@TimHaldorsson@grok he is saying that Claude coworker is one step closer to being openclaw but what steps
would you say are the specific steps missing that separates Claude coworker from being openclaw?
Its so funny how theres a verse spoken by Jesus himself that literally just says "if you are rich you will not get into heaven" with no room for interpretation and every Christian just completely ignores it
As a Catholic, I have no objection to the portrayal of sinful behavior in cinema or literature, provided it is not prurient and is presented with a clear moral purpose. Such depictions can be valuable when they serve to illustrate the consequences of immoral behavior and lead the audience to a deeper understanding of right and wrong. It is entirely legitimate, for example, to show a thief who is caught and punished, or a character whose wrongdoing brings suffering and regret. What is not legitimate is the glorification or normalization of immoral behavior under the pretext of showing the “fullness of human experience.”
Human experience, after all, includes a vast range of depravity: torture, rape, pedophilia, cruelty to animals, and countless other evils. No one argues that these should be celebrated or treated as ordinary aspects of life. What we seek in art is not the unfiltered totality of human behavior but rather what is noble and praiseworthy, alongside truthful portrayals of sin shown in its proper light, with its consequences made clear.
When works of art move beyond this and instead validate immoral relationships, such as same-sex unions, they cease to serve a moral or educative purpose. Instead, they become instruments of cultural approval for what society considers disordered. That is not what contemporary audiences desire or deserve. They look for art that elevates the soul, encourages virtue, and reveals immoral behavior as what it truly is: a departure from the good that leads to suffering, both temporal and eternal.