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.
AND: This post was written as a serious invitation to contemplate Kirk as a saint. He presented his efforts as for his faith. Asked how he would want to be remembered, if he were to die, he said: "I want to be remembered for courage for my faith. That would be the most important thing."
पोस्ट्स
६१ टिप्पण्या:
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.
RFK Jr is Catholic. Trump Jr is Presbyterian. Kirk was Evangelical Christian.
This statement reads Roman Catholic to me. RFK Jr’s dad & uncle were assassinated. With the angels in paradise is a common Catholic view of death. Basic beatification.
I don't see anything about sainthood or canonization in Trump's and Kennedy's comments. Jumping from "he was a good man" to talk about sainthood and canonization looks like some kind of "strawman." Perhaps not in the usual sense of attacking what Trump or Kennedy said, but it's certainly a distraction or diversion from what they were trying to say.
I suppose lawyers could use AI to anticipate what strategy the other side would follow, but when the opinionsphere is so large and has so many depraved corners, do we really need to inject robot-derived arguments into the messy mix? "Look over at Althouse! They're saying Charlie Kirk should be canonized!"
I'd heard the name Charlie Kirk associated with something called "Turning Point USA" but I didn't know more or pay attention, so I feel like I walked into the wrong funeral enough as it is.
A priest, a minister and a rabbi were walking down the street and encountered a drunk lying in the gutter.
The priest and the minister pretended not to notice, but the rabbi stopped to see if he could help her.
The rabbi caught up later, and remarked, "They don't make drunks like they used to."
1. Some people take religion literally.
When it comes to Christianity it's either all real, or all bullshit. There is not in-between.
I believe Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead for the forgiveness of sins and so we all can go to Heaven. This is the biggest miracle in the Bible. Parting of the Red Sea was chicken shit compared to The Resurrection.
So, I guess in that sense I take it literally. I don't know what to think about the 6-Day creation in Genesis. I don't really care. The revolution of Jesus Christ in the Gospels is everything.
When it comes to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, I'm in category number 1. Come on in professor. There's plenty of room and water is warm. All are welcome.
Path from tolerant to intolerant. Place your pointers
tolerant sympathetic interested prejudiced intolerant
The radio news, always lefty, is pumping up the respective minutes of silence for 9/11 celebrations. There are different minutes for different groups.
Wittgenstein on Christianity literally
``Kierkegaard writes: `If Christianity were so easy and cozy, why should God in his Scriptures have set Heaven and Earth in motion and threatened eternal punishments?' - Question: But in that case why is this Scripture so unclear? If we want to warn someone of a terrible danger, do we go about it by telling him a riddle whose solution will be the warning? - But who is to say that the Scripture really is unclear? Isn't it possible that it was essential in this case to ``tell a riddle?'' And that, on the other hand, giving a more direct warning would necessarily have had the wrong effect? God has four people recount the life of his incarnate Son, in each case differently and with inconsistencies - but might we not say: It is important that this narrative should not be more than quite averagely historically plausible just so that this should not be taken as the essential, decisive thing? So that the letter should not be believed more strongly than is proper and the spirit may receive its due. I.e. what you are supposed to see cannot be communicated even by the best and most accurate historian; and therefore a mediocre account suffices, is even to be preferred. For that too can tell you what you are supposed to be told. (Roughly in the way a mediocre stage set can be better than a sophisticated one, painted trees better than real ones, - because these might distract from what matters).''
Be fruitful and multiply is a religious prime directive and evolutionary fitness function.
In Catholic school, we were taught that all in heaven (excluding God) are saints. Canonized saints are those that are recognized for a particular reason. The process of canonization is a specific process they go through to be recognized.
"1. Were they attesting to Charlie Kirk's sainthood?"
No. That's just the way that a lot of Christians talk about good people when the pass away.
I can only speak for the Catholic faith, but in the Catholic faith, someone has to performed a miracle to be considered for sainthood.
certainly a martyr, many of those were saints,
I think they are just saying that Charlie was a good man. He was murdered in the midst of doing good so it's reasonable to assume he went straight to heaven. I don't know exactly what RFK Jr and Donald Trump believe about eternal life. However, Catholics don't assume, we hope the person is in heaven, but continue to pray for his soul and all the souls of the faithful departed in case they have to spend some time being purified in Purgatory.
I take that statement by RFK Jr and Trump as a declaration of faith. Their faith is so strong that it is unequivocal and self assured, spoken as if it is objective truth.
I am not a Christian but I assume they are not speaking as members of clergy would, based on doctrine. I understand it as a statement of comfort for the family and a statement of love for a deceased friend. I am not familiar with the traditions of sainthood or the processes involved to the Christian soul after death. Purgatory, etc. (If there is an automatic state of purgatory then Charlie has already passed through because of his goodness.)
However despite the myriad differences between religions believers of all faiths have a shared belief that our lives do not cease at death. That's more a statement of a spiritual truth than any religious dogma.
Every traditional religion may originate with a claim and purpose of giving glory to God, some God, whichever God or Gods, but, as each religion progresses and is guided and administered by human beings, it seems to depart from the purely spiritual and decline toward a beset-by-human-frailties type of institution. There may be a God, there may be no God, who did or did not "create Heaven and Earth." I don't know; none of us on this earth knows, although some may believe it to be so. If that gives comfort, then it's well and good.
In my adult years, I discovered the works of Epictetus, the Stoic philosopher. You can find on the internet any number of translations of the Enchiridion.
At the core, his emphases on self-reliance and self-responsibility, on dealing with life and its travails as best one can and being content with what one has, and on being as kind to and honest with others as one would wish them to be to oneself, persuaded me that the best way to live my life is to understand that all my behavior lies within my control, and others' behavior is of concern to me only by and through my response to it.
At my death, if there is a Heaven, perhaps the manner in which I have lived my life will obtain me a place there; if there is no Heaven, then there will be nothing lost but a happy and contented and fulfilling life.
...a sampling of Epictetus' quotes:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/13852.Epictetus
The juxtaposition of questions 1 and 2 made me bristle when I first read them - they struck me as an attempt to make Trump and Kennedy sound as if *they* were suggesting that Kirk be canonized in the Catholic sense (in other words, that *they* were endeavoring to blur the lines between church and state, rather than simply expressing something commonly thought to be comforting to believers), which is not remotely what either one said.
I'm over it now, but more because I choose to be than because I realize it wasn't meant that way. I've been reading too many comments from people on the left, including the bizarre "HAH! Trump didn't order flags at half staff for Melissa Hortman and her husband!" - which, while true enough, also seems to me to reflect the differing status of the victims: a state legislator mostly unknown outside her state (and, I'd venture to guess, not universally known in it) versus a nationally known figure who changed the trajectory of the most consequential national election of this century.
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.
Is that all you got? What a ridiculous and shallow oversimplification of the great mysteries of existence, conscience, faith, love, triumph, tragedy, hate, joy and pain. Is your world really that flat?
OK, we normie people often say to family and friends of a person that had died that " they're in heaven with Jesus" . Its the polite and common comfort we offer them. I know it might be difficult for an elite college professor and lawyer to understand, but thats how its done. We know they're gone and if they're a person of faith they believe the dead are in heaven with Jesus. Not everyone in heaven is a saint, but its probably filled with more good people than we have right now.
Our hostess should learn the first rule of holes, stop digging. Maybe somewhere among last nite's and today's blog post Althouse praised Charlie Kirk for trying to show good faith arguments/discussions was the road to travel, but I didn't see them. Of course, her discourse is predicated on the Acela corridor of cess pool journalism. Further, from her blog, she only converses with her houseboy and pre-programmed "chat bots".
This is likely to be shit canned but, at least she had to read it first!
RFK’s comment which relies on Jesus’ story about Lazarus and the rich man is more Scripturally accurate than Trump’s which relies on Christian cliches about heaven.
I am in group 1 (and I don't see how Althouse's questions, which she has posed in one way or another several times over the years, are offensive or obnoxious, particularly since nobody here is, presumably, a real friend or even acquaintance of any of the Kirks).
My only interest in the Kennedy tweet was that I was happy to see that he didn't write 'and he's become an angel', as if such a thing is possible.
"So, I guess in that sense I take it literally. I don't know what to think about the 6-Day creation in Genesis. I don't really care. The revolution of Jesus Christ in the Gospels is everything."
When god created the universe he also created time, but god exists outside of time and so everything that has happened. Everything that is, and everything that will ever be is already known. I think the "six days" is a reflection of that understanding that all time and the universe belong to god.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
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.