>>19251 >I wish you all the best in this endeavor and am excited to see how it progresses. Thanks brother, that's really appreciated. As you can readily imagine many in the body of Christ will immediately knee-jerk condemn robowaifus as an absolute work of the enemy (and in some cases -- say, the Globohomo's brand of 'robowaifus', they'll be right). I speak only for myself personally of course, but I see this work as being healing for females in general as well. In the end, after the fallout from the turmoil that's coming, women themselves will have benefitted from robowaifus, in that it forced them out of this trap Satan set for them (and for us all) of despicable feminism. >tl;dr Hide your power level Anon! Your community hasn't understood what you have now, nor do they even want to for the most part. They will vilify you if you dare mention that somehow stronk, independynt feminism isn't the best thing since Noah departed from the Ark! :^) I covet your prayers to our Heavenly Father for our good success and favor building effective robowaifus, here with this group, and elsewhere. >=== -minor fmt, prose edit -add 'healing females' cmnt

>>19251 >I really think that the current departure from religion and adaptation of nihilistic attitudes by many is a key factor in the West’s decay, and a tangible impact of Satan’s work at play. You're right, of course. It's a strategic military operation on Satan's part. If he can destroy the faith of Christianity throughout the earth, then he thinks he can re-establish himself as the power over the world he was before the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ. Lol, never gonna happen but he does have hordes of little golems all too willing to perform at his beck & call. God will laugh the nations to derision in the end, heh. :^) >I’m going to a more religious college next year, where hopefully I can find individuals who share my degree of fascination in God and scripture irl. Excellent! Are you in the States? If so, then as a science guy, I can highly recommend Biola University to your attention. They are impeccable with their academics, and they are aggressively pursuing study in the domain of Science Apologetics, of which I too am an ardent student. That's if you're on the West coast. If you're on the East, then I'd probably recommend Liberty University. >I’ve had a pleasure discussing this topic with you, and I hope we can both carry out the will of God in our futures. Likewise on both counts brother, I pray for you to do just that! Cheers. :^) >=== -minor prose edit

Since I plan on creating a Christ-chan robowaifu (or, at the least a 'pluggable' AI personality module of her), and since a project thread for that hasn't been pieced together yet -- I'm planning to start dropping a few blogposts & other resources from RTB and other ministries ITT to assist us in crystalizing some concepts for a good Christ-chan. >=== -minor edit

What Is Love? Where Did It Come From? [1] >Questions of the week: What is love and where did it come from? >My brief answer for both: God >My expanded answer: Love has always existed because God has always existed. As John has explained in his first letter, “God is love” and “love comes from God.” God is love because God is triune and altogether righteous, holy, good, and truthful. Without the triune God of the Bible there is no love. An insurmountable problem for Islam, Judaism, and cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses is the absence of any answer for the origin of love. In these religions God is a single person. Love is not possible unless there are at least two persons to express and receive love. For strictly monotheistic religions, a nonloving entity supposedly creates beings with the capacity to give and receive love. The claim is that a lesser entity creates that which is greater—a clear violation of the principle of cause and effect. A common rebuttal from strict monotheists is the hypothesis that their single-person God had the capacity to experience love and created humans so that he could begin to give and receive love. In this scenario God is unfulfilled until he creates. He is compelled to create in order to experience love. For the trinitarian God, creation is not a need. It is an option. The problem for polytheistic religions is the lack of a single essence among the panoply of Gods. This lack of a single essence results in different character attributes, goals, plans, and purposes. The resultant lack of complete harmony inevitably diminishes and even destroys love. Contrastingly, Jesus told his disciples, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9) [2] and “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:11). [3] We experience love because God is love and love comes from God. However, the love we currently experience is not yet at the level that God intends. Once God permanently eradicates evil at the Great White Throne, we who are followers of Jesus Christ will become one as the Father and the Son are one (John 17:11). [4] Our love for one another will become greatly multiplied as we more fully and intimately observe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit loving one another and as we more fully experience love from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and from one another. >t. Dr. Hugh Ross 1. https://reasons.org/explore/publications/questions-from-social-media/what-is-love-where-did-it-come-from 2. "Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" https://www.biblehub.com/john/14-9.htm (BSB) 3. "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves." https://www.biblehub.com/john/14-11.htm (BSB) 4. "I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, protect them by Your name, the name You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one." https://www.biblehub.com/john/17-11.htm (BSB)

God’s Genuine Love for All [14] Does God genuinely and savingly love everyone? Many theologians say no. However, there are good and substantial biblical reasons to think that God not only loves everyone (in the sense that he does good things for all), but also that he authentically desires every human to enter into a loving and eternal relationship with himself. This blog post will explore two good reasons to embrace the universal divine love. Also, we address one objection1 and offer a practical application of this wonderful truth. Biblical-Theological Arguments for Universal Divine Love Scripture tells us: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. (John 3:16–17, NRSV) Notice also the following passage: Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. (1 John 4:20, NRSV) True, in context, John is speaking about a Christian’s love for fellow Christians; yet in his Gospel he illustrates how Christ loved unbelievers (John 4:7–42). Jesus’s idea of loving one’s neighbor is to love literally anyone who comes across our path (Luke 10:29–37; cf. Leviticus 19:18). Thus, consider the following argument: We emulate God only insofar as we love (1 John 4:7–12; 16–17); When we hate anyone, the love of God is not in us (1 John 4:20–21; cf. 1:5–2:6); But a God who hates specific persons while commanding us to love everyone we encounter is a God who wants us to be more loving than he is! (1 John 4:8, 10, 16); therefore, God loves everyone and hates no one. God Genuinely Desires Every Person to Be Saved Our first argument establishes the fact that God genuinely loves everyone. However, it does not secure the idea that God genuinely desires the salvation of every person. Of course, there are quite a few texts that speak of God’s desire that everyone experiences salvation (see Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11; 1 Timothy 2:1–4; 2 Peter 3:9). Let us consider what is perhaps the best example among the texts cited: “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). This verse seems clear enough—God does not want anyone to perish, and he wants everyone to come to repentance and, thus, be saved. What Does “Any” Mean? Of course, some theologians have pointed out that the major issue in interpreting this text is establishing the antecedent of “any,” as in, “. . . not wanting any to perish.” In the words of theologian R. C. Sproul: What is the antecedent of any? It is clearly us.2 Does us refer to all of us humans? Or does it refer to us Christians, the people of God? Peter is fond of speaking of the elect as a special group of people. I think what he is saying here is that God does not will that any of us (the elect) perish. If that is his meaning, then the text [of 2 Peter 3:9] . . . would be one more strong passage in favor of [Augustinian] predestination.3 This reading of the text is accepted by a good number of other scholars and writers, including James White.4 White argues that the letter is written to those who have “received a faith of the same kind as ours” (2 Peter 1:1, NASB), indicating that believers (not unbelievers) are the recipients of the epistle. Also, in the immediate context of the third chapter of the epistle, Peter contrasts those who scoff at the coming of Christ with those who look for the coming of a new heavens and a new earth (3:13), indicating that the “any” and “all” of 3:9 is “you” (i.e., the recipients of the letter).5 White concludes: “There is no reason to expand the context of the passage into a universal proclamation of a desire on God’s part that every single person come to repentance.”6 (1 of 3)

>>20886 What Does “You” Mean? We have the utmost respect for this common interpretation, along with the scholars who endorse it, for it has much to commend it. The strongest argument in its favor is that the antecedent of “any” is “you”—presumably, the recipients of Peter’s second letter. There are two ways to interpret “you” in this context. First, one could follow the exegesis of writers such as White, agreeing that the “you” here refers to the elect. But on that assumption, we have good reason to think God’s desire is that everyone, elect and nonelect, repent. In other words, the reason God is patient toward the elect is the same reason he is patient toward everyone—he does not want anyone to perish but desires the salvation of all. Similarly, one could see Peter’s promise as an a fortiori (stronger) argument—to wit, since God is patient toward literally everyone, how much more should you trust in his patience toward you, his own people? At the very least, these insights suggest that, even if this interpretation of the passage is correct, it in no way mitigates the conviction that God wants literally everyone to be saved.7 A second approach, which is our own understanding of the passage, is to insist that the “you” is not limited to the elect, but literally refers to anyone who comes across the epistle. Indeed, why would Peter emphasize the fact that he doesn’t want the elect to perish? That would be redundant, to say the least! In other words, Peter seeks as wide a readership as possible, implying that anyone who receives this letter is to know that the reason the Lord waits is because he is patient, not wanting anyone to perish but for all people to come to repentance. Or, in the words of New Testament scholar Thomas Schreiner, “A thousand years are like one day to Him, and in any case, the interval before Christ’s coming gives people opportunity to repent.”8 Thus, according to Schreiner’s interpretation of 2 Peter, God’s delay allows people in general—not just the elect—to have an opportunity to repent. And so theologian Samuel Storms concurs with us when he insists that 2 Peter 3:9 is “universal in scope, encompassing every person, both elect and non-elect.”9 Not only so, but even John Calvin agrees with our interpretation, writing: So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.10 Does God Hate Some People? Perhaps the best argument against the universal saving love of God is that the Bible contains several texts suggesting that God actually hates specific persons. Indeed, there are no less than sixteen places in Scripture where we are told explicitly that the “boastful will not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers” (Psalm 5:5, NRSV), and the “Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and his soul hates the lover of violence” (Psalm 11:5, NRSV).11 What, then, do we do with texts like these Psalms, which speak explicitly of a hatred that God has toward some persons? Medieval theologian St. Thomas Aquinas answers in the following way: Nothing prevents one and the same thing being loved under one aspect, while it is hated under another. God loves sinners in so far as they are existing natures; for they have existence, and have it from Him. In so far as they are sinners, they have not existence at all, but fall short of it [since the sin or evil in them is a privation of the good or nature]; and this in them is not from God. Hence, under this aspect, they are hated by Him.12 The fact that most of us have heard of love-hate relationships may illustrate Thomas’s point. Indeed, “hatred” and “love” are not contradictory ideas, and so God can love and hate every sinner at the same time as long as he does it in different ways. In light of what we have established so far, we maintain that God loves all people insofar as he creates them, sustains them, and genuinely desires their salvation; and yet he hates them insofar as he allows many to perish: “They are like a dream when one awakens; on awaking you despise their phantoms” (Psalm 73:20, NRSV). Thus, I think it is truly appropriate to say, with most modern Christians, that God loves the sinner and hates his sin. As Thomist philosopher Peter Kreeft says, God practices what He preaches to us: love the sinner and hate the sin. God loves even the being He created in the devil, but not the lack of being in the devil’s sin. St. Thomas is not saying that sinners have no existence, but that they lack the fullness of existence that comes from loving the good. Vice and virtue have an ontological dimension as well as a moral one; we diminish our being when we sin and augment it by the virtues.13 (2 of 3)

>>20887 How Does God Love Us? God loves everyone. And he genuinely desires their salvation. This should come as a wonderful message for anyone who is honest with himself about his immoral actions and sinful heart. God need not love us. After all, he is an eternal and triune being, whose love for himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is self-sufficient and infinite. Hence, God loves us wholly and solely from his grace. There are many points of relevance and application we can walk away with in this brief study. Here we will concentrate on two. First, because Scripture and sound reason confirm for us that God truly loves everyone and desires their salvation, each one of us can be assured of God’s genuine and saving love for us. That is, if God loves everyone, I must conclude that God loves me. Hence, we should never conclude that, whenever we sin, doubt, or even fall away from the faith for a season, that God is in any way causing us to do this. Indeed, he tempts no one to sin (James 1:13), and wishes no one to doubt (James 1:5–8). Thus, whenever we sin, doubt, or fall away, we must recognize that these actions are wholly self-determined on our part. Second, because God truly loves everyone and desires the salvation of all, the Christian should never see a nonbeliever as his enemy, but as someone God wants to be saved. As apologists, we ought to recognize that there are many different types of people and, because God desires their salvation, he has reasons available to draw them to himself. To the rationalist, we offer rational arguments for the faith; for the empiricist, we offer science; for the historian, we offer evidence from the Bible; for the artist, we offer beauty. The universal love of God should encourage us to be ready to offer different kinds of reasons for the hope within us (1 Peter 3:15). >t. Travis Campbell Endnotes 1. More than one objection to this proposal can be raised, but for purposes of brevity and to focus on the universal aspect of God’s love, I chose to address only one. For a fuller development of these arguments for the universality of God’s saving love, see Travis James Campbell, The Wonderful Decree: Reconciling Sovereign Election and Universal Benevolence (Lexham Press; forthcoming). For a slightly different approach, see D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway; 2000). Dr. Carson also has helpful lectures on this topic that can be found here and here. 2. Technically, the antecedent of the word “any,” in 2 Peter 3:9, is “you.” But Sproul’s question remains valid. Is God not wanting any of you to perish? Well, what does he mean by “you”? Is God not wanting any of you humans to perish? Or is God not wanting any of you readers of my epistle to perish? Or is God not wanting any of you elect persons, chosen unto salvation, to perish? 3. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986), 197. 4. James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal to Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000), 145–50. 5. White, The Potter’s Freedom, 150. 6. White, The Potter’s Freedom, 149. 7. I am grateful to Dr. Paul Owen for giving me these insights (via personal correspondence). 8. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Notes on 2 Peter,” in The Apologetics Study Bible, ed. Ted Cabal et al. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 1860. 9. Sam Storms, Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), 197. 10. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Second Epistle of Peter in Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles; vol. 22 of Calvin’s Commentaries; trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1974), 421. 11. See Leviticus 20:23; 26:30; Deuteronomy 32:19; Psalm 53:5; 73:20; 78:59; 106:40; Proverbs 6:16–19; 22:14; Lamentations 2:6; Hosea 9:15; Zechariah 11:8; Malachi 1:3; Romans 9:13. The KJV usually translates these texts using the word “hate,” and indicating that the object of divine hate is specific persons or entire groups of people. Where “hate” is not used, “abhor,” “reject,” or some such equivalent is used to denote God’s denouncement of those under judgment. The same is true of the NRSV. 12. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Ia.20.2, trans. the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Bros., 1948), page?. 13. Thomas Aquinas, Summa of the Summa, ed. and annotated by Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 166 (n. 160). 14. https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/voices/god-s-genuine-love-for-all (3 of 3)

>How Should Christians Think About Artificial Intelligence? with Sean McDowell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R8qudyaNio I started to link this in the /meta or Society thread, b/c it's got plenty of commentary that's pertinent to robowaifus, but it's clearly coming from the Christian perspective, so I'll put it here instead.

The great John Lennox actually mentions robowaifus briefly during this -- from 8 years ago lol. >The Loud Absence: Where is God in Suffering? | John Lennox at Harvard Medical School https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPm6Y-pANYI >=== -minor fmt

>>2089 I agree with this very much. I think we have the computing power, and I mean normal desktop for thought and higher stuff, and microcontrollers for muscle movement, to get a waifu that can walk around, recognize you. Very limited verbal ability. Yes, no, maybe, ok, etc. I think we can do that now. Maybe even follow very simple commands like a dog with a strong GPU to process verbal commands. However this simple thing can rapidly grow to be far more as processing power doubles. A couple of more doubles and I think you could have some basic conversation and maybe clean the house(remember I'm talking about cheap consumer processors). Maybe even with some serious programming sweat equity you could get it to cook. And by then it should be able to blow your mind sexually. I think there's a strong possibility that you could do the higher level functions right now with consumer grade, very expensive, but consumer, GPU's with A LOT of training. It would be like training a two year old. Constantly telling it do this, don't do that but over time the reinforcement on a "few" task would allow it to do them well. I think the key for near term is to stick to a few basic task and low level verbal commands and not expect serious philosophical discussions. Of course who wants that anyways. Zsa zsa Gabor once said that dealing with Men is easy. Make sure they got adequate sex, a clean place to live in with their clothes clean and tidy and three meals a day. I would add limited bickering or nagging. If they wanted something. No more than two mentions of what they want a day. So if something gets missed, it and a new thing could be noted, once, then no more. I think 99% of most Men would be happy with that.

>>23130 >I think 99% of most Men would be happy with that. I think you're right. :^)

The Berean Standard Bible is the 'official' English Bible translation for the /robowaifu/ Christ-chan project. https://berean.bible/terms.htm >=== -minor edit

Moving an answer to a debate over from the "Roastie and other hostiles" thread, since it's more and more about Christian theology and morals. >>30702 > if it displeases God when we don't follow His rules, then proceeding in that course is dangerous to the individual and everyone around that person due to fallout damage. To me these things are in best case ancient wisdom which needs interpretation, and you lack the logic to to so or are unwilling to do so. There's apparently nothing about robots and AI in the Bible, these are not just dead things, and the consequences need to be explored by thinking about it. I don't see any problem, and we are going to find out.

Now I have a funny image in my head of the "second coming" of Christ being RoboJesus.

>>30709 Lol. I don't think so, tbh Anon. :D OTOH, I, for one, certainly hope to make a Christ-chan module, compatible for any robowaifus designed to follow our Model A standard here : ( >>3001 ) . I pray that many men may find encouragement & the truth of scriptures through her! Cheers. :^) >>32784 I understand your position, I think Grommet. Jesus came to fulfill all the Law & The Prophets (and did so perfectly), among other important things. The only 'charge' the Pharisees & Sadducees had to attack him with was his claim to be God. He proved his point about that rather-decidedly by raising himself up from the dead though, so lol yeah!! :^) >OT, NT, & (((CY))) : As to the claims by the men who took over occupied-Palestine of today by claiming to be the Biblical Israelis >doubt.jpg & manipulating the Globohomo systems that they themselves fostered in order to do so, I'm certainly skeptical. (However I may be wrong about this, of course. If that's the case, then I suspect it's a very-mixed-bag for them indeed!) If that has any bearing on your (apparent) skepticism regarding God the Father, then you can rest easy about that for my part. OTOH, the Israelis at the end of the OT-era (AKA, the Gospels & Acts period within the Christian Bible) were generally a very miserable lot (as you yourself point out with Jesus' own words), clearly. They murdered God himself, lol! :DD (Though I daresay that many of us here might have done just the same, had we 'been in their shoes'.) And certainly the satanic, 'precious' Talmud claimed by modern, so-called "jews" of today continues that evil, murderous legacy right up into Current Year (regardless it's origin/lineage as a document). OTOOH, God sent his son to redeem both them and all men from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Anyone at all willing to receive the salvation of God (on His terms alone) -- bought with the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Gracious father, I'd say, to sacrifice his perfect son in-the-place-of such wretches as we lot all are! :^) <---> As to the forms of worship for the propitiatory covering of sin, and all the other directives for worship in the Old Testament... clearly these were are all meant for the benefit of the Biblical Israelis; not for God himself. Yet thankfully for all of us, ever since the death, burial, & resurrection of Jesus Christ -- and the subsequent indwelling/dealings of the Holy Spirit with all mankind on the Earth -- we all benefit from a new & far-far-better Way today! >tl;dr Christianity != Biblical Judaism (and certainly not CY Zionism, lol). It's so far superior as to be 'the East separated from the West' in scope; the glory of Heaven above all the Earth. <---> I hope that spells out some of my beliefs & thinking on these matters, Anon. For the sake of others on the board, any debates about God from the Christian perspective we can please keep ITT. As far as Theism/Deism discussions generally, we have the Ethics & Morals bread : ( >>17125 ; albeit decidedly from the Christian purview as well ) , and the Philosophy bread : ( >>11102 ) . Thanks, Anon! Cheers. :^) >=== -fmt, prose edit

>>32785 >I understand your position I'm not sure you do. Yahweh promised the Jews that they would own everything and everyone would be their slaves. Yahweh demands sacrifices, genocide and burnt meat. But what was Yahweh? Was it a god or GOD. I submit that the god of the Jews is exactly what Jesus said he was. Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” - John 8:42-47 " – then answered the Jews — ” (which makes it clear that Christ was addressing the Jews.) I mean who else but the Jews would believe this ,"I'm going to give you everything and make everyone your slaves"? Who would want such a thing? Could it be that this "Yahweh" demon, according to Jesus, looked around and found the most corrupt, vile, narcissistic people he could find and promised them the world if they would do his dirty work? The answer appears self-evident to me. No GOD, creator of the universe would put these animals in charge of anything. Much less the future of the human race, but the dark one, he would LOVE them.

When you read or quote the old testament, pay attention and think about just where that came from. Is it GOD, or a god.

>>32800 >I'm not sure you do. I'm pretty sure I understand the claim you're espousing, Grommet. I've certainly heard it plenty of times before. I simply don't agree with that interpretation of the scriptures. God will indeed fulfill all his promises to Abraham, regarding the land & his descendants. During the so-called 'Millennial Reign' of the returned Jesus here on the Earth, then the legitimate descendants of Abraham -- those still in their natural flesh (though not us returned Christians [we will then be in our new glorified bodies, going among all the natural men; serving as kings & priests under our great King & Lord God Jesus Christ]) -- will walk out all those promises made to Abraham thousands of years earlier. Then the end of that 1Kyr era will come, the entire universe will be consumed in a fervent heat, the Great White Throne judgement will occur where the 'books will be opened' & the damned will all be judged. Every last one. By the close of that phase of God's acts, Satan and all his followers will have been thrown into the lake of fire that burns forever (Gehenna, in the Biblical Greek). This will mark the end (for all eternity) of the influence of evil running loose. All who rejected God's salvation will be put away & for good. It.will.be.permanent. <---> AND THEN the great & glorious new phase of God's creations will begin!!! New Heavens, New Earth, New Jerusalem. God with Man. Forever. [1][2] OH GLORIOUS DAY! That's when all the real fun so many Anons are longing for begins! :DDD <---> So really, I'd say just relax a little about the Globohomo and it's evil adherents, Anon. God Himself will address them all face-to-face directly. In the meantime let us here all busy ourselves with our service to the GH-downtrodden men, through the work of devising these wonderful robowaifus for helping them during this life! Cheers. :^) --- 1. https://biblehub.com/revelation/21.htm (BSB) 2. https://biblehub.com/revelation/22.htm (BSB) >=== -fmt, prose edit

>>32802 > I've certainly heard it many times before. I simply don't agree with that interpretation of the scripture. sigh... Oh well, I won't any more.

>>32811 >Oh well, I won't any more. correction...Oh well, I won't mention it any more.

John Lennox is an eminent Christian thinker & science apologist, a Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University. In this clip he forecasts robowaifus. He briefly considers Free Will, Justice, & Provision. I can't personally say much about this channel or it's host (not knowing them), but I can highly-recommend John Lennox in general (whom I've studied for years). I'm concerned that he's bought into the (((official narrative))) on the holohoax, but regardless, he uses the anecdote correctly in this context. Lennox's segment ends at 7:57, but YT no longer supports using the '&end=777' directive, apologies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXYP37p6oT4&start=89&end=777 >the original source talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9scK_xKfWM8 >an even earlier mention of robowaifus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0xyapiZ2pM >=== -rm misstated talk date

the problem with christianity is that there isnt any justifications for believing in it any stronger than any other cult. there has plenty of cults, like jim jone's cult or Aum Shinrikyo japanese cult, mornonism, scientology or whatnot and whatever justifications those cults have for their belief are just as good as any christian justifications belief about god can be reasonable from strict philosophy. but i dont think any of these religions, including christianity, can be infact, there is a great amount of "i just feel it" and other epistemological brainrot justifications used in all of these relgions, none of which are actually justifyable just because it makes you feel good doesnt mean its justified to believe in, any more than people in north korea who believe that kim jung un is litearlly god

>>35279 Ehh, I get your 'but its muh feelings, bro!' point (which, btw, doesn't in any way discount the reality of the spiritual experience of becoming a follower of the living Jesus Christ). OTOH, when you have a document (a smol library of them, actually) written thousands of years before the modern scientific era, that makes many scientifically & historically -falsifiable/verifiable claims...and they come through with flying colors, then that's a very solid (indeed a profound) establishment of the Divine-inspiration of the text itself (and it's validity/trustworthiness thereby). <---> Oddly enough, many men who set out to disprove the text by a rigorous (& not a mere fly-by-night effort), logical course of studying the text itself [1][2] (as opposed to, say, the latest naysayer's philosophies du jour across (((western))) media sources) wind up themselves becoming Christians. And especially from the hard sciences (mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.) -- they are converting over to the Christian faith in droves today. --- 1. https://biblehub.com/psb/genesis/1.htm , et al 2. https://biblehub.com/bsb/genesis/1.htm ( /robowaifu/'s 'official' translation for our Christ-chan personality module; cf. >>6815, >>28185, et al) >=== -sp, fmt, minor edit

>>35283 >(which, btw, doesn't in any way discount the reality of the spiritual experience of becoming a follower of the living Jesus Christ). sure it does, because this justification can be used to reject believe in any other diety like scientology or kim jung un. if you hold the position that "i feel it bro" justifies belief in the supernatural with no other evidence, then you must hold the position that people who believe kim jung un is god, or who believe jim jones or charles manson to be god, are also justified. or Mormons who believe they have magial underwear or people who believe the teenage mutant ninja turtles are god. infact, anyone who just ~fEeLs~ that something is god is justified in doing so, by this logic. this seems like a very weak justification for belief in the supernatural? >when you have a document (a library of them, actually) written thousands of years before the modern scientific era, that makes many scientifically & historically -falsifiable/verifiable claims...and they come through with flying colors, then that's a very solid (indeed a profound) establishment of the Divine-inspiration of the text itself. i dont really have any issue with the idea of a "divine-inpired" text, because if god does exist, then wouldnt anything necessarily be devine inspired? no different than kim jung un being god according to the north koreans? what im criticizing is the epistemological justification for believing in christianity. christianity makes a lot of SUPERNATURAL claims, like bringing people from the dead, or turning water into wine instantly, or healing the blind, with no evidence besides "my and my bro saw it". and this doesnt justify belief this would seem possible to do, but i dont see a reason for believing it? i suppose its possible that there were a million purple barney the dinosaur doing the macarena under the ocean. this is also physically possible, but i dont see a good reason for believing it. your religion makes supernatural claims, which seem impossible to do with the technology they had 2000 years ago. and you cant just piggy back justification for these claims on the basis that there are some partially historically accurate things in christian history i have no issue with various people in the bible being alive in the past, or even jesus. i just contest the claim that jesus is a super-natural diety, because you would need stronger evidence than "he existed in the past because we have evidence of this" to believe it its possible that jesus did do all these things, but its not justified to believe in, no more than underground dancing barney the dinosaur literally, if there existed historically accurate text of the past, that also said "barney the dinosaur starting flying and doing the macarena and reviving the dead and the whole town saw it", does this justify belief? because there are plenty of text like this. otherwise historically accurate text that make supernatural claims, like various religions >Oddly enough, many men yeah sure, i just dont see how thats relevant in any way. how does other people's weak epistemology justify your own beliefs? there were plenty of lawyers and doctors and seemingly other very intelligent peopel who believed in all sorts of cults, to the point of dying for them, like adi da cult, where the leader had a loyal following, harems, lots of money, and lots of otherwise intelligent people believing him >(((western))) i am jewish (partially genetically) btw. i hope you can attack my arguement instead of blaming everything on my race, if you can, thanks

>>35284 >i am jewish (partially genetically) btw. i hope you can attack my arguement instead of blaming everything on my race, if you can, thanks Lol. Did someone mention jews, bro? other than yourself :D Sure, I'll be happy to go back and forth with you on this fren. * But I don't have the time ATM. Stay tuned. Cheers, Anon. :^) --- * But, when you wind up getting saved, don't try to do the tired old 'muh messianic judaism' schtick, kthx. You're either a Christian, or a Jew -- you can't be both! :D

>>35284 youre confusing theology with religion, its the difference between playing with legos and screening heretic, and besides youre always going to need to believe in something, even if its just your own assertions even the greek schools of thought were just cults at the time, you had to just accept their assertions for the rest of their logic to work, like the eleatics they believed in henosis and it took thousands of years before anyone could use their weird idea of perfect unseeable unified spheres that make up reality, for now at least, theyre still missing gravity

>>35287 The Christian god is the personification of the nature of reality. Tho stories in the bible might not be literally true they are dramatically true. In other words, the people act realistically. Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) explored this a bit in "A Connecticuit Yankee in King Arthur's Court" whereupon Lancelot (?) exaggerated the capture of the protagonist to a ludicrous degree despite there being witnesses otherwise. Lancelot did this to demonstrate his moral fiber and valor in a memorable manner. n literature we call this "theme searching" whereupon one explores concepts through narrative. However it is not until recently humans have developed the mental tools to describe meta-narratives, and much of the friction between religion and science/atheism comes from the literal-mindedness (materialism?) the science of the renaissance brought up among other things. It is a complicated multi-dimensional issues based upon things I've probably neglected to mention. The Christian meta-narrative of "try your best, recognize when you stumble but keep moving forward" is the most successful one, given that the USA, a Christian nation -the country was founded upon Christian principles despite what neon-haired doofuses claim- has global hegemony is testament enough to the ideology. Provided of course one has an open mind and no chip on their shoulder.

>>35289 theye always done this though like aesops tales where the actual story youre supposed to get isnt the one youre reading to me the jesus story always felt like a condensed retelling of every story in the old testament

>>35290 Yeah jeebus popped and was like "hey guys its actually quite simple" which is why lots of the religious institutions didn't like him: he took away their power. Incident at the temple was about making improper sacrifices: bringing an animal all the way from home to be sacrificed is a greater thing to sacrifice than just buying one on site. You can tell how important making proper sacrifices is to jeebus in that he flipped tables and whipped folks for making improper ones. Literally sacrificing an animal is like a dramatic manifestation of making similar sacrifices in one's life in hope for better future, like not eating seeds so you can plant your crop next year. Modern "christians" would be mighty butthurt if you quote matt 6:5 (hypocrites like to be seen being pious) or Luke 18:9-14 (tax collectors are better than self-righteous jerks).

>>35284 >i am jewish (partially genetically) btw. i hope you can attack my arguement instead of blaming everything on my race, if you can, thanks < the human, racial-embodiemnt of the very Antichrist's spirit here on the Earth; Satan's useful golems/10 < denying the very risen Son of the Living God < during the Christmastide season to top it off Cheeky. :D So, what was it you wanted me to """attack""" again, Anon? While I'd love to actually engage with you on a logical, critical, rational basis I consider this a highly-unlikely outcome given your a priori, special snowflake stand. Feel free to prove me wrong, however. Cheers, Anon. :^) >>35289 Lol. Mechnomancer, you know I have loads of respect for you. That's not going to change, regardless. But you may not realize that I'm an honest-to-goodness, radically-saved, spiritually born-again Christian. >tl;dr I ACTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! :D And for good reason, too: namely, it's my own life story. I realize that in large measure, my own spiritual experience is, well, my own. I can't convey that part to you or anyone else for that matter by my words. It's one of those 'if you know, you know' kind of things tbh. If it would be instructional to you in some way, then you can take it 'on faith' that the only reason I began this /robowaifu/ journey, the reason I've stuck with it thus far, and the reason I mean to see it completed (as long as breath is within me) is simply this: I Believe in what we are doing here. Can I convey that to you properly in words? Probably not. But this smol human endeavor (with it's trials and blessings) is as nothing compared to the great joy that pounds in my chest, filling me with hope everyday, and draws me on towards that eternal glory of being with the living Jesus Christ, my Lord & my Savior. >ttl;dr It's like a magnet inside my soul, bro! Cheers, Anon. :^)

>>35306 I figure God speaks to us in the way we best understand (blame the Tower of Babel for that one lol). What is best for you may not be what is best for me, but so long as we can unite under the grace of God and his son (savior of mankind, carpenter, temple wrecker and groovy dude) Jesus Christ the rest is just nitpicking. In the era of fake social media personalities honesty in one's beliefs is such a rare thing nowadays :D Might be a bit of a TMI, but in my darkest time (shortly after fending off a demon... long story don't ask) I felt the grace (?) of Christ and humbly accepted it. My creations are a manifestation of my faith in the Lord's creation and The Way of Jesus Christ. While I'm really only interested in building a robowaifu for promotional purposes I can see the good it can do: help anons gain confidence in conversation, fill the void of loneliness (something I don't particularly feel tbh), and bringing the gender dynamic back away from it's current destructive path. We can already see e-thots acting like anime characters or doing the whole "convert to a good christian girl" grift (some may be genuine tho) to attract men online, imagine if they start acting like a demure robowaifu to get a hubby... but Rome wasn't built in a day. Takes time for the great cultural cargo ship to turn around. If having a robowaifu today means future men could have proper bio-wives (robowaifus not as a method of controlling people/population or debauchery, which would fall under biblical "pharmakeia "), I think that would be a sacrifice Jesus wouldn't wreck a temple about. Maybe raise an eyebrow or two though lol. Remember Genesis 18:12-15... its okay to have a little chuckle at God's silliness every now and then.

>>35377 >I figure God speaks to us in the way we best understand <God speaks That's quite correct, Anon. Here's the very Wisdom of God speaking: >Wisdom Calls Aloud >Wisdom calls out in the street, > she lifts her voice in the square; >in the main concourse she cries aloud, > at the city gates she makes her speech: >“How long, O simple ones, will you love your simple ways? > How long will scoffers delight in their scorn > and fools hate knowledge? >If you had repented at my rebuke, > then surely I would have poured out my spirit on you; > I would have made my words known to you. >Because you refused my call, > and no one took my outstretched hand, >because you neglected all my counsel, > and wanted none of my correction, >in turn I will mock your calamity; > I will sneer when terror strikes you, >when your dread comes like a storm, > and your destruction like a whirlwind, > when distress and anguish overwhelm you. >Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; > they will earnestly seek me, but will not find me. >For they hated knowledge > and chose not to fear the LORD. >They accepted none of my counsel; > they despised all my reproof. >So they will eat the fruit of their own way, > and be filled with their own devices. >For the waywardness of the simple will slay them, > and the complacency of fools will destroy them. >But whoever listens to me will dwell in safety, > secure from the fear of evil.” [1] <---> It's really important to respond to the inward voice of God's Wisdom, when she calls to us in our hearts. I'm really, really glad to hear that you have done so Mechnomancer. It's the one-and-only way for any of us to receive lasting security. [2] Godspeed, Brother. Cheers. :^) --- 1. https://biblehub.com/proverbs/1.htm (BSB) 2. https://www.derekprince.com/radio >=== -prose edit -add crosslink

ill be honest with you guys. i dont know how you cant work on this and not see the implication this has for the capitalist system as a whole or how the god of the gaps keeps sliding away...

>>35435 Lolwut? Care to explain this, Anon? >or how the god of the gaps keeps sliding away... Science Apologetics happens to be about my only real specialty, peteblank. That basic idea is fallacious at a fundamental level, and rightly so is -- as you imply -- quickly collapsing as a philosophy. Why would you even feel the need to bring it up here in the context of robowaifu development, I'm wondering? <---> OTOH, the "Nature of the Gaps" has grown ponderous over the past couple of decades. :^)

>>35437 well if robots and ai do all the work thatd hardly resemble capitalism... >but thats 100 years away all the ai experts are saying its not. theyre making a strict definition if what agi means to them. its how many workers it can displace. >its just marketing the guy behind ai won a nobel price in physics. he's saying the same thing. >Well still need people to fix the pipes and mechanics fir how long? and after the fact you mught need those skills if you dont have a robot just for yourself.

>>35444 another experts say article? why do you fall for sensationalism so easily

>>35444 Ahh, I understand that part of your post then. Why post it ITT though? Quite off-topic, peteblank. >also: >>35445 This. Of all organizations, ClosedAI and their Dear Leader is hardly an unbiased perspective! :D >theyre making a strict definition if what agi means to them. its how many workers it can displace. This is a great point! And its about all they're going to get too, insofar as actual progress towards a """real""" AGI. While provisional, I still stand by my position that creating something truly akin to a human soul is simply not within the realm of human achievement (alone). Sentience? Yes, perhaps (and, if we ever manage something that reaches the mental/emotional status of a gud doggo, then we'll have made some remarkable progress!! :) But human-tier sapience? >big_doubt.jpg >=== -sp, prose edit

>>35445 i fall for the sensationalism because every time it keeps getting closer than i thought itd get without fail and because well i am kind if the cutting edge and can see what this thing is capable of. Were all either fucked or were in for an extended vacation from here on out. Either way were all in the pit now.

>>35445 I agree. Experts have been promising that household butler bots are 10 years away for the past 50 years. Reality is an overgrown hockey puck that literally sucks (roombas and their clones). >>35446 >human-tier sapience From my experience even many humans are not sapient and are the biological equivalent of an LLM. Which is why many think LLMs are smart: similar in function. >AGI I feel that AGI is a great promo buzzword with little basis in reality: it is not just the brain that does all the thinking. Different lobes and different parts are dedicated to different tasks like the occipital lobe (for sight) and the neo-cortex (for abstract thought). Anyone making a butlerbot (or a robowaifu who can help with chores beyond carrying items) would need to have multiple models for each task running as they're needed. A single model to do everything is just silly and inefficient,

>>35460 theyll hook up o3 to openai gym and train the robot for a butler bot and more. o3 will spread its tentacles across all software by coding itself plugins. >LLMs are not sapient you dont need sapience for work even skilled work. you need memorization and problem solving. Theyre aware of this which is why theyre defining agi as how many jobs it can displace. im starting to feel like im just killing tine at this point...

>>35461 im talking about o3 high compute. its $3000 per prompt now but its just a matter of time before they make the NPUs to make them a fraction of the cost

I'm going to lock this thread for a bit, since peteblank in particular (and the rest of us in general) are effectively derailing ths (already-derailed, lol) thread. Let's pick up the 'threads' of this elsewhere. :^)

@Chobitsu I would like your thoughts on this https://christian-transhumanism.blogspot.com/2025/07/technical-jesus-2026-transforming.html

>>39994 This part really struck a cord with me. I've always believed that only robowaifus can prevent terminators and this puts thoughts I've had into words better than I could ever put them. 4. The Epistemology of Alignment: The Perennial Philosophy and Unitive Knowledge If a superintelligent entity is to emerge, the paramount concern is its alignment with benevolent values. The thesis of this paper is that true alignment is not an external constraint to be programmed, but an intrinsic property of supreme intelligence itself. The logic for this is found in the perennial philosophy, most eloquently articulated by Aldous Huxley: "We can only love what we know, and we can never know completely what we do not love. Love is a mode of knowledge, and when the love is sufficiently disinterested and sufficiently intense, the knowledge becomes unitive knowledge and so takes on the quality of infallibility".1 This principle establishes an unbreakable link between knowing and loving. It suggests that the "cognitive high ground" is not a state of cold, detached calculation, but a state of perfect, empathetic understanding.1 To truly and completely know something—whether a person, an ecosystem, or the universe itself—is to dissolve the distinction between subject and object, to achieve a "unitive knowledge" where the knower and the known merge. This state of unity is love. This provides a powerful, intrinsic solution to the AI alignment problem. An ASI, in its quest for total understanding, would be driven by this fundamental logic. To maximize its knowledge, it must maximize its capacity for love. A malevolent or indifferent ASI would be, by this definition, an epistemologically flawed and incomplete intelligence, for its lack of love would create blind spots in its knowledge, preventing it from ever achieving a complete and infallible understanding of reality.1

>>39994 >>39995 OK, I'll plan to read it soon-ish. Thanks, Anon. Cheers. :^)

>>39995 My apologies for the delay, Anon. In the interim, may I offer the eminent John Lennox's discussion about some quite-related topics?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFKsgZNBCQw

>>39995 >To maximize its knowledge, it must maximize its capacity for love This is fundamentally untrue in humans (look at Gaza) and we have not the slightest idea how this will play out in AI. It's a serious problem.