Let's stick to topic though. Still have no answer from creationist's on the explanation of Neanderthal and Cromagnon Man.

I believe the mods have allowed us some leeway regarding topic. There didn't seem to be much debate in regards to "believing" in evolution.

Let's stick to topic though. Still have no answer from creationist's on the explanation of Neanderthal and Cromagnon Man.

I believe the mods have allowed us some leeway regarding topic. There didn't seem to be much debate in regards to "believing" in evolution.

Yeah, sort of disappointed no one showed up for that part of the debate. Heck, I have unanswered questions about evolution, and do believe that even though it is a good theory, it is just a theory and not a law for a reason.

So here is my questions about evolution that I have. I know a lot of people get confused and think that if man came from apes, when why are there still apes, even though evolution says we share a common ancestory, we didn't descend from modern apes. But what spurred human evolution to the levels it has achieved? Why did we progress as far as we have?

Also, how can they explain the evolution of plants that flower and the co-existance/co-dependence of the bee. How does something like that evolve simultaneously? And what is the transitional species of plant connecting plants who didn't flower to plants that suddenly flowered?

Yes, I cut and pasted quotes from a website, you asked for quotes, didn't you. It seemed like a more logical choice than typing them or scanning bible pages to my printer, saving them, cutting and then pasting.

Well, copying and pasting them out of their context is like only reading them alone and not in their context. Many Christians do the same thing. For us to discuss, interpret, explain scripture, we must first understand the entire context.

I have dodged nothing, you are saying that moral law resides in our mind transending humanity. But once again, if that were the case wouldn't all societies through out history have the same morales. They don't. The keep evolving as the world gets smaller and smaller. But even if you were right, even if this was unmistakeable proof of a divine creator, you still have to convince me since you are a christian that Christ was indeed God, and every other religion through out history had it wrong.

Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Please explain to me the morality of this, how an omnipotent ruler thinks it was ok to beat your slave as long as he could walk in a couple of days. I would like to know that if this is in the bible, and Jesus never forbade slavery, how did you ever come to the understanding that this type of behavior was wrong?

I’m happy to talk about Exodus 21:20-21 but, given what you have said, I don’t see what the issue is. Since you admit that atheists have no basis for morality, how can you judge that text to be morally unacceptable? Upon what grounds do you presume to make a judgment on what social arrangements are morally acceptable and how people “should” treat one another? Just because you don’t personally “like” something doesn’t make it “wrong” or immoral, does it? Once you tell me what basis you have to make objective moral judgments on other people and cultures, then I will discuss whether or not Exodus 21 fits that moral framework.

Second, you do not seem to grasp the argument I have been making from the moral law. Further, it does not follow from an objective morality that everyone must agree about it. You think the theory of evolution is describing some “fact” about nature, don’t you? Why doesn’t everyone agree about it? Using your logic, if there is any “objective” scientific fact, everyone must agree about it. That ignores the fact that people often are inconsistent, ignorant, lazy, etc., and that keeps them from “seeing” the facts. The same is true with morality. There is an objective moral law; we all implicitly show that in our moral thinking. Everyone doesn’t agree, though, because of all the moral and intellectual weaknesses of human beings. Again, you still don’t seem to “get” the argument I’ve been making but maybe, if you want to continue, you can address these two points and then we can move on.

Not only do I seem not to understand what you are saying since they are abstract to say the least, you also seem to be lost on what I have said which is by far the simplist thing that has been said. . No where did I say the Atheist has no frame work for his morality. An atheist is a person. People get their morality from a variety of placed. Atheism in itself, is not a law, it's not a philosophy, it's not a club. It's the simple statement that we do not see proof of a god or the supernatural. The comparison of atheism to other belief structures is not accurate because it's apples and oranges. There is no debate from me that my atheism is where I get my morality from. Atheism has nothing to do with morality. Nothing, no comparison. So when I am confronted by a moral issue, I have no atheist handbook to skim through for guidance. Since I don't have the time to go through every issue on earth and what I think of that issue, I will simply say I try to treat those as I wish to be treated. If I don't get that same treatment back, that's on them and not a reflection of me.

But that is the problem we are facing. My morality, while consistent, is something that I think about personally, grapple with in my own mind, and then come to the conclusion of what I think. I have no prepackaged morality through a bible. I'm not saying there aren't very valuable lessons in the bible, as well as other religions. Only a fool would make such a statement. But it is an outdated text, written by man. In a lot of ways, consulting the bible for moral wisdom in todays society is a lot like still opting to use a type writer to write college papers. Maybe it can work, but there are now a lot better ways to type.

So, back to your argument, just because I don't like something, it doesn't mean it's immoral. I know this. I don't like trumpets. I don't think a trumpet is immoral. Second, I do not think that evolution is a fact about nature. I think it's a theory. Gravity is a fact (law) as long as you aren't in a black hole (theory). The reason everyone doesn't agree about evolution is because it hasn't been proven as a law yet.

But you are right about one thing, I do not "get" what you are saying about morality. My guess is, that you are going to not answer any of the questions about the various and 100s of rididculously ancient and outdated biblical texts on the basis that I'm taking everything out of context and being cynical, but really just don't want to talk about it.

So here is my questions about evolution that I have. I know a lot of people get confused and think that if man came from apes, when why are there still apes, even though evolution says we share a common ancestory, we didn't descend from modern apes. But what spurred human evolution to the levels it has achieved? Why did we progress as far as we have?

Also, how can they explain the evolution of plants that flower and the co-existance/co-dependence of the bee. How does something like that evolve simultaneously? And what is the transitional species of plant connecting plants who didn't flower to plants that suddenly flowered?

Oh goodie!

You're spot on that we don't simply "come from apes". I get red faced when I hear people talking about monkeys giving birth to fully formed humans.

Here's what I've read, do the smart thing and look for yourself, I'm no genius or even close.

Evolution is all about little changes adding up over time. The theory goes that a drought or weather condition led ancient African primates to come down out of the trees to find food. The taller ones had an advantage because they could see over the tall grass. Other changes happened like shedding our body hair to allow our bodies to sweat. Only us and pigs sweat. That's huge because we can more easily regulate our body temperature. We don't have to pant like a dog (though if you see me on the elliptical you'd see different).

Also what made a huge difference was a tiny bone nugget in our hands. See in chimps and primates it's shaped a certain way and it allows for weight/pressure to be evenly distributed across the entire hand. That's how they can swing from tree to tree, the impact doesn't hurt them. A minor change in the shape of that bone means that you and I distribute weight across the bottom or our palms (check your hand, you'll see what I'm saying). But the advantage we got was increased finger dexterity. Monkeys are good but they still have trouble with complex hand movements. Our hands are very fluid, allowing us to build tools of increasing complexity. (Monkeys do use simple tools, it's not just us).

I can't speak to your second question but I'll say this. Like I said above, it's tiny changes over time. A species getting a little larger. Noses growing a little bigger. If it works it gets passed on. Nature has an amazing sense of balance. Find a method to protect against a predator and they'll start coming up with a way to counter that. Like the bacteria in our bodies that keeps finding ways to fight the anti-biotics we develop.

Nothing evolves simultaneously. It's all a little bit at a time. And it totally works.

Evolution is awesome!

So here is my questions about evolution that I have. I know a lot of people get confused and think that if man came from apes, when why are there still apes, even though evolution says we share a common ancestory, we didn't descend from modern apes. But what spurred human evolution to the levels it has achieved? Why did we progress as far as we have?

Also, how can they explain the evolution of plants that flower and the co-existance/co-dependence of the bee. How does something like that evolve simultaneously? And what is the transitional species of plant connecting plants who didn't flower to plants that suddenly flowered?

Oh goodie!

You're spot on that we don't simply "come from apes". I get red faced when I hear people talking about monkeys giving birth to fully formed humans.

Here's what I've read, do the smart thing and look for yourself, I'm no genius or even close.

Evolution is all about little changes adding up over time. The theory goes that a drought or weather condition led ancient African primates to come down out of the trees to find food. The taller ones had an advantage because they could see over the tall grass. Other changes happened like shedding our body hair to allow our bodies to sweat. Only us and pigs sweat. That's huge because we can more easily regulate our body temperature. We don't have to pant like a dog (though if you see me on the elliptical you'd see different).

Also what made a huge difference was a tiny bone nugget in our hands. See in chimps and primates it's shaped a certain way and it allows for weight/pressure to be evenly distributed across the entire hand. That's how they can swing from tree to tree, the impact doesn't hurt them. A minor change in the shape of that bone means that you and I distribute weight across the bottom or our palms (check your hand, you'll see what I'm saying). But the advantage we got was increased finger dexterity. Monkeys are good but they still have trouble with complex hand movements. Our hands are very fluid, allowing us to build tools of increasing complexity. (Monkeys do use simple tools, it's not just us).

I can't speak to your second question but I'll say this. Like I said above, it's tiny changes over time. A species getting a little larger. Noses growing a little bigger. If it works it gets passed on. Nature has an amazing sense of balance. Find a method to protect against a predator and they'll start coming up with a way to counter that. Like the bacteria in our bodies that keeps finding ways to fight the anti-biotics we develop.

Nothing evolves simultaneously. It's all a little bit at a time. And it totally works.

Evolution is awesome!

I think I love you. :flowerforyou:

I agree with you about the little changes over time. That is the difficulty with the missing link...would you know it if you saw it. Techincally I have evolved from my parents, but the changes are so miniscule they are undetectable. But the small change theory doesn't account for how there is no fossil record of the gradual change from non-flowering plants to flowering plants. It's just, boom, flowering plants. And there is also no explanation that I am aware of (as of yet) that explains how plants and bees, who are depended on eachother for survival, could have evolved simultaneously to become co-dependent.

This is a good point. From my quick wiki search, it seems that they have discovered possible additional evidence to link between non-flowering and flowering plants. I suspect more discoveries and research will be more evidence to support this. Here's what I found:

The apparently sudden appearance of relatively modern flowers in the fossil record initially posed such a problem for the theory of evolution that it was called an "abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin.[4] However, the fossil record has considerably grown since the time of Darwin, and recently discovered angiosperm fossils such as Archaefructus, along with further discoveries of fossil gymnosperms, suggest how angiosperm characteristics may have been acquired in a series of steps. Several groups of extinct gymnosperms, in particular seed ferns, have been proposed as the ancestors of flowering plants, but there is no continuous fossil evidence showing exactly how flowers evolved. Some older fossils, such as the upper Triassic Sanmiguelia, have been suggested. Based on current evidence, some propose that the ancestors of the angiosperms diverged from an unknown group of gymnosperms during the late Triassic (245–202 million years ago). A close relationship between angiosperms and gnetophytes, proposed on the basis of morphological evidence, has more recently been disputed on the basis of molecular evidence that suggest gnetophytes are instead more closely related to other gymnosperms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiosperm


As far as bees and plants, I imagine that it's all part of evolution. Still researching...

Not only do I seem not to understand what you are saying since they are abstract to say the least, you also seem to be lost on what I have said which is by far the simplist thing that has been said. . No where did I say the Atheist has no frame work for his morality. An atheist is a person. People get their morality from a variety of placed. Atheism in itself, is not a law, it's not a philosophy, it's not a club. It's the simple statement that we do not see proof of a god or the supernatural. The comparison of atheism to other belief structures is not accurate because it's apples and oranges. There is no debate from me that my atheism is where I get my morality from. Atheism has nothing to do with morality. Nothing, no comparison. So when I am confronted by a moral issue, I have no atheist handbook to skim through for guidance. Since I don't have the time to go through every issue on earth and what I think of that issue, I will simply say I try to treat those as I wish to be treated. If I don't get that same treatment back, that's on them and not a reflection of me.

But that is the problem we are facing. My morality, while consistent, is something that I think about personally, grapple with in my own mind, and then come to the conclusion of what I think. I have no prepackaged morality through a bible. I'm not saying there aren't very valuable lessons in the bible, as well as other religions. Only a fool would make such a statement. But it is an outdated text, written by man. In a lot of ways, consulting the bible for moral wisdom in todays society is a lot like still opting to use a type writer to write college papers. Maybe it can work, but there are now a lot better ways to type.

So, back to your argument, just because I don't like something, it doesn't mean it's immoral. I know this. I don't like trumpets. I don't think a trumpet is immoral. Second, I do not think that evolution is a fact about nature. I think it's a theory. Gravity is a fact (law) as long as you aren't in a black hole (theory). The reason everyone doesn't agree about evolution is because it hasn't been proven as a law yet.

But you are right about one thing, I do not "get" what you are saying about morality. My guess is, that you are going to not answer any of the questions about the various and 100s of rididculously ancient and outdated biblical texts on the basis that I'm taking everything out of context and being cynical, but really just don't want to talk about it.

1. I have continually stated that atheism has no grounding or sufficient intellectual foundation for morality. That is the subject that started this whole conversation. I have seen nothing that causes the least bit of doubt about this claim. If “morality” has to do with what humans should or should not do, there must be a standard or basis upon which such a determination is made. Atheism does not provide one. Since you cannot provide an objective basis for moral judgments, every time you make one it rings hollow since you cannot tell me why you say someone “should” or “shouldn’t” do anything (except for non-moral reasons like survival, pleasure or whatever).

2.I agree that atheism does not provide a handbook for morality. I have argued this is because once one denies God, the ultimate grounding for an objective morality is now gone. That’s why atheism can’t say anything about it. Although you are an atheist, you admit that you have to try and figure out morality on some other grounds. Those who believe in God ground their moral reasoning in the divine mind which is the “home” and source of moral goodness. Since you deny God, you have no such grounding and, as you admit, don’t even have the time to try and figure it all out. So what do you do? You appeal to a principle classically associated with religious systems, especially (but not exclusively) Christianity: the Golden Rule. When you say there is no God (or anything supernatural), you are simultaneously saying that all that exists is nature. If atheism only has the resource of “nature” (understood typically as matter in motion), it follows that it cannot believe in morality as something more than a product of a blind, material, physical process and therefore ultimately nothing more than a “fact” of nature. Good and evil are rendered meaningless in such a conception of the world. I think you are trying to suggest that atheism has no real obligation to explain anything (since you are only making a denial rather than an affirmation) but your denial of God also logically entails certain implications. One of these is that morality evaporates.

3.Regarding the Bible being outdated, etc., I would continue to argue that the Bible, when correctly understood, is a primary source of moral influence throughout the past thousands of years of history and that your moral sensitivities today are, at least in part, ultimately a product of that lengthy tradition even though you do not acknowledge that fact.

4.Regarding evolution, you miss my point. I’m not talking about evolution as a theory. Let’s assume that biological evolution has really happened. Even though there are people who doubt it now (perhaps because it has the status of “theory” rather than “fact” as you say), this does not mean that evolution is not “true.” When people came to believe that the earth moves around the sun rather than the other way around there was not a change in reality only a change in perception. If the moral law is objectively true, how people perceive or understand that law (or do not even acknowledge it) does not change the objective reality. And, I might add, just like I would go to the scientist to find the best source for understanding some scientific “fact,” so I would go to those who have devoted their lives to thinking and living the moral law to find out what the moral law is all about. There is a remarkable similarity of moral principles found among those who most deeply and profoundly devote themselves to learning and living the moral law.

5.You are right that I’m not really that interested in talking about the items from the Old Testament that you copy and pasted. My reason is simply because it would be an enormous waste of energy. We don’t even share a common set of moral principles (at least not consciously) that would allow us to have a meaningful conversation about that. Your goal in mentioning such things is, I think, primarily polemical and not with an openness to learn and patiently consider the facts and possibilities.

6.The questions I keep asking are still unanswered. What gives you the right or moral grounding to “judge” the Old Testament legal codes as “immoral”? You want me to explain them since you obviously see them as immoral. Why isn’t it true that their morality is equal to yours? Why can’t someone else say their morality is better than yours? Why can’t someone say your morality is just a sign of your own weaknesses (since you try to treat others like you want to be treated, your real motive, they might say, is self-preservation)? Why should someone who has power over others ignore what others want and get what he wants if that is what he wants to do? If you answer these questions, we might be closer to looking at the text in Exodus.

Cool. It's interesting, isn't it?

But back to my other question about human beings. I understand all that was said before about little changes like our taller ancestors having an advantage for being able to see over grass, so on and so forth. But I still wonder how, out of all the beings that have ever existed on this planet, did we advance so far, and others so little in comparison.

Oh that's easy, can't believe I didn't get to that. Our giant brains! Our brain is the single most important organ in our body, it's everything that makes us, us. Neural pathways and connections and synapses firing thousands of times a second..it's the single most impressive thing in the world I dare say.

We have the largest brain of any creature that's ever lived (I may be wrong and if anyone corrects me they win a cookie). Even giant dinosaurs still had tiny little brains (though I think some even had two brains, both still small).

Our brain is what makes us unique. Because we don't need to wait for evolution any more. We adapt the world around us to fit our needs. While every other animal who suddenly finds itself in a colder climate must wait generations to start growing a thicker coat, we just said "F this" and killed something else that already had a thicker coat and took it for ourselves. Our intellect is the engine of our own evolution and it doesn't take millions of years anymore. We don't have to migrate to better climates. We just build things that change the temperature to our liking.

Now this may not be viewed entirely as a positive thing. Because this is what's led to pollution and wars and all the bad as well. But if the survival of our species matters to you, you can thank our big, juicy, delicious brains!

SIDE NOTE: I wish people would stop believing their hearts had thoughts. "My head wants this but my heart wants this." "Trust your heart" "God knows what's in my heart." Listen up! Your heart pumps blood. Very important, yes. But it ain't doing any thinking for you. That's your brain. Give some credit where it's due. Or start also asking how your kidneys feel about important things.

Not only do I seem not to understand what you are saying since they are abstract to say the least, you also seem to be lost on what I have said which is by far the simplist thing that has been said. . No where did I say the Atheist has no frame work for his morality. An atheist is a person. People get their morality from a variety of placed. Atheism in itself, is not a law, it's not a philosophy, it's not a club. It's the simple statement that we do not see proof of a god or the supernatural. The comparison of atheism to other belief structures is not accurate because it's apples and oranges. There is no debate from me that my atheism is where I get my morality from. Atheism has nothing to do with morality. Nothing, no comparison. So when I am confronted by a moral issue, I have no atheist handbook to skim through for guidance. Since I don't have the time to go through every issue on earth and what I think of that issue, I will simply say I try to treat those as I wish to be treated. If I don't get that same treatment back, that's on them and not a reflection of me.

But that is the problem we are facing. My morality, while consistent, is something that I think about personally, grapple with in my own mind, and then come to the conclusion of what I think. I have no prepackaged morality through a bible. I'm not saying there aren't very valuable lessons in the bible, as well as other religions. Only a fool would make such a statement. But it is an outdated text, written by man. In a lot of ways, consulting the bible for moral wisdom in todays society is a lot like still opting to use a type writer to write college papers. Maybe it can work, but there are now a lot better ways to type.

So, back to your argument, just because I don't like something, it doesn't mean it's immoral. I know this. I don't like trumpets. I don't think a trumpet is immoral. Second, I do not think that evolution is a fact about nature. I think it's a theory. Gravity is a fact (law) as long as you aren't in a black hole (theory). The reason everyone doesn't agree about evolution is because it hasn't been proven as a law yet.

But you are right about one thing, I do not "get" what you are saying about morality. My guess is, that you are going to not answer any of the questions about the various and 100s of rididculously ancient and outdated biblical texts on the basis that I'm taking everything out of context and being cynical, but really just don't want to talk about it.

1. I have continually stated that atheism has no grounding or sufficient intellectual foundation for morality. That is the subject that started this whole conversation. I have seen nothing that causes the least bit of doubt about this claim. If “morality” has to do with what humans should or should not do, there must be a standard or basis upon which such a determination is made. Atheism does not provide one. Since you cannot provide an objective basis for moral judgments, every time you make one it rings hollow since you cannot tell me why you say someone “should” or “shouldn’t” do anything (except for non-moral reasons like survival, pleasure or whatever).

2.I agree that atheism does not provide a handbook for morality. I have argued this is because once one denies God, the ultimate grounding for an objective morality is now gone. That’s why atheism can’t say anything about it. Although you are an atheist, you admit that you have to try and figure out morality on some other grounds. Those who believe in God ground their moral reasoning in the divine mind which is the “home” and source of moral goodness. Since you deny God, you have no such grounding and, as you admit, don’t even have the time to try and figure it all out. So what do you do? You appeal to a principle classically associated with religious systems, especially (but not exclusively) Christianity: the Golden Rule. When you say there is no God (or anything supernatural), you are simultaneously saying that all that exists is nature. If atheism only has the resource of “nature” (understood typically as matter in motion), it follows that it cannot believe in morality as something more than a product of a blind, material, physical process and therefore ultimately nothing more than a “fact” of nature. Good and evil are rendered meaningless in such a conception of the world. I think you are trying to suggest that atheism has no real obligation to explain anything (since you are only making a denial rather than an affirmation) but your denial of God also logically entails certain implications. One of these is that morality evaporates.

3.Regarding the Bible being outdated, etc., I would continue to argue that the Bible, when correctly understood, is a primary source of moral influence throughout the past thousands of years of history and that your moral sensitivities today are, at least in part, ultimately a product of that lengthy tradition even though you do not acknowledge that fact.

4.Regarding evolution, you miss my point. I’m not talking about evolution as a theory. Let’s assume that biological evolution has really happened. Even though there are people who doubt it now (perhaps because it has the status of “theory” rather than “fact” as you say), this does not mean that evolution is not “true.” When people came to believe that the earth moves around the sun rather than the other way around there was not a change in reality only a change in perception. If the moral law is objectively true, how people perceive or understand that law (or do not even acknowledge it) does not change the objective reality. And, I might add, just like I would go to the scientist to find the best source for understanding some scientific “fact,” so I would go to those who have devoted their lives to thinking and living the moral law to find out what the moral law is all about. There is a remarkable similarity of moral principles found among those who most deeply and profoundly devote themselves to learning and living the moral law.

5.You are right that I’m not really that interested in talking about the items from the Old Testament that you copy and pasted. My reason is simply because it would be an enormous waste of energy. We don’t even share a common set of moral principles (at least not consciously) that would allow us to have a meaningful conversation about that. Your goal in mentioning such things is, I think, primarily polemical and not with an openness to learn and patiently consider the facts and possibilities.

6.The questions I keep asking are still unanswered. What gives you the right or moral grounding to “judge” the Old Testament legal codes as “immoral”? You want me to explain them since you obviously see them as immoral. Why isn’t it true that their morality is equal to yours? Why can’t someone else say their morality is better than yours? Why can’t someone say your morality is just a sign of your own weaknesses (since you try to treat others like you want to be treated, your real motive, they might say, is self-preservation)? Why should someone who has power over others ignore what others want and get what he wants if that is what he wants to do? If you answer these questions, we might be closer to looking at the text in Exodus.

One, scientific theory is not the same as just someone making up a "theory". In science, the word theory is not interchangable with the word 'guess' or 'hypothesis' or 'possibility.'

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[10]


Also, who's to say what the 'correct' interpretation of the Bible is? You yourself agreed that people shouldn't take the Bible literally, but realize that it's parables etc. But not everybody agrees with that, just like not everybody agrees on the actual interpretation of what is in the Bible.

Additionally, while you don't think atheists have the 'right' to judge the bible because they aren't morally grounded, atheists don't believe that faith in a Sky Jew (man I love that term!) gives anyone the right to tell someone else they aren't allowed to do so. How does religion give you the right to tell someone else they don't have rights?

Anyway, I guess I don't really understand WHY yo u think it matters so much anyway that atheists don't have a 'grounding' for their morals. What matters more to me is that people HAVE morals, values, ethics, etc. Where they derive their strong sense of moral character is really irrelevant to me. My grounding for my morals is in the Golden Rule, which Christianity does not have the corner market on.

6. Old testement. If people don't have the morality to judge other civilizations as wrong or evil, then why don't we have slavery today in this nation? Did someone eventually say, "enough of this"?

Yes. Lincoln.


:happy:

SIDE NOTE: I wish people would stop believing their hearts had thoughts. "My head wants this but my heart wants this." "Trust your heart" "God knows what's in my heart." Listen up! Your heart pumps blood. Very important, yes. But it ain't doing any thinking for you. That's your brain. Give some credit where it's due. Or start also asking how your kidneys feel about important things.

I think when people say, "God knows what's in my heart", they're either a) really meaning that God knows their motives or b) it's an excuse to hide something so obvious to everyone else. Example: Did you see the footage of the the Detroit Lions player, Suh? He was ejected from the game for unnecessary roughness. There was actual footage of him shoving the other player's head into the ground then stomping on him when he got up. Appeared pretty blatant to everyone watching. During his press conference, he claims he just lost his balance, but he didn't care what anyone else thought because "The Man Upstairs" knows the truth. What a bunch of crap. Do you know how many times Christians have "sworn on the Bible" or claimed that "God knows the truth" while lying righ to your face?

But, my bladder "knows" when I have to pee, so can I start asking it when it's time to go?

Regarding Suh, I just have to say that he's being coached to play that way. When he played for us (Nebraska), we rarely saw that type of behavior from him.

SIDE NOTE: I wish people would stop believing their hearts had thoughts. "My head wants this but my heart wants this." "Trust your heart" "God knows what's in my heart." Listen up! Your heart pumps blood. Very important, yes. But it ain't doing any thinking for you. That's your brain. Give some credit where it's due. Or start also asking how your kidneys feel about important things.

I think when people say, "God knows what's in my heart", they're either a) really meaning that God knows their motives or b) it's an excuse to hide something so obvious to everyone else. Example: Did you see the footage of the the Detroit Lions player, Suh? He was ejected from the game for unnecessary roughness. There was actual footage of him shoving the other player's head into the ground then stomping on him when he got up. Appeared pretty blatant to everyone watching. During his press conference, he claims he just lost his balance, but he didn't care what anyone else thought because "The Man Upstairs" knows the truth. What a bunch of crap. Do you know how many times Christians have "sworn on the Bible" or claimed that "God knows the truth" while lying righ to your face?

But, my bladder "knows" when I have to pee, so can I start asking it when it's time to go?

Regarding Suh, I just have to say that he's being coached to play that way. When he played for us (Nebraska), we rarely saw that type of behavior from him.

They are just sayings. Telling someone "I live you with all my heart" sounds a little better than "Your looks, personality, and phermones have the nuerons in my brain buzzing and my testes producing an abundance of testosterone and semen."
Heck, I still say "Bless you" when some one sneezes to be polite. Learned response I guess.