u/Every_Monitor_5873

In the Hebrew Bible, it seems like there is a conceptual distinction between the worship of other gods (which are real) and the worship of idols (which are merely wood or stone). Are these in fact distinct concepts or are they fundamentally the same thing?

This question is prompted by the rhetoric in the latter half of the Wisdom of Solomon. In particular 14:12-14, which proffers the belief that "the idea of making idols was the beginning of sexual immorality." (NRSVUE) Paul picks up on this idea in Romans 1 ("they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles" but cf. a few verses later, "they . . . worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator"). It seems like Paul is combining ideas that were distinct in the Hebrew Bible.

Did other religious groups in the Greco-Roman world venerate heroes and saints in a way that was analogous to early Christians? What were the antecedents for the Christian practice?

I have a question about the free workout for first-time visitors. Last week, I went to the studio in my neighborhood. I didn't know the first workout was free, and the person at the front desk didn't tell me, so I paid the $28 drop-in fee. A few days later, I received a voicemail from the studio saying I qualified for a free workout and to call them back. When I returned the call, they said I wasn't eligible for the free workout because I had already done a workout at the studio - and paid a drop-in fee because I wasn't told about the free session.

Is that how free sessions work? Frankly, it's been an infuriating experience.

Update. I just signed up for a membership with a different studio. It's a bit farther from my house but not too far. To answer one of the questions, no I wasn't traveling lol.

I see that Article 390 of Niger's new penal code prohibits, among other things, "asexual . . . practices." What is an asexual practice? Is chastity being criminalized?

Local context would be helpful. Thanks all.

I have some basic questions about prayer. If we pray directly to God (or any person of the Trinity), I'm assuming our prayer can be heard even if said quietly or indeed inaudibly. If so, how does that work?

What about prayer via the intercession of saints? If I humbly submit a petition to the BVM, does it need to be audible? Regardless of whether it's audible or inaudible, how does she hear prayer?

Is prayer more efficacious at a shrine or before a blessed image? If so, why is that the case?

I'm not skeptical at all. Just trying to understand :)

I have been trying for days to schedule an appointment for service. I'm at the point where I need to physically walk to the store and schedule something with a live person. Why is it so impossible to schedule an appointment?

Large language models are having a heyday in the theological discourse of late, with Magnifica humanitas just the tip of the iceberg. In her remarks yesterday, the Archbishop of Canterbury said, "We are in danger of unleashing AI into our lives and societies without the theological, philosophical or spiritual framework with which to make decisions about creating, controlling, using or directing it."

This doesn't seem right to me. Humans have used divinatory practices for millennia. Current AI models like Claude and ChatGPT are just the latest iteration of seeking guidance from sources we conjure from the ether.

What distinguishes large language models in a way that we can say there is not a theological, philosophical or spiritual framework for their use?

Large language models are having a heyday in the theological discourse of late, with Magnifica humanitas just the tip of the iceberg. In her remarks yesterday, the Archbishop of Canterbury said, "We are in danger of unleashing AI into our lives and societies without the theological, philosophical or spiritual framework with which to make decisions about creating, controlling, using or directing it."

I admire Sarah Mullally tremendously but this doesn't seem right to me. Humans have used divinatory practices for millennia. Current AI models like Claude and ChatGPT are just the latest iteration of seeking guidance from sources we conjure from the ether. Or, to say it differently, seeking answers from non-human entities to questions that range from the mundane to the profound.

What distinguishes generative AI models in a way that we can say there is not a theological, philosophical or spiritual framework for their use? How does the consultation of large language AI models fit into the Episcopal Church's approach to these issues?

Large language models are having a heyday in the theological discourse of late, with Magnifica humanitas just the tip of the iceberg. In her remarks yesterday, the Archbishop of Canterbury said, "We are in danger of unleashing AI into our lives and societies without the theological, philosophical or spiritual framework with which to make decisions about creating, controlling, using or directing it."

This doesn't seem right to me. Humans have used divinatory practices for millennia. Current AI models like Claude and ChatGPT are just the latest iteration of seeking guidance from sources we conjure from the ether.

What distinguishes large language models in a way that we can say there is not a theological, philosophical or spiritual framework for their use?

Is there a good primer for how nous/mind and psyche/soul were understood in the Mediterranean world of the first century CE? Would either or both survive the death of the physical body?

What is the scholarly consensus (if there is one) on the target of John Chrysostom's Adversus Judaeos / Kata Ioudaiōn sermons? Is he focused on Judaizing gentiles (a la Paul in Galatians)?