dimreepr

Then it's just your opinion and therefore has no value in the discussion, besides your conflating a cultural tendency/stereotype with an individual personality. 😉

Why?

Historically, gay behaviour just meant flamboyant. My point was, culture alone isn't enough to suppress a strong/extreme personality type; much like a strong willed sexual "deviant"... 😉

In cases like this, ethics is the acceptable face of a moral deviation; a very slippery slope... Indeed, who are we to demand the doctor's damage themselves, for us? "The risk Socrates himself faces is obvious but, as he explains it, the danger he faces is far less grave than the one the jurors may inflict upon themselves: Rest assured that if you kill me – since I am the person I say I am – you wouldn't harm me more than you harm yourselves."

History suggests not, a gay person will always shine through...

Besides, where else would we find useful soldier's (heroes)? The topic has a very "A Brave New World" type vibe...

Your natural bias, like everyone, sometimes blinds one to the truth; the wise among us, try to wake the rest of us up to the possibility that one's hero is just another person, that's as blind as we are. The Ubermenche is the guy that can pursuade us to say "meh" when we find out that David Bowie used an autotune... 😉

You could ask, what would the ubermensh do?

Human failure; and the enlightenment it may contain... What happens if I mistake a lie for a truth???

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... 😉