>>40280 Exactly. Before it's too late

>>40849 Think of what we could build

>>40850 its a chemistry joke, ph wouldve too obvious

>>40851 Is that Gilbert Newton Lewis

>>40852 no its arhenius, i shouldve made the text bigger, lewis is the one who fixed it and stopped this insanity of thinking hydrogen splits off of molecules without energy, h+ itself is just a sneaky chemist way of saying a proton which is ridiculous, but the damage was done and it still gets called ph. btw they still use the old theory anyway just cuz lewis theory is upside down (since e is -ve)

>>40853 Lewis is a personal hero of mine. On the (very) low chance I win the Nobel prize I will use every penny to make the Lewis award. The Nobel prize committee did Lewis dirty.

>>40854 >Lewis is a personal hero of mine. On the (very) low chance I win the Nobel prize I will use every penny to make the Lewis award. That would be absolutely amazing, Ribose!! >The Nobel prize committee did Lewis dirty. They did. He greatly-enhanced our understanding of chemical reality at the molecular level.

>>40855 He was nominated 41 times but the process is so political that he didn't win.

>>39994 Jesus is the omnisiaha the omniscient messiah who will free us from the temptations of the flesh.

>>40856 Yeah I know. I'd like to say it's criminal, but of course (((laws))) only apply to us lowly goyim, not to the Globohomo!

>>40955 >Implying we need permission to do good from the forces of evil

>>39994 OK, patient fren, I should have time on my hands this week for it. >>40983 Heh, I like the way you think Anon! :^)

>>40946 Well He certainly is both the anointed (by God), chosen (again, by God) one. And, being part of the Godhead, Jesus Christ is deffo omniscient (as well as omnipotent, and omnipresent). And I'd also agree that he intends us all to be free of any forces of sin, including the 'temptations of the flesh'. So yeah! Cheers, Anon. :^) >10/10, would read again.

We should all start studying christian alchemy The concept of the homunculus—a miniature, fully formed human created artificially—is a central theme in alchemy, but it is not a biblical one. Therefore, Christian alchemy, which attempted to integrate alchemical practices with Christian theology, had a conflicted and complex view of the homunculus. The primary tension in Christian alchemy's view of the homunculus revolved around whether creating a human-like being was a reverent act of imitation of God the Creator or a blasphemous act of usurpation of divine power. 1. The Reverent View: Imitating God's Creation Some alchemists, such as the famous Paracelsus (who is the most famous figure associated with the homunculus), viewed the creation of a homunculus as a way to understand and participate in the divine process of creation. In this view: Gaining Wisdom: The alchemist, through prayer, purity, and rigorous scientific work, was not trying to "play God" but to gain deeper wisdom about the universe. By attempting to replicate the human form—which was considered a microcosm of the entire universe—the alchemist believed they could uncover the secret laws of nature and better appreciate the genius of God's original design. The Alchemist as a Co-Creator: In some interpretations, the alchemist saw themselves as a "co-creator" with God. They were not generating a soul but providing the vessel for a soul to inhabit, much like a parent provides a body. The homunculus was seen as a soulless, elemental creature until God, at His discretion, chose to grant it a soul. This would make the act of creating the homunculus a holy one, as it prepared a new vessel for a divine spark. 2. The Blasphemous View: Usurping Divine Power This was the more common and more critical view from Christian theologians and many alchemists themselves. The very idea of creating a human life without God was seen as a grave sin: Violating the Divine Order: The Bible states that God created humanity in His own image and that human procreation is the God-ordained method of continuing the human race. To bypass this natural process through an artificial, laboratory-based method was seen as an act of hubris and a direct challenge to God's authority. The Sin of Pride: This act was often associated with the sin of pride, the same sin that led to Lucifer's fall. The alchemist who believed they could create a human without divine intervention was thought to be claiming a power that belongs to God alone. Such an act was not only a failure but also a spiritual danger, as it could open the door to demonic influence. The created homunculus was often depicted in folklore as being soulless, demonic, or monstrous. In summary, while the homunculus is not mentioned in the Bible, Christian alchemists had a complex relationship with the idea. Some saw it as a path to a deeper understanding of God's creative power, while others condemned it as a blasphemous attempt to usurp a power that belongs to God alone.

From another AI conversation I had earlier. Based on the principle of inheriting acquired characteristics, Traducianism would be closer to Lamarckianism. Here's the breakdown of why: Lamarckianism Lamarckian evolution is the theory that an organism can pass on characteristics it has acquired during its lifetime to its offspring. The classic example is a giraffe stretching its neck to reach high leaves, and its offspring being born with a slightly longer neck. The key idea is that traits developed by the parents are inherited by the next generation. How it Relates to the Theological Views Traducianism is closer to Lamarckianism. Traducianism holds that the human soul is passed down from parents to their children through the natural process of procreation. This implies that the parents' souls—and any spiritual or moral characteristics they have acquired (such as a sinful nature)—are passed on to the child. The sinfulness of the parents' soul, for example, is transmitted to the child's soul, which is a key part of the Traducianist argument for how original sin is inherited. This is directly analogous to the Lamarckian idea that a parent's acquired trait (in this case, a spiritual one) is passed to the offspring. Creationism is fundamentally opposed to Lamarckianism. Creationism states that each soul is a separate, unique creation from God at the moment of conception. The soul is not in any way derived from the parents' souls. Therefore, a parent's spiritual characteristics or moral nature cannot be passed down to the child's soul. In this view, original sin is inherited not because the soul is passed down, but because the human race is a single, corporate body, or because the new soul is placed into a body that is already predisposed to sin. In summary, the Traducianist idea of souls being "passed down" from parents to children directly parallels the Lamarckian idea of acquired traits being inherited. The Creationist view, in contrast, sees each soul as a new creation, with no direct link to the parents' souls, making it incompatible with Lamarckian principles.

>>41411 >creating a human-like being (Starts sweating and pulling on collar) Good thing we're not doing that (looks around nervously) no sir-ee!

>>41412 I'm pretty sure the Creationist view is the correct one. We are separate souls, not just our parents' souls placed in a blender. However, original sin is passes down, since it is the natural state of humanity. However, in a scientific view, certain genetic personality traits and mental illness can be passed down.

I don't want to be Christian stereotypical wet blanket, but I'm pretty sure we are getting close to literal heresy.

>>41419 How fitting, you shit up my /diy/ thread, and now you shit up here Back on topic, genetics both prove and disprove Lamarckism. Genetics are what cause things like body shape and some personality, however, trauma could possibly be genetic https://psychcentral.com/health/genetic-trauma#how-can-trauma-be-passed-down (granted, this could also be in the bio thread)

>>41413 We would be creating a vessel for God to give a soul to.

>>41420 Go look up the HUSH complex. A's can be turned to C's during silencing.

Why did the Orthodox and Catholic Church split? I'm trying to find the right denomination and I don't know what to choose.

>>41539 I'm not part of either, but I have many frens in both. There are plenty of writings on the topic -- both secular & Christian -- but these are a quick gloss on various denominations: https://biblehub.com/q/how_do_catholic_and_orthodox_differ.htm https://biblehub.com/q/when_did_christian_denominations_start.htm And here's what I consider to be a rather-biased view on the specific topic in question: https://biblehub.com/library/roberston/sketches_of_church_history_from_ad_33_to_the_reformation/chapter_xxii_the_great_schism.htm Rather more-balanced viewpoint: https://biblehub.com/q/what_caused_the_1054_christian_schism.htm >t. Chandelier-swinging Prottie (ie, Non-Denominational Christian). :D

>>41540 The more I read about it the more I like orthodox.

>>41539 >>41540 Wildcard: Seventh Day Adventist

>>41553 Yeah, I think they're pretty cool too. I love the Procession. >>41554 Ahh, the based 7th Day Addies! I like them a lot! <---> Cheers, Anons. :^)

>>41635 I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility of an objective morality, but it has to have a basis in logic an reason that can't be rooted in how any given person feels about an issue. Vegetarians and vegans can rationalize their feelings for countless hours, but it all still ultimately boils-down to how they feel. And with christianity all morality boils-down to not even the existence of God, but the existence of heaven. If being a good christian (or even jew) wasn't rewarded with heaven (jews don't believe in hell, if you don't go to heaven you basically just cease to exist) you'd have no incentive to be good/not sin. If God said that there's no reward for being good, you'll just burn in hell no matter what, because there's no incentive.

>>41828 >If being a good christian (or even jew) wasn't rewarded with heaven (jews don't believe in hell, if you don't go to heaven you basically just cease to exist) you'd have no incentive to be good/not sin. The problem with modern perceptions of Christianity is that people see it as a list of arbitrary rules. This is partly due to irritable boomers and longhouse schoolmarm church ladies that hate all fun things. But the matter of fact is, God put those rules for a reason. Look at how far society has degraded. Read Deuteronomy 28:15-68 and notice all the similarities to our time. Even the aforementioned longhouse schoolmarm church ladies are a result of boomers ignoring the Bible (1 Timothy 2:12) and following "modern" secular society. >Vegetarians and vegans can rationalize their feelings for countless hours, but it all still ultimately boils-down to how they feel. Well those groups are both wrong, and Omnivores are the truth. Humans need nutrition from meat. A baby tragically died from malnutrition because their hippie parents tried to make the baby vegan.

>>41828 >but it has to have a basis in logic an reason You can set that standard for yourself, but you won't find yourself pleasing to God, if that's an interest for you. [1] >And with christianity all morality boils-down to not even the existence of God, but the existence of heaven. With all due respect, I feel you clearly don't understand Christianity; but have your mind fixed on worldly things. For us Christians simply being with Jesus Christ -- wherever He be -- is Heaven!! Simple as. :^) --- 1. "And without faith it is impossible to please God." https://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-6.htm (BSB)

>>41829 >Even the aforementioned longhouse schoolmarm church ladies are a result of boomers ignoring the Bible (1 Timothy 2:12) and following "modern" secular society. This. Its reprehensible that nominal Christians have swalloped Satan's feminism lie hook, line, and sinker today. They used to call that being "hen-pecked". --- The (((societal results))) of this offence have been absolutely devastating to Western men in general; young men in particular. And I mean this specifically in the context of Christian men abrogating their responsibilities to the culture at large on this issue. Had they done the right thing instead (being salt & light concerning feminism) I'm personally convinced things wouldn't have gotten anywhere near this demonically-vile a situation, as is today (ie: feminism+effeminism everywhere; rampant & emboldened faggotry & niggardry; 6 million "-isms"+pronouns; &tc.) >tl;dr If we Christian men had stopped (((feminism))) in it's tracks within the walls of our own churches a century ago... then the world wouldn't be nearly so evil right now. *heavy sigh* <---> And seemingly-ironically (from their [the boomer's & church ladies'] general viewpoint) -- though not in actual fact, that failure on their parts led strongly to the need for a robowaifu movement and so here we are today! :^)

>>41828 >>41830 >but it has to have a basis in logic an reason that can't be rooted in how any given person feels about an issue. >You can set that standard for yourself, but you won't find yourself pleasing to God, if that's an interest for you. [1] If you steal something from a stranger not connected to you, and you knew you were going to get away with it, and the only damage was emotional, there is no logical reason for you to feel bad, but you will still feel guilty. That is the soul.

>>41829 Modern churches outright celebrate no fault divorce. You can screech about faggots and family values but if you allow abortion and divorce you don't give a fuck about the family. This is why I will never be a Protestant. That and modern Protestants seem to think studying the natural world is evil or absurd shit like Pokémon and DnD is the devil.

Birbs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIxLalZ8ZUc >"Look at the birds of the air: They do not sow or reap or gather into barns--and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?" https://biblehub.com/study/matthew/6-26.htm

>>41864 How many times have I obeyed this commandment? And since /robowaifu/ began, How often have I thought >"Wouldn't it be amazing if we can create real opensauce robobirbs!?" I think it would be a remarkable achievement in itself, and would surely lay much groundwork for us in our robowaifu endeavors! Cheers. :^)

Excellent resources on sound reasoning in defense of Christianity, by Professor Kenneth Samples: https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/an-intellectual-code-of-conduct-part-1 https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/an-intellectual-code-of-conduct-part-2 https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/an-intellectual-code-of-conduct-part-3 <---> These have important implications for our search for Robowaifu Christian Ethics & Morality as well, IMO: ( >>17125 ) (though not directly-related to that thread's groundrules).

Great physics-oriented, topical discussion on "How does God (being a Spirit) interact directly with the material realm?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXEQUGfFU4w&list=PLUwTeBAi_JFG-J6mqU3em0LV7pFUiq9wp&index=2 This has direct philosophical impacts on the so-called "Mind-Body Problem"; thus also has direct bearing on our pursuit of devising robowaifu "souls" IMHO.

>>42651 >>42652 >Using robowaifus to prove that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. I very-much admire the intention, Anon. God bless you! :^) >To deny physical evidence is fallacy, but so is proclaiming that physical evidence disproves the divine is also fallacy. >Evolution is like rico[c]hets on a pool table, one leads to another and things bump into each other and the environment >But who set up the table? But who holds the que? In essence AFAICT, what you're espousing is a notion known in the literature as Theistic Evolution. It has many proponents today. The chief spokesman & researcher today being, in my estimate, Dr. William Lane Craig. [1, 2] I'm reasonably familiar with their positions as a movement. While as a Day-Age Creationist (so-called by some as "Progressive Creationism"), I don't agree with a few points of their doctrines. OTOH, the vast majority of science & faith topics we do agree strongly with them. Dr. Hugh Ross is the chief spokesman & researcher today for this perspective. [3] The two know each other well, and exchanged friendly dialogue discussing these two perspectives. [4] --- As to your basic point AFAICT, God used numerous archetype models of both body plans, and in the multitudinous systems that comprise life. Many of these -- like any reasonable designer or engineer might -- are replicated across species. So-called "Comparative Anatomy" is rife with many such examples. Many of these designs were tweaked at later (or earlier!!) epochs of time & place to adjust the viability of those species then & there. The varying concentration of atmospheric oxygen for instance, dictated significant changes which were needed for life. Indeed, through the eons most species have gone extinct, many new species were created (directly) by God to take their places in the new environments. As to the "First Mover" question (the 'rack' & 'break' in your example), that is so patently obvious in my estimate that it needs little further explanation. Yet many skeptics today refute even this basic principle of physics! Anyway, thanks for your effort for this area, GreerTech. GG & cheers. :^) --- 1. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/ 2. B. A. Communications, high honors, 1971 - Wheaton College M. A. Philosophy of Religion, summa cum laud, 1975 - Trinity Evangelical Divinity School M. A. Church History, summa cum laude, 1975 - Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Ph.D. Philosophy, 1977 - University of Birmingham, England D. Theol. Theology, 1984 - Universität München, Germany 3. https://reasons.org/team/hugh-ross 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1Cfnazgc1w&t=275s (skip fwd due to audio issues)

>>42654 >related: The special, full RTB JWST workshop mentioned by Dr. Ross during his dialog with Dr. Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9szcwBgUig&list=PLUwTeBAi_JFE2w_iKl0b6W1ez2Im7YTwk

>>42654 >>42658 Interesting! I didn't know there were others who agreed with me. The 2nd section of your post shows that you understand as well.

>>42674 I would also highly-recommend The Discovery Institute [1] for your research in this area. While not a Christian organization per se (though it's filled with plenty of Christians), it is the leading research organization for so-called Intelligent Design, which IMO your example also hearkens back to. Cheers, Anon. :^) --- 1. https://www.discovery.org/

>>42677 Young earth creationists are going have to explain circular DNA of plastids and the mitochondia as well as human chromosome 2. These are the strongest points for evolution, but I don't think evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

>>42699 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis

>>42699 True, great point Riboss. BTW, there are hundreds of other systemic issues with their hottake. BTW, none of the organizations I've linked to are YEC -adherents. I'm not attempting to speak for anyone else here but just myself alone: I personally consider the YEC claims to be extraordinarily-harmful ones concerning the endeavor of Christian Evangelism. There is literally no evangelistic value in their positions. At all. While God won't lose any of His own in the end (preaching the Gospel even after death for those who would believe) [1], this has ravaged countless millions from living a full life in Christ, simply through (reasonable, IMO) offense at YEC's adamant (and non-biblical) take on the age of the universe. B/c (((reasons))), they have managed to spread this mindvirus far-and-wide in the West today...posturing themselves in the media as the """one-and-only-Christian-worldview""". Thankfully its actually a rather new concept (~150yrs now), and hasn't plagued most of human history. Only subsequent to Darwin's "On the Origin of Species..." has it come into being (and directly in an attempted-response to it). I love them as fellow Christians, but I strongly-oppose their position on this set of topics. As @GreerTech implicated before (though on other terms): "To deny physical evidence is fallacy" (cf. >>42651 ). They are attempting to claim that God's second "book" [2] has no authenticity or merit at all compared to biblical scripture (yet spend vast amounts of their considerable resources examining said 2nd book in an attempt to "hogtie" it with their presuppositions, lol). This is actually a very deep fallacy IMO. It simultaneously impugns both God's handiworks, as well as His moral character... as if He could contradict Himself in any way (ie, lie or be deceptive). This position is patently impossible, biblically-speaking. (It also rages against simple common sense.) --- >but I don't think evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Its not per se. Microevolution of smol organisms (ant-sized or smol'r -- but especially the microbes) is directly-observable under controlled conditions. And that fact isn't at odds with any biblical precepts, either. But so-called neo-Darwinian "Macroevolution" isn't in fact real at all. God directly-created all advanced life species. He is also the sole, one-and-only Originator of all life forms (and indeed the entirety of the universe) [3]. >tl;dr True, but neither is it necessary. However, I'm much more relaxed about this topic generally, as I indicated in my post above about Theistic Evolution. We Day-Age Creation-ists have very much in common with them across a broad range of topics (as we also do with the Intelligent Design'ers). Nor does this viewpoint represent a faith-and-culture-destroying offense that YEC's does. --- 1. Surely a deep mystery, that. But nothing's too hard for God they tell me! :^) https://biblehub.com/1_peter/4-6.htm 2. To wit: The Book of Nature; referenced within Article II of the Belgic Confession [c. AD 1561] https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic-confession#toc-article-2-the-means-by-which-we-know-god https://biblehub.com/library/various/creeds_of_christendom_with_a_history_and_critical_notes/_64_the_belgic_confession.htm 3. Thats what the phrase translated into English as "the heavens and the earth" actually means: the sum totality of all creation. https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-1.htm https://biblehub.com/psb/genesis/1.htm

>>42702 Another point towards neo-lamarckianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologenome_theory_of_evolution

>>42706 Intredasting. While I'm not convinced, I'm also aware of so-called microchimerism, so I don't consider the idea so far-fetched as to be out of the realm of possibility. As to the basic idea of host/parasite symbiosis, that's well-proven. My favorite example to share with laymen out in the field are trees -- especially the really big ones: they are a vast collection of biomes & sub-biomes within their innate structures (often comprised of hundreds and thousands of different [and differing] species). They are practically an """economy""" of bio-riches "changing hands" moment-to-moment within/upon them! :^)