What good does religion offer the world today?

I suggested you should be able to figure it out. I was supposing (making a blind guess) that you have the intelligence for that kind of thing.

InfraBlue wrote:

But others basing their beliefs a/o lack thereof on similar substantive evidence are merely making blind guesses.

But that is what I said. Didn't you read what I responded to your question? Should I continue to respond if you are not reading what I say?

InfraBlue wrote:

Your criteria for what qualifies as "substantive" is clearly subjective.

Okay...so what?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I suggested you should be able to figure it out. I was supposing (making a blind guess) that you have the intelligence for that kind of thing.

I prefer to not play guessing games and ask directly what you mean. It's funny that you're bothered by being asked to explain yourself. You confuse intelligence with mental telepathy.

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

But others basing their beliefs a/o lack thereof on similar substantive evidence are merely making blind guesses.

But that is what I said. Didn't you read what I responded to your question? Should I continue to respond if you are not reading what I say?

I repeated what you said to set up my response thereto.

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Your criteria for what qualifies as "substantive" is clearly subjective.

Okay...so what?

So, you dismiss others' evidence as non-substantive, e.g. their assertions that there is/isn't a god, while accepting your own evidence as substantive, e.g. that the Bible stories are silly myths, based on your own subjective criteria. You're not being objective, let alone rational.

The assertion that the Bible stories are silly myths is as substantive as the assertion that god exists/doesn't exist.

I am being rational.

The age of reason indicates a state of enlightenment where society has done away with biblical myths and barbaric scriptural laws for a cohesive idea of societal manners that are collective thus they take knowledge and over time wisdom to obtain. This gives one insight into the pitfalls of biblical thought.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am being rational.

Why the sudden change of heart?

The age of reason indicates a state of enlightenment where society has done away with biblical myths and barbaric scriptural laws for a cohesive idea of societal manners that are collective thus they take knowledge and over time wisdom to obtain. This gives one insight into the pitfalls of biblical thought.

Just as Christians talk of a "new birth" of the spirit, the age of reason had its own new birth and realization as an awaking of the mind that supersedes the crude and barbaric ideas of the Bible. We learn these reasons and rational from others in society who are enlightened and we bear witness of these ideas to others and they in time also understand and become transformed by this reason.

tc

If you could not figure that out for yourself...I definitely did.

I don't even know what you are, unsuccessfully, trying to communicate with that sentence, Blue. They are all English words, though...I'll give you that.

And if you think an opinion about whether or not the Bible seems more mythological than actually "the word of a god" is the same as an opinion about whether or not a god exists...YOU are not.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you could not figure that out for yourself...I definitely did.

You were able to figured out what you were talking about, huh? At least one of us knows what's going on in that head of yours.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I don't even know what you are, unsuccessfully, trying to communicate with that sentence, Blue. They are all English words, though...I'll give you that.

Quote:

I'll help you out. "Thereto" means "to that, this, or it." In my sentence it refers to "what you said."

Frank Apisa wrote:

And if you think an opinion about whether or not the Bible seems more mythological than actually "the word of a god" is the same as an opinion about whether or not a god exists...YOU are not.

But by your own admission your criteria is subjective so an opinion about whether or not the Bible seems more mythological than actually "the word of a god" is the same as an opinion about whether or not a god exists is equally valid. Where you are irrational is when you accept one as vaild and one as invalid on a whim. That is not rational.

]The "I definitely did" goes to the part you cut out...the part where I talked about possibly over-estimating your intelligence.

Thanks for showing once again that I did over-estimate it.

What you said still makes no sense. But little you say does...so we'll leave it at that.

Most of what you say is not rational, Blue.

If you want to think an opinion about the nature of the Bible is based on as little evidence as an opinion about whether a god exists or not...do so.

If I laugh at you for doing so...please understand that I am laughing at you, not with you.

Frank Apisa wrote:

]The "I definitely did" goes to the part you cut out...the part where I talked about possibly over-estimating your intelligence.

Thanks for showing once again that I did over-estimate it.

You make yet another assumption that I should know that you over-estimate my intelligence.

To repeat, only you know what goes on in that head of yours.

Frank Apisa wrote:

What you said still makes no sense. But little you say does...so we'll leave it at that.

It's over your head.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Most of what you say is not rational, Blue.

If you want to think an opinion about the nature of the Bible is based on as little evidence as an opinion about whether a god exists or not...do so.

If I laugh at you for doing so...please understand that I am laughing at you, not with you.

What's laughable is that by your own admission you're being subjective, and go on to confuse that with rationality.

Christian website: Don’t look at your wife’s face during sex to enjoy it even when she resists
David Edwards DAVID EDWARDS
26 OCT 2015

A Christian website that gives advice to couples about how to live by the Bible’s “gender roles” recently advised men that they should not look at their wives’ faces during sex if she engaged in intercourse “begrudgingly.”

In a column on the BiblicalGenderRoles.com website last week, a writer going by the name Larry Solomon argued that men “should not tolerate refusal.”

According to the Christian columnist, women who did not like having sex with their husbands should “fake it until she makes it.”

But Solomon noted that coercing wives into sex did not always result in an enjoyable experience for the husband.

“You also need to realize that whether your wife knows it or not she needs to have sex too,” he opined. “If you don’t have sex with your wife at regular intervals, even sometimes when she is not in the mood but consents anyway, you will open yourself to temptation.”

“Focus your eyes on her body, not her face. Focus on the visual pleasure you receive from looking at her body and physical pleasure you receive from being inside your wife,” Solomon recommended. “You want to connect with her physically AND emotionally during sex. But your wife is the one refusing to connect with you emotionally, so you have to concentrate 100% on the physical side.”

Solomon said that men should think of unwilling wives like Medusa, the mythical Greek monster who could turn men to stone if they looked upon her face.

“I know you love your wife, most men love their wives. But sin is ugly,” the writer remarked. “Your beautiful bride’s face becomes ugly during this sinful time that she is grudgingly giving you sex as she grimaces wanting you to ‘just hurry up and get it over with’.”

“So like the men who could not look at Medusa’s face otherwise they would be killed, realize that if you look on your wife’s face when she is displaying a sinful attitude toward sex it will kill your sexual pleasure and may actually make it much more difficult for you to achieve the physical connection and release that you need,” he concluded. “Sometimes we have to work around the sinful behavior of our wives and this will be one of those times.”

In a column earlier this year, Solomon insisted that there was “no such thing as marital rape.” A wife, he said, could ask her husband to delay sex for a short period of time but the request “must be done humbly and respectfully, and always with the attitude in mind that her body does belong to her husband.”