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.

 

ATS: Catholic Church Challenged to Prove Jesus's Existence

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Ah, that makes sense Marg. Thanks for the information.




posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
From what I can see, current legislation prohibits books to be Published as fact without any evidence to back up these claims in the European Union. [Odd Law, I've heard of but yet to see.]

The challenge, will be based around if the book should be called a work or fact or fiction and it could have a massive impact on society in the European Union and also around the World.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
The preliminary hearing has been reset from January 4 to Jan 27.

IMO - this case is not really about whether or not Jesus existed - it's a challenge to the Catholic Church and an indictment against its long history of manipulation and control of people and nations. In a sense, the Catholic church's institutionalization and its involvement in world politics and economics represents the longest running conspiracy of recorded human history.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
If thats what the suit ends up being about that its pointless.

Either its hucksterism or its not to say that jesus existed. The rest is based on interpretation, like that the christian church should be 'universal' or catholic, rather than orthodox, or trinitarian instead of unitarian, etc etc.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
In a sense, the Catholic church's institutionalization and its involvement in world politics and economics represents the longest running conspiracy of recorded human history.


I do not think I would go that far by stating the Catholic church, but I would say religion in general is the longest running conspiracy.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Hinduism the oldest religion in the world? From what I understand it dates back, perhaps, to prehistoric times, which would make that religion the longest running conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Good comments - I can't reply because I just watched the Magdalene Sisters. About a chain of laundries in Ireland, managed by Catholic nuns, staffed by slave labor. Ie., one girl was raped and sent by her parents for being soiled goods, one was dumped by an orphanage, most were unwed mothers. The girls worked as "penance" for their "sins," from morning til night, without talking. They were enslaved for life unless a family member brought in a letter from some bishop or another. Most girls were sent there by their families, or were orphans, so rescues didn't happen often. The last Magdalene Laundry closed in 1996 - and estimates say around 30,000 women were "detained" in Ireland's Catholic owned and run slave labor laundries.



Who knows the latest Church run slave labor scam? ...I don't. But the slave trade definitely is big again.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
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.

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

Yes, propose a link with the gentlest of persuasion..

"but without the faith of the people it will not work."

How very true that is, marg. And to me, that is one of the most fascinating aspects of human nature - the need to believe in an afterlife.

What cunning men they must have been, to realize this human weakness and then devise a plan to capitalize on it.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Actually the shroud was prove a fake, I don't thing that the Church claimed that was real.


Actually it wasn't.
The fragment that they tested was proven to be added to it at a later date.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
If thats what the suit ends up being about that its pointless.



Nygdan - I disagree. There is much more going on here.

Never mind the inquisition and other such horrors, the modern Catholic Church effectively has institutionalized illegalities like slavery and sexual abuse.

Yet NO lawsuit can get near the Church itself. It is protected by corporate law and its corporate structure. Culpability and accountability is confined to a department or division within the Church, but never touches the larger institution that enables the law-breaking.

Given corporate law and the corporate structure of the Church, and the adversarial structure of the legal system, the terms of Cascioli's suit are the only ones that might possibly make the core corporate institution accountable for its many transgressions.






posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
IMO - this case is not really about whether or not Jesus existed -


I agree completely with this. And unfortunately, that's what bothers me about this case. If it's NOT about Jesus' existence, then the case shouldn't be about Jesus' existence.

It's a waste of time, energy and money for something the man KNOWS will be unsuccessful. It's a frivolous lawsuit, IMO.



it's a challenge to the Catholic Church and an indictment against its long history of manipulation and control of people and nations. In a sense, the Catholic church's institutionalization and its involvement in world politics and economics represents the longest running conspiracy of recorded human history.


Again, I pretty much agree (not being very educated on the history of this or any other religion). That's why the lawsuit should be about manipulation, misuse of government funds, religion in government, slavery, child molestation, whatever the REAL issues are. And I believe there are plenty.

It's a lot easier to prove child molestation (and hold the perpetrators accountable) than to prove whether or not Jesus existed.

I do get the guy's point, but I think it's a waste.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I do get the guy's point, but I think it's a waste.


It's not just one guy's point - it is the only legal avenue available to break through the barricade the Catholic Church has protecting its ability to
institutionalize illegalities like slavery and sexual abuse.

It's a necessary legal position given the corporate/legal structures. ...See my post above.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
... it is the only legal avenue available to break through the barricade the Catholic Church has protecting its ability to institutionalize illegalities like slavery and sexual abuse.


Yes, I understand what you're saying. And I agree that it's the only way to get to them under the current structure.

I've been called an idealist, but I think the structure needs to change. People need to go after the protections and corporate laws that surround the church. (IMO) And going after the real issues (child molestation, slavery) is the best way to do this.

What good is this lawsuit ultimately going to do? Is there any way it can cause any sort of change? I would hope so, but I doubt it. Do you think it will make a difference?

Or will this guy just be seen as a bitter old bag of bones
who has too much time on his hands? Will this just become a silly little thing that happened? Or will it set a precedent?

[edit on 9-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
The only way to change a structure is to address it under its own terms. The issue is not really sexual abuse and slavery - it's sexual abuse and slavery allowed and protected by the sanctity of the church. Thus, it is legally necessary to question the sanctity of the church.

You say, "People need to go after the protections and corporate laws that surround the church." ...That's exactly what Cascioli is doing.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I am not really sure on the whole case getting far. Sounds like the ramblings of a senile bitter man IMHO. Sure, the Catholic Church has done some horrible things. So have other religions.
No point in whining about it. The Church won't lose. They are too powerful, and they have alot of money. : / I doubt this silly old man won't have a vast fortune to destroy the Catholic Church.
Sure they've made cash from other folks suffering, but look at everyone else!
The Americans kicked out all those Indian folk from their native lands cause it was profitable right?
The English kicked out the Highlanders of Scotland cause the English landowners would make more money grazing sheep rather then poor folk right?
The British Empire and all the other European countries profited very nicely from the backs of slaves from Africa right?
It's sadly part of human nature to exploit each other. Truly not the way it should be, but it is. And today, folk still screw each other over because it's profitable. The Catholic Church was never the first instigators of human suffering (though they most probebly where during those rosy zealous years) nor will they be the last. There will always be some sort of ridiculous way to make money out of folk. Hell, hacking off limbs would be popular if it were profitable.

It could be worse. Hacking one's limbs off might become an artform.
Also, about this faith thing. If folk want to believe in an almighty bloke and stuff, that's their business. I for one, will believe in the gigantic purple cat that will consume us all.
Watch the skies! They'll come for us!

[edit on 9/1/06 by MacDonagh]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Sure, the Catholic Church has done some horrible things. So have other religions.
No point in whining about it. The Church won't lose. They are too powerful, and they have alot of money. : / I doubt this silly old man won't have a vast fortune to destroy the Catholic Church.
Sure they've made cash from other folks suffering, but look at everyone else!


So there's no point anybody trying to do anything - to right any wrongs, or tweak the system, or fine-tune democracy? Because injustice is a fact of human nature and it's all bigger than we are anyway?



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Please understand that I agree with you completely, soficrow, that the Church needs to be brought down, or at least returned to the institution that a church was meant to be, which is entirely different than what the Catholic Church is today. Okies?


I disagree ONLY with his method, because I think it will be worthless.

I ask you for information. What effect will this man's actions have? Is it your opinion that he will have any success whatsoever? Is it possible he will set a precedent?

Pardon my analogy... Let's say that I know the man down the street is a child molester. But he's on the police force. I want to bring him to justice any way I can. Should I go after the child molestation charge (petition, get local support, get the people and media behind the effort, talk to his victims) or find something frivolous (his garage is painted contrary to homowners' association guidelines) to bring the higher authorities' attention to him? ESPECIALLY if the police already know he's a molester?

Seems the higher authorities are just going to laugh in my face and dismiss me and my petty complaints.

Am I missing something?



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
What about extortion? Anybody ever try to sue the church for using threats of violence (Hell) and intimidation to extort donations (tithe)?

That case would have legs I think. The one being pursued by the yahoo is pretty much hopeless. Proving that Jesus lived is secondary to the issue of whether or not the church is engaged in a confidence scam. The issue, as I see it, is with the characterization of Jesus as the son of God. This is, obviously, not something you can prove or disprove in a court of law.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Am I missing something?


Yes - it's primarily a legal game. Charging a single priest or Catholic school with sexual abuse does nothing to change the system that allows and supports the law-breaking. Only using the existent laws that apply will do that.

...Cascioli probably is being manipulated by agencies that are using him to go after the corporate structure of the church - it may or may not work, but it does get the right ball rolling and likely will be followed by more suits go after the real problem. Which is the church's corporate structure and power.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
but it does get the right ball rolling and likely will be followed by more suits go after the real problem. Which is the church's corporate structure and power.


Well, if that outcome is probable, or even possible, then I think I would support it. If this action gets a foot in the door, so to speak, when there's really no other way to fight this monster, then I'd probably go along with it.

Thanks for your patience and explanations, sofi.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
It'd be nice for changing things sofi. But it'll change soon enough. The Church will fall, but it'll not be because of this silly wee trial. It'll be because of the idiocys that the Church has refused to answer, or screamed anathema to. And the Church will fall under the weight of these idiocys. They'll probebly just rebrand themselves, and start hoarding money again. You can never get rid of twats.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join