Q. "How does use of AI involve witchcraft?"
A. = answer of Google AI : "The use of AI connects to witchcraft through three main intersections: metaphorical comparisons, practical integration by modern practitioners, and regulatory or philosophical concerns... Some theological and cultural critiques view technology and AI as a modern form of witchcraft because they function as opaque, instantaneous, and seemingly magical forces that bypass traditional human effort or divine reliance."
https://bibleunbound.substack.com/p/ai-is-definitely-witchcraft-but-theres (there's still good news, by Austin Smith, Apr 4, 2025. An excerpt is: "If you really wanted to condemn witchcraft in its modern sense, you'd have to shut off the device you're reading this on. That is because technology is modern witchcraft. Artificial Intelligence is the most dominating form (of it)... )
https://grokipedia.com/page/digital_witchcraft
This is a Grok version 0.3 page, said to be "fact-checked by Grok 9 months ago" and also "corrected by the people who read it" (as is noted at the very bottom of that page). Corrected?! Haha! As anyone halfway literate in English can tell by reading it, about half of it pertains to a musical group or band that goes by the name D.W., while the other half has nothing to do with the band. So it can be seen how "the facts" can be gotten 100% correct, but at the same time, half of what is said in the literary piece is 100% nonsense in the context of the other half. So AI still has a very long way to go yet, before being imbued or endowed with the charism of infallibility.
In the above excerpt quoted by Anon 7:47 PM, Auston Smith declares, "...technology is modern witchcraft. Artificial Intelligence is the most dominating form (of it)... " and that "If you really wanted to condemn witchcraft in its modern sense, you'd have to shut off the device you're reading this on, etc".
He's wrong on both counts. There is no gradation in technology where, at one point, it becomes witchcraft, and not so at an earlier point. It is a difference in kind not in degree. Their orbits don't touch, except where one may use tools such as technology to aid in witchcraft business; or one may not. But with witchcraft directly, there is no 'using' it in any degree which may be licit.
Secondly, one who pretends to take the moral high ground by swearing off technology and suggesting that others do so to achieve the same status does not actually have the moral high ground so much as a holier-than-thou positioning. It is easy to say to others, "you ought not to use this because others use it badly" but that does not solve the problem of getting some truth out there which is otherwise impossible (thanks to the "operation of error" media) whatever else these things may be used for.
I just find it annoying when people take some kind of 'nihilist' stance as that which solves nothing and tries to surrender the only way to say what is true in any larger than minuscule capacity.
You make some mighty fine 10:01 observations Cairsahr, but... you are merely responding to three sentences that seem to have been ideally cherrypicked for you to debunk. Good job. Well done. But... you and just about all of us commenting here are of ripe years and because of that, more discerning about things. You and I can pretty clearly see just what AI is, and is not. You and I can use it to quickly ferret out useful info, especially very tiny (proverbial) "needles" hidden extremely deeply "in (massive) haystacks", without "dabbling in diabolic witchcraft." But step back for a moment, and reflect upon how Google AI must look like in the eyes of those below, say, age 20. Teenagers and younger. Young, impressionable, and highly ignorant compared to us. The younger ones believe in Santa Claus and other fairy tales. Google AI and other forms of AI, probably look "seemingly magical" to them (to quote from 7:47). It looks very much like what people of 50 years ago, probably would've quickly considered to be some sort of techno-wizardry witchcraft.
For those wanting to do a deep dive into this subject, google searches such as these can be done: [1] "Do some people worship AI in this or that manner?" [2] "What similarities are there between the biblical golden calf, and AI?" [3] "How do philosophers and theologians view "techno-idolatry" today?" [4] "What is the difference between treating AI as a tool versus as an authority?" [5] "How do AI-generated deep fakes relate to biblical lying wonders?" [6] Etc., etc. ++ If you do searches such as these, you might be surprised at the wealth of high quality evidence and argument that pops up, that AI, as it is often used today, is surprisingly akin to witchcraft.
@Anon 8:31 PM
Thank you for reminding me of the naivety of youth. Although I have not altogether forgotten it - nay! The concern for the inexperienced is always uppermost on my mind. Together with this is taking thought "for those who never had the chance to know the truth" at least with the minimal chance I had way back then. At any rate the point had to be made because, as per usual when making such points, I did not see anyone else doing it. And even the more experienced can be superstitious about these things such as AI.
There's a good way to de-mystify AI tech in the eyes of the young, and it is to demonstrate programming an 8-bit computer, then say to them, "AI is just way more complicated, but at bottom the logic is the same". Might be more effective than fascinating them by ascribing quasi-supernatural power to it. Needless to say it would be best for mass conversions to take place but some might have to begin with such truths as they may be ready to accept.
"...you might be surprised at the wealth of high quality evidence and argument that pops up, that AI, as it is often used today, is surprisingly akin to witchcraft."
I have no doubt about that. It does conjure things up at the asking. My concern about this is the precision of our observations. Witchcraft requires witchcraft intent; the illusion of it, which arguably is AI, does not denote the same intent, although it might if some choose to make it that way. It just 'makes things easier'.
I have a slightly different, though related, concern: That the young and inexperienced might come to see AI as "the arbiter of truth" in the world and so become for them, as it were, as "the voice of God". I said before it would be better if mass conversions take place. This seems to me less likely if something else is already accepted as "an authority" on the truth. We see how confusing it all is today; especially for the younger ones. Contradictions everywhere. Things don't make sense. Or they might, to those who have already accepted such things. Even so, some might retain "a love for the truth" or at least a desire for it (which is not *quite* the same thing - the former denotes a readiness to accept it even if unpleasant). In this case, if they do not already accept "the narrative" as the truth, they likely already see "the operation of error" media etc., as the arbiter of what is true. If they get past that somehow then they may use Al to search things out - and here they may be ready to see *that* as the ultimate arbiter. We are not even talking about faith in God here, but about whether one might have a basic affinity for the truth, which is what is needed to have a chance to escape the "signs and wonders" and the snare which is coming upon the world (2 Thess. 2:9-11). If so, one (even if inexperienced) might follow the truth away from the antichrist. But the thing about AI is it can be programmed to lie; or programmed with certain false things to be prioritized above all else as "what is true". Until then it may or may not be a useful tool, depending on one's intent. But when the "man of sin" arrives, it is for certain all the AI's will be adjusted to serve him. And it will probably happen very quickly. Then those who do not trust the media (young and old) and without some other arbiter might be done by AI (this is one reason for the 'signing of the elect' of Apoc. Ch. 7 but I digress). Perhaps I am over-thinking it at this point but I figure that de-mystifying AI might be more effective than calling it witchcraft.
https://www.faithgpt.io/blog/ai-is-not-the-antichrist-heres-why/ (by Tonye Brown. Evidently he's not a Catholic. But even so, Tonye's blog posts about this subject, strike me as displaying commendable insight.)
@Anon Oct.21--7:58 PM
Thank you for this reference. The author is very level-headed about the subject, and in my opinion he is mostly correct; but there is one thing I would add: The 'image' of the beast which is "given life" and is 'enabled to speak' (Apoc.13:15) is with near-certainty an AI system in service to the actual beast; and everyone has the capability to have this as an 'app' of sorts.
Read my citation to academic Maxence Hecquard. The saints Received communion from undeclared heretics.
The SSPX does not deny the Indefectibility of the Church, rather they are reject sedevacantism because (allegedly) THAT is a denial of Indefectibility.
The SSPX is plain wrong--and I wrote that to Poni above. They are good for sacraments however.
It's a circular thing. As you said:
Instead, Montini sounded braggadicio over his accomplishment of 'overcoming the Church'; or so he thought.
At the closing speech on Dec. 7, 1965, he "reflected on the encounter between the Church and the modern world", describing how 'profane humanism' had appeared "in its terrible stature" and "in a sense, challenged the Council" - the religion of God who became man meeting the religion of man who makes himself God. He then asked "What happened? A clash, a struggle, an anathema?" He answered that it could have been so, but it did not happen, though it still might. This is different from his better-known later remarks about the "smoke of satan" in 1972. [Taken from a 'Grok' query to find where it had come from; otherwise recalled from long before].
He sounded as though he expected a lot more resistance than there was at V2. Perhaps there was some resistance, in 1972, and he called that "the smoke of Satan"; but it is more likely that, as others have said, he was playing dumb while 'fanning it in'. As it was, this lack of resistance must have been unexpected and cause for chagrin.
Might be over-analyzing a chance remark by this 'one of the seven' but we have time. From the perspective of a communist, which is what Montini was, the world deserves punishment for not already being communist (for not making everything equal, according to "the false god, equality"). He probably thought he was beginning the sort of trouble which communists often take advantage of to seize power. The thing is, what the devil's plans actually are and what his tools think they are accomplishing are not quite the same thing. Treachery and deception all-around.
Thank you for clarifying the matter concerning Cardinal Newman. That some would suspect him of modernism shows the perils of treating with modernism and modernists, who, as with a filter, take what they need to use to demonstrate their principles; whereas Newman, with proper Catholic principles, filters the bad ideas from the good. Modernists' first principles are that nothing is permanent and by extension, eternal; whereas Newman demonstrates that the eternal nature of Catholic principles are expressed in true doctrines developed over time without over-writing itself.
The difference between development and corruption may be rather subtle for some, however. The acorn-to-tree example is a very good one; however modernists will say "the tree looks nothing like the acorn" and therefore they "are essentially different" according to their principles. It is here that people will choose to be either Catholics or modernists, since these truths are demonstrable up to a point but whether they are accepted or not depends on whether one wants to believe in eternal things. There seems to be a fundamental nihilism in the modernist 'annulment' of belief in eternal things; they want to believe there is no eternal consequences for evil actions (universal salvation) or else that consciousness is absorbed into some kind of 'impersonal divine substance' which makes up the universe anyway, in which life is indistinguishable from death, and so does not matter anyway.
+JMJ+
This is a kind of virtue signalling. But it is not so easy to define.
It is easy to signal virtue by saying "war is bad", and to stand back in a way from the world, saying "war is bad" as if judging the world and everyone in it, whether they are participating in a war or not; as though one is above it all. Moreover, this is the kind of 'stunt' which says more about who is behind it and who facilitates it than anything else. In the false church, people do this sort of thing ostensibly to 'make a statement' but for those with the eyes of faith the statement which is received speaks of the giver's narcissism and novel methods of signalling his alleged virtue.
The facilitators, the Vatican, is also signalling another kind of virtue; but one of false repentance. By allowing this, they signal a kind of rebuke to themselves and to the Church they appear to the world to represent; it is also a kind of reproach to the West, which once was Christian (and is meant to be rebuked as such). In line with 'the narrative' (of the "operation of error") this effrontery is meant to say to the West (and by implication all that is meant by 'Christian') that "this is your doing; you are the ones in power and do not prevent this". By this the Faith itself is rebuked by association.
That Christendom is not in power is of no consequence; but its descendants are not yet all entirely dispossessed, and so are alleged to be 'in power' and so are the problem to be rebuked.
Thus, this 'stunt' is but another small addition to the ongoing narrative to build the Novus Ordo of the world by demoralizing and dismantling the West. Instead of 'war is a punishment for sin' the worldly naturalists find sin in inequality; some suffer more than others; some experience war more than others. And the guilty, in this sense, are those who are fortunate not to experience these things directly.
I've seen this sort of thing many many times, in which the virtue signallers find it necessary to draw attention to their causes as though everyone were not already aware if them, and as though anyone can do anything about it. If 'we' (meaning the West, generally) actually controlled our own governments things could be done; but no one but the 'mystery of iniquity' controls all of that these days, and they continue on, beyond reproach in this life, while their divide and conquer modus operandi continues uninterruptedly.
Equity means “being just or fair in the distribution of resources” while equality means treating everyone by the same standard. However in current woke usage they seem to be combined to mean “only equal outcomes are just and fair” otherwise, they conclude, “people were not treated equally”. This reversal of cause and effect (to put it one way) is similar in disorder as putting the cart before the horse; instead of concluding that people are naturally different resulting in equal outcomes, they put equal outcomes as the first rule otherwise one has wronged another. That’s why equality is a false god. Can be called “the false god, equity” as well; more or less interchangeable.
The book referred to might as well be called Freedom From Grace, if the grace spoken of is the assistance from Heaven to heed The Word Of God.
As the second Vatican church proceeds to 'redeem' all false religions, the religion of Our Lord is increasingly obscured; even becoming contemptible in the eyes of many. But they are not seeing the true Faith, only its false counterpart, and the two are conflated, so long as there is no clear separation for all to see. The world only sees (or will see) 'traditional' Catholics as being selfish and exclusive in the matters of salvation so long as they remain with the antipopes who are welcoming the false religions. Apocalypse 18:4 is called for at this time.
In today's article we have seen several examples of the 'unclean spirits' and 'unclean and hateful birds' who will be joining "Babylon the great" (Apoc. 18:2). Perhaps each false religion will be 'baptized' into Babylon in collectives which is befitting for that which "is fallen, is fallen" (Apoc.18:2 again) due to the 'errors of Russia'; thus far it has only been a gradual preparation for such an event. There has to be something more 'official' at some point; probably for whomever replaces Prevost, and we know whom that will be.
Is it not strange that, in these times, it seems not enough for false religions to simply persist, but the devil insists on joining them together with the antipapacy in such a way as to recognize the papacy as true so long as it is the antipapacy ? That's a paradox. But it has meaning; and what it means is they who see the antipapacy as such will not come under the condemnation of Apocalypse 13:8 and 17:8, the former being thus: "And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb which was slain from the beginning of the world". To see the antipapacy for what it truly is, is already implicitly to see the true Faith. Otherwise, people will only blindly see the true religion as being in unity with what they deem to be the papacy. But we are not yet arrived at the signs and wonders to make this more compelling.
"Good article concerning popes who were bad persons and persons who were not popes.
I note the comparison between a 'bad pope' and a 'bad father'. I think the nature of the papacy which is misunderstood by the 'resistors' may be compared to actual fathers by genetics. Actual fathers cannot be 'unfathered' no matter what he does, in a way which makes him not technically the father any more. That would be the nature of the papacy in its infallibility against error - as if it were wired genetically.
It is not, however, the nature of the papacy to be in error and still be valid. That would be akin to re-writing the genetics between a father and his children and still have a legally binding status. It's impossible. This is a 'lateral' perspective on this but I think it fits. The papacy is not an ordinary thing - even spiritually speaking. It's not of this world.
+JMJ+ God bless."
"Atheist Objection: “A perfect God could not have created an imperfect world. Since the world is obviously imperfect, God does not exist.”
I would add response number three: "Why what measure does he define 'perfect', being as that he is not perfect either so as to be able to make such an estimation ?"
A possible solution to the Genesis/origin of the universe question, and how it is done. Given that Sacred Scripture is not, and was never meant to be, a scientific manual of the workings of the universe, we can only conclude that the presentation of Genesis *means* something. Now what it means is that there is a *hierarchical* order to Creation: The order listed in Genesis is simply from lower to higher forms.
As I've said elsewhere, "hierarchy" is the principle of existence and the 'engine of creation' (From God, then all else); whereas 'equality' is the root, stock and branch of what was called "Russia's error's" (communism, now also wokeism and other nonsense). This is why I call it "the false god, equality" ( #thefalsegoequality ). It is the undoing of all Creation since, when pushed to its absolute conclusion, absolute equality is zero, or non-existence.
TradWarrior
Thanks
for the reply. Speaking of THE theologian of the Church, St. Thomas
Aquinas, that even he made a few errors shows, like you said, that he is
not infallible either. This makes me wish to speculate somewhat on the
nature of papal infallibility and its relationship to the Church. We
notice that theologians like St. Thomas are allowed to speculate on
things, using Tradition, Scripture, and defined dogma as a guide; but we
also notice that we are not given all the answers, complete, on
everything as though from a Catholic Doctrine Encyclopedia on all
things. No, the Holy Father intervenes on matters of doctrine when there
is division and possible heresy. But that the Immaculate Conception was
not yet defined at the time; to not affirm it or even to deny it was
not then a heretical act. I suppose the question of when life begins
brought this doctrine to the fore (due to the advancements of science in
the 19th century - not evolution, but micro-biology). And connected to
this question is when Original Sin is contracted by the conception. So
then it became necessary to establish that Our Lady was sinless *from
conception*. At least, I believe it came about partly in that way.
I
might further speculate that not all answers are immediately given
because then the devil would have time to spin a counter or some
stratagem designed to induce people to contradict them. In this way
especially I believe it was necessary for the Apocalypse to remain
shrouded. God bless.
+JMJ+
This is happening because of the loss of Faith:
"5:13.
You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour,
wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing anymore but to be
cast out, and to be trodden on by men" (Matt. 5:13).
On the other
hand, to be fair, the salt lost its flavour because of the utter
Machiavellian deceptive tactics and lies and depredations of the
"mystery of iniquity" and its "operation of error". I have faith that
this is balanced out in Heaven's judgements and Their mercies, and that
St. Joseph has a lot to say about this, being called "the just".
We mean his errors come from his not speaking with Christ. But this is never considered; they simply say that he is speaking with Christ's intention, because he is purported to do so. But the pope is supposed to represent, not replace, Our Lord".
It's a strange level of evil thinking, where one considers how to use law itself as an indirect weapon against a nation: Bring invaders under the banner of asylum and have them protected by the nation's own laws, but abandon the nation's citizens under those laws for the invaders.
So today, due to the 'operation of error' well-established, everything is called "progress" which dismantles what used to be the West. It used to be that "progress" was generally understood as building things, but that would not be equal #thefalsegodequality