A reality that breaks God’s heart

With yesterday’s introduction of GPT-5—the latest and most powerful version of the popular ChatGPT—artificial intelligence is back in the news, with the focus largely on how its advancements will impact day-to-day life. But while that story is important, today I’d like to discuss a more subtle way that AI is likely to change our lives going forward. Let’s start with GoLaxy, a Chinese company that would probably prefer to stay out of the news but has found itself at the center of a growing international controversy.

As Brett J. Goldstein and Brett. V. Benson—two professors at Vanderbilt University who specialize in international and national security—recently documented, GoLaxy is “emerging as a leader in technologically advanced, state-aligned influence campaigns, which deploy humanlike bot networks and psychological profiling to target individuals.”

They go on to note that the company—which denies any official connection with the Chinese government despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary—has been used in recent years to promote China’s preferred candidates and positions across elections in both Hong Kong and Taiwan.

GoLaxy works by mining social media to build profiles “customized to a person’s values, beliefs, emotional tendencies and vulnerabilities.” They then feed that information through their AI personas to engage in conversations that feel sufficiently authentic and human enough to largely evade the protections companies put in place to limit or identify AI activity.

As Goldstein and Benson describe, “The result is a highly efficient propaganda engine that’s designed to be nearly indistinguishable from legitimate online interaction, delivered instantaneously at a scale never before achieved.”

Now it appears they are looking to expand their efforts into the United States, with data suggesting that they’ve already built profiles on at least 117 members of Congress and more than 2,000 other political and cultural leaders. And if their past actions are any indication of their future intent, odds are good that they won’t stop there.

Fortunately, the reviews are mixed on just how influential their efforts have been to date. They will likely improve with time, but for now, they seem to represent more of a potential threat than an imminent one. However, the same cannot be said for a growing trend in AI that resides much closer to home.

“The AI companion who cares”

On this week’s inaugural episode of Faith & Clarity—our recently relaunched Denison Forum Podcast—we discussed the rise of AI companions and their increasing pervasiveness throughout our culture. While ChatGPT and others are driving much of the innovation in Artificial Intelligence, these companion bots have carved out a growing niche among some of our society’s most vulnerable.

Companies like Character.ai, Replika, and others offer users the chance to engage with AI personas tailored to their whims while promising a judgment-free interaction. Replika, for example, markets its bots as “The AI companion who cares. Always here to listen and talk. Always on your side.”

While there are a host of reasons why such promises should send a shiver down your spine, the fact is that these companies have identified a very real need in our culture, and the statistics prove that they are increasingly effective at meeting it.

As of December of last year, Character.ai users spent an average of 93 minutes a day chatting with bots, which is 18 minutes longer than the average user spent on TikTok—the gold standard for social media addiction. As AI improves, it’s easy to see a world where that number only grows larger.

But while users claim these conversations are “harmless fun and can be a lifeline for people coping with anxiety and isolation,” the truth is that they are often relied upon most heavily by those who are least equipped to use them well.

That’s a problem we cannot afford to ignore. But how should it be addressed?

A flaw in the system

The most tempting cure for the misuse of AI will be to try to curtail its use or control the degree to which those most vulnerable to its abuse can gain access. A good example of that solution at work is the Illinois law passed this week, which makes it illegal for AI chatbots to offer any therapeutic advice or communication. But while the idea has merit, I doubt it will do much to truly solve the issue.

You see, the problem is not the technology. It’s the people who use it.

As long as there are hurting people who would rather find affirmation in AI than real relationships with other humans, services like these will have a market. We can try to limit access or curtail what kinds of services they can offer, but the root cause will still remain.

Given that the yearning for an accountability-free community is as old as the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8), I doubt we’ll fix that particular flaw in the system anytime soon.

But if we can’t stop the desire for what AI offers and we can’t prevent companies from making it available, what can we do? The Gospels give us a good place to start.

A level of intimacy AI can’t touch

Jesus had a habit of meeting with people who were desperate for connection, rocked by insecurity, and yearning for acceptance. Whether it’s the woman at the well, the leper afraid to do more than shout from a distance, or Peter after he denied even knowing Jesus, many of the most memorable moments throughout Christ’s ministry were stories of him meeting broken people and making them whole once again.

Unfortunately, in this world, it seems like for every Peter, there’s a Judas: someone in desperate need of God’s grace but too trapped in his guilt and sin to seek it. And that is just as true when it comes to AI as it is for any other temptation we face.

At the end of the day, we can warn people of the dangers, point them toward healthier alternatives, and do our best to offer the kind of genuine community they need, but it’s still up to the individual to decide whether or not they will accept it. The same free will that leads some to salvation traps others in damnation.

That reality breaks God’s heart (2 Peter 3:9), and it should break ours as well. But it’s the truth.

At the same time, on this side of heaven, it will always be too soon to give up on a person who needs Jesus. Our job is to love those God brings across our path and make sure every facet of our lives points to the joy, peace, and contentment that can only be found in him.

But we can’t offer others what we don’t have ourselves.

So, take some time today to ask God to help you identify any areas in your life where you need his healing. Truly open your heart and soul to his Spirit, committing to make whatever changes he asks of you and surrender any aspects of your life that are not submitted to him. Then ask him to make you aware of anyone you meet today who needs the same healing as well.

While AI can mimic a host of human interactions, it will never approach the level of intimacy available through the Holy Spirit’s presence in our lives.

How well will your life reflect that reality today?

Quote of the day:

“Technology is per se neutral: but a race devoted to the increase of its own power by technology with complete indifference to ethics does seem to me a cancer in the Universe.” —C. S. Lewis

Our latest website resources:

• Major League Baseball’s first female umpire set to debut
• Meet the man who walked a high wire between the Twin Towers
• Why we need more “weeping prophets”
• Texas redistricting drama, American Eagle firestorm, lunar mission & top 10 burgers | CB Ep. 31
• 5 soldiers shot at Fort Stewart in Georgia

Denison Forum

Eighty years ago yesterday, the American B-29 bomber Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. In total, an estimated two hundred thousand people were killed.

Over the years, opinions have been sharply divided over whether the bombings were justified. According to Pew Research Center, 35 percent of Americans say they were, while 31 percent say they were not, and 33 percent are not sure.

So, on the anniversary of the only time nuclear bombs have ever been used in war, let’s ask if they were necessary. Then we’ll apply our discussion to an even more significant question, one that is relevant to each of us today.

Why this is so personal for me

By August 1945, it was clear that Japan had lost World War II. However, their leaders refused to surrender and instead had prepared to be invaded by Allied forces, recruiting civilians to fight alongside soldiers. Their purpose was to force the US to negotiate a peace that would leave Japan’s emperor and military government in power.

US President Harry Truman had four options:

1. Continue conventional bombing of the Japanese homelands. This had already caused an estimated 333,000 Japanese deaths with no move on Japan’s part to surrender.
2. Stage a ground invasion of the Japanese homelands. This would have caused “the largest bloodbath in American history,” with as many as a million American deaths.
3. Demonstrate the atomic bomb on an unpopulated area. However, there were only two bombs in existence at the time. If the test failed, Japan’s resolve would have been strengthened. And there was no way to know if such a demonstration would cause Japan to surrender.
4. Use the atomic bomb on a populated area. Truman chose cities primarily devoted to military production that were not centers of traditional cultural significance to Japan.

This issue could not be more personal for me, since my father fought the Japanese in the South Pacific. If an invasion of Japan had been attempted, he would likely have been among the soldiers staging the attack. And he would likely have been killed.

But there’s more to the story.

Averting “an even worse bloodbath”

In Atomic Salvation: How the A-Bomb Attacks Saved the Lives of 32 Million People, military historian and former naval officer Tom Lewis (PhD, strategic studies) examines what would have happened if the Allied forces had conducted a conventional invasion of Japan. He writes that an offensive in the manner by which Germany was defeated would have been “by amphibious assault, artillery, and air attacks preceding infantry insertion, and finally by subduing the last of the defenders of the enemy capital.”

By choosing to employ atomic bombs instead,

The deaths of two hundred thousand Japanese in the A-bomb attacks prevented the deaths of more than a million Allied troops, around 3.5 million dead in territories the Empire held, and around 28 million Japanese. Millions more on both sides would have been wounded (my emphasis).

He cites extensive data in great detail to support his conclusions. He also extensively documents the fact that Japan’s leaders and soldiers had no intention of surrendering to the Allies prior to the bombings; many did not want to do so even after the bombs fell. In fact, after the Japanese emperor chose to surrender, rebellions against his decision were staged in an attempt to continue the war.

Previous bombing raids had already killed more people than died as a result of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki strikes; such raids would likely have continued as part of a conventional assault and likely would have killed more people than the two atomic bombs. Lewis also documents evidence that Japan was working on a nuclear bomb when the war ended and responds in detail to arguments that the bombings were unnecessary for ending the war.

He quotes Japanese nuclear engineer Yoichi Yamamoto, who stated that if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, “millions more [from both sides] would have died. Japan was preparing to defend the homeland at all costs. . . . As terrible as they were, the American bombs averted an even worse bloodbath.”

The only way war will end

The Sixth Commandment, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13), expresses an impulse enshrined in civilizations across recorded history. We know instinctively that we must not condone the murder of others lest we be murdered.

And yet Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, killing 2,403 people and causing the death of over thirty million people in the Pacific theater. Hitler invaded Europe, murdered six million Jews, and caused the death of at least thirty-nine million people in the European theater.

Americans are not exempt. Our Civil War led to the deaths of 750,000 soldiers and more than 50,000 civilians. Nearly twenty-three thousand Americans were murdered in 2023.

From Cain and Abel to today, every person killed by another person is a loss grieved by their Maker (cf. Genesis 4:9). Conversely, every murder pleases the devil, who was “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). Our fallen, sinful human nature is powerless to resist fully his temptation to “steal and kill and destroy” (John 10:10).

This is why the gospel is so crucial, not just for our eternal life in the world to come, but for our flourishing in this world as well.

No one in human history but Jesus died for our sins, purchased our salvation, and promised to forgive our every failure, remake us as God’s children, and send his Spirit to live within us and transform us into his holy character. Only Jesus could turn a murderer like Saul into a missionary like Paul (cf. Acts 22:20–21). Only he could empower and impassion an English aristocrat like William Wilberforce and use him to abolish slavery in the British Empire. Only he can give us his sacrificial, selfless love for every person on our planet.

If we would submit our lives to his Spirit, murder and war would end. There would be no need for bombs to kill hundreds of thousands to prevent the deaths of millions. If all of us truly made Christ our Lord and truly lived by his word and will, imagine the impact on crime and culture. And imagine the “joy of the Lᴏʀᴅ” that would be our “strength” today (Nehemiah 8:10).

A prayer that changes everything

Jesus gave us the key to such joyful living in a simple prayer:

“Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).

Will you join me in praying these words from your heart right now, and then in aligning your actions with your words?

Your life, and our world, can never be the same.

Quote for the day:

“While you are proclaiming peace with your lips, be even more careful to have it even more fully in your heart.” —Francis of Assisi

Our latest website resources:

• 5 soldiers shot at Fort Stewart in Georgia: A meditation on mortality and the greatest gift we can give
• Biblical clarity on climate change, Ten Commandments in the classroom, and AI companions
• The dangerous rise of sports gambling: A cultural crisis in the making
• How does a healthy shepherd model rest?
• What do miracles, sinful lifestyles, and David’s heart for God teach us about faith in today’s world?

Denison Forum

Four options and a providential alternative

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considering ordering the complete reoccupation of the Gaza Strip, according to Israeli media. Israel’s security cabinet is due to meet tomorrow and would need to approve any such action.

However, senior officials have warned that the plan would endanger the remaining hostages, risk further international isolation of Israel, and require the IDF to administer a population in which Hamas fighters were still present.

The IDF says it already controls more than 75 percent of Gaza; according to the UN, only 12 percent of the enclave is outside the Israeli militarized zone or areas not affected by IDF evacuation orders. The majority of the population now lives in tent encampments in the southern part of the Strip.

The idea of Israel occupying all of Gaza raises several questions, chief among them:

What about the hostages?

Hamas abducted 251 hostages in the October 7 attack, of whom 202 have since been recovered. Twenty are presumed to be still alive, while twenty-nine are thought to be dead.

Video released by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad last week showed two hostages in a visibly fragile state. The International Red Cross said it was “appalled” by the videos and urged that the “dire situation must come to an end.”

However, negotiations for a ceasefire and hostage release deal have been stalled for some time. As a result, President Trump has reportedly given Mr. Netanyahu a green light to launch a more aggressive military operation against Hamas while making plans to significantly increase the US role in providing humanitarian aid in the enclave.

What are the alternatives?

Israel has insisted since October 7, 2023, that Hamas must be disarmed and dismantled and that all the hostages must be returned. They are now considering four options:

1. They could continue negotiations to secure the release of the hostages. Some speculate that reported plans to occupy all of Gaza are in fact a pressure tactic to force Hamas into a new deal. However, the terrorists have said they will not relinquish the hostages apart from guarantees of Hamas’s survival, which Israel sees as tantamount to permitting another Oct. 7 in the future.
2. The IDF could stage hostage rescue operations. However, the hostages are believed to be hidden deep underground in Hamas’s extensive tunnel network. And hostages freed from captivity have said that their captors were under orders to kill them if they thought Israeli troops were approaching.
3. Israel could clear the 75 percent of Gaza it controls and attack Hamas in the remaining 25 percent until submission. However, this will require operations in areas where hostages are currently being held.
4. The IDF could seek to control all of Gaza, including areas heavily fortified by Hamas. However, this increases the possibility of a rise in military casualties and puts the hostages at risk.

What Israel cannot do is continue the present stalemate. The hostages are getting weaker and public sentiment is rising for their return. Dr. Shay Har-Zvi, former acting director of Israel’s Strategic Affairs Ministry, warns: “If nothing is done, it will only get worse for Israel and for the hostages.”

Henry Kissinger famously observed, “The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose.”

An option I haven’t seen reported

As you can see, each of these options is fraught with potential disaster. As a result, let’s consider an option I haven’t seen reported by the secular media, but one with abundant biblical precedent.

When Samson was imprisoned in Gaza, he prayed for divine assistance and was then empowered to destroy the temple of their god Dagon and kill many Philistines (Judges 16:23–31). Similarly, when King Hezekiah “did what was right in the eyes of the Lᴏʀᴅ,” God empowered him and he “struck down the Philistines as far as Gaza and its territory, from watchtower to fortified city” (2 Kings 18:3, 8).

We can therefore pray for miraculous intervention by which the terrorists are defeated, the hostages liberated, and the Palestinian and Israeli people freed from Hamas’s despotic threat. God could do this through military means, as with Samson and Hezekiah. Or he could use political and cultural avenues.

For example, the leader of an independent Palestinian group in Gaza recently published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal stating that his movement opposes Hamas and seeks a peaceful future for their people. Top Palestinian officials in the West Bank similarly want to establish their own emirate, join the Abraham Accords, recognize the state of Israel, and secure peace for their people.

Perhaps God will use such leaders in Gaza to overthrow Hamas from within. Perhaps he will intervene miraculously to defeat them without further bloodshed. Perhaps the terrorists will experience a Damascus road-type spiritual awakening, turn to Christ, and repent of their atrocities. Perhaps God will act in yet another way to bring this crisis to a peaceful end.

“He may give us the more largely”

I don’t know how God might answer our prayers for Gaza. What I do know is that if we don’t pray, “You do not have because you do not ask” (James 4:2).

With the human options so limited, perhaps our Lord will redeem this horrible conflict by acting in ways that demonstrate his omnipotent providence. St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) noted,

“God does not delay to hear our prayers because he has no mind to give, but that, by enlarging our desires, he may give us the more largely.”

As a result, the greater our prayers, the greater God’s answers.

Will you pray for great answers from God today?

Quote for the day:

“The greatest tragedy of life is not unanswered prayer, but unoffered prayer.” —F. B. Meyer

Our latest website resources:

• Biblical clarity on climate change, Ten Commandments in the classroom, and AI companions
• President Trump comments on the Sydney Sweeney controversy: The issue behind the issue
• The dangerous rise of sports gambling: A cultural crisis in the making
• How does a healthy shepherd model rest?
• Deion Sanders’ most recent struggle transcends football
• What do miracles, sinful lifestyles, and David’s heart for God teach us about faith in today’s world?

Denison Forum