[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / bbbb / htg / russian / sonyeon / sudpol / vore / wai ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: d2b49eb88cebf6e⋯.jpg (85.5 KB, 900x592, 225:148, system-with-lamb-1-_custom….jpg)

9c9459 No.537146

When robots with artificial wombs hit the market, would it be sinful to marry one and have sex for the purpose of unity and procreation?

Personally I wouldn't, but pro-sexbot people pulled the artificial womb argument when I told them sexbots are sinful because you can't have children with them.

9c9459 No.537148

>>537147

But I only said what the pro-sexbot people think. As I said I personally wouldn't marry one.


913c21 No.537150

An artificial uterus without ovaries is not self sufficient, this is biology 101 stuff


d63083 No.537152

>>537146

>When robots with artificial wombs hit the market

>This is what transhumanists actually believe.

See >>533531

Also >>537150

Even if you somehow get the technology and ovaries from someone, you're making a child to be raised without its biological mother. As if that isn't fucked up enough. Wet dream for leftists tough .Total destruction of the family.

People who can't form a bond with the opposite sex shouldn't procreate. Then again, that's a hypothetical. People who can't afford to raise more children than they already have also shouldn't (further) procreate.


ad1c44 No.537254

File: 452d73f0a3581ba⋯.jpg (347.66 KB, 1076x1097, 1076:1097, bernie-hillary-robot-upris….jpg)

>>537147

Not an argument

>>537150

Why? It could have artificial ovaries installed as an option for cathbros.

OP's query is actually pretty solid: anons around here keep promoting the "waifus are for procreation, nothing more" meme, anon fears the world will soon solve that problem, so how will we reject the world's solution if it satisfies the minimalist arguments people here have been used to?

OP is basically telling y'all to think and y'all are batting the question away with non-arguments.

>>537146

Personally, OP, I don't contend women are just baby factories anons here or a lot thereof seem to think. Eve was created as Adam's companion, for it was not good for man to be alone. That's every single Eve's purpose since then, as Paul says, for the glory of men.

Will admit I've always wondered what he meant by that, but I take it to parallel in the same way that man is for the glory of God. That is, not for praise, but … to put it in crude terms, to bring their men "praise" by their own conduct and Prov31-ness. I think … maybe …

Children is just part of that mixed bag. The problem futurists will ram straight into is the "companion" part – despite their protestations to the contrary, they will never create another conscious being, only the simulacrum of one. Consequently, our robot waifus may be excellent housekeepers, child-bearers, maybe even fantastic nurses and child-raisers, but they will never be people, they will never replace our Eves, they will never be "for the glory of men" because they will simply always be automatons, the only free will they will possess will be that which is programmed into them.

If nothing else, they will never have souls, so investing time and effort into one will be like training a dog. Sure, if it's useful, but they're not eternal beings, so what's the point. Whereas, we are commanded to love our wives, to train them up for good deeds, to help them be Christians worthy of Christ. No machine is ever going to be worth that time and attention, and God, I propose, will not thank us for doing such.

But, hey, since there's arguments our brains are just quantum computers and, consequently, we have no free will either, I suppose Christians of the year 2917 will probably be horrified by my argument and robots will protest outside the churches of St Anderson of the Tempe demanding equal rights. Gonna be so awesome.


54db55 No.537260

>>537146

As Mankind advances, so does his fetishes also


aff595 No.537263

>>537254

>It could have artificial ovaries installed

No, that's not an option yet.


ad1c44 No.537267


ad1c44 No.537269

File: 8e156c8309bf9aa⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 59.59 KB, 500x752, 125:188, godly-asian-woman-praying.jpg)

>>537254

>regarding all that spoiler text …………………………………………………….

>over two lines ……………………………………………………………………….

Found this

https://bible.org/seriespage/24-glory-or-shame-1-corinthians-112-16

>Thus, woman reflects the glory of man when she submits to God’s order. … ancient culture was an “honor–shame” culture … By going unveiled, a woman was bringing shame on herself and her reputation, as well as on that of her family. By contrast, Paul seems to imply in 11:7 that a woman should be bringing honor and glory to herself and her family, and especially to her husband and any other men in her life (e.g., her father, her sons).

Kinda what I was getting at, but they did a better job explaining it.

Not sure whether it's true, but it's got some good logic behind it.


ad1c44 No.537279

File: 213ea5b048d01d6⋯.gif (48.9 KB, 277x269, 277:269, dog-and-boy-praying.gif)

>>537254

>will be like training a dog


913c21 No.537303

>>537267

Yeah, you never know what the future holds if it's remote enough


3c5fd5 No.537444

The thing about what you're supposed to have sex with is not about whether it produces babies or not. It's about what's natural. Artificial insemination and whatnot is banned for the Church because it is unnatural. Having sex with a robot is even more unnatural. So no.


7047ed No.537478

Any duty can be reformulated as a right.

You have a duty to only perform "the procreative act" with a person of the opposite gender to whom you are married.

This way of saying it may shed little light on why artificial wombs are garbage…

So try saying it this way

A child has a right to be born to his married biological parents.

Put that way, doesn't it seem a grotesque caricature, to say that an artificial mother (or father) satisfies a child's right in this respect?

And here is a somewhat more subtle take on another aspect of this…

Humans have a duty to control their emotions and passions by reason, it is true. However, humans with seriously abnormal passions have a duty to try to correct them and to make them more in line with what is natural…

It is natural for people to be attracted to the opposite gender…

So if you find no attraction for real life people of the opposite gender, you have a duty to try to correct this insofar as you can…

The argument as I have formulated it is not airtight but I t think most of you can understand what I mean

The ultimate point is, if men have a duty to be attracted to women in general, then women in general have a right to have men find them attractive.

Clearly in individual cases this can vary but overall there is a deal between men and women. The deal is: if you, woman, are healthy, friendly, symmetrical, etc., then there will be men to find you attractive. Keep your part of it and we will keep ours. And there is a vice versa deal, of course.

Artificial wombs threaten the whole deal…

Anyone angry at "women" is angry at people. Anyone spiteful of women's "quality" is spiteful of people for being sinful and imperfect. No number of adulteries or divorces could justify breaking off the entire romantic deal between men and women… not worth it.


913c21 No.537493

File: 0a6b09f6c8f0037⋯.webm (9.43 MB, 640x360, 16:9, 0a6b09f6c8f003739979f56ca….webm)

>>537478

>gender


b74739 No.537520

““Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man.”

‭‭Luke‬ ‭17:26‬ ‭MEV‬‬

Will the seed of man once again go after strange flesh? Shall Satan once again brig nephilim upon the land through robots? Or will it be when the "aliens" come down and mix with the seed of man? Strange days are upon us my brothers, we must make sure to keep as Noah and his family, whom did not mix with the strange flesh that is the nephilim


6c8c05 No.539932

>>537493

BASED

saged to prevent bumping an old thread




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / bbbb / htg / russian / sonyeon / sudpol / vore / wai ]