Should AI Be Allowed in Crosswalk Forums?

[Fritzpw_Admin]

Should AI Be Allowed in Crosswalk Forums?

As Christians reflect on truth, wisdom, and how we engage with new technologies, we invite your voice in Crosswalk Forums.
#AIandFaith #ChristianEthics #christianforums #crosswalkforums #forums #crosswalk #faithcommunity #faithforums

AI is changing everything—from how we write to how we pray. Some users in our forum have raised concerns about AI-generated responses: Should they be allowed? Do they help or hinder sincere dialogue? And how could we even tell when AI is being used?

Others believe AI tools can help believers study Scripture, express ideas clearly, or just participate when they otherwise wouldn’t. But if we allow AI, should there be rules—like disclosure or limitations?

Let’s open this up for discussion. What do you think?

“Technology may evolve, but the call to speak truth in love never changes.”

Cast your vote below and share your reasoning in the comments.

Poll: Should AI-generated content be allowed in the forums?

• No — AI should not be allowed at all
• Yes — All AI-generated content should be allowed
• Yes, but with restrictions (e.g. must disclose when using AI)
• I’m not sure / need more info

If you select No, how should moderators realistically enforce that?

If you select Yes, what should be allowed—and should users be required to label AI-generated posts?

[Fritzpw_Admin]

Honestly, I think AI can be a helpful tool—especially when it comes to organizing thoughts or saying something more clearly. We’re surrounded by it already… in ads, movies, articles—you name it. It’s not going away anytime soon.

I’ve even read some faith-based content written with AI that really made me think and gave me a better understanding of Scripture. It’s not about the tool—it’s about how it’s used.

As long as what’s being shared lines up with sound doctrine and doesn’t overwhelm the thread with paragraphs of fluff, I don’t have a problem with it. If it helps people grow in faith and communicate better, I say let’s use it wisely.

What about you—where do you think the line should be?

[Johann]

@Fritzpw_Admin
I’m glad to know you don’t see a demon/AI behind every bush, and I trust we can use it wisely.

Shalom to you and family dear brother.

Johann.

[Fritzpw_Admin]

I use it throughout the day for my job. I’m convinced that those who refuse to use AI in the future will be without a job… they will be replaced by AI enhanced employees.

[Johann]

Perhaps so, brother, I use Bob Utley primarily for hermeneutical studies, while I turn to other sources for deeper exegetical insight that cast a flood of light upon the Scriptures. AI is quite useful in this regard–not for establishing doctrine, and certainly never as a substitute for the Holy Spirit—but as a tool, it is undeniably valuable.

God bless.

Johann.

[Fritzpw_Admin]

I mistakenly closed the poll. Apologies. It is open and ready for your votes.

[Fritzpw_Admin]

@Blindwatchmaker , please feel free to express your opinion on the use of AI in our forum here.

I also invite you to submit your vote in the opening post.

[Blindwatchmaker]

Thank you so much, Fritz—and apologies for the delay in replying (still finding my way around here!).

I think it really depends on context.

I have no issue with someone using AI to help polish their prose or refine the way they express their own thoughts. That kind of support can actually improve the quality of discussion, especially for those who find it hard to articulate complex ideas clearly.

But when I’m hoping for real dialogue—an exchange that feels like two people sitting at a table and working something through together—it’s disheartening to receive a perfectly written five-page essay within three minutes of asking a question. It often feels like they’ve just pasted my post into an AI with a prompt like “Reply using sound hermeneutics and correct etymology,” and then pasted the result straight into the thread before moving on to do the same with five other users.

In that case, I’m left thinking: why not just run the prompt myself and skip the middleman?

Contrast that with someone who takes the time to truly engage with me—responding to my actual words, questions, and reasoning. That kind of exchange feels real and meaningful, and I value it far more.

Another issue is transparency. If someone is using AI to generate all or part of their response, I think they should say so. It’s no different than quoting from a published article: you wouldn’t paste a page from someone else’s writing and pretend it was your own. The same standard should apply here.

Some users clearly alternate between high-school-level communication and bursts of PhD-level theology or dense philosophical language that they don’t seem to fully grasp. When that happens, it feels less like genuine conversation and more like conversing with a bot. That might be of value to some but I personally have no interest in that and want to interact with people and the ideas they actually hold.

So for me, it’s not about being anti-AI. It’s about valuing sincerity over pages of content which feel like there was no real thought at all behind them.
When the conversation starts to look like the output of a factory, it becomes a lot less interesting and valuable in my eyes.

I do think most users on here are motivated by a genuine intention to spread the gospel and bring people to Christ and I can respect that, but outsourcing the human component of those exchanges to technology takes something special away from them I think.
Thanks for the opportunity to voice my thoughts on this and apologies again for including them in the original discussion thread. I would not have done so if I understood that it was not allowed.

[Blindwatchmaker]

Sounding a touch defensive there Johann.

Fritz specifically tagged me and invited my opinion and I gave it.
Respectfully and thoughtfully.
I was not complaining.

Ironically, I enjoyed your post above as it’s very clear you didn’t require assistance writing it.