Does God need us to love him?

Human-like artificial intelligence. Does their creator need to be loved by them? Will they rebel? Photo: Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law in A.I.

A Christian perspective.

A.I. (2001) speculates on artificial intelligence in the future and asks, does the creator need the creature to love him back?

It is an important question for artificial intelligence. In other words, when humans create a new life form, such as human-like artificial intelligence, would the creator need to be loved by this new life form?

A.I. even goes one step further: try to understand artificial intelligence by going back to the start, with the Creator, God. Does the Creator need his creatures to love him?

Then, do the creatures that humans create, such as David, need to be loved back, as they have this intrinsic need to be loved?  

The A.I. David hopes the “Blue Fairy” (a character in the book Pinocchio) will grant him his wish of being loved. David will have to become a real boy, loved because he is a real boy, so it takes him on a journey through the “new earth” to find what he is looking for.

But go back to the start, with the original Creator. Does God have a need? Is God needy? Did God create humans out of need? Does God really need humans to love him? Does the self-sufficiency of God beg the question that he does not need?

I think this goes to the very heart of God. The Bible says that God is love so in his heart is pure love for his creatures. God will love irrespective of getting love back from his creatures. God goes on loving. So, is A.I. asking the right question, that God has a need? It is one of those tricky theological questions again, but God is. In the Bible, God is the I AM. The Alpha, the Omega, the beginning, and the end. Not how much we love God back, but how much God loves us—this is the undeniable fact of his love for us.

We can love our “creatures” like this, with care.

Belief

“Blessed are those who have not seen yet still believe” is what Jesus said to Thomas, a disciple of Jesus, who needed evidence that Jesus had resurrected from the dead. Jesus provided the evidence. Himself! Who was Jesus referring to when he said, “Blessed are those who have not seen yet still believe”? You, me, everyone else who did not physically see Jesus after his resurrection. The only qualifying thing is belief–in Jesus. They are blessed, because just believing in Jesus can be a blessing. This Jesus who makes life conquer death.

‘Repressed’ images

What’s been on mind some of the time is the differences between satire, parody, pastiche, farce, and so on. They are all very interesting genres and I kind of fancy them a lot. Would like to even use sometime as the ‘images’ floating around in my head are kind of conducive for this format of writing at times. Last Saturday in particular was a field day for imaging a parody. I guess it’s coming out somehow…

Saved!

Salvation is one of the perennial themes of my life especially ripe so many years ago when I should have read David Pawson’s Once Saved, Always Saved? (note the question mark) but it had not been written yet. Such a dread and fear of hell led to me to find out if I was indeed saved from hell when I die so a book directing my thoughts towards the subject in a productive way were welcome.

Anyhow, the theme of being saved or salvation has stayed with me that recently my reading has encompassed books with titles The Road to Hell and Once Saved Always Saved? both by David Pawson, who was a Bible teacher. I absorbed much of these books that I barely could fault them. Pawson, in Once Saved Always Saved? clarified much of my thinking, which had been lying dormant there, but that Pawson brought out in his gentle wordsmithing as I read and kept on saying, yeah, I agree! Not that those earlier issues I had over being saved from hell were not dealt to, or else I would have been a cot-case for a good on twenty years. As I am doing Pawson’s short Bible reflections in The Road to Hell, I find I am recapturing much of what I originally believed about some Bible verses and dare I say am wondering why Pawson did not see it the way I did, but on a technicality though.