Hi doñadiana - I am happy to be out of synch with the majority of humanity on this!

I wasn't offended by your statement, no apology is asked for or is necessary! Yes, disbelief is a conscious choice. Of course it is.

As far as Ezekiel predating Paul, well duh!

The idea of humans being "hard-wired for God" arose from evolutionary psychology, didn't it? In some forms, the idea reduces religion to a mere side-effect of the complexity of the brain. It seems to have been co-opted by theists, however. I guess that demonstrates the simple brute strength of the "God did it" or "because God wants it that way" arguments; they can explain absolutely anything as proof of a deity. (But, if God existed and he went to the trouble of hard-wiring us all, couldn't he have saved a lot of trouble by hard-wiring us all for the same religion?)

The God Gene

Review of "Religion Explained: The Human Instincts that Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors"

Is God in Our Genes?

'Newberg calls religion the great equalizer and points out that similar areas of the brain are affected during prayer and meditation. Newberg suggests that these brain scans may provide proof that our brains are built to believe in God. He says there may be universal features of the human mind that actually make it easier for us to believe in a higher power.

Interestingly enough, devout believers and atheists alike point to the brain scans as proof of their own ideas.

Some nuns and other believers champion the brain scans as proof of an innate, physical conduit between human beings and God. According to them, it would only make sense that God would give humans a way to communicate with the Almighty through their brain functions.

Some atheists saw these brain scans as proof that the emotions attached to religion and God are nothing more than manifestations of brain circuitry.' Are humans hard-wired for faith?

I wonder what the reaction would be if it was proven that sexual preference is also hardwired.

Wikipedia has a neat summary of that issue. The same guy who came up with the term "God gene" (which even he says doesn't exist) was also involved in the "gay gene" idea. I guess there was a brief period when scientists hoped to identify genes for everything, before the common sense view - it's all nature and nurture - prevailed again.

The reactions were, I think, predictable.

quote:

Originally posted by juanruiz:

quote:

As far as tsaeb goes, what were you expecting?

After all these years, nothing really.

No fair--to put me down as not able to come up with something at least amusing, simply because I have been contending with being busy in NY's sweltering heat.

As a matter of fact, I recently realized that babthrower posted that my first book is fit for wrapping a fish and that newnickname posted that it is fit to be a doorstopper, reasons to not buy and read it, of course. Anyway, they are both close but wrong. You see, I am thinking of revealing in my next book Jonah in the whale (babthrower's fish) and the door (newnickname's door), which visions envelope and prop up my first book, respectively, instead the other way around (my first book enveloping a fish and propping up a door).

As for TV news or any TV program, folks are so used to fiction in religion that I wonder who would read the truth in the first place, also recognize it for such, and finally tell others to read it. I suppose much depends on how convincing I can make the truth! Yeah, I know that I said that it would be easy. . . . Well, isn't one picture worth a thousand words (and two pictures worth two thousand words)?

quote:

Originally posted by tsaeb:
I suppose much depends on how convincing I can make the truth!

Well, you haven't done that once for me yet, assuming that your opinion of the truth is actually accurate, of course. I imagine it would be well worth the arduous wait.

quote:

to put me down

I wouldn't characterize it as a put down. Up to now, you have revealed that you see meaning in the shapes of letters of the Latin alphabet. I cannot think of any prophecy you have ever made here, much less one that has come to pass. But my real comment concerned the fact that you have not responded to the title and message of your first post on this thread.

juanruiz: Since I fail to understand you, please quote to what remarks of mine you are referring.

quote:

Originally posted by Elexina:

quote:

Originally posted by tsaeb:
I suppose much depends on how convincing I can make the truth!

Well, you haven't done that once for me yet, assuming that your opinion of the truth is actually accurate, of course. I imagine it would be well worth the arduous wait.

Elexina: Don't hold your breath when you can hold your acid tongue instead.

quote:

juanruiz: Since I fail to understand you, please quote to what remarks of mine you are referring.

"What are some top unexplained Biblical events whose explanation, if given, would make you a believer, and in what, then, would you believe?"

I was figuring you'd tell us.

"Still, I'd like to hear Tsaeb's explanation of the loaves and the fishes, just to find out what she's getting at."

NNN brought this up on 6/30. Why not start with this one, tsaeb?

quote:

Originally posted by tsaeb: Elexina: Don't hold your breath when you can hold your acid tongue instead.

I wouldn't think of doing either.

What part of "I don't believe that there is a god" isn't understood? Nothing short of him appearing before me (and not as "nature's wonders") would make me believe that we are not here naturally...as a result of evolution, or possibly colonization from other civilizations.

Why is it that Christians, or other believers, cannot fathom that some of us JUST DON'T???

quote:

Originally posted by gizmogram:
Nothing short of him appearing before me (and not as "nature's wonders") would make me believe that we are not here naturally...as a result of evolution, or possibly colonization from other civilizations.

gizmogram: It is written that no man has seen God at any time. Also, it is written that He said, "My sheep hear my voice. . . ." So I suppose that He will have to start talking to you. Then, you can either talk to Him or to a psychiatrist or to yourself. Maybe the day will come when He will talk to everyone or almost everyone. . . .

quote:

Originally posted by juanruiz:
"Still, I'd like to hear Tsaeb's explanation of the loaves and the fishes, just to find out what she's getting at."

NNN brought this up on 6/30. Why not start with this one, tsaeb?

I love your looking for a freebie. I think that you are a very curious man. Anyway, so that you all can have one lap-slapping laugh, try this one on for size: the two fish comprise Abraham's bosom.

That sounds more like an interpretation than an explanation; just another "A represents B, and C represents D..." take on the Bible. Feeding the multitude (a freebie).

Abraham's bosom is an idiom for Paradise, Sheol or Limbo, apparently. I don't see much hope of your interpretation making sense.

NNN's link to the Wikipedia article certainly makes one thing clear. Generations of scholars and the faithful can't agree what the miracle signifies.

Don't you just wish that the Son of God or God or the disciples who recorded all this could have taken time to explain it clearly?

If He can't can't make His message clear, why is that? He had one chance to educate us all but patently failed.

newnickname: You are not up to your usual snuff by citing Wikipedia. Surprised as I am that you called my attempt at humor an interpretation (you must be on to me by now), if it is an explanation which you want, then a partial explanation is that Abraham's bosom is part of what Isaiah called a consumption which is determined, the exact meal here being milk from breast feeding. Furthermore, if you are looking for the honey, then the bosom is the bee's wings as well.

Seriously, the parables are examples of talking in tongues, which is why the baskets have fragments (here, of numbers) in them.

The 5 feeding 5,000 yields 12 fragments as follows. 5 separated = | | c which makes |2. As for 5,000, 5,000 = 5, because 1 day is like 1,000 so that 5 days is like 5,000 days, and according to Daniel, God changes days (here, into fragments).

The 7 feeding 4,000 yields 7 fragments as follows. 7 = 7. As for 4,000, 4,000 = 4 separated = | | | | put together = + separated slightly into || = 7. This second example was made easier to demonstrate that + is either | | | | or | |.

FredPuli: Ah, but He can make His message clear--and He chooses how many chances He has to educate us.

This is the kind of thing you thought would make believers out of doubters? Really?

I think, maybe, you should try to put yourself in your readers' shoes. Honestly, what do you expect people to understand from all that? '7 = 7' is the only bit that makes sense.

quote:

Abraham's bosom is part of what Isaiah called a consumption which is determined, the exact meal here being milk from breast feeding.

'Consumption' in Isaiah does not refer to a meal at all, but to the destruction of Israel. In many English versions of the Bible newer than the KJV, the word is translated as 'destruction'.

Isaiah 10:22-24

Isaiah 28:21-23