ATS: Catholic Church Challenged to Prove Jesus's Existence

Luigi Cascioli of Rome, an atheist in his 70's, is now challenging the Roman Catholic Church to defend itself against charges of "swindling" and "impersonation" regarding the physical existence of Jesus Christ. Cascioli claims the Church has been lieing to the people for approximately 2,000 years and that the legendary theological figure never actual existed.



Although I am not in disagreement with Cascioli, and I rather believe he has a right to challenge the Church with this matter, one must remember that this is Rome, the heart of the Catholic church. He's not going to get very far in my opinion.

It's a sad reality, though. It really makes you question...what is true history?

Related News Links:
www.southflorida.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 5-1-2006 by iceofspades]

Cascioli the atheist is suing Righi the priest - you might want to edit your copy.

It's an interesting story.

Yes I read the whole article earlier this is going to be a very interesting argument to read about.

Specially when we all know that is all about faith and that can no be prove either.

Yeah, good luck you brittle, oh bitter bag of bones! I'm sure every one who dedicates their lives to rejecting any faith-based belief gets to a point - a point where they can spit on their own grave - they'd pay to find out if they're right or not.

Well, you pay....the answer will not be there for you. You'll die a significant amount of dollars less able to assist your children or a worthy cause...all because you started doubting your disbelief at the last minute.

BITTER...PARTY OF ONE, YOUR TABLE'S READY!!!

Is the Catholic Church forcing any one to believe though? That's where I think this dubious legal challenge falls down. If the church was literally forcing people to join them then yes that would be wrong. Ultimately it is a personal choice whether or not you believe in Jesus or God himself.

Accusing the Catholic Church of abusing the public because they believe in Jesus is wrong. Bringing legal action against the Church because you think that they are the ones turning people to Christ and his message undermines Christians. It also insults both atheists and Christians who have chosen themselves what they believe. It insinuates that they are at the whim of the Catholic Church.

I don't get it, this makes no sense to me, if somebody believes in his faith they are going to stand by that faith.

So how can you prove something that can not be seen but felt and we all know that our feelings as human are different from each other.

When it comes to God or Jesus we have many texts that claim that God exist but none can prove it because is about believes and faith.

When it comes to Jesus existence is not prove either but what the bible tells and again this are the written accounts of people of faith.

In the end is not right or wrong about this because is all about what people believe.

I can not prove that God existed or that Jesus was the son of God.

But can you prove that God do not exist or that Jesus was not the son of God?

Actually we all can not prove either way, but the faith and believes of people can.

Seems Cascioli is taking issue with the historic political and economic power of the Roman Catholic Church - and using the "big question" as a lever for his charges, precisely because it cannot be proved under law, as marg points out.

...As I recall, the Church has been steeped deep in conspiracies, power plays, inquisitions and assorted manipulations for most of its existence as the world's largest institution.

marg - I know you were born and raised Catholic - an important part of your heritage. I can understand why this interests you so much.






ed for clarity

[edit on 5-1-2006 by soficrow]

Sofi, I will be following this one closely because I have the feeling that a point is to be made with all these and is just not about the Proving something or disproving something but more of making a point about behavior when it comes to the church.

The truth is nothing to prove or disprove when it comes to faith.

While I am making assumptions here, knowing what I know about Italian culture, this sounds like a personal vendetta against the priest. Their personal connection is not likely a coincidence.

The article says:

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.

Which means really that this case is unlikely to be heard.

The article also states:

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

Ya think?

This is a dead story, and utterly meaningless in my view.

Sofi, I will be following this one closely

I am counting on it.

...more of making a point about behavior when it comes to the church.

Me2. And it's about time, IMO. Most of this world's violence, injustice and theft occurs in God and Jesus' name.

The truth is nothing to prove or disprove when it comes to faith.

Agreed.

loam - I disagree that it's a dead story. And I don't think it matters whether or not this actually gets to court. Setting aside the vendetta thing (Iknow, I know) - the fact is, Cascioli would have been burned as a heretic almost any other time in history. He is challenging the single institution that has run the civilized and colonized world since almost the beginning of man's recorded history. That's a story in itself IMO.

That is my point, this is a story, actually I wonder if something like this has been done before.

Has the Catholic church been challenged in courts before?

It isn't really about them forcing people to believe, more about them misleading people.

People have challenged the Catholic Church and tried to sue, notably in sexual abuse cases, but always get manouevered. The suing issue is VERY important.

The key legal question is whether or not the church can be sued. If it's decided that yes, the church can be sued, then

" Every Catholic organization will be subject to being sued as one corporate entity," says William Sammon.

And if the Catholic Church can be sued, who knows what might happen next....






ed for duhs. up past my bedtime.

[edit on 5-1-2006 by soficrow]

While I may not be fond of organized religion: Can you really sue religions for their ideas?








[edit on 5-1-2006 by Lysergic]

He's not suing for their ideas - he's suing them for swindling and "impersonation."

...At present, the church cannot be sued as a corporate entity although different organizations within the church may have been sued. The legal battle going around around the world has to do with trying to sue the church as one single corporate entity. ...There certainly are a huge number of legitimate charges like sexual abuse.

soficrow:

My point is that this is not as profound as you suggest. Italian lawsuits are replete with bizarre examples:

Delayed Italian rail user sues for 'existential damage'

Italian Muslim sues Pope, Bishops for Christianity comments

Italian comedian sued over political jokes

McDonald's sues critic who calls it 'obscene'

It is not like this suit is really a substantive one against the Catholic church. At best, Cascioli will have a chance to show that Righi acted improperly under whatever circumstances.

Italian law protects all religion in Italy...not just Catholicism. This lawsuit isn't what you think it is.

Is the Catholic Church forcing any one to believe though? That's where I think this dubious legal challenge falls down

No con-show forces anyone to do anything. Thats why its a con.

This seems sensible on the face of it, the church is making some pretty drastic claims without proof, but, of course, its religion.

Also, what is the church actually saying that is the con? it doesn't matter if jesus existed or not, the church doesn't actually say, 'we have proof that he existed' and then not have it, it says 'its faith.

Usually, a con wouldn't be saying, 'there is no way to show what I am claiming, and there is no proof of it at all'. They'll offer falsehoods to deceive a person. What falsehoods has the church offered, in the way of false evidence?

You might be able to claim, however, that the official recognition of miracles is just such a 'false proof'., like showing someone a faked bank account or a tin badge and claiming to be a public officer, and the like. Even that'd be shaky though.

As far as false evidence. What about the shroud of torrin. Not sure if I spelled that right. Not really sure if that applies, but isn't it suppossed to be the sheet that they laid over Jesus in the tomb? Would that not constitute false evidence if it was shown to be fake?

About suing the church. Good luck on that one.

Actually the shroud was prove a fake, I don't thing that the Church claimed that was real.

What it did was to bring it forward and hint a link to Jesus and then let the faithful make their own conclusions and their own stories.

Much like the images that appears on tree barks and under pass in the US they just hint a likeness to a deity as if the virgin mother and then the faithful will do the rest.

I guess it's some manipulation after all, but without the faith of the people it will not work.