The Anti-Christian conspiracy

Originally posted by LCKob
Okay ... seeing as your religion is eclectic? i.e. "Proteprebymethobaptist"

Hehee, okay. I had another call me a nomadic Christian. Though it sounds like a cool breed, I don't see benefit over a settled Christian. I've been seriously considering settling down lately, but have yet to put pen to paper. Guess I'm too picky when it come to my own beliefs, though consider myself as one who "plays nice with other kids". I hope, anyway.

Originally posted by LCKob
... and given your tentative acceptance of the postulated age ranges ... would you then say that you have problems with the possibility (I say this because I am agnostic) of a creater forming what we see by processes that humans are becoming aware of by means of Scientfic Methodology?

Did the yolk create the egg? Nah, the egg is the product of the hen. To clarify to those I may have lost. yolk = scientific method, egg = science, hen = God.

Originally posted by LCKob
I have no real problems with the notion of a creator (just no compelling evidence for such) ... what I find difficult to reconcile is in the histories of various institutionalized religions ... and how they conflict with findings and views posed by the vehicle of Scientific Methodology.

What is your stance exactly?

Aha! Well, here's my take. I hear what you're saying, and as a former student of science (arguably still am), it's an interesting mix without a doubt. Actually, candidly, I never had a problem with what the university taught in genetics, quasars, calculus, and such. The only time I had a problem was when they'd talk both sides of their mouths about evolution. One cannot state you must have a thriving biodiversity to have a successful ecosystem and everything evolved from a single cell. Stephen J. Gould was infamous for this kind of double-talk and it drove me bonkers. It doesn't even make scientific sense WITHOUT any talk of religion. BUT! Rest assured when I questioned how that works, I got all this "religious beliefs" backlash. I didn't start that, they did, over and over again. Talk about your Anti-Christian Conspiracies. I don't see it as a war between evolution and creationists, it's actually a war between ecology and genetics, if one takes a really hard look. Somehow both departments survived as a science, but genetics is actually useful (yes, the "but" phrase is my bitter opinion, not proven scientific fact...yet). Who wants coffee and icecream? That last picture made me hungry.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by saint4God]

saint4God:

Hehee, okay. I had another call me a nomadic Christian. Though it sounds like a cool breed, I don't see benefit over a settled Christian. I've been seriously considering settling down lately, but have yet to put pen to paper. Guess I'm too picky when it come to my own beliefs, though consider myself as one who "plays nice with other kids". I hope, anyway.

LCKob:

Actually, I have less problems with picky than I have with "accepting"

saint4God:

Did the yolk create the egg? Nah, the egg is the product of the hen. To clarify to those I may have lost. yolk = scientific method, egg = science, hen = God.

LCKob:

yes, and the reasoning mind the precurser and requirement to both ...


saint4god:

Aha! Well, here's my take. I hear what you're saying, and as a former student of science (arguably still am), it's an interesting mix without a doubt. Actually, candidly, I never had a problem with what the university taught in genetics, quasars, calculus, and such. The only time I had a problem was when they'd talk both sides of their mouths about evolution. One cannot state you must have a thriving biodiversity to have a successful ecosystem and everything evolved from a single cell. Stephen J. Gould was infamous for this kind of double-talk and it drove me bonkers. It doesn't even make scientific sense WITHOUT any talk of religion. BUT! Rest assured when I questioned how that works, I got all this "religious beliefs" backlash. I didn't start that, they did, over and over again. Talk about your Anti-Christian Conspiracies. I don't see it as a war between evolution and creationists, it's actually a war between ecology and genetics, if one takes a really hard look. Somehow both departments survived as a science, but genetics is actually useful (yes, the "but" phrase is my bitter opinion, not proven scientific fact...yet).

LCKob:

Well, my take on it is this ... true scientific methodology should never claim the absolute ... and that any conflict or discrepancy should by intrinsic process be reviewed and evaluated on its own merit in relationship in regards to applicable working models (for and against).

... any instance of "talking from both sides of their mouths" is the product of imperfect application of the methodology in the form of "operator error" ... after all when its all said and done, scientists and researchers are human beings like everyone else (lurking ETs excepted) ... and thus just as fallible ... point being ... that as a process SM is valid ... if there are breakdowns is is most likely attributable to human failing.

Now with that said, the strength of SM is that it does evaluate as a continual process in the pertetual cycle of idea-test-evaluate ... and it is in this regard that SM excels.

LCKob

The point was BEFORE the bible came around. Yes, amazingly there were other culture's, religion's, and such before god was even first mentioned by any man on this planet

I think the point trying to be made was not about GOD being mentioned, but Jesus Christ. We all know that man worshipped some type of GOD for many thousands of years before Christ.

Well, my digressive post aside ... to anwer the primary question ...

"Why are so many people so anti christian?"

I think the actual question should be why are people anti religion ...

From what I have seen and experienced, I would say that within any country, the most prevalent or influential institutions (religion and otherwise) are targeted or critically assessed for a number of reasons from the real and imagined promotion of monopolistic practices to the abstract principle of oppositional balance ...

Thus what appears as possible "anti-christianity" could very well be just opposition to what appears to be the most popular religion within a culture or society ... and in our case, the particular worry of the gradual loss of the right to diversity in the face of popular or expedient consensus driven issues.

Thus, in my opinion, its not so much "anti-Christian" as it is the higher levels of education and global awareness that is causing a catagorical shift of religion in general from a "multifunction" perspective ... to one of a more personal, subjective and moral bias.

LCKob

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
I think the point trying to be made was not about GOD being mentioned, but Jesus Christ. We all know that man worshipped some type of GOD for many thousands of years before Christ.

Doesn't that just seem ridiculous to anyone else? There were people on this planet who worship more then one god for thousand's of year's before the idea of a monothiestic god ever arose. Knowing that, how in the world can this NEW form of religion being seen as the one true religion? Easy answer here and it's all in the bible. Kill Kill Kill. If they breath different, kill. If they walk funny, kill. If they refuse to worship me, kill.

Look at scientology. Another new religion that has a good amount of follower's. Maybe this NEW religion is the true one. Just like the monothiestic god, being NEW to the world became the true religion.

i'll try answering the orignal question hundreds of posts back as well as i can.

why are so many people so anti-christian?

many people have a problem with dealing in absolutes based on nothing but faith.

others see those who vomit hate in the name of christ (you fallwells and robertsons), many people find this appalling, which leads to a disdain for christianity.

the problem might be with the question. people may not be antichristian, only antidogmatic. they may see any religion based on clear cut doctrine and dogma as fallable. these people target christianity simply because it is the majority religion in their respective nation.


another possibility is that there aren't as many people that are anti christian as you perceive.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Al Davison
So, all the Biblical stuff spouted today about morality in regards to sexual activity and marriage really has no basis whatsoever in the Bible because there was no such concept in that region of the world until about 1,000 or more years later.

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:23)

Where does it say "property of" in this verse that was before the 10 Commandments were issued? The words I see are "united", and "one flesh". More interesting is that the man is united to his wife, not the other way around.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by saint4God]

saint, when was that particular passage of genesis written?
simply wondering if you know, because most sources i have indicate around 200 BCE

i don't know how anyone could possibly put the question 'so why are ''SO'' many people anti-christian/anti-religion'. have any of you taken a look at the USA or the UK. i know the figures for the UK are about 70% christian, of which half go to church on a regular basis. that leaves 30% of which 10% to 15% are minority religions. so we're left with 15% who class themselves as having no religion. that small 15% is what you class as 'SO MANY' that are anti-religion.

the thing is, since our grandparent's generation, numbers in church has dropped. less of our parents were religious, and even less of my generation were religious. we didn't need some devine spirit, we had nintendo...mario and zelda, who needed god when you had them. when we get further down the line, my children's generation will be less religious, and their children's children and so on. the further down the timeline we get, the less people there will be in churches. sure that's quite a wild accusation to make, but it's also very accurate. people are slowly opening their eyes and seeing religion not as something real, but something merely just to believe in, to have hope.

when monty python's the holy grail was first released, i remember seeing an interview with michael palin and john clease with a bishop/vicar/preist. basically they thought the whole thing was just a chance to have a laugh at jesus and christianity and that it was blasphemous. i remember one thing that john clease said ''400 years ago, we would have been burned for making this, i'm suggesting since then we've made some sort of progress''.

which is quite right, 400 years ago you couldn't say something like 'god doesn't exist'. and even today we can't because people say we're being anti-religious, you can't burn us so you call us anti-religious, that's your modern way of dealing with people not believing in god.

Well, my digressive post aside ... to anwer the primary question ...

"Why are so many people so anti christian?"

I think the actual question should be why are people anti-religion or anti-dogma...

From what I have seen and experienced, I would say that within any country, the most prevalent or influential institutions (religion and otherwise) are targeted or critically assessed for a number of reasons from the real and imagined promotion of monopolistic practices to the abstract principle of oppositional balance ...

Thus what appears as possible "anti-christianity" could very well be just opposition to what appears to be the most popular religion within a culture or society ... and in our case, the particular worry of the gradual loss of the right to diversity in the face of popular or expedient consensus driven issues.

Thus, in my opinion, its not so much "anti-christian" as it is the higher levels of education and global awareness that is causing a catagorical shift of religion in general from a "multifunction" perspective ... to one of a more personal, subjective and moral bias ... thus covering "less ground", and forming more of a niche criteria ... belief and intent begin to chafe against each other within the larger scope of "opinion" and thus you have increased manifested frictions in the form of an anti-religious, counter religious, or even merely redefined religous movement.

LCKob

oops ... what was supposed to be an edit somehow turned into a new post ... sorry.




[edit on 5-1-2006 by LCKob]

I don't think it's an Anti Christian thing as such more an Anti Mass organised religion affair.

The Western worlds faith was and stilll is predominantly Christian therefore people who have a problem with religion will pick holes in the faith that they have knowledge and experience of and in the Major English speaking nations of America, Uk etc...that faith will be Christianity.

I don't beleive in The Bible myself, at least the great percentage of it and although I'm sure that some historical events that occur in the good book are based on real events I could never say with any kind of reasonable conscience that the Bible is a True Document.

The thing is people have more access to information these days, they read and investigate and while doing so they discover that idea of Christianity being the one true religion is fairly ridiculous...not to mention arrogant.

The idea that Christianity is a right and Just religion is also without a shadow of a doubt a complete and utter falsehood. Look throughout history and the pain it has inflicted on the masses, the Crusades, Missionaries destroying ancient cultures, The Spanish Inquisition, Corrupt Popes, Fraudulant Televangelists, Peodophile priests etc.....

Christianity has murdered, bribed, extorted and destroyed it's way to being a Major world religion and yet it is sold to the sinners as being a brotherhood of salvation, a Church of peace and understanding.

Then we have the Jesus problem.

Lots of things about his life just don't add up, the stories we took for granted as children now seem ridiculous and doubtful and for good reason.

The Bible is not a solid source unless you have faith and believe that it is the actual word of God ( as some people do to my continuing astonishment) when it is quite clear that the bible was written by various people in different periods of time and these "Humans" will have had their own biases and own agendas...the Gospel is there point of view and is no way an actual first hand record of events.


I think maybe if Christians accepted that many aspects of their faith is flawed then the anti Christian brigade will back off but as we see time and time again on this site, Some people will defend christianity to the point of obvious stupidity just because they have been programmed or choose to beleive that every single word of the Bible is true and their God is the One and Only when that idea is open to very serious doubt and debate.

[edit on 5-1-2006 by StJude]

Originally posted by LCKob
Actually, I have less problems with picky than I have with "accepting"

Glad I can relate then. I'm the reverse. I feel like an idiot sometimes requiring so much proof on the things I should already know to be true. I hold those who are able to have strong faith above my way of doing things.

Originally posted by LCKob
yes, and the reasoning mind the precurser and requirement to both ...

Disagreed, who made the reasoning mind? Unless the reasoning mind is "god", then my analogy still fits, but replaced with a different guy...and a pretty weak one comparatively in my opinon.

Originally posted by LCKob
Well, my take on it is this ... true scientific methodology should never claim the absolute ... and that any conflict or discrepancy should by intrinsic process be reviewed and evaluated on its own merit in relationship in regards to applicable working models (for and against).

... any instance of "talking from both sides of their mouths" is the product of imperfect application of the methodology in the form of "operator error" ... after all when its all said and done, scientists and researchers are human beings like everyone else (lurking ETs excepted) ... and thus just as fallible ... point being ... that as a process SM is valid ... if there are breakdowns is is most likely attributable to human failing.

If the scientific method is created by humans, how can it not be in error too? I appreciate you saying that Stephen J. Gould was wrong though.

Now with that said, the strength of SM is that it does evaluate as a continual process in the pertetual cycle of idea-test-evaluate ... and it is in this regard that SM excels.

LCKob

Excels, but not perfect...else it would not require perpetual cycling. This is proof of its flaw.

Originally posted by Produkt
Doesn't that just seem ridiculous to anyone else?

Not to me.

Originally posted by Produkt
There were people on this planet who worship more then one god for thousand's of year's before the idea of a monothiestic god ever arose.

I'll ask again, your evidence please?

Originally posted by Produkt
Knowing that, how in the world can this NEW form of religion being seen as the one true religion?

How is "In the beginning" new?

Originally posted by Produkt
Easy answer here and it's all in the bible.

Nobody said all. God is alive and can be related to personally. The Book is an awesome guide, containing God's word, but I don't know a Christian that has a relationship with a book.

Originally posted by Produkt
Kill Kill Kill. If they breath different, kill. If they walk funny, kill. If they refuse to worship me, kill.

Normally I don't suggest a doctor's visit to work out mental problems, but I'm beginning to reconsider. Let's test your theory, shall we? You refuse to worship God, has He killed you?

Originally posted by Produkt
Look at scientology.

Why? There are plenty of other threads on this topic and is not related here...unless you're saying Scientology is an Anti-Christian Conspiracy, in which I think you may have a case.

Originally posted by Produkt
Another new religion that has a good amount of follower's. Maybe this NEW religion is the true one. Just like the monothiestic god, being NEW to the world became the true religion.

See question above about being new.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
many people have a problem with dealing in absolutes based on nothing but faith.

Understandable. I'm one of those people.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
others see those who vomit hate in the name of christ (you fallwells and robertsons), many people find this appalling,

I do too.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
which leads to a disdain for christianity.

So what you're saying is people are listening to other people instead of God and His word? And people call Christians "sheeple", go figure...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the problem might be with the question. people may not be antichristian, only antidogmatic. they may see any religion based on clear cut doctrine and dogma as fallable. these people target christianity simply because it is the majority religion in their respective nation.

Test this. How many Anti-Bhuddists do you see in China? How many Anti-Muslims do you see in Saudi Arabia?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
another possibility is that there aren't as many people that are anti christian as you perceive.

So you are willing to admist there is and Anti-Christian Conspiracy, just not able to qualify the numbers. That's a start.

[edit on 5-1-2006 by saint4God]

Saint4god:

Did the yolk create the egg? Nah, the egg is the product of the hen. To clarify to those I may have lost. yolk = scientific method, egg = science, hen = God.

LCKob:

yes, and the reasoning mind the precurser and requirement to both ...

saint4god:

Disagreed, who made the reasoning mind? Unless the reasoning mind is "god", then my analogy still fits, but replaced with a different guy...and a pretty weak one comparatively in my opinon.


LCKob:

Notice I stated both ... not all three ... as in the first two ... as for the third, I leave open as to possibility not absolute.

I merely point out that for the human condition, intellectual capacity in the form of a reasoning mind, came before SM and quite possibly religion.


LCKob:

Well, my take on it is this ... true scientific methodology should never claim the absolute ... and that any conflict or discrepancy should by intrinsic process be reviewed and evaluated on its own merit in relationship in regards to applicable working models (for and against).

... any instance of "talking from both sides of their mouths" is the product of imperfect application of the methodology in the form of "operator error" ... after all when its all said and done, scientists and researchers are human beings like everyone else (lurking ETs excepted) ... and thus just as fallible ... point being ... that as a process SM is valid ... if there are breakdowns is is most likely attributable to human failing.

saint4god:

If the scientific method is created by humans, how can it not be in error too? I appreciate you saying that Stephen J. Gould was wrong though.

LCKob:

Actually, I was upholding the principle by reiterating the underlying ideal ... in the form of invalidating any human derived error ... as for the asertions of Stephen J. Gould ... I reserve judgement for a time in which I can satisfy personal curiosity in the form of personal research.

LCKob:

Now with that said, the strength of SM is that it does evaluate as a continual process in the pertetual cycle of idea-test-evaluate ... and it is in this regard that SM excels.

saint4god:

Excels, but not perfect...else it would not require perpetual cycling. This is proof of its flaw

LCKob:

Actually it is merely proof of its nature ... being a process that continuously seeks for truth ... as opposed to the assertion of absolute truth.

By this same logic, one could argue that religion in general suffers from the lack of such an assessment cycle ... and thus its flaw ... or at least point of contention with other views.



[edit on 5-1-2006 by LCKob]

Hi Saint Jude! Nice to meet you.

Originally posted by StJude
The idea that Christianity is a right and Just religion is also without a shadow of a doubt a complete and utter falsehood.

Oh, so you're not a saint. Hi Jude, nice to meet you.

Originally posted by StJude
Look throughout history and the pain it has inflicted on the masses, the Crusades, Missionaries destroying ancient cultures, The Spanish Inquisition, Corrupt Popes, Fraudulant Televangelists, Peodophile priests etc.....

I see. So in order for a belief that there is a perfect God to be true, then all of the people who claim to be followers must also be perfect?

Originally posted by StJude
Christianity has murdered, bribed, extorted and destroyed it's way to being a Major world religion

No it didn't...but if you understood what Christ said then you'd already know that. Christianity is the following of Christ's teachings and he taught none of these things.

Originally posted by StJude
and yet it is sold to the sinners as being a brotherhood of salvation, a Church of peace and understanding.

Hey, now you're on the right track, but it's not the church who did the "selling"

Originally posted by StJude
Then we have the Jesus problem.

Lots of things about his life just don't add up, the stories we took for granted as children now seem ridiculous and doubtful and for good reason.

I never claimed it to be an "easy" faith for all people. Is there a Christian here who believes being Christian is easy? I'd like to meet them.

Originally posted by StJude
The Bible is not a solid source unless you have faith and believe that it is the actual word of God ( as some people do to my continuing astonishment) when it is quite clear that the bible was written by various people in different periods of time and these "Humans" will have had their own biases and own agendas...the Gospel is there point of view and is no way an actual first hand record of events.

Test it. Go to God directly and ask Him first. That's how I had to do it.

Originally posted by StJude
I think maybe if Christians accepted that many aspects of their faith is flawed

Here is the flawed aspect of the faith - people. Gotta love 'em but we sure do screw up a lot.

Originally posted by StJude
then the anti Christian brigade will back off but as we see time and time again on this site, Some people will defend christianity to the point of obvious stupidity just because they have been programmed or choose to beleive that every single word of the Bible is true and their God is the One and Only when that idea is open to very serious doubt and debate.

I'm glad I'm not one of those people.

Thanks to the person who U2U'd me this link: www.cnn.com...

Did Jesus exist? Court to decide

Wednesday, January 4, 2006; Posted: 1:35 p.m. EST (18:35 GMT)

ROME, Italy (Reuters) -- Forget the U.S. debate over intelligent design versus evolution.

An Italian court is tackling Jesus -- and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago.

The case pits against each other two men in their 70s, who are from the same central Italian town and even went to the same seminary school in their teenage years.

The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month.

"I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression," Cascioli told Reuters.

Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is "Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is "Sostituzione di Persona," or impersonation.

"The Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala," Cascioli claimed, referring to the 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army.

A court in Viterbo will hear from Righi, who has yet to be indicted, at a January 27 preliminary hearing meant to determine whether the case has enough merit to go forward.

"In my book, 'The Fable of Christ,' I present proof Jesus did not exist as a historic figure. He must now refute this by showing proof of Christ's existence," Cascioli said.

Speaking to Reuters, Righi, 76, sounded frustrated by the case and baffled as to why Cascioli -- who, like him, came from the town of Bagnoregio -- singled him out in his crusade against the Church.

"We're both from Bagnoregio, both of us. We were in seminary together. Then he took a different path and we didn't see each other anymore," Righi said.

"Since I'm a priest, and I write in the parish newspaper, he is now suing me because I 'trick' the people."

Righi claims there is plenty of evidence to support the existence of Jesus, including historical texts.

He also claims that justice is on his side. The judge presiding over the hearing has tried, repeatedly, to dismiss the case -- prompting appeals from Cascioli.

"Cascioli says he didn't exist. And I said that he did," he said. "The judge will decide if Christ exists or not."

Even Cascioli admits that the odds are against him, especially in Roman Catholic Italy.

"It would take a miracle to win," he joked.

Hmmmm.... still say there is no Anti-Christian Conspiracy? How about making Christianity against the law?



[edit on 5-1-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Thanks to the person who U2U'd me this link: www.cnn.com...

Did Jesus exist? Court to decide

Hmmmm.... still say there is no Anti-Christian Conspiracy? How about making Christianity against the law?

[edit on 5-1-2006 by saint4God]

I am personally of the opinion that it is not ... but will refer you to the thread on this very topic for much further elaboration ... in the hope of preventing thread overlap and redundancy.

www.belowtopsecret.com...

Sam

Originally posted by LCKob
I am personally of the opinion that it is not ... but will refer you to the thread on this very topic for much further elaboration ... in the hope of preventing thread overlap and redundancy.

www.belowtopsecret.com...

Sam

Hey cool, didn't see that one. The past is what it is, and still find it to be a valid point here.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by LCKob
I am personally of the opinion that it is not ... but will refer you to the thread on this very topic for much further elaboration ... in the hope of preventing thread overlap and redundancy.

www.belowtopsecret.com...

Sam

Hey cool, didn't see that one. The past is what it is, and still find it to be a valid point here.

In point of fact, I really don't mind "cross pollinating" myself ... its just that I have been warned before on a number of threads for excessive quoting and I fear that the potential could come up in light of "reinventing the wheel" so to speak.

... but as far as I am concerned more power to you.

LCkob

Originally posted by saint4God
Thanks to the person who U2U'd me this link: www.cnn.com...

Did Jesus exist? Court to decide

Wednesday, January 4, 2006; Posted: 1:35 p.m. EST (18:35 GMT)

ROME, Italy (Reuters) -- Forget the U.S. debate over intelligent design versus evolution.

An Italian court is tackling Jesus -- and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago.

The case pits against each other two men in their 70s, who are from the same central Italian town and even went to the same seminary school in their teenage years.

The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month.

"I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression," Cascioli told Reuters.

Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is "Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is "Sostituzione di Persona," or impersonation.

"The Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala," Cascioli claimed, referring to the 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army.

A court in Viterbo will hear from Righi, who has yet to be indicted, at a January 27 preliminary hearing meant to determine whether the case has enough merit to go forward.

"In my book, 'The Fable of Christ,' I present proof Jesus did not exist as a historic figure. He must now refute this by showing proof of Christ's existence," Cascioli said.

Speaking to Reuters, Righi, 76, sounded frustrated by the case and baffled as to why Cascioli -- who, like him, came from the town of Bagnoregio -- singled him out in his crusade against the Church.

"We're both from Bagnoregio, both of us. We were in seminary together. Then he took a different path and we didn't see each other anymore," Righi said.

"Since I'm a priest, and I write in the parish newspaper, he is now suing me because I 'trick' the people."

Righi claims there is plenty of evidence to support the existence of Jesus, including historical texts.

He also claims that justice is on his side. The judge presiding over the hearing has tried, repeatedly, to dismiss the case -- prompting appeals from Cascioli.

"Cascioli says he didn't exist. And I said that he did," he said. "The judge will decide if Christ exists or not."

Even Cascioli admits that the odds are against him, especially in Roman Catholic Italy.

"It would take a miracle to win," he joked.

Hmmmm.... still say there is no Anti-Christian Conspiracy? How about making Christianity against the law?

[edit on 5-1-2006 by saint4God]

you seem some what worried... am i right in assuming that?

500 years ago it was against the law to be anything but christian in england. so your point ''still say there is no anti-christian conspiracy...how about making christianity against the law'' comes of as pretty pathetic. when before it was the law to be christian, you weren't even aloud to think that there was no god, let alone say there wasn't.

but two 70 year old men, arguing in court...wow huge anti-christian conspiracy here folks