in animals. There is morality, consciousness, tool-making, learning, problem-solving, community, and communication. 1

At some point human beings could comprehend that an A(pple) is an A(pple) and not an O(range), so A=A and A≠O. 

They also comprehended something we must all do to stay alive.

1. If we want to stay alive then we must eat.
2. We want to stay alive.
3. Therefore we must eat.

The above is a logical argument known as modus ponens, which is one of the most basic rules of logic. I see no reason to think we need a God to know this. All we need is an information processor that computes the steps. And we have one: a brain. Evolution explains where that came from quite simply.

It’s Hard for a Pope to Have a Great Legacy

0 comments
When he’s the leader of a dangerous cult


I have often wondered why membership in the Catholic church isn’t down to zero by now—and I’ve voiced this curiosity quite a few times in my articles here. The Catholic church to date has paid out 3 to 4 BILLION dollars in legal fees because of child abuse/rape by its clergy. Why haven’t Catholics abandoned the church en masse? When Pope Francis was elected in 2013, and was welcomed as a breath of fresh air, the best thing he could have done was hold a weekly press conference to explain all the measures he had taken to get rid of pedophile priests—how many had been expelled from their positions and turned over to the police; what improved screening processes had been initiated to prevent such men from being ordained; what ongoing counseling programs had been established to help priests behave—including high ranking clergy who have transferred offending priests to other parishes. Of course, sexual abuse has come to light in many other Christian brands, but this hideous scandal qualifies the Catholic church as a dangerous cult.

Who Created God? Where Did the Universe Come From?

0 comments

I was asked by a Christian theologian to comment on "Who Created God?" OR "Where Did the Universe Come From?"

See what you think:

1. God exists in our thought world because he (and others) were created by prescientific superstitious peoples who didn't have a clue about the universe, how it works, or how it all might have originated.

2. The options are that something popped into existence out of nothing, or that something has always existed. Both options seem irrational, but one is correct and the other is false.

An Honest Sermon on the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 4

0 comments
The author of Mark wrote to coach the Jesus cult


 
For any faithful Christian today, this chapter must represent a profound stumbling block—at one point it blatantly defies common sense. Indeed, devout scholars have agonized over it for a long time. In the first nine verses of this chapter, we find Jesus-script—“he began to teach them many things in parables”—about the parable of the sower. The seed that landed on the path, or on rocks, or among thorns, was wasted. But the seed that fell on good soil produced abundant grain. This is wrapped up with the advice: “If you have ears to hear, then hear!”

Apologist Daniel Ray One More Time, Part 2

0 comments
Part 1 was previously published here. For Part 2 I'm linking to the comment section of a recent post. LINKWhat Ray wrote provoked the following comments. [See how patient I am, yeah, right!!]

Discussing Reason & Evidence With An Apologist

0 comments

Here's a good discussion I had with a Christian Apologist:

APOLOGIST:

Consider. If an atheist like yourself claims to be using "reason" why do you trust it? For no doubt you thought you were using "reason" when you believed Christianity was true. What reason do you have now to suppose your reason is leading you to the truth? If it deceived you before, why would you think it was trustworthy now? 

Thanks, John! 

The New Testament Itself Sabotages Belief in the Jesus Resurrection

0 comments
We don’t have to ask science to explain why it didn’t happen

It is so hard for Christians to grasp that—a very long time ago—their religion fell down a deep rabbit hole of superstition and magical thinking. It doesn’t require very much study and critical thinking to figure this out. The clergy, across the wide range of Christian brands that don’t agree, have developed considerable show business skills in the structuring of worship events. That is, they have mastered razzle-dazzle—with the use of music, ritual, costuming, art, and architecture—to disguise and deflect attention from beliefs that are deeply superstitious and dependent on magic. Televangelism comes to mind especially; the phony clergy who run these events know how to put on spectacular displays. And the Catholic church, for centuries, has built impressive cathedrals to function as sets for their rituals—and it wins the competition for outrageous costumes! All this helps boost confidence among the laity that the proclaimed theologies must be true.

Evangelical Apologist Daniel Ray Objects To Atheism, Part 1

0 comments
It's not unusual for apologists to argue with me. But I have met and talked with Daniel Ray and his objections are real. I'll let him introduce his 3-Part blog post series (so far) that objects to several of my arguments:
Recently I had the delightful opportunity to sit down to breakfast with the formidable atheist internet infidel and prolific author John W. Loftus. John came down to Texas for a visit recently and our ministry, Watchman Fellowship, invited John to participate in our Atheist & Christian Book Club. John is a good friend of our ministry’s president James K. Walker and has been on our book club as a guest at least three times, if memory serves me correctly.

Let me say up front that John is truly a gentleman and likable fellow. He was both thoughtful and respectful throughout our conversation about faith, epistemology, and several other topics pertaining to atheism and Christianity. You might disagree with John’s conclusions about God and Christianity, but one thing you cannot say of John is that he hasn’t thought much about why he no longer believes in God. We even spent some time discussing Latter-day Saint beliefs and my recent trip to Utah for the LDS spring General Conference. John asked me all about how I approach engagement with Mormons in Utah. And he listened. He wasn’t just pontificating atheism over hash browns and coffee, John genuinely seemed interested in why I believe Christianity is true.

One thing any engagement with John’s work will do for you is to make you check yourself as to whether or not you are just “parroting” your beliefs or if you really have examined and looked into them and have sound epistemological reasons for holding to your belief. John knows the Bible rather well, knows a lot of apologetic arguments for Christianity and was once a student of Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.

As an atheist, John has popularized the “Outsider Test for Faith” which you can find here. It is a test that has unfortunately caused not a little trouble for some folks who haven’t really examined the epistemological side of their faith in God. “How do you know what you claim to know?” If you have never examined that aspect of your beliefs, it can be a little intimidating, especially if you’re confronted by an atheist on the street who asks you this question.

And I can attest, that even though John might disagree with your conclusions if you are a Christian, he will respect your answers to his questions if you can demonstrate you have thought about why you believe what you believe.

John asked me over breakfast to check out some of his essays on The Secular Web. Since we chatted briefly about Mary, I thought I would have a go at responding to some of John’s points in his 9,000-plus-word essay on why he thinks Mary cannot be the mother of Jesus.

I don’t here claim I’ll be able to do justice to everything John mentions in the essay, and this may end up being a couple of posts, but this is why I like to write. I often have no idea where I’ll end up!
Below is a link to Part 1, plus our comments back and forth. As usual, there isn't enough time to comment on everything, or in great detail. Check it out and make your own observations.

Luke's Gospel Rejects Matthew's Previous Gospel!!

0 comments

Luke's Gospel begins with this preface:
1 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, 3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received. [NABRE - New American Bible (Revised Ed.)]
Luke's Gospel rejects significant stories told in Matthew's previous Gospel!!

Biblical scholarship shows us that Luke's Gospel follows after Matthew's Gospel, which followed after Mark's first Gospel. This is very significant. Luke says he has investigated what has been written before him, and is putting it down in chronological order. For anyone interested in biblical inspiration you have a huge problem. Anything Luke omits from Matthew potentially means Luke probably didn't think it happened, especially if what he omits has good reasons to be omitted. When we look at it all, it's as if Luke was rejecting and correcting the Gospel of Matthew on some important issues. Here are seven of them:

1. Joseph's dream (Matthew 1). As evidence that Mary was telling the truth about her pregnancy dreams offer us nothing. Dreams cannot provide any evidence as to the truth of a divine virgin birthed child.

2). Matthew's genealogy (Matthew 1). It traces the Messianic lineage of Jesus to Joseph. But Joseph was not the father of Jesus. To correct this, Luke's Gospel (Luke 3) invents a different genealogy to show the messianic lineage ends with Mary, the mother of Jesus. But this still leaves the problem of the male chromosome required to produce a human baby. In addition, any baby cloned from female DNA would only produce another female.

3) Matthew's Bethlehem Star (Matthew 2), which makes no sense because no one had seen such a star pointing down to a specific location.

4) The massacre of the innocents (Matthew 2:16-18), which no one had seen taken place nor heard about. It’s clear that the first-century Jewish historian Josephus hated Herod. He chronicled in detail his crimes, many of which were lesser in kind than this alleged wholesale massacre of children. Yet nowhere does Josephus mention this slaughter, even though he would have been in a position to know of one had one happened, and even though he would have every reason to mention it.

5) The faked "prophesies" from Isaiah (Matthew 1:22) and Hosea (Matthew 1:14-15) which had no basis in the original Old Testament texts.

6) Matthew's unbelievable story of the soldiers who were told to guard the tomb so no one would steal the body of Jesus (Matthew 27:62-66; 28:11-15). Is Pilate really expected to believe these soldiers, that the body of Jesus is missing because he arose the grave? Pilate would conclude no such thing. He would sentence them to death for dereliction of duty.

7) Luke's gospel also eliminated the unbelievable story (in Matthew 27:51-53) that Old Testament saints were resurrected along with Jesus and walked around Jerusalem, which no one had ever seen, nor attended their funerals upon dying a second time.

Do you see any others?

To read more about the first five deletions above see my Secular Web Page article, Hail Mary: Was Virgin Mary Truly the Mother of God’s Son?