Ladies and gentlemen, what is about to happen, I want to make it very clear, is not my fault. What is about to happen is not my fault. It is because someone sent me an email asking me to do this. So I'm not going to give their name, but if this goes really, really bad, it's their fault. If it goes really, really well, I get all the credit. So if it goes bad, it's their fault. If it goes well, I get the credit. Do you think that'll work? But I do apologize because I don't really know exactly what's about to happen. But we're going to find out together. And I'm doing this because of an email that I received. And I'll tell you about that email, tell you what we're going to do right after I say welcome, everyone. It is Tuesday, January the 14th, 2025. It is currently 12.03 p.m. Central Time. And I am coming to you live. from the Theology Central Studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. All right, so are you ready? Are you ready for this? I hope so. I've got pencils, paper, notebooks, Bibles. I've got everything we could possibly need. I think I'm ready to go. The most important thing I have here, this is very important, is I have my iPad here. with artificial intelligence ready to go, right? So we're going to be using AI. Remember 2025, it's going to be really the year of AI. We've been talking about that. But here's what's going on. At 6.53 a.m. in the morning, 6.53 a.m. central time, I received the following email. Here's the subject line. AI can't handle. God gave it to us to use. AI can't handle. God gave it to us to use. Now, what AI can't handle is a sermon entitled, God gave it to us to use. Now, when it says God gave it to us to use, they're not talking about artificial intelligence, but the person sent me this email saying, AI can't handle this sermon entitled, God gave it to us to use. Here's how AI reads. Here's how the email reads. AI could not handle this sermon." Now, obviously, someone knows if you tell me, hey, this AI can't handle this, they know that's smart. That's a very manipulative way to get me to ensure that I'm going to turn on the microphone to go, well, let's find out together, right? So we're going to find out together if AI can actually handle a sermon entitled, God Gave it to Us to use. More from the email. This sermon uses the common everyday case jackknife as a metaphor for spirituality and ways I think AI could not. And they put the word G-R-O-K. I'm not familiar with that phrase. But I think what they're implying here, in fact, let me just look up the word. I didn't even realize that word was there. Understanding something, right? Okay, so understanding. It's the word grok. It's the word grok, okay? So let me go back to the email. This sermon uses the common everyday case jackknife as a metaphor for spirituality in ways I think AI could not grok. The preacher is a mountain man, a tree cutter, speaking to other mountain men. He uses an object that all of them are familiar with, a common pocket knife, and builds an elaborate metaphor for Christian life. You ought to do an AI review of this sermon and see if AI could even understand it. This sermon is truly something AI would never produce or understand. It relies on a shared cultural reference points AI wouldn't even know about. Now that's an interesting approach. Now, there's a lot of things here that fascinates me about this email is one, yes, when people preach, We do have a tendency that in our preaching, there's going to be kind of a cultural perspective, our cultural upbringing, the culture that we find ourselves in. That does impact our preaching. Now, we could argue We could debate whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. It's a good thing because if I'm speaking about a shared cultural experience or a shared cultural item, then everyone listening is going to get it and everyone's going to understand and it's going to be somewhat impactful. And so I can bring that to a sermon where AI cannot necessarily do that. Now that is true. But there is a negative aspect, because sometimes our cultural upbringing, our cultural surroundings, can impact how we actually interpret Scripture. That's why—and just think about this. I mean, I think this is a fact-based statement. I don't think anyone can accuse me of not being fact-based here. If you go to a church, that's located in a more liberal area or in another country. They're not going to be preaching sermons, most likely, that's supporting gun ownership, the use of a gun. That's not going to be because it's not rooted and grounded in gun culture. Now, if you go to a church here in West Texas, not only will the church at times promote and defend gun ownership and their sermons, The churches themselves may be giving away like an AR-15, because that happens here in West Texas, where the churches are literally giving away a gun. Now, that means your cultural upbringing, your cultural surroundings, is impacting your approach to Christianity. Because whether we like it or not, we like to shape Christianity, mold Christianity, and making it conform to our culture. That's why when you hear sermons that comes from maybe certain parts of the South, the way they preach, the things they say will be radically different than a sermon that comes from somewhere in the North or in another country. Culture shapes our approach to Christianity. I will argue that's not a good thing. because Christianity should be, the truths of Christianity and Christianity should be, it should transcend our culture. We should not bring our culture to Christianity. We bring Christianity to our culture. We don't take our culture and read it into Christianity or force it or force Christianity to conform to it. Our culture should conform to Christianity. Now, I think there's a problem to me personally, but this sermon clearly is coming from a certain cultural setting, a perspective. Again, the preacher is a mountain man, according to this email. He's a tree cutter, and he speaks to other mountain men, and he uses an object that all of them are familiar with, a common pocket knife, and builds an elaborate metaphor for the Christian life. Now, it says, this sermon is truly something AI would never produce or understand because it relies on a shared cultural reference point. Now you're right, AI is not going to produce something utilizing a shared cultural reference point. But in some ways that's a good thing because it's not influenced by a shared cultural reference point. It's going to, AI is going to approach the text by, here's what the text says, here are the words that it uses. It's going to give me history, cultural context of the text. It's not going to be bringing any shared cultural reference point to the text. It's going to be bringing the meaning of the text to my culture. That's where I think AI strength is. It doesn't have all of that baggage. Now that baggage may make for more interesting preaching. It may make it entertaining. It may make it sound, and I mean it's true. Listen to someone preaching from United Kingdom versus someone preaching from West Texas. Sounds so radically different. And that can be interesting from a cultural perspective. It can be entertaining. It can be fascinating. but how is it actually shaping the interpretation of scripture? I think that there's a lot there for us to consider. So this email fascinated me because it brings all of these issues right to the forefront, right? So, but I'm interested to go, can AI actually handle this? Well, I gave the sermon to AI. I gave the sermon to AI and I have here, I don't even know how many pages. If I was to print this out, It may be 15 pages, it may be 15 pages, maybe 10, I don't know. It would be hard to know. There's a lot here, but here is what you need to understand, right? I really want to drive this point home because since we've been talking about artificial intelligence. If you perceive, and I'm not saying that the emailer perceives it this way, I'm talking to anyone and everyone. If anyone perceives artificial intelligence is basically just a fancy Google search, you have missed the point entirely. Artificial intelligence gives you the ability not only to ask it questions, but you can engage in an ongoing conversation about it. It will reason with you. It can give you something. You can challenge its conclusion. It will challenge your conclusions. You can reason with it. That is the strong point. So when it comes to the Bible or theology, here's where I think AI is so strong. is I can engage AI in a theological discussion, a theological almost debate, a theological we can reason together. It can offer me this, and then I can say this, and it can tell me if my idea is good or if my idea is bad, or it can offer me a counter perspective, and then I can challenge its counter perspective. AI is great for doing theology. If all you want is simply like look something up and then someone feeds you what you want to find or what agrees with your theology, well then you can use Google and just find the sources that agrees with you. AI is much more for those who want to engage in reason and discuss and struggle. So what happened here is AI gave me its basic overview of the sermon. It handled the sermon with no problem. It handled the knife thing with no problem. It handled it perfectly, but it kind of gave me how the sermon was approaching a certain passage of Scripture, and then I begin to challenge AI on how most Christians handled this passage of scripture, and me and AI went back and forth. So what I'm going to do is we're going to do a little bit of the sermon review, right? You're going to clearly hear a sermon coming from a certain cultural reference point. You're going to hear the culture in the sermon, right? You're going to hear it. And I want you to think about how culture impacts Christianity. How has your Christianity been shaped by your culture, your upbringing, I really want you to think about that because it probably has impacted it far more than you would even imagine. So I want you to really think about that. And I've challenged the people where I have ministered most of my adult life here in West Texas. Now, the thing is, is even though I was born and raised in Texas, in many cases, I don't share the same cultural perspective as the people I've ministered to. I don't. I tend to be at odds with it, right? And what I've always tried to tell the people is, look, you know what? My cultural perspective, your cultural perspective, none of that matters. We're here to learn what the scriptures say, and your cultural perspective and my cultural perspective should not be shaping, molding, or influencing our handling of scripture and handling our understanding of Christianity. Christianity is supposed to transcend nationality, race, culture. It's supposed to be above it, not molded by it. I really do believe that. And I think that that's the thing. In the church, everyone has their different cultural perspectives and their different upbringings. But when it comes down to it, we're going to open up the Bible and figure out what the Bible says. And you know what? It may go against your cultural upbringing. It may go against your cultural perspective. And it may go against mine. But what we have a tendency to do is like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I want it to be pro-Republican, pro-Trump, pro-gun, pro... And it's like, well, maybe it's not gonna fit that cultural kind of perspective. And, well, but people can make it do that. And if all we're doing is creating a Christianity in our own image, is that not a problem? I think AI is not, to me, it's more free of that. Obviously, it's still influenced by things because it's pulling information, but it doesn't have that built into it in a sense. So this is going to be fascinating, but my goal here is to do this, is to show you how AI handles the sermon, but really to take you through my ongoing discussion with AI in regards to some of the theology mentioned in the sermon. I want you to see how AI is used for discussion. It's not just to look something up. It's not just to say, hey, you can use it as a fancy search engine, but the real beauty of it, the power of it, is in the arguing, debating, discussing. That's where things get interesting, all right? But let's jump into this and we'll see. This is not a long sermon. Now, remember the goal here is not to do a full sermon review. The goal here is to just kind of get you the basic idea, the basic thesis, the basic concept. And then from that, I'm gonna let you see or I'll read to you how AI handles all of this. And then we will just go through my discussion with AI. And then if we need to, we can come back to the sermon. The goal here is not to necessarily do a full review. Again, the sermon is called, God Gave it to Us to Use. God gave it to us to use. Here is how it begins. of this place. Say it every time we're here. The Lord has been good to our church. He's blessed our church far more than we're worthy, far more than we deserve. James chapter number two, verse number 14, find your place. Very familiar scripture. James two, verse number 14. Prophet, my brethren, even though a man say he hath faith and hath not works, can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them to part in peace, be ye warmed and filled, notwithstanding you give them not those things which are needful to the body, even what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead. being alone. And a man may say, thou hast faith and I have works, show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God, thou doest well the devils also believe and tremble, even bewilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead. That's all that I'll read tonight. You know how I am. There's times when the Lord's got to give me natural, everyday things. Give me the spiritual side of it. Don't want to embarrass Him and anyone tonight. Okay, now there was a lot of amening as he was reading all of that. I have now my gut feeling is when they hear James 2, 14 through 26, that faith without works is dead, then they are going to go with the, I'm assuming they're going with the basic fundamentalist evangelical Christian mindset that this means that you have to have works to prove that you are saved and if you don't have enough works then you were never saved. That is the common understanding And of course, when everyone hears that, they're like, amen, amen, amen. Okay, and I immediately, first, I reject this entire approach to this text, but that's my gut feeling, right? Because to me, whenever you get to James 2, 14 through 26, my approach would be like, guys, we've got, stop the amening. We got a very complicated, convoluted text in front of us. that is not easy to understand, and it has caused major problems, divisions, and debates throughout 2,000 years of church history, ladies and gentlemen. This is going to take us a long time. This is going to be difficult. This is going to be tedious. We're going to have to do some serious work. But everybody's just like, amen, because I just think. Everyone's already operating on a basic theological and interpretive assumption, which I think is problematic. And I think it's been problematic for 2,000 years, and nobody wants to struggle. Well, there have been those in church history that have struggled with it, but for the most part, everyone just assumes that they know what it means. You get into any discussion with Christians, Faith without works is dead. And they just throw it out there basically to call someone's salvation into question. Well, they're not saved. They're not saved. They love to do that. It's like the go-to. It's like they just carry it around in their holster. And like, oh, that person. Pow! They pull out the gun and shoot. James 2, 14. Faith without works is dead. They're not saved. And it's like, wow, I'm glad you get to walk around telling everyone who they're not saved. I don't like the approach to the text. That's my feeling. But that's the basic assumption going into this. I cannot prove that as of now because I haven't listened to the sermon, but that's the feeling I get. I'm already getting nervous with all of the amens and all about this. All right, but no. So now he's stating that God And I don't know how he exactly means this, gives him normal objects so that he can find a spiritual meaning. I don't think he's saying God is giving him the spiritual meaning of common objects. Now, because the minute you go with God giving you something, then of course, no one can criticize it if it comes from God. You know my problems with that in preaching. I don't think he's going that far to say that, but let's just see if he puts this at the, in a sense, at the feet of God. Let's see. I give you my heart. I'm going to leave this for just a minute. And so you pray for us. I guess it's about two years ago. They're on my birthday. Brandon, give me this knife. It's a case knife and it has a cross there inlaid in the handle. Used to say amazing grace on the handle. I have carried it so much that it's rubbed it off. Me and him was coon hunting not long after that. We killed a coon. I don't remember if he was going to skin him or cut his tail off or what he was going to do. But he asked me if I had a knife. I reached in my pocket and I pulled out that knife that he gave me. He didn't say nothing then. You know how we are. We like to joke all of us. We like to cut up a little bit. A little later on, we was here, I believe, might have been over at the fellowship hall. He began to tell somebody that he'd give me a collector's item. Wow, you can, this is the idea of a cultural, like, it's coming from a culture I would be I'd walk in there and I'd be like, what is happening here? You're going coon hunting? You're getting ready to ski? What is happening here? Like it's a completely opposite culture. Now, what I have to do as a human, now this is where the hard part for me being human, right? As a human being, when you hear sermons coming from a certain culture, you've got to allow yourself to hear the scripture, the theology, and not just either so enjoy or so in line with that culture that it just makes you agree with everything in the sermon, or you're so foreign to the culture or oppose the culture or don't like the culture that you just immediately reject the theology or the preaching from it. You got to look past the cultural trappings or the cultural robe, the cultural robe that's wrapped around the theology and the preaching. You've got to set that aside. You've got to hear the theology. You can't allow the kind of what it's dressed up in. I mean, he's got his voice, his way of speaking, his accent. I mean, everything about it. I mean, this used to happen to J. Vernon McGee. Sometimes people would criticize him and not like his preaching because of his accent. That can happen, whether we want to admit it or not, that can happen. When you're listening to sermons, you've got to just set aside what it's dressed up in. Because people, the pastor's culture, the pastor's personality, it's going to come through. And sometimes that gets actually in the way of the text. This is where, if you want to talk about AI, AI doesn't have this problem. It's just going to get you to the text. You're not going to get, it's not going to be wrapped up in some kind of cultural robe. So this cultural robe, some people would immediately turned off and just like, what is this? And just be done. So we got to set that aside and say, okay, just get to the text, get to where he's going and not allow any of these trappings to either draw us in or to push us away because they're not important. What's important is how is James 2, 14 through 26 going to be handled? I was using it. And me being the nice man that I am, I said, Brandon, if you give me something, I'm going to use it. Well, on that same day that Brandon gave me that case knife, Boyd come walking to me out in the parking lot, handed me this one here. This is a Kirkshaw. Boyd, now he didn't tell me to go home and put it in the drawer. He handed it to me. He never said happy birthday. But he handed me that knife and this is the words that he said, I'm giving you this to use. And so if the Lord would help me, that's what I'm gonna give you for a little while tonight, is God give it to us to use. Amen. He give it to us to use, James. Okay, now the people are just amen-ing everything. I think he could just be like, I went to the refrigerator to get a drink, everybody be like, amen! Okay, like, the amen-ing here, I appreciate the enthusiasm, but he's just amen-ing everything. Okay, but, so he says it a lot better. When I read the email, God gave it to us to use, the way he says it comes across more, God gave it to us to use. It sounds more like, I was stumbling. God gave it to us to use. The way he says it comes across much better than the way I say it. The way I say it doesn't. I was reading it and it didn't flow, right? I have to really enunciate. God gave it to us to use. If I just say, God gave it to us to use, I guess I have to really think about it, right? But, all right, sounds good, sounds great. I think you see where this is going, all right? He was given knives to use. Now God gives us something to use. Now, I got questions. Is the thing God gave us to use, is our faith? So God gives us the faith, that would mean that us receiving faith is a work of a sovereign God. Now, are we to do the rest? Is this a synergistic approach? Clearly, it seems like it's definitely not going in a monergistic way. All right, I already got some theological ideas in my head. Let's just see where it goes. I tried my best there Sunday morning to talk about the trying of our faith. Sunday night rolled around and I talked about how when our faith is tried, it will be worth it. But I'm afraid, honey, that we're in a time where we don't want to use the faith that God has given us. As much as I love Brandon and he give me this, amen, I believe, amen, out of the bottom of his heart. Amen to Brandon, I love you, brother. But when he give me this knife, he fully expected, I believe, for me to, amen, to set it up somewhere, Alan. And to look at it and look at how pretty it was. Amen, to just walk by and glance at it from time to time. But you know what I've done, Todd? Wow, man, I think the guy's gonna have a stroke. I mean he's gonna have a Heart attack. Okay. He's breathing. Okay. All right, so but but Once again, I'm using this to show you the difference between AI and sermons. Now, we've talked about the cultural aspect. AI is not going to have it wrapped in a robe of a cultural feel, right? This has a cultural feel all over it. But notice what else. preaching style. Now see what I have to do, he's like... He's got this flow, this rhythm, right? And taking these deep breaths. Now guess what? That to me is so distracting. That to me is like, whoa, can I like that? I'm just going to be honest. There's a part of me that just wants to immediately just say, you know what? Just forget it. Just forget it. Let's just stop. Right. Because that's just I can't that that goes against everything. Now there's other people who see what I just did. I cut myself off in mid sentence. That drives some people crazy when I do that. I'll get emails. You didn't finish your sentence. You cut yourself off. Slow down. Don't get so loud because there are certain things about my style that drives people insane. People hate sometimes that I'm too repetitive or some people say that, my, I'm too overdramatic and it's fake and it's theatric. And so guess what? When it comes to preaching, this is another shortcoming that AI does not have. AI doesn't have a preaching style. It's just going to give me the facts. It's just going to give me the breakdown, the exegesis, the hermeneutics, the geography, the cross-referencing, the cultural context, the textual context. So there's no preaching style to either For someone to like, to love, or for someone to hate. I'm just going to be honest with you. I could not listen to a lot of this preaching. Now that's on me. That's my own personal likes. You could call it my own personal bias. It's just like this rhythm. I'd be like, oh, come on, can we just talk here? Now you can get excited, but see, then other people would want someone to even be more subtle, more tame, more quiet. Other people want someone more excited. That's why people are drawn to personalities. Some people's favorite preacher is more about the personality than we ever want to admit. Some people choose a church because of everything other than theology. So here's this style. Now, at this point, I mean, so God wants us to use what he gives us. So it sounds like what he's saying is God, he seems to be at least acknowledging God gives us faith. So he seems to be, I would be, it would be hard for me to believe they're coming at this from a reformed perspective. So I don't know if he understands the implications of that. If God is the one who grants faith, maybe they would do it this way. God grants the faith for the one who asks for it. then what makes you want to ask for it? Okay, well, yeah, we can get into an argument between Calvinism and—okay, well, we'll just—obviously, he's not going to get—this is not going to be very theologically in-depth, I don't think, but let's see where this goes, and we're just going to see if he gets a little bit—he's not really yet defined what it means that faith without works is dead. Dead in what way? Let's just see where he goes. What are you made to do? Are you oweing me? And honey, God did not give us that measure of faith. Or to hang up on the shelf somewhere. And to walk by when church time comes around. Amen, and look at it, how shiny it is. And you know what I found a lot of times? Amen, the shinier it is. Honey, it ain't worth 15 cents. Man, ain't that right? Oh, honey, you know what? This one. Hey, man, I ain't broke. Hey, I done told you, hey, man, I've worn the letters off. Hey, man, the blade's been a little bent, but I've used it. Hey, man, you know why? It was more than just an ornament to me. Hey, man, I believe Paul and for us, now we're rednecks. Hey, man, but a pocket knife is just part of us. That's just part of who we are. I'm going to school, and there's a knife in my pocket. It's not I trying to disobey. It's just it was had that I was raised. Aiming to stick one in my pocket, but I will. But honey, here we are. Aiming into here it is. 2025. And Brother Faith has put on the back burner. And a lot of times the only time that men and women won't talk is when they need it. Okay, well That that's hard to listen to I I I don't know if we're going to get anywhere there, right? So what I'm going to do is I'm going to go to AI here and have AI break this down for us. You can go listen to that, but I think that's just going to be that style. Whoa, man, that is, that's difficult to listen to. It's just like, duh-duh-duh-duh-duh, duh-duh-duh-duh-duh, duh-duh-duh-duh, and it's just, and I mean, it's all, I don't even know where it's going. It's, I, wow, I don't even know what you do with that, right? You do what you want to do with it. The sermon is called God Gave It to Us to Use. You go listen to it. I mean, you go download it and listen to it. It's available in the Sermons 2.0 app, Sermon Audio website. You go do that. what I'm going to do is just now kind of get into a well what we'll do I'll let it play just a little bit longer just a little bit longer so that you just so that no one feels that I cut it off too early. I've been in places where I needed a nap, and it wasn't there. Amen, we had. We preached a ten-minute night at Ball Creek. It started to rain, man. It was hot in there, they say, man. It started to rain, the sides was rolled up. I couldn't untie the knot on the side. Hey, man, Alan was sitting there. I said, Alan, you got a knife. Alan pulled his knife out of his pocket. Hey, man, listen. Go with me tonight. Hey, man, we're in a time where we're depending on somebody else's place. Hey, man, somebody else's child or somebody else's soul. Hey, wouldn't God give it to us or to you? I don't, man, I don't, I don't know what you do with that ladies and gentlemen. Again, we can't allow the culture and we can't allow the style to distract us, but I'm just being honest with you. I, I, whoo. I don't know what to do with that. So I gave it to AI. I said, here you go, AI, let me know what to do here. So I gave it to AI. Now, I've told you before that the key to AI is your ability to ask it the right question. So many times when I see people say, well, I asked AI this or this or this, I always hear these criticisms. And sometimes I want to say, show me a screenshot of the conversation because Because in many cases, I'm like, I don't, that seems weird that that's what you're getting. So in this particular case, I downloaded the transcript, uploaded the transcript to AI. This is what I asked AI to do. Analyze, critique, summarize, outline, logical, theological, biblical, and hermeneutical errors. That's what I asked it to do. Here's what AI gave me. The sermon focuses on James 2, 14-26, emphasizing the relationship between faith and works. Using a metaphor of pocket knives giving as gifts, the preacher illustrates the idea that faith, like a tool, must be actively used rather than displayed or neglected. The sermon critiques modern Christianity for treating faith as an ornamental rather than functional, resulting in spiritual ineffectiveness. The preacher calls for believers to actively engage their faith, sharpen it through trials, and avoid becoming spiritually complacent. Now, guess what? I love that about AI. Look what I did. See, AI had nothing to say about style, nothing to say about its culture, its cultural robe that it was dressed in, nothing about the, none of that. See, when I review it, what did I do? I was drawn to the culture and the style. See where AI can review a sermon better than a human being can. You don't even need me to review sermons. I was drawn to those things. And look, I feel bad. Let me just make it honest. I feel bad. I feel sinful that I can't handle that style. I feel like that's not godly. I should be able to listen to that preaching and focus on the theology and the text and not Allah. But I'm being honest with you. That was going to drive me. If I would review that entire sermon, by the end, I would be so just frustrated and irritated. with all of that yelling and the breathing and sounding like he's going to pass out, have a heart attack. I could not do it, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just being honest with you. I could not do it. AI was able to break that down far better than I could because I would just be stopping it going, man, breathe, take a breath, just talk, just speak. So AI broke the sermon down into an outline. Here's what it gives me. Introduction. It references James 2, 14 through 26. Faith without works is dead. Personal anecdotes about receiving and using pocket knives as a metaphor for faith. Right? So it catches on that it's using it kind of as an illustration. Here's these personal stories. Hey, I received these knives. These knives is like a metaphor for faith. The knives are a metaphor for faith. Number two, this is AI breaking the entire sermon into an outline. Gives me the introduction. Now, faith as a tool. Faith is meant to be used, not displayed. Neglecting faith results in spiritual dullness and ineffectiveness. Personal responsibility for maintaining and using faith. So faith is given to us, we're supposed to use faith, and then it's our responsibility to maintain it and to use it. It's your responsibility to maintain your faith. If God is the author and finisher of our faith, is it my job to maintain it? See, this gets into a whole... See, this raises so many theological questions. And then how do you use your faith? All right, number three, critique of modern Christianity. Modern faith is often treated as ornamental or superficial. Reliance on others' faith instead of personal engagement, lack of, hang on, almost messed up AI here, lack of spiritual depth compared to past generations. So it critiques modern Christianity and so the critiques are modern faith is ornamental and superficial and it's kind of, you have a hard time here. That kind of preaching right there, to me, is the very definition of superficial. Yelling, screaming, everyone saying amen, and you're not even dealing with anything remotely close to the theology and the complexities of that. Isn't it funny that we are always good at saying, everyone else is superficial, everyone else is shallow, everyone else is not in depth, while we, maybe ourselves, demonstrate that we lack depth? Do you not find that kind of ironic? Here's a sermon that to me would be the very definition of superficial. It would be the very definition of shallow, superficial. surface, not even dealing with the theology. It's more motivational and I don't even know what it is. It's experiential than it is any like we're going to actually study and figure out James 2, 14 through 26. Look at textual context, historical context, how it's been handled throughout church history. None of that. I would say that's the example of superficial. reliance on others' faith instead of personal engagement, and then lack of spiritual depth compared to past generations. And now, the past generations had spiritual depth. Were they having spiritual depth when they were killing innocent people in Salem? Were they having spiritual depth when they were, I don't know, killing and taking the land that belonged to other people? I mean, I can go on through horrible things that's happened in church history. Was that the sign of spiritual depth? The past generations had it. We don't. It's always older people want to criticize. The past generations were so good. When was that? When we were denying civil rights to people because of the skin color? When certain Christian colleges would not let people go to those schools if they were black? I mean, whoa, that's where they had great spiritual depth. Oh, now I probably offended some people. Is it back when certain Christian denominations supported slavery? Okay, well, it got quiet. Now it got quiet because I'm in an empty room, but yeah. Number four, sharpening faith. Trials as a means of refining and strengthening faith. The importance of scripture and spiritual discipline in keeping faith sharp. Well, if scripture is so important in keeping faith sharp, is that preaching? Is that the way you handle the text? You want to hear a little bit more of it? Look at it. Hey man. Hey. Hey man, Joe, you reckon? Hey man, what good that knife would do me? If it was in the sock drawer at your house, and I was way off in a thicket somewhere. Hey man, I had to cut my way out. You reckon that would be worth 15 cent to me then? Hey man. Amen. You know what we do with it a lot of times, Paul? We'll leave it laying right there. Amen. And when trouble comes, here we'll run. Amen. Grab ahold of it. Oh, Lord, help me. Oh, Lord, help my faith. Oh, Lord, help my unbelief. Amen. We'll move on. We'll march right back here and throw it back in the drawer again. That's what Israel's done. I mean, is that in-depth preaching? If the scriptures are so important to our faith, is that the handling of the scriptures? Number five, call to action, encouragement to actively use and maintain faith. Faith must be engaged to see spiritual growth and answered prayers. Personal accountability for spiritual dullness. Conclusion, faith is a gift from God intended for active use. So again, I don't know if they understand the theological implications of saying faith is a gift from God. I guess I could, since I went to schools that were very anti-Calvinistic, I went to schools that were Calvinistic, So I could probably shape this in a non-Calvinistic way about how faith can be given to us and not yet support Calvinism. It may get a little convoluted, but yeah, my theology believes that God grants us faith. It's not something we produce inside of us. But that raises, again, all kinds of theological implications. But all right. Believers must take responsibility for sharpening and applying their faith in a daily life. All right, so that's AI breaking it down. Now, the good thing is AI was able to break all of that down and I can actually hear and see the theology and critique it. Listening to that, I would have a hard time actually analyzing and critiquing it because once again, I'm admitting here that this is not a godly attitude. I can't listen to that, ladies and gentlemen, without just being so focused on how it's being preached. All right, so here AI says, here is the hermeneutical critique, theological and hermeneutical critique. Number one, faith and works relationship. The sermon emphasizes that faith without works is dead, aligning with James 2. However, it risks oversimplifying the theological tension between justification by faith and the necessity of works as evidence of genuine faith. A clear distinction between justification and sanctification would provide better theological balance. So guess what it basically is saying? It was not in depth. It oversimplifies. It was shallow. The very thing the sermon was criticizing, AI says it's guilty of. It's not dealing with these issues because this is the real issue. Faith without works is dead. What does that mean? metaphor use. While the 9th metaphor is relatable, it could inadvertently imply that faith's efficacy depends entirely on human effort. This could conflict with the biblical teaching that faith is both a gift from God and is sustained by His power. The metaphor needs clarification to avoid undermining divine grace. So AI is like, whoa, whoa, whoa, the metaphor, it may be relatable, but the problem is the metaphor makes it sound like it's up to us to maintain faith. And AI is like, wait a minute, God is the one who gives it to us, and he's the one who sustains it by his power. AI is in conflict with this sermon's approach to the whole concept, and it says the metaphor could lead to problems. That's the problem with metaphors. 3. Critique of Modern Christianity The sermon critiques contemporary faith practices, but it lacks nuance. It assumes that external behaviors—example, lack of shouting or visible enthusiasm—reflect spiritual dullness, which might not account for cultural or personal differences in worship expression. So, basically, if you're not acting like them, you're not yelling, you're not screaming, you're not hymning—if you're not doing all of that, well then, then you're spiritually dull. You're spiritually dead. You know what, someone can be just as spiritually alive sitting in a beautiful church with beautiful architecture, with ancient hymns, you know, and maybe even chanting, and it's silent. You do realize the expression of worship does not necessarily determine whether someone is spiritually alive or dead. When I was a Lutheran, right? And I worked with these women who are all charismatics. They would be like, oh, you go to—your church is dead. Your church doesn't even know that the Holy Spirit is left. Your church—you people are spiritually dead. It's like going to church to ice skate. There's no life. There's no passion, because they did not like the liturgical worship of Lutherans. And I'd be like, so I'm spiritually dead? How are you so much more spiritually alive than me? Come on, show me. Come on, come on. What is it about your life that you're so much more spiritual than me? What is it? What is it? What is it? Come on, tell me. Oh, because you speak in tongues and you raise your hands and you fall on the floor and you get slain in the spirit. Okay, so you're more spiritual. Now you looked at their lives, there was nothing more spiritual about any of their, there was nothing. But I was spiritually dead because we went and had a liturgical service. Oh, that's a mess, all right? So AI criticizes the sermon for that critique. Spiritual dullness and accountability. The preacher places full responsibility for spiritual dullness on the individual, neglecting systemic or external factors, poor teaching, cultural pressures. While personal accountability is essential, a more balanced view would acknowledge the role of the church community and the Holy Spirit in spiritual growth. So again, AI is challenging some of these approaches as not being nuanced, not going more in depth. Basically, the sermon is being oversimplistic while the sermon criticized. And it's just funny that the way it's being criticized for the very thing it was criticizing others for. Things related to implications about eschatology. The claim that strong faith in a small group could result in no lost souls worldwide is hyperbolic and lacks spiritual grounding. Wow, did you hear that? That if we all had strong faith, there would be no lost people in the world. I almost want to listen to the sermon to hear that. AI does not like this. It says it's hyperbolic and it lacks any biblical grounding. Faith is powerful. Salvation ultimately depends on God's sovereign work. AI looks at it from a sovereign perspective. So this is weird. So this sermon, if it says that if we had strong faith, there would be no lost souls, then that would mean, wait a minute, so my faith determines whether other people are going to believe or not believe? I thought faith was a gift from God. If God is the one who grants the faith, then my strong faith is not going to determine whether someone else believes or doesn't believe. So the sermon itself may have an internal logical problem. Logical errors. Overgeneralization. The sermon assumes all modern Christians neglect their faith, which may not be universally true. Sweeping statements about the 21st century or modern faith risk alienating listeners. It just overgeneralizes and criticizes. A false cause. The preacher implies that weak faith is the sole reason for unanswered prayers or lack of spiritual growth. This overlooks other biblical factors such as God's will. spiritual warfare, inconsistent application, while criticizing superficial displays of faith, the sermon occasionally equates visible action—shouting and running—with spiritual vitality, which could contradict his earlier points about genuine faith being more than an appearance. Ooh, that's good. Faith is not just an ornament, it's to be used. But then what does he look for to determine whether faith is actually being real? Ornamental things, running around, shouting, screaming. So AI catches that logical problems. Now AI here goes through suggestions for improvements, deeper application, balanced critique, clarify the theology in it, all kinds of problems. All right, but I'm gonna ask AI in real time. If the sermon claims faith is a gift from God, yet claims that if we have strong faith there would be no lost people isn't that contradictory and makes my faith My strong faith, hang on, the cause of others believing. If I can type right. Oh, come on. Why does it keep putting a, there we go. Now, let's see what A.I. has to say here. A.I. is thinking. All right. A.I. says, yes, the sermons claim that faith is a gift from God while also asserting that the strength of an individual's faith could result in no lost people is contradictory. This creates theological and logical inconsistencies as it shifts the responsibility for other salvation on the strength of believer's faith. So, AI says, let's break it down. Number one, faith is a gift from God. The Bible clearly teaches that faith is a gift from God, Ephesians 2, 8-9, and Philippians 1. If faith is a divine gift, its strength or weakness is ultimately under God's sovereign control. This undermines the idea that human effort or willpower can generate or increase faith independently. So, AI is like, there's a problem already, just from the outset of the entire sermon's premise. The contradiction. The sermon implies faith is a gift from God, a divine act of grace. The strength of a believer's faith could eliminate lostness in the world. These two ideas cannot logically coexist. If faith is a gift, then its strength is also determined by God, not by human effort. Therefore, no individual's strong faith can guarantee the salvation of others. If strong faith could prevent lostness, that would place the responsibility for salvation on human effort rather than God's sovereign work, which contradicts passages like John 6.44. Salvation is God's work, not ours. The Bible teaches that salvation is entirely the work of God. John 6.37, Acts 13.48, Romans 9.16. This means that no matter how strong or weak a believer's faith is, the salvation of others is not dependent on their faith but on God's sovereign grace and calling. the danger of the sermon's claim, a shifting responsibility. The sermon implies that if people remain lost, it is due to the failure of believers to have strong enough faith. This is a heavy burden that Scripture does not place on believers. It diminishes God's sovereignty and salvation and elevates human effort to a causative role. By tying the salvation of others to the strength of one's faith, the sermon unintentionally promotes a works-based mindset. This is inconsistent with the gospel of grace where God alone saves. Practical Confusion How does one measure a strong faith? This creates uncertainty and introspection as believers might endlessly question whether their faith is strong enough to lead others to salvation. a biblical alternative. So then it goes through and offers a biblical alternative to the sermon. So AI completely destroys the sermons, or it tears apart the sermons claims, shows that it's illogical and it's not biblical. Once again, AI beats another sermon. But I want you to show, what I really want to show here, we're almost at an hour. I don't think we're going to be able to get to it. What I want to show here is the discussion that me and AI had as a result of this sermon. So AI takes the sermon and just literally tears it apart, tears it apart. So then I ask it a question. When the sermon uses James 2 to say faith without works is dead, is it explained what dead means? AI says no, the sermon does not explicitly define what dead means in the context of James 2. The preacher uses the phrase faith without works is dead as a central theme but assumes the audience already understands the meaning of dead. The emphasis is placed on the practical application of faith, using faith actively like a tool, but there is no theological or exegetical explanation of what dead faith entails. So the sermon, again, does not go into any depth at all, doesn't explain anything, yet everyone's yelling and screaming and shouting. I don't know what they're yelling and screaming because do you even understand the text? possible implications of dead in context. To fully explore the concept dead in James 2 likely refers to faith that is ineffective or unproductive or lifeless, a faith that does not result in the works that naturally flow from genuine belief. Without works, such faith is not saving faith, but rather a mere intellectual acknowledgment as seen in James 2, verse 19. Now, immediately, this is where theological knowledge comes into play. As soon as I read AI's explanation there, let me read that to you again. To fully explore the concept of dead in James 2, it likely refers to faith that is ineffective, unproductive, or lifeless. A faith that does not result in works that naturally flow from genuine belief. Without work, such faith is not saving faith. Now, as soon as I see that with theological knowledge, I'm like, oh, it's taking that typical approach. I don't like that approach. So AI goes on to say a lot of other things. There's almost a page there. So I then challenge AI here. This is what I say. It is most common to teach dead means not saved. This creates a large number of philological problems. Now proof of salvation is based on a certain number of works in a person's life versus proof of salvation being based on the works of Christ. How does one know how many works prove salvation? In John 3, we have the story of Nicodemus, which seems to indicate that a person not saved can have good works and be outwardly moral, yet not saved. This would mean works then don't prove anything. So now here, me and AI are gonna go back and forth. We're gonna have a discussion here because I have a different approach. So this is what AI says. You are absolutely correct. That interpreting dead in James 2 to mean not saved does create significant theological and practical problems. This common teaching shifts the focus from salvation being based on the finished work of Christ to a performance-based evaluation of a believer's work. let's break this down. So then AI says, okay, let's break this down. This is what AI does. It says, theological problems with dead equals not safe. Faith without works is dead. That means a person is not safe. So this idea of dead equals not safe, this is the common teaching in Christianity. And AI, when it was putting together part of its response at the beginning, was giving me the common Christian response. But the good thing about AI is you can reason with it. You can discuss it. If it's pulling from stuff, it's gonna give you the most common information. I understand that. But now let's get into a discussion with it. All right, so here we go. shifting the basis of salvation. If salvation is proven by works, assurance of salvation becomes subjective. Believers are left questioning with, how many works are enough? What kind of works qualify? The shift focuses from Christ's work on the cross to human effort undermining justification by faith alone. So AI acknowledges if you go with faith without works is dead, and dead equals not saved, and so the way you know you're saved is based on works, well, it's going to lead to some logical problems. It at least acknowledges that. 2. AI acknowledges that this approach is inconsistent with the Gospel. The Gospel teaches that salvation is a gift from God, not a rewarding for works. Making works the proof of salvation risks conflating justification with sanctification. Misunderstanding Good Works John 3 in the story of Nicodemus highlights that outward morality and good works can exist apart from saving faith. Did you hear that? Outward morality and good works can exist apart from saving faith. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, morally upright and religiously devout. Yet Jesus told him he must be born again. This demonstrates that works alone do not prove salvation. The issue of false assurance. If works are the proof of salvation, what about those who appear outwardly righteous but lack true faith? Matthew 7, 22-23, Lord, Lord, didn't we do this? Didn't we do this? Didn't we do this? Depart from me, I never knew you. Meaning that in the case of Nicodemus and the case of Matthew 7, you got outward works, but no salvation. So that means outward works then? How does AI say it? A.I. says, Jesus warned that many who do works in his name may not truly know him. This would demonstrate what? That works does not necessarily prove anything. James 2 in context. Dead faith as an ineffective faith. James is addressing believers and discussing how faith manifests in practical ways. Dead faith likely refers to a faith that is barren or unproductive, not that it is nonexistent or unsaving. The analogy of a body without the spirit suggests that faith without works is lifeless, not necessarily non-existent or not saving. It's just not going to do anything in a practical way. Just because it doesn't do anything in a practical way doesn't mean someone is not saved because we are saved by faith, not by works. You wouldn't be saying works are required to prove that I'm saved, but in a roundabout way, you're just saying works is required to be saved. Faith and Justification James 2.24 states, you see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. However, this must be understood in light of the broader biblical context. Paul speaks of justification before God, emphasizing faith alone. James is speaking of justification before others, emphasizing the visible evidence of faith through works. Works are the natural outflow of genuine faith. They demonstrate faith to others but do not contribute to salvation. John 3 and Nicodemus. Nicodemus exemplifies the good works and morality can exist without faith. Nicodemus was a religious leader who followed the law meticulously, yet Jesus said he needed to be born again. This shows that good works, while commendable, are insufficient for salvation. And so works cannot prove salvation as they exist apart from saving faith. So AI now here is acknowledging there are some problems. So then it gives me some key takeaways, and it goes on for like another page, but for time I'm going to skip. So then I asked AI this question. If the works are supposedly produced by God in us, The lack of works would either be God's fault or would raise the question that even if someone has enough works to supposedly prove someone's salvation, it would still raise the question, if God is producing the work, why then aren't all Christians doing perfect works? If faith is from God and God is the one doing the work through us, then why isn't all of our works perfect? Well then, AI says, this is an excellent critique of the common teaching that works are proof of salvation. If works are produced by God in us, then several theological tensions arise. Let's explore these. 1. If works are produced by God, why is there a lack of works? If God is the one producing works and believers, then the absence of works could logically lead to one of two conclusions. God has failed to produce works and a believer, or the believer is resisting God, which would imply that human effort and cooperation play a role. Here's the theological problem. This view creates tension with God's sovereignty and omnipotence. If God is fully sovereign and omnipotent, how could his work in a believer's life fail to produce the desired result? On the other hand, if human cooperation is required, then salvation and sanctification become synergistic rather than monergistic, which conflicts with the idea of salvation being entirely of God. So immediately, these are theological issues that are raised if you'll just start having any kind of meaningful conversation struggling with James 2, 14 through 26. In this sermon that we heard, they didn't bother to get into any of these questions. 2. Why don't all Christians do perfect works? If God is the one producing works in believers, then the logical expectation would be that all Christians perform good works consistently. Produce works of perfect quality, reflecting God's perfect nature. The reality is that Christians continue to sin and fall short. If works are entirely God's doing, this raises all kinds of questions. Why are the works imperfect if they come from God? Why do Christians vary so greatly in the quantity and quality of their works? possible explanations. So it tries to give some possible explanations for all of this. It goes on. It says, works as a proof of salvation is a flawed measure. If works are the proof of salvation, several inconsistencies arise. Quantifying works How many works are enough to prove salvation? Scripture provides no objective standard. This creates subjectivity and an arbitrary measure leading to doubt and legalism. So, if you're going to make works the measure, AI is like, well, we got a problem here. The quality of works. Are all works equal in proving salvation? For example, does helping a neighbor carry the same weight as a lifelong missionary? If the quality of works varies, how can they reliably be proved salvation? False assurance. A person could produce outwardly good works without true faith. Works, then, cannot definitively prove salvation. If a person who's not saved can produce outwardly good works, well then, by logical implication, works, then, cannot prove salvation. Nicodemus' morality and religious devotion show that works can exist apart from saving faith. This demonstrates that works, by themselves, are not a sufficient evidence of salvation." So then, it goes on for about another half a page, and then I say this. Theologically, saying works are evidence seems still problematic to me. The only work that is evidence of salvation is the work of Christ. I know that puts me at odds with most of the Christian world, but if I'm not going to follow the Catholic teaching of justification based on an infused righteousness, and I'm going to follow justification based on an imputed righteousness, It seems my approach is the only way to make everything maintain some logical consistency and biblical consistency. So then I give AI basically my approach. So now AI is going to tear my approach apart, or it's going to either agree with me or disagree with me, just like it agreed or disagreed with the sermon. So here we go. This is what AI says. My perspective, your perspective. is deeply rooted in a commitment to maintain the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, grounded in the imputed righteousness of Christ. This approach avoids the pitfalls of both Catholic teaching on infused righteousness and the common Protestant emphasis on works as evidence of salvation. Let's unpack your position to see if it maintains logical and biblical consistency. So now AI—so we started with a sermon, but because I—you see what AI can do? After the sermon, we can reason about the topic of the sermon. So now we have reasoned ourselves all the way to the point where now AI is going to critique and analyze my theology. And here's what AI says. Number one, imputed righteousness as the sole basis of salvation. Biblical basis for this idea, Romans 4, 5, "...to the one who does not work, but believe in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." 2 Corinthians 5, 21, "...for our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God." Ephesians 2, 8-9, salvation is by grace through faith, not by works, so no one can boast. So, AI is saying that my belief in imputed righteousness as the sole basis of salvation has biblical basis. How about logical consistency? If justification is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ, than human works, whether as evidence or proof, cannot factor into salvation. Christ's work is complete and sufficient, leaving no room for human contribution. So AI says if you truly believe in a salvation by imputed righteousness, then you can't look to works as either evidence or proof because everything is found in the complete and sufficient work of Christ. Problems with infused righteousness. Infused righteousness. Definition. and Catholic theology, justification involves God infusing righteousness into the believer, making them inherently righteous and enabling them to perform meritorious works. This shifts the focus from Christ's finished work to the believer's cooperation with grace, leading to uncertainty about salvation and reliance on human effort. Works as evidence Many Protestants teach that works are the evidence or fruit of salvation, showing that a person's faith is genuine. Problems Subjectivity How many works are required? What quality of works is sufficient? These questions lead to doubt and introspection. Inconsistency with Imputed Righteousness If Christ's righteousness is credited to the believer, why are additional works needed as evidence? If Christ's righteousness is imputed to me and credited to my account, why do you need proof of anything? You can't prove imputed righteousness by human works. James is addressing the practical outworking of faith in the community, not establishing a litmus test for salvation. Even AI says, James 2 is not about giving you a test for salvation, even though that's how all kinds of preachers preach it. Now, A.I. says my position about Christ's work is the sole evidence. Here's the theological strength of my position. By emphasizing that the only work that evidences salvation is Christ's work, This maintains the sufficiency of Christ's atonement and righteousness. It avoids the theological confusion of blending justification and sanctification. It preserves the assurance of salvation, which rests on God's promises rather than human performance. Biblical support. It gives me Romans 5, 1, John 6, 28 through 29, and Hebrews 10, 14. So it says there's biblical support. James 2 does not contradict justification by faith alone when understood in context. James critiques a faith that is merely intellectual assent. He is not saying works are required for salvation, but that genuine faith naturally expresses itself in love and obedience. Justification by works. James 2.24 speaks of justification in a relational sense. Faith is demonstrated to others by works, not to God. This aligns with Abraham's faith being credited as righteousness in Genesis 15.6, long before the act of offering Isaac in Genesis 20. Genesis 22. So basically it's saying, hey, when James talks about justification by works, it's justification maybe in front of others, not to God, because Abraham was declared righteous before he ever did any of those works. All right? So, and again, the proof of my justification is not what I do, it's what Christ did. Then AI – and there's more here. I'm skipping it because we're now well over our time limit here. Well, I don't really have a time limit, but over a reasonable time. AI says this. Your position avoids the theological and practical problems associated with both infused righteousness and works as evidence. By anchoring salvation solely in the imputed righteousness of Christ, you uphold the gospel's core message, salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. While this perspective, now this is sad, listen to what A.I. says here, let me read this to you again. Speaking of my interpretation, Your position avoids the theological and practical problems associated with both infused righteousness and works as evidence. By anchoring salvation solely in the imputed righteousness of Christ, you uphold the gospel's core message, salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, and Christ alone. While this perspective may put you at odds with much of the Christian world, It is consistent and biblically defensible approach that prioritizes the sufficiency of Christ-finished work. That is sad that AI knows that my position puts me at odds with most of the Christian world. AI's like, hey, logically, biblically, everything you're saying seems to work. It seems to hold together. It's biblically defensible. It's logically consistent. Everything about your view is great, but hey, I got bad news for you. Most of the Christian world is not going to accept your view. That is frightening that that's where we are in 2025. Even AI knows, you just as well give up. You're not going to be accepted in the Christian world because your view is so out of touch with how Christians teach today. But Christians today teach more in line with an infused righteous view than an imputed righteous view. This is what I've been screaming about for, I don't know, 20 years. Notice how this all started. Hey, review this sermon, see if AI can handle it. AI not only handled the sermon, this is the strength of AI. I was able to engage it. We had an hour-plus long conversation with AI about the sermon, which led to then me formulating and putting forth my own interpretation, my own theological hypotheses, and then letting AI test my hypotheses. Now, AI destroyed that sermon, tore it apart, so it was completely logically inconsistent, theologically shallow, did not handle the scriptures in any meaningful way. So when it comes to the knife versus AI, well, the knife lost. Some people may love the illustration, but even AI criticized the metaphor and spoke about some of the problems with it. AI won. Again, how many different ways do we have to demonstrate this this year? Now, that was a lot of reading. And I know I had to go through that quickly. I should have broken this down probably into separate parts. We can go back and redo more if I need to clarify anything. But I just want you to see that AI was like, hmm, there's problems here. And, but then AI acknowledged my perspective was great, but it's just, you know, hey, you just better just give up, you know, don't bother going to Christian, you're not going to be accepted in the Christian world, so you just as well find another place to go, which is kind of depressing, because AI knows that my approach goes against most of what Christians say. That's crazy. All right, I'm going to stop there. My stomach is starting to growl. I am starving. So I'm going to go try to find some food. And hopefully, that 81 minutes will prove to be somewhat beneficial. I know that I'm kicking myself. See, AI would have done this better than me. I went too long and I was reading those things way too fast. So I already know the criticisms. I already want to delete this because I know I could have done it better. But would I do it better the next time as a human being? I don't know. Other things could impact how I do it next time. This, I had too much information here and I tried to cram it all together. I messed up. So, all right. Thanks for listening. That's a lot for you to consider, but I want you to see, if you see AI as just a Google search, you missed the point. It's about this, having a back and forth with it, reasoning. And if you have some philological knowledge, you can raise questions and create philological hypotheses and test them and challenge them and mold them and shape them and form them. All right, thanks for listening. God bless.