Questions I asked ChatGPT:
1. Were they attesting to Charlie Kirk's sainthood?
2. If you had to argue that Charlie Kirk should be canonized what would you say?
3. Outside of the Catholic Church how is sainthood talked about?
Answers here.
ADDED: Those questions were posed to ChatGPT, not Grok, as I'd written before. Here, I've given Grok a chance.
Posts
40 comments:
Regardless of your political affiliation or personal politics, this murder is horrific event.
In the Protestant world all believers are saints because we don't believe in Purgatory. At death we are present with the Lord, awaiting the new heavens and earth.
I have to say this is the most obnoxious post I’ve ever seen from Althouse.
Bad take Professor.
He’s commenting on basic Christian belief.
Faith.
I wouldn’t expect Grok to grok.
What KJE said above. They are not canonizing Charlie Kirk. It is a basic, baseline Christian belief. This is a really offensive post. I'm a bit shocked. But it's open season on mocking Christians. Even shooting them.
Three miracles, at least one of which is not a card trick.
In Catholicism, every person in heaven is a saint. So yes, they were saying he is a saint.
Canonization by the church just means we definitely know this person is in heaven.
Charlie Kirk in his own words.
Leftists and dedicated MSNBC-Loyalist Democratics - care to point out the "hate"?
Helping those who grieve this vicious heinous terrorist act - these are words of comfort.
Don't let a godless woman ask a braindead AI about saints. A Catholic priest would say "he's obviously not a saint" and then hit you in the head with a shoe as part of remedial education. And no, Tim- all Catholic saints go to heaven, but not all in heaven are saints. That might be an Anglican thing.
Democratic party still a terrorist organization.
The left's main artery of hate and lies - and recruitment is MSNBC.
Kirk is murdered by leftist demons - but lets pick apart the words of comfort.
"Helping those who grieve this vicious heinous terrorist act - these are words of comfort."
That's the AI take: words of comfort, not to be taken seriously.
Note the resonance with the discussion a few weeks ago about Trump's statement that he is hoping to do what it takes to gain entry into heaven: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2025/08/i-know-president-said-on-fox-news-this.html
1. Some people take religion literally.
2. Others think it's a myth to be used to feel better or gain other worldly benefits.
3. Many think it's just lying and/or self-deception.
If you are critical of this post, I would appreciate it if you'd speak authentically about which of those 3 groups you belong to.
Yes, a bit sick this one…let’s move on…
Feel free to restate the 3 groups so that the group most like yours properly expresses what you authentically believe. I know that presents a problem for many who are in group 2 because you kind of have to perform membership in group 1.
For all the saints, who from their labors rest…
Those who are criticizing me here seem from my point of view to be embarrassed by religion or unwilling to respect its power in public discourse. I remember Clarence Thomas saying: "I am often surprised at the extent to which people feel free to talk about religion as if it is something to be ashamed of, or to hide, or to keep out of public debate."
Religion refers to a behavioral protocol or model.
Faith refers to a logical domain of trust.
In secular religions, religious beliefs are dictated by kings, queens, politicians, teachers, experts, etc, or self.
It's fine to ask - Ann. But some of us are weary of wearing our religious or spiritual inner selves on our sleeves.
Because even the most strident believers in God - still do not know what the afterlife might bring.
In the mean time - a father of 2 little girls and a young vibrant kind speaker - was murdered by a terrorist organization.
I'm focused on the hell I wish for these assholes.
I'm no saint - that is for sure.
I stand by what I said previously - these are words of comfort for Charlie's wife and family. I can only imagine their inexplicable and heart-breaking grief.
I am grateful RFK jr. said them. Feel no desire to dissect them.
Were they attesting to Charlie Kirk's sainthood?
No, just his saintliness and martyrdom.
I'm quite serious in my inquiry here. I taught a class on Religion and the Constitution for 15 years. It's a major interest of mine. I'm exploring the rhetoric, the underlying beliefs, and the use of religion in politics. Click my "religion and politics" tag to view my 20+ history of blogging this topic.
I fit in the group that Kirk hasn’t been dead for 24 hours, and so long as the response isn’t violence or victim blaming; I find it obnoxious to be critical of the religion of those grieving. It didn’t look good for the Mayor of Minneapolis or Governor of California either, but it is fine to have the point of view. It is yours to have.
"Sainthood (canonization) is different from being in heaven as a believer after death. I don't see anyone calling Mr Kirk a "saint" except in a colloquial way."
Then you are not seeing me.
You are correct, I must be dense, because I do not see your point at all on sainthood.
As a lapsed Catholic, I see the death of a good man as a loss to the society he tried to improve. His status in the afterlife will be unkown to any of us until we die and we know our own status thereafter. Sainthood is just public acknowledgement by the Catholic Church recognizing the deceased led a life of holiness, including the performance of miracles through the intercession of God's grace. I don't think getting the youth vote to turn right was a miracle, nor was his good life necessarily saintly. Here's a bit of a primer on saintly intercession through our prayers for their aid in our lives. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-defend-the-intercession-of-the-saints
These questions are inane. So are your self-justifications. That's how I read it, whichever category you want to put me in. Inane.
I looked at RFK jr's post and read Trump's transcript. Other than Trump describing Kirk as a martyr, which is as often used as a secular designation as a religious one, where do you get this notion either man was suggesting Kirk was or should be a saint? I get you are posting your thoughts but you seem to be putting words in people's mouths, especially the first question.
The Catholic Church is the only institution that explicitly canonizes people these days and have a defined system for it. Various others recognize saints to some degree. the Episcopal/COE setup is wishy-washy. The Orthodox churches vote on it on synods so I guess its a system of sorts.
The Catholic Church could canonize a non-Catholic, and some Jewish biblical figures have been (Joseph, John the Baptist) but I cant think of any in modern times.
There is the famous post-apocalyptic novel, "A Canticle for Leibowitz", where the Church canonizes a Jew. It could happen.
"Religion refers to a behavioral protocol or model. Faith refers to a logical domain of trust."
It's fine to define your terms for your own writing or within organizations that you control, but it is not the definition that I am using here. I'm aware of various narrowing definitions like the one you're using, but I'm using "religion" broadly as I write this blog.
In legal discussions, your restriction of the term isn't what you'd want because the text of the Constitution says "freedom of religion." In all sorts of cases and other writings, you do not see this limitation of the word "religion" even when there are questions of conscience and freedom of thought in contrast to what might be in formal religions or organizations.
Frankly, the phrase "logical domain of trust" sounds very strange to me. When I google it, I get 4 hits, 2 of which are to YOUR comments on MY blog. The other 2 are YOUR comments on a couple of other blogs!
I'm sure "logical domain of trust" means something to you. Good luck!
I think the word "saint" among the Protestants is much more casually used. Is the song "When The Saints Come Marching In" about the individuals who have been canonized by the Catholic Church. My first question to AI was serious, but I got stuck with an answer relating to Catholic procedures of canonization. Hence the second and third questions. I come from a Protestant background — originally Presbyterian (through my father, with a mother who grew up Methodist).
I'm a believer, Protestant, and Lutheran. Basic protestant belief is that every saved person is a saint. A lot of them don't realize it though and are incredulous when you tell them that.
"1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,
To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:"
Phillipians 1:1
"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:"
Corinthians 1:2
"Is the song "When The Saints Come Marching In" about the individuals who have been canonized by the Catholic Church."
No. It is a traditional Gospel song about Christians going to heaven after judgement day.
I have been complaining for a while that my denomination (Episcopalian) has lots of people killed by the Right on its Kalendar (basically feast days of saints, although a less laborious process than the RC canonization), and hardly any killed by the Left. For example, Romero was instantly put on there; but out of all the Christians killed by Commies, only Patriarch Tikhon. It even has Joan of Arc and the English Catholic martyrs now, ffs.
I'm going to start a process to get Kirk (pbuh) put on the Kalendar as a man killed for his peaceful witnessing. Make them say no. JSM
"A lot of them don't realize it though and are incredulous when you tell them that."
That's nothing though compared to how some Christians sputter and rear back when you point out that the Bible is quite clear about God commanding Adam and Eve to have sex in the Garden of Eden before the fall.
I think it’s wrong to attack AA for her questions. She’s being analytical, as she does.
Like many here, I’ve spent much time on my beliefs, and don't care to share them publicly. Too complex; too personal in this context. We all use our heart, soul, and brain to create our internal approach to life and death. For me, “The peace that passeth all understanding” , along with the summation of our life, and yes, miraculous experiences works.
I was challenged by a sermon by W W Wimberly when he said of funeral soothing like “ she’s in heaven now, and all that other sugary pap”. Now what do I say?
Useful information: the YouTube video of David Suchet reading the Gospel of John to a packed Westminster Cathedral. Please, just listen.
1. Some people take religion literally.
2. Others think it's a myth to be used to feel better or gain other worldly benefits.
3. Many think it's just lying and/or self-deception.
If you are critical of this post, I would appreciate it if you'd speak authentically about which of those 3 groups you belong to.
None of the above. I'm Agnostic. I don't know if there is God or not. If there is an actual Heaven or Hell...or even any state of existence after death.
I would like to think that a life well lived is rewarded in some way and that a life of evil intent is not...but if not...why not live that well lived life? What can it hurt to be kind, caring and do no harm?
What I do know is that people in Class 1,2 ,and 3 have a right to their opinions....but not the right to force others to have the same opinions. I may not agree with their opinions, but I have the right to be left alone in mine or my. I won't argue with them...because time is too short.
I am critical about denigrating people about subjects that we have no proof of...one way or the other.
Buwaya, Liebowitz converted and became a monk to preserve his life and knowledge. The post apocalyptic RCs accepted his profession of faith at face value and started canonization to further protect his discoveries. Similar happened in the other post apocalyptic period after the fall of Rome. JSM
I just want to tell you how grateful I am that you’re doing the comparison between grok and ChatGPT.
It’s a job that needs to be done.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.