Killing the Shepherd to Save the Sheep

[Medicine*Woman]

this coming from the lady that believes in Mary Magalene because she read a best selling fiction novel.

*************
M*W: Whoa, there, Leo! Why would you tell a bold-faced lie? I made it very clear, right here on this forum, that I had not read and did not plan to read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, because it was pulp fiction. To date, my stance remains the same. However, I have also stated that becoming atheist is not an overnight sensation but a work in progress. If you go back far enough, there was a time I was a bible believing christian. So what? As my atheism evolved, it was through reading about MM in scholarly research, and yes, there was a time I believed MM to be the wife of Jesus and his greatest apostle.

That was then, this is now. The more I read about MM and Jesus, the more I realized they were just figurative characters in the fictional novel called the New Testament. I'm very clear now that Jesus never existed, so therefore, neither did MM. I don't read one version and claim it to be true. I cross reference everything I read, and the score card reads Atheism 100%, Jesus & MM 0%. But you wouldn't know that because you were gone for a period of time, so you are trying to grasp at straws. BTW, super foe Paul didn't exist either. Before you quote someone, make sure it's the truth.

 

[SkinWalker]

I agree with Jaster. Move the "Religion" subforum to make it a subforum of the Human Sciences forum.

If not, the preachy nutters should continue to expect those that don't buy into their superstitions and who think it to be poppycock to ridicule them in every thread in just the same manner someone who joins and claims to have ESP or telekinesis gets.

 

[Cris]

This forum is what it is. There is nothing to say it must be pro-religious. If religionists want pro-religious discussions then there are plenty of other forums on the web to cater to those desires.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

This forum is what it is. There is nothing to say it must be pro-religious. If religionists want pro-religious discussions then there are plenty of other forums on the web to cater to those desires.

I never said that this forum should be pro-religious. All I said was that it's unfair that everyone who wishes to discuss their religion, or a point of dogma, or who has a question about a particular religion's dogma, is immediately attacked by everyone who has no respect for those beliefs. If the position of the administration really is that religion should only be discussed on this board in the context of the scientific study of religion, then there should be no Religion subforum in the Philosophy section, but rather that all discussions of religion should be under Human Sciences.