Is It Wrong to Think Homosexuality is a Sin?

[Divine Wind]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

Actually the worst thing is this.

The Bible says things about Homosexuality, and this means that homosexuals shouldn't be considered first class citizens.

The Bible also says things about divorce and many other things, yet the religious people seem to ignore this.

Everyone does not ignore this --- though I'm sure homosexuals do.

President Trump
Adulterer.
Married and divorced twice.

Your dear leader ignored this- and you voted for him.

And the alternative was Hillary "The Abortionist" Clinton who should have been indicted but skated under Barry and who had been selling out the country for years. Trump was a no-brainer choice.

Actually the alternative was vote for anyone else, try and get a better system in place so that people actually get CHOICE when they vote.

Feel free to postulate such a "better system".

 

[G.T.]

Actually the worst thing is this.

The Bible says things about Homosexuality, and this means that homosexuals shouldn't be considered first class citizens.

The Bible also says things about divorce and many other things, yet the religious people seem to ignore this.

Everyone does not ignore this --- though I'm sure homosexuals do.

President Trump
Adulterer.
Married and divorced twice.

Your dear leader ignored this- and you voted for him.

And the alternative was Hillary "The Abortionist" Clinton who should have been indicted but skated under Barry and who had been selling out the country for years. Trump was a no-brainer choice.

Actually the alternative was vote for anyone else, try and get a better system in place so that people actually get CHOICE when they vote.

Feel free to postulate such a "better system".

To me, its like eating a food thats nasty...

and like...im not a better cook to know how to make that food less nasty

but i know theres some cooks with the solution


(bad analogy cuz i can actually cook, quite sexily : 0 )

 

[Divine Wind]

Everyone does not ignore this --- though I'm sure homosexuals do.

President Trump
Adulterer.
Married and divorced twice.

Your dear leader ignored this- and you voted for him.

And the alternative was Hillary "The Abortionist" Clinton who should have been indicted but skated under Barry and who had been selling out the country for years. Trump was a no-brainer choice.

Actually the alternative was vote for anyone else, try and get a better system in place so that people actually get CHOICE when they vote.

Feel free to postulate such a "better system".

To me, its like eating a food thats nasty...

and like...im not a better cook to know how to make that food less nasty

but i know theres some cooks with the solution


(bad analogy cuz i can actually cook, quite sexily : 0 )

I like what Churchill said

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

The problem, IMO, isn't our form of government but human nature. Human nature is why Socialism always fails. Human nature is why "Democracy is messy". Human nature is the reason for all of the bad things in our society but also for all of the good things.

 

[G.T.]

President Trump
Adulterer.
Married and divorced twice.

Your dear leader ignored this- and you voted for him.

And the alternative was Hillary "The Abortionist" Clinton who should have been indicted but skated under Barry and who had been selling out the country for years. Trump was a no-brainer choice.

Actually the alternative was vote for anyone else, try and get a better system in place so that people actually get CHOICE when they vote.

Feel free to postulate such a "better system".

To me, its like eating a food thats nasty...

and like...im not a better cook to know how to make that food less nasty

but i know theres some cooks with the solution


(bad analogy cuz i can actually cook, quite sexily : 0 )

I like what Churchill said

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

The problem, IMO, isn't our form of government but human nature. Human nature is why Socialism always fails. Human nature is why "Democracy is messy". Human nature is the reason for all of the bad things in our society but also for all of the good things.

I feel like we can do way better, but I dont have the how unfortunately.

Jaques Fresco has some very intriguing ideas, and personally I dont even believe in Nations.

Persuit of happiness and greed are intertwined...


for example, travelling the world makes me happy....and jet skis do, too.

eating briscuit.....makes me happy..


most things, aside from human to human relationships....that make me happy cost money.

not all...but...


most.

and even with the human to human relationships making me happy? im happy to see them happy......so, more wealth.

once we can think of a way outside of that, where happiness can be a mere circumstance of existence instead of something you have to pursue??

until then.


its gunna be majorly flawed, designed for many who will lose. (and win, and be mediocre)



im not saying winning, losing and being mediocre arent OK.....


but like the food i was talking about.....something just tells me that humanity can do better

 

[Marion Morrison]

Hokay, glad to know you're the judge of all that.

I don't think your deck was poorly built.


That wood came from somewhere. Or is it composite?

Screws and saws and all that came from somewhere too.

I still have my grandpas handsaw miter box, baby.

i didnt judge anything

i said ive got nothing to base a judgment on......to judge the harmony of nature....


i said compared to what??


youre the one judging


youre the one that called it.harmonious



im the one saying


we can only judge that in comparison to what??? ourselves???? thats illogical

Dude, stop trying to go deep when you belong in the kiddie pool, k?

you dont know me, just cuz i joke around in the flame zone doesnt mean i dont have an education and ponder existence itself, einstein

either try and stick to the discussion or buzz off....my post was legitimate and all it did to your brain was elicit a dunce like middle school response instead of a well thought out one

whats that tell anyone, do you suppose?


when you said that nature seems harmonious, i said in comparison to what...


are you mad at that question??


why???

ask yourself, not me.


the universe is billions of years old. humans live to be 70 something. sounds pretty volatile, the nature we're experiencing.

thats just my opinion based on time....the 4th dimension

whats yours in comparison to??

You're really out there, G.T. What proof do you have that our world is billions of years old?

You witnessed it? No?

Rely on some scientist to tell you? What?

6 out of 7 engineers I know go to church every Sunday.

That includes my Japanese friend that's a civil engineer in Ohio. We used to have great fun, climbing walls and things.

the confirmation bias of who goes to church and why doesnt really tell me anything...literally at all, about the origins of...existence itself

what proof do i have regarding the age of the universe? that starts with the speed of light. i didnt calculate it myself, but i know that its used in the real world to make many, many things work and so in terms of the reality im experiencing, and i cant speak for you....
.but for me, the calculation for the speed of light seems legit......

and from that, many folks across a variety of disciplines are able to determine the age of the universe in its current state...


not like....just one guy, and everyone simply believes him

In other words, you're not really sure, correct?

Who are all these "Many folks"?

How do you know the speed of light calculation is correct?

 

[G.T.]

i didnt judge anything

i said ive got nothing to base a judgment on......to judge the harmony of nature....


i said compared to what??


youre the one judging


youre the one that called it.harmonious



im the one saying


we can only judge that in comparison to what??? ourselves???? thats illogical

Dude, stop trying to go deep when you belong in the kiddie pool, k?

you dont know me, just cuz i joke around in the flame zone doesnt mean i dont have an education and ponder existence itself, einstein

either try and stick to the discussion or buzz off....my post was legitimate and all it did to your brain was elicit a dunce like middle school response instead of a well thought out one

whats that tell anyone, do you suppose?


when you said that nature seems harmonious, i said in comparison to what...


are you mad at that question??


why???

ask yourself, not me.


the universe is billions of years old. humans live to be 70 something. sounds pretty volatile, the nature we're experiencing.

thats just my opinion based on time....the 4th dimension

whats yours in comparison to??

You're really out there, G.T. What proof do you have that our world is billions of years old?

You witnessed it? No?

Rely on some scientist to tell you? What?

6 out of 7 engineers I know go to church every Sunday.

That includes my Japanese friend that's a civil engineer in Ohio. We used to have great fun, climbing walls and things.

the confirmation bias of who goes to church and why doesnt really tell me anything...literally at all, about the origins of...existence itself

what proof do i have regarding the age of the universe? that starts with the speed of light. i didnt calculate it myself, but i know that its used in the real world to make many, many things work and so in terms of the reality im experiencing, and i cant speak for you....
.but for me, the calculation for the speed of light seems legit......

and from that, many folks across a variety of disciplines are able to determine the age of the universe in its current state...


not like....just one guy, and everyone simply believes him

In other words, you're not really sure, correct?

Who are all these "Many folks"?

How do you know the speed of light calculation is correct?

i told you how i know.


theres things that wouldnt function, otherwise.

theres missions that wouldnt have worked, otherwise


im not really a conspiracy theorist


im not really sure the age of the universe is accurate??

i mean im pretty confident its accurate but i cant PROVE it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Dude, stop trying to go deep when you belong in the kiddie pool, k?

you dont know me, just cuz i joke around in the flame zone doesnt mean i dont have an education and ponder existence itself, einstein

either try and stick to the discussion or buzz off....my post was legitimate and all it did to your brain was elicit a dunce like middle school response instead of a well thought out one

whats that tell anyone, do you suppose?


when you said that nature seems harmonious, i said in comparison to what...


are you mad at that question??


why???

ask yourself, not me.


the universe is billions of years old. humans live to be 70 something. sounds pretty volatile, the nature we're experiencing.

thats just my opinion based on time....the 4th dimension

whats yours in comparison to??

You're really out there, G.T. What proof do you have that our world is billions of years old?

You witnessed it? No?

Rely on some scientist to tell you? What?

6 out of 7 engineers I know go to church every Sunday.

That includes my Japanese friend that's a civil engineer in Ohio. We used to have great fun, climbing walls and things.

the confirmation bias of who goes to church and why doesnt really tell me anything...literally at all, about the origins of...existence itself

what proof do i have regarding the age of the universe? that starts with the speed of light. i didnt calculate it myself, but i know that its used in the real world to make many, many things work and so in terms of the reality im experiencing, and i cant speak for you....
.but for me, the calculation for the speed of light seems legit......

and from that, many folks across a variety of disciplines are able to determine the age of the universe in its current state...


not like....just one guy, and everyone simply believes him

In other words, you're not really sure, correct?

Who are all these "Many folks"?

How do you know the speed of light calculation is correct?

i told you how i know.


theres things that wouldnt function, otherwise.

theres missions that wouldnt have worked, otherwise


im not really a conspiracy theorist


im not really sure the age of the universe is accurate??

i mean im pretty confident its accurate but i cant PROVE it.

Didn't think so, don't be so quick to discount what others believe.

 

[Divine Wind]

And the alternative was Hillary "The Abortionist" Clinton who should have been indicted but skated under Barry and who had been selling out the country for years. Trump was a no-brainer choice.

Actually the alternative was vote for anyone else, try and get a better system in place so that people actually get CHOICE when they vote.

Feel free to postulate such a "better system".

To me, its like eating a food thats nasty...

and like...im not a better cook to know how to make that food less nasty

but i know theres some cooks with the solution


(bad analogy cuz i can actually cook, quite sexily : 0 )

I like what Churchill said

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

The problem, IMO, isn't our form of government but human nature. Human nature is why Socialism always fails. Human nature is why "Democracy is messy". Human nature is the reason for all of the bad things in our society but also for all of the good things.

I feel like we can do way better, but I dont have the how unfortunately.

Jaques Fresco has some very intriguing ideas, and personally I dont even believe in Nations.

Persuit of happiness and greed are intertwined...


for example, travelling the world makes me happy....and jet skis do, too.

eating briscuit.....makes me happy..


most things, aside from human to human relationships....that make me happy cost money.

not all...but...


most.

and even with the human to human relationships making me happy? im happy to see them happy......so, more wealth.

once we can think of a way outside of that, where happiness can be a mere circumstance of existence instead of something you have to pursue??

until then.


its gunna be majorly flawed, designed for many who will lose. (and win, and be mediocre)



im not saying winning, losing and being mediocre arent OK.....


but like the food i was talking about.....something just tells me that humanity can do better

I think it's a technological limit. Fareed Zakaria pointed out in one of his books that democracy requires a certain income level to sustain itself. As the Bush administration found out in Iraq, it's hard to establish democracy when people are worried about water and electricity.

We live in a world of increasing population, limited energy and decreasing resources. Until those problems are resolved, we cannot focus upon better forms of government.

 

[G.T.]

you dont know me, just cuz i joke around in the flame zone doesnt mean i dont have an education and ponder existence itself, einstein

either try and stick to the discussion or buzz off....my post was legitimate and all it did to your brain was elicit a dunce like middle school response instead of a well thought out one

whats that tell anyone, do you suppose?


when you said that nature seems harmonious, i said in comparison to what...


are you mad at that question??


why???

ask yourself, not me.


the universe is billions of years old. humans live to be 70 something. sounds pretty volatile, the nature we're experiencing.

thats just my opinion based on time....the 4th dimension

whats yours in comparison to??

You're really out there, G.T. What proof do you have that our world is billions of years old?

You witnessed it? No?

Rely on some scientist to tell you? What?

6 out of 7 engineers I know go to church every Sunday.

That includes my Japanese friend that's a civil engineer in Ohio. We used to have great fun, climbing walls and things.

the confirmation bias of who goes to church and why doesnt really tell me anything...literally at all, about the origins of...existence itself

what proof do i have regarding the age of the universe? that starts with the speed of light. i didnt calculate it myself, but i know that its used in the real world to make many, many things work and so in terms of the reality im experiencing, and i cant speak for you....
.but for me, the calculation for the speed of light seems legit......

and from that, many folks across a variety of disciplines are able to determine the age of the universe in its current state...


not like....just one guy, and everyone simply believes him

In other words, you're not really sure, correct?

Who are all these "Many folks"?

How do you know the speed of light calculation is correct?

i told you how i know.


theres things that wouldnt function, otherwise.

theres missions that wouldnt have worked, otherwise


im not really a conspiracy theorist


im not really sure the age of the universe is accurate??

i mean im pretty confident its accurate but i cant PROVE it.

Didn't think so, don't be so quick to discount what others believe.

i discount it based on being given no solid reasoning to believe it.

sorry you dont like that, either provide the logic or leave it at that


the speed of light has merit...i dont simply "believe" because someone said so.

theres experiments, that you can even do in your own damn house.


you asked me if i can prove the age of the universe
.....


i cant prove that we're not a fucking computer program....


but i can tell you, that based on the speed of light, the age of the universe can be extrapolated and thats the reasoning thats been provided


its pretty solid, i see not reason its not



prrrretty big difference between repeatable science and hearsay religion

 

[ding]

No. It's because your kind is disingenuous and switching back and forth between the three all the while trying to bring in specific theological precepts for the express purpose of muddying the water.

I've already started establishing that what was created can be used as evidence.

We exist in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. Which means that everything happened for a reason. Otherwise known as cause and effect. Everything has unfolded per the laws of nature. Laws which existed before space and time. Laws which controlled the creation of space and time. We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that beings that know and create were predestined to exist by the laws of nature. Given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create will arise. The potential for beings that know and create existed before space and time were created. All energy and matter which exists today was created when space and time came into existence. Since that time it has merely changed form. Which means that the energy which makes up who we are was present when space and time were created. You can't know what something is by how it starts. You can only know what something is by what it is when it is finished. In this case the product of these rules is intelligence. We live in a universe that is defined by rules. Intelligence is behind rules. Rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, mind has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

We can confirm this in a myriad of a number of ways.

It is certainly the hypothesis of a theist. But the logic is unsupported by fact. You have supposition only. Supposition is not fact.

I've got science all the way back to the beginning (as best we can) and I have reason and logic for before that point and I have what has unfolded since that time and what that tells us.

Yes, but your position is entirely based on supposition. You declare that the Laws of Physics require an intellect to be. I say that the Universe functions based on the Laws of Physics that simply are.

Then everything in science is supposition as supposition can mean theory. So, I'm not sure what your distinction is implying.

Is the universe becoming self aware of itself supposition?

Do you understand the difference between a supposition and a fact?

Sure, I do.

Do you believe the conservation of energy to be supposition?
Is cosmic evolution supposition?
Is stellar evolution supposition?
Is chemical evolution supposition?
Is the leap from inorganic matter to a living organism supposition?
Is the evolution of life from a single cell to beings that know and create supposition?
Is consciousness a supposition?
Do you believe the universe becoming self aware of itself to be supposition?

Which one of these do you consider to be facts?

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I did not know who created it?

 

[G.T.]

It is certainly the hypothesis of a theist. But the logic is unsupported by fact. You have supposition only. Supposition is not fact.

I've got science all the way back to the beginning (as best we can) and I have reason and logic for before that point and I have what has unfolded since that time and what that tells us.

Yes, but your position is entirely based on supposition. You declare that the Laws of Physics require an intellect to be. I say that the Universe functions based on the Laws of Physics that simply are.

Then everything in science is supposition as supposition can mean theory. So, I'm not sure what your distinction is implying.

Is the universe becoming self aware of itself supposition?

Do you understand the difference between a supposition and a fact?

Sure, I do. Do you believe the universe becoming self aware of itself to be a fact or supposition?

"self aware of itself" is redundant ding. less wpm, please

 

[ding]

I find religion to be just as convincing as transgenderism.

That's a pretty ignorant statement, especially coming from someone who claims to be conservative. What is so convincing about transgenderism?

Nothing, and that is the point. There is nothing convincing about it for me. My opinion on religion is not "ignorant." I've done a lot of studying into religion. I've read the Bible. I've been to church. I reject those teachings as BS. There is nothing to argue about. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine.

Except the case for religion is convincing.

Which religion? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Ancient writings are not necessarily religious.

They all have the same core values, but there is only one revealed religion. No other makes that claim.

 

[Divine Wind]

I find religion to be just as convincing as transgenderism.

That's a pretty ignorant statement, especially coming from someone who claims to be conservative. What is so convincing about transgenderism?

Nothing, and that is the point. There is nothing convincing about it for me. My opinion on religion is not "ignorant." I've done a lot of studying into religion. I've read the Bible. I've been to church. I reject those teachings as BS. There is nothing to argue about. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine.

Except the case for religion is convincing.

Which religion? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Ancient writings are not necessarily religious.

They all have the same core values, but there is only one revealed religion. No other makes that claim.

A where thousands of died fighting to prove.

 

[ding]

I've got science all the way back to the beginning (as best we can) and I have reason and logic for before that point and I have what has unfolded since that time and what that tells us.

Yes, but your position is entirely based on supposition. You declare that the Laws of Physics require an intellect to be. I say that the Universe functions based on the Laws of Physics that simply are.

Then everything in science is supposition as supposition can mean theory. So, I'm not sure what your distinction is implying.

Is the universe becoming self aware of itself supposition?

Do you understand the difference between a supposition and a fact?

Sure, I do. Do you believe the universe becoming self aware of itself to be a fact or supposition?

"self aware of itself" is redundant ding. less wpm, please

Really? When did the universe become self aware of itself?

Did it happen during the cosmic evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen during the stellar evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen during the chemical evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen when inorganic matter made the leap to living organisms? Nope

It happened when man became self aware. So I don't see how it is redundant. How exactly is that redundant, GT?

 

[ding]

That's a pretty ignorant statement, especially coming from someone who claims to be conservative. What is so convincing about transgenderism?

Nothing, and that is the point. There is nothing convincing about it for me. My opinion on religion is not "ignorant." I've done a lot of studying into religion. I've read the Bible. I've been to church. I reject those teachings as BS. There is nothing to argue about. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine.

Except the case for religion is convincing.

Which religion? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Ancient writings are not necessarily religious.

They all have the same core values, but there is only one revealed religion. No other makes that claim.

A where thousands of died fighting to prove.

That has nothing to do with the other religions never making that claim.

 

[G.T.]

Yes, but your position is entirely based on supposition. You declare that the Laws of Physics require an intellect to be. I say that the Universe functions based on the Laws of Physics that simply are.

Then everything in science is supposition as supposition can mean theory. So, I'm not sure what your distinction is implying.

Is the universe becoming self aware of itself supposition?

Do you understand the difference between a supposition and a fact?

Sure, I do. Do you believe the universe becoming self aware of itself to be a fact or supposition?

"self aware of itself" is redundant ding. less wpm, please

Really? When did the universe become self aware of itself?

Did it happen during the cosmic evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen during the stellar evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen during the chemical evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen when inorganic matter made the leap to living organisms? Nope

It happened when man became self aware. So I don't see how it is redundant. How exactly is that redundant, GT?

do.you know what i.meant by its redundant?

it means you say "self aware".....thats a stand alone.


you dont add "of itself"


self was already the subject


aye yaye yaye

 

[G.T.]

Yes, but your position is entirely based on supposition. You declare that the Laws of Physics require an intellect to be. I say that the Universe functions based on the Laws of Physics that simply are.

Then everything in science is supposition as supposition can mean theory. So, I'm not sure what your distinction is implying.

Is the universe becoming self aware of itself supposition?

Do you understand the difference between a supposition and a fact?

Sure, I do. Do you believe the universe becoming self aware of itself to be a fact or supposition?

"self aware of itself" is redundant ding. less wpm, please

Really? When did the universe become self aware of itself?

Did it happen during the cosmic evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen during the stellar evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen during the chemical evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen when inorganic matter made the leap to living organisms? Nope

It happened when man became self aware. So I don't see how it is redundant. How exactly is that redundant, GT?

also, aside from being grammatically incorrect - you cannot speak to the possibility of aliens and their awareness -

but your theory has so many holes like that its like having a discussion with a wall

 

[ding]

Then everything in science is supposition as supposition can mean theory. So, I'm not sure what your distinction is implying.

Is the universe becoming self aware of itself supposition?

Do you understand the difference between a supposition and a fact?

Sure, I do. Do you believe the universe becoming self aware of itself to be a fact or supposition?

"self aware of itself" is redundant ding. less wpm, please

Really? When did the universe become self aware of itself?

Did it happen during the cosmic evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen during the stellar evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen during the chemical evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen when inorganic matter made the leap to living organisms? Nope

It happened when man became self aware. So I don't see how it is redundant. How exactly is that redundant, GT?

also, aside from being grammatically incorrect - you cannot speak to the possibility of aliens and their awareness -

but your theory has so many holes like that its like having a discussion with a wall

I include aliens. Intelligence is intelligence. I never said we were special. We live in a universe where the laws or such that given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will eventually arise. Their existence was pre-ordained by the laws of nature which existed before space and time were created.

 

[ding]

Then everything in science is supposition as supposition can mean theory. So, I'm not sure what your distinction is implying.

Is the universe becoming self aware of itself supposition?

Do you understand the difference between a supposition and a fact?

Sure, I do. Do you believe the universe becoming self aware of itself to be a fact or supposition?

"self aware of itself" is redundant ding. less wpm, please

Really? When did the universe become self aware of itself?

Did it happen during the cosmic evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen during the stellar evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen during the chemical evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen when inorganic matter made the leap to living organisms? Nope

It happened when man became self aware. So I don't see how it is redundant. How exactly is that redundant, GT?

do.you know what i.meant by its redundant?

it means you say "self aware".....thats a stand alone.


you dont add "of itself"


self was already the subject


aye yaye yaye

Nope. It is not redundant. Self aware refers to the universe becoming aware of itself. All matter and energy which exists today - including the energy and matter which makes you who you are - existed when space and time were created. At that point the universe was not aware of itself. The matter and energy had no consciousness. There was a point in time where matter evolved to the point that the universe became aware (i.e. conscious) of itself (i.e. self aware).

 

[G.T.]

Do you understand the difference between a supposition and a fact?

Sure, I do. Do you believe the universe becoming self aware of itself to be a fact or supposition?

"self aware of itself" is redundant ding. less wpm, please

Really? When did the universe become self aware of itself?

Did it happen during the cosmic evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen during the stellar evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen during the chemical evolution phase? Nope
Did it happen when inorganic matter made the leap to living organisms? Nope

It happened when man became self aware. So I don't see how it is redundant. How exactly is that redundant, GT?

do.you know what i.meant by its redundant?

it means you say "self aware".....thats a stand alone.


you dont add "of itself"


self was already the subject


aye yaye yaye

Nope. It is not redundant. Self aware refers to the universe becoming aware of itself. All matter and energy which exists today - including the energy and matter which makes you who you are - existed when space and time were created. At that point the universe was not aware of itself. The matter and energy had no consciousness. There was a point in time where matter evolved to the point that the universe became aware (i.e. conscious) of itself (i.e. self aware).

"self aware of itself" is a redundant phrase...

sorry thats over your head.



you simply say "self aware"... and that covers it.


you dont add "of itself," it makes it a redundant statement.

and you keep doing it, so youre likely not self aware, in this case