dimreepr

Indeed...

My only caveat is the difference between immortal and mortality...

Context would be key to a difinative translation, the old foxhole argument does muddy the waters sumwhat... But some do think, IIRC, that he accidentally killed someone in a drunken fight; how many alcoholics, other than some priest's, think about god at all? That about sums it up... +1

Seriously? What a foolery... 😉

Well, no one has managed it so far, so how would you know what is required to succeed?

Climate change is always real, and some things always die as a result; we are uniquely privileged to be able to see it coming, yet stupid enough to close our eye's until it's all over...

Imagine my pleasure at your condescension... 😉 Perhaps, but an imergent quality is awfully difficult to pin down... When did I say it did?

So you agree with me... I think Jesus was an alcoholic, until his spell in the wilderness, and they tend to put the booze first...

There's always going to be a certain amount of anthropomorphism when dealing with an external entity, humans are just easier to approximate, in one's imagination. That doesn't necessarily mean that one can't be more accurate, when applied to certain dog's over certain people... 😉 And you misundertsood my answer, so let me be clear, when the robots speak a language we didn't directly input into the system, we can no longer be sure, and we can no longer test, in accordance with an anthropomorphic vision... Simple never exposed nuance, it often seeks to mask it...

The thing is we often conflate our scientific knowledge with a greater philosophical intelligence and since we've killed god scientifically, we no longer need god philosophically. For Jesus to successfully re-interpret an older text based on a god, he had to understand the philosophical reason to employ a god; he thought outside the box labelled god and inadvertently started a new religion, imagine how angry he'd be at the modern scholar's... 😇

Did he tell you that?

I think it's a re-interpretation of the old message/teaching, that Jesus, verbally authored; my point is, we are entirely dependent on the received wisdom of those that wrote down an approximation of what was said by Jesus and his crew. We don't know that Jesus actually believed in god, I don't think his message needs a god to be valid. For instance "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing". Which seems to be an echo of "Virtue Socrates argues that living a virtuous life and protecting the soul's integrity is more important than material success or avoiding suffering. He believed that injustice caused more harm than pain to the soul, and therefore it was better to be a victim than an offender."

Indeed, but why can't you be content/happy, now? Regarding the bible, I try too steer clear of cherry picking... 😉

Well, given our athiest affiliation, I think it's safe to assume the word's are an attempt to convey/teach a human message, wrapped in a metaphor. Given that, isn't my interpretation entirely plausible as an explanation? For instance, "Our 'father'" how many of us can claim to be the son of god?

Why not?

Yes indeed, it's mostly about a cultural trend that evolves through time... 😉

I think the lords prayer kinda says it all: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours now and for ever. Amen." It's clearly saying that Earth is heaven and God is the same as us; if one has a full belly and a clear conscience then, like me, you can kick back and relax

To be fair, that doesn't make you right... 😉

Mate, you're painting yourself into a corner; other's might say "stop digging"... 😉

Of course it does, for instance, what would you call a table that people sit on? Or a chair that people eat from?

Indeed, other than all the arguments presented so far... 😉 Are you sure you understand what an argument is? This may help:

Indeed, but the protagonist is 2000 year's old, so the content and context is largely lost in the land of Ozymandias, King of kings.

If you do actually understand your premise, then you should be able to explain it, especially those who clearly understand the subject. All you do is, repeat yourselves (you and your co-pilot).

Anarchy, the state of the stateless; I have no doubt that it will be an ism at some point in the future...

And I'm back to my original question, to what end, how would it help us? IOW What's the point?