It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Prove Christ exists" orders judge

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
From the cited article:


Signor Cascioli’s one-man campaign came to a head at a court hearing last April when he lodged his accusations of “abuse of popular credulity” and “impersonation”, both offences under the Italian penal code.


It would seem that one of Signor Cascioli's grounds for the case is of the same nature of our (in the US) 'defamation of character.' He was 'denounced' 'in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence,' by Father Righi. Unless Christ can be proven historically by the defendant, his comment is not justified legally. And, whether or not Christ did exist is totally irrelevant to the case--the decision is solely contingent upon whether or not Father Righi was supported in 'denouncing' the Signor.'

It is basically an issue of it is okay to publicly discredit/defame someone whose beliefs oppose your own--when neither one can conclusively be proven beyond personal 'belief"'

Personally, I say it is not. I think the order by the Judge is the only logical approach--and it is truly a legal/civil issue--but likely destined to be muddied and tangled by a confusion over the line drawn between individual rights (to individual/unique opinion) and public religious oppression.

I daresay the Father can not 'prove' that Jesus , or anyone else for that mattter, actually existed 2000 years ago. If there were some sort of hidden fount of 'evidence' in the custody of the Church, I would hope that such a thing wouldn't be shared with the world only in the interest of defending a church official undergoing litigation.


If the examples, given as 'evidence' at the end of the article, are any indication of the resources the defense intends to use--then Father Righi doesn't stand a chance...

First of all, Nazareth's non-existence, according to the approximate accepted time frame of Christ's birth, disqualifies the entire first point of evidence.

Secondly, the cited passage from Antiquities of the Jews is one that has been almost, but not officially, declared by the scholastic experts to be a certain forgery--and so the second point of evidence is also rendered null and void.

[edit on 1/3/2006 by queenannie38]




posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I think the most telling element in the whole article was ...

"The Vatican has so far declined to comment."

LCKob



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
I'm athiest, but the only hateful part I have toward's religion is how they murdered innocent people and destroyed culture's and history forcing they're belief onto people. Even to this day they're doing it. Now they're taking school's to court trying to get it taught as ID.

Why can't you just be happy and believe what you believe and let the rest of us believe what we want?


[edit on 3-1-2006 by Produkt]


Poeple murder other poeple for various reasons. It is the same for nations and empires. Nations invade other nations mainly because of resources, land, conquest,greed, looting,etc. Empires and nations in most cases just use religion as an excuse for attacking neighboring countries. It is easy to persuade and gain support from citizens to invade in the name of religion. It is simple human behavior. There is always war, murder, genocide, and famine. There has been or will always be wars as long as humans continue inhabit this planet with or without religion. Plain n simple! So don't hate religon for that reason. Hate those dumbass leaders who lead nations by greed, power, and incompetence! Cough,cough,cough. Bush.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
NO FOAM AT THE MOUTH ATHEIST is going to believe no matter what you say. See what I am saying here? It is really funny.



Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Atheist to his "non-religion" that really is a religion of hate and doubt.
Seems I was right on the money and you are shown again to be stalkers. He is in fact a militant atheist by account of the article not me. So you can go find another thread to stalk guys.


How can an Atheist reply to your thread without sounding defensive? You insult them and then call them stalkers when they reply.:shk:

As said by Gazrok, all groups have militants. I can assure you it is not a Atheists goal in life to disprove the life of Jesus, because even if he existed it doesn't prove whether he was God or not.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   
whats this guys purpose demandng proof?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fingon
Poeple murder other poeple for various reasons. It is the same for nations and empires. Nations invade other nations mainly because of resources, land, conquest,greed, looting,etc. Empires and nations in most cases just use religion as an excuse for attacking neighboring countries. It is easy to persuade and gain support from citizens to invade in the name of religion. It is simple human behavior. There is always war, murder, genocide, and famine. There has been or will always be wars as long as humans continue inhabit this planet with or without religion. Plain n simple! So don't hate religon for that reason. Hate those dumbass leaders who lead nations by greed, power, and incompetence! Cough,cough,cough. Bush.


My problem tho is, religion is supposedly all about doing good n crap. One of the commandment's goes on about not killing other's, yet in history they killed and destroyed other's anyways and in the recent past too. The only reason they don't do it now is becuase we're smarter and understand our world better now. Now they can't make us believe stupid crap like the sun revolve's around us n such. Now they can't kill us if we think different. Even in the bible, it talk's of god destroying other culture's, or god commanding the religous people to destroy other's. We lost ALOT of history all thanks to ths jackass god guy. And for what reason? cuz some guy saw an oppurtinity 2000 years ago to gain control and fear from thousand's of people back then? Today the church can't even prove half the junk in the bible... oh, but that's all true cuz they said so and you have to just have faith that's it's true



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
How can an Atheist reply to your thread without sounding defensive? You insult them and then call them stalkers when they reply.
As said by Gazrok, all groups have militants. I can assure you it is not a Atheists goal in life to disprove the life of Jesus, because even if he existed it doesn't prove whether he was God or not.


"NO FOAM AT THE MOUTH ATHEIST" was in referrence to the "militant atheist" listed in the article. I read an excerpt from his book, he meets the burden of "foamy".

As for the group mentality, I agree that all groups have their extremists. So, point taken.

Now onto the average Atheist thinking he could hardly care less, well there are a few atheist in these forums that seem to care a great deal about what is said and by whom it would appear. Do they represent the "average atheist" or are they an anomoly (sp?)? I understand that not everyone is going to see it my way, they don't have to. Just as I don't have to see it thiers. I have come across MANY articles and posts that were seriously in error and offensive to my way of thinking, yet I didn't attack the foundation because ultimately a:what will it change and b: if it offense me will it matter in 100 years. If the answer to the first is nothing then I move on, and if the second is no then likewise I move on. If I think there is a remote chance of influencing the way someone looks at a problem/concern they have then I try and give the best knowledge I have (which usually gets shot at) and then spend seven ways from Tuesday defending my position from the "Atheists" or "Agnostics" out there. And spare me the "I'm not an atheist or agnostic" bit, look to the definition for a clear picture of what these folks think of God. Many who attack are indeed of these two groups, as evidenced by the nature of the attacks.

The question everything generation is in power, it is a sign of our times that everyone should be a skeptic.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
whats this guys purpose demandng proof?


Due process of law. Probably something like 'show just cause.'

This isn't about religion, people--it's about a person's right not to be publicly discredited for personal opinion; opinions cannot be proven.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
I have come across MANY articles and posts that were seriously in error and offensive to my way of thinking, yet I didn't attack the foundation because ultimately

I didn't say some Atheists were trying to do it, I said it's not their goal in life to disprove Jesus.


Originally posted by OneGodJesus
a:what will it change and b: if it offense me will it matter in 100 years.

Actually yes I think being free from the oppression of religion would be important in 100 years.


Originally posted by OneGodJesus
I try and give the best knowledge I have (which usually gets shot at) and then spend seven ways from Tuesday defending my position from the "Atheists" or "Agnostics" out there.


You have to understand that religion came first and not many people dared to go against the" God's". Now is a time where in most parts of the world, people are free to believe what they want and no longer have to be silent. Maybe the response it a little louder now because they can't be burned at the stake for being a witch?


Originally posted by OneGodJesus
And spare me the "I'm not an atheist or agnostic" bit, look to the definition for a clear picture of what these folks think of God. Many who attack are indeed of these two groups, as evidenced by the nature of the attacks.

I won't spare you anything, I'm agnostic and by definition atheist(lack of belief in god). You can ask nicely, and not expect everyone to wear their opinion on their sleeve.


Originally posted by OneGodJesus
The question everything generation is in power, it is a sign of our times that everyone should be a skeptic.

Doubt is the father of invention, and usually not a bad thing.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Doubt is the father of invention, and usually not a bad thing.


I thought Frank Zappa was the father of invention? With necessity being it's mother?

just kidding.

I see your point, though.

Perhaps 'skepticism is the father of rational thought?' Or something to that effect. I dunno.

Skepticism is the opposite of being gullible.
Doubt is the opposite of belief.
Dogma is the opposite of logic.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I didn't say some Atheists were trying to do it, I said it's not their goal in life to disprove Jesus.


Not sure about what anyone's goal in life is, but clashing with Christianity seems to be the goal of atheists in this country as atheists. They're not alone, of course; Christianity makes many foes and deserves them.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
Perhaps 'skepticism is the father of rational thought?' Or something to that effect. I dunno.

Skepticism is the opposite of being gullible.
Doubt is the opposite of belief.
Dogma is the opposite of logic.


Actually dictionary.com says this:

skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism Audio pronunciation of "Skepticism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skpt-szm)
n.

1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. Philosophy.
1. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
2. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
3. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

gullible

adj 1: naive and easily deceived or tricked; "at that early age she had been gullible and in love" [syn: fleeceable, green] 2: easily tricked because of being too trusting; "gullible tourists taken in by the shell game"

be·lief Audio pronunciation of "belief" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lf)
n.

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

dog·ma Audio pronunciation of "Dogma" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).



log·ic Audio pronunciation of "logic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ljk)
n.

1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
1. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
2. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
3. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.

I think I'll error on the side as the gullable, dogmatic believer. Interesting that you all should mention skepticism as a good quality.

"skepticism is the father of ignorance" - CS Lewis

www.lrc.edu...








[edit on 4/1/06 by OneGodJesus]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
OneGodJesus:

I think I'll error on the side as the gullable, dogmatic believer. Interesting that you all should mention skepticism as a good quality.

"skepticism is the father of ignorance" - CS Lewis

LCKob:

Well, within the context of Scientfic Methodology, Skepticisim is good thing.

Far better to question in doubt than to accept on credit ... at least when seeking the truth anyway.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
Well, within the context of Scientfic Methodology, Skepticisim is good thing.
Far better to question in doubt than to accept on credit ... at least when seeking the truth anyway.


Good point and one I can respect.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
If Jesus didn't exist 2000 years ago, he certainly exists now.

The world has an over-active imagination, it's beautiful when you really think about it though. Contrast is so much better than comparison, comparison demands a loser. Contrast never loses, contrast simply exists without question.

I don't know about you, but I believe in Jesus. I can feel him in me, I can see him in others.

Rock, paper, scissors used to be one of my favourite games as a child. But how does paper beat rock? It simply covers it up. The rock is unscathed, unless you start adding fire to the mix - then you get a lake of fire.

I never really liked the idea of volcanoes. I much prefer mountains.



Jesus climbed every mountain for me, he gave me ski-lifts, in the end I reached out to him and he helped me up.




posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
If Jesus didn't exist 2000 years ago, he certainly exists now.

LCKob: If belief is the criteria then, yes I think you are right.

The world has an over-active imagination, it's beautiful when you really think about it though. Contrast is so much better than comparison, comparison demands a loser. Contrast never loses, contrast simply exists without question.

LCKob: Actually I like both concepts ... they have different functions for me ... as in Contrast the difference vs. Compare features ...

I don't know about you, but I believe in Jesus. I can feel him in me, I can see him in others.

LCKob: Then I am happy that you are happy in such a way that does not impose on others.

Rock, paper, scissors used to be one of my favourite games as a child. But how does paper beat rock? It simply covers it up. The rock is unscathed, unless you start adding fire to the mix - then you get a lake of fire.

LCKob: I always liked that game ... and have come to think of it as multipurpose learning game ... one that primes the child for more complex scenarios that require quick thinking, problem solving and a degree of analysis ... in fact, in general I think of games as such tools ... merely entertaining .

I never really liked the idea of volcanoes. I much prefer mountains.

LCKob: I like volcanoes ... but then I am biased ... I live in Hawaii hahahah... but seriously, while I would not want to live near an active one, I do appreciate the implications of a "dynamic and growing" process" in this regard I like Volcanoes like Scientific Methodology ... both grow and change.



Jesus climbed every mountain for me, he gave me ski-lifts, in the end I reached out to him and he helped me up.

LCKob: ... hahaha ... and all this time, I thought mankind gave you ski lifts ... and skis for that matter.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Actually dictionary.com says this:




surely you jest?



skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism

I think I'll error on the side as the gullable, dogmatic believer.

Certainly. No one is suggesting you anything at all--nevertheless, do as you like.


Interesting that you all should mention skepticism as a good quality.

Who is you 'all?' I am just one person, all the time.

And I never said skepticism was a good quality.

It is a quality, just like 'gullible.' :shk:



"skepticism is the father of ignorance" - CS Lewis



www.lrc.edu...


So what is your point? Who's criticizing the bible? Aside from Signor Cascioli?


I thought you wanted to talk about 'something of substance?'


Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Again I did not state the guy was a militant atheist the article did...jeez y'know this is tired banter find something of substance to talk about. Like I dunno that article and not me and my thought. Y'know factual stuff that can be proved thus far or things that have been disproved regarding the article. And it is stalking if you are in every instance and attacking anything not to your liking. I haven't done this but clearly you have.


Yet, I actually tried to do that, in my first and second posts on this thread, but you totally ignored them both.

Methinks you are impersonating a boat motor...




posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
... hahaha ... and all this time, I thought mankind gave you ski lifts ... and skis for that matter.


No way!! Why do I always have to buy a ticket!?!?

And rent skis?

aarrrrggghh



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by LCKob
... hahaha ... and all this time, I thought mankind gave you ski lifts ... and skis for that matter.


No way!! Why do I always have to buy a ticket!?!?

And rent skis?

aarrrrggghh


Haha, you are definitely not alone in having to buy a ticket and rent skis ...

(I guess my joke fell flat? ... I was referring to Jesus "giving ski-lifts" ... and that humans invented both .... errrrrrrr ... I should stick to my day job ....

Jesus climbed every mountain for me, he gave me ski-lifts, in the end I reached out to him and he helped me up.

LCKob: ... hahaha ... and all this time, I thought mankind gave you ski lifts ... and skis for that matter.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
(I guess my joke fell flat?

Not at all! I got it!



... I was referring to Jesus "giving ski-lifts" ... and that humans invented both .... errrrrrrr ... I should stick to my day job ....

I knew that!

Maybe it was my reciprocal funny that wasn't funny....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join