posted on January 4, 2006 07:06:30 PM
By Phil Stewart
ROME (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 to 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.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on January 4, 2006 07:23:22 PM
This is just silly.
A) That law didn't exist 2000 years ago, so how could it be enforced today?
B) You can debate whether he was "magic" or not all you want, but is just way too much documentary PROOF that there was a real man Jesus. Just like Muhammed and L. Ron Hubbard were real men. No one with any sense disputes this.
C) He would have been better off suing the Jews instead. There is no archaological proof whatsoever that Adam, Noah, or even Moses was real.
--------------------------------------
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum sonatur.
posted on January 4, 2006 07:28:25 PM
LOL.....hysterically funny.
I'll place my bet the case gets thrown out of court...or the court decides to see these two old men need to fight this issue out amongst themselves. I seriously doubt a court will make a decision on whether Jesus existed or not.
posted on January 4, 2006 07:36:01 PM
His name wasn't Jesus, was it Replay?
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
posted on January 4, 2006 07:46:21 PM
His existence isn't simple. There is considerable debate about whether he was one man, a concretion of several men, or an entire myth. I think the guy has a case, but it'll not be heard without bias in any court in Italy, the seat of the Christian church.
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
posted on January 4, 2006 07:47:32 PM
I didn't even know people questioned Jesus' existence. I think he was a real person but question the son of God aspect.
posted on January 4, 2006 08:02:12 PM
I have never heard that Linda - can you cite a source?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on January 4, 2006 08:25:01 PM
Actually, Linda, even most atheists will still admit he was a historical figure. They just deny that he was God.
Maybe profe would like to give a more detailed explanation? Pretty much everything I have been taught, even the academic stuff, has just assumed his reality. I know there was "paperwork" from Pilate and Herod that mentioned the case and trial.
--------------------------------------
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum sonatur.
posted on January 4, 2006 08:25:20 PM
So then, anyone who questions the actual historical existence of Jesus is either an agnostic or an atheist or both, Linda?
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
posted on January 4, 2006 08:37:33 PM
Replay, there are lots of citations online regarding the historicity of Jesus. His actual existence is hardly agreed upon.
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
posted on January 4, 2006 08:47:26 PM
Me too bear, that's why I resent being lumped in with atheists or agnostics just because I may question the existence of someone who wasn't even know in his own time as Jesus. Saying that a person is agnostic or an atheist because he questions the historical existence of Jesus negates ALL of the other faiths on this planet, the overwhelming majority of which are NOT Christian.
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
posted on January 4, 2006 09:18:34 PM
Yes, fenix - it can easily be done by going to dictionary.com putting in both words and reading their definitions.
posted on January 4, 2006 09:21:08 PM
And profe....I'll say it ONE MORE TIME.....I have NEVER called you an atheist. But if you choose to continue believing I am/do....then that is YOUR choice, but NOT MY position or belief about what you've shared on YOUR religion.
Hope that clears that up as it's getting old when you keep defending something that has NEVER been said about you.
posted on January 5, 2006 12:31:59 AM
I'm an atheist and don't give a tinker's damn if Jesus existed or not....big deal...what difference does it REALLY make?
I guess I'm more of an "I don't give a damnist"
What was, was and what will happen, will happen, no matter what anyone believes or doesn't believe.
posted on January 5, 2006 05:50:16 AM
Linda, it appears by your post above that a person who questions the existence of Jesus must be an atheist or agnostic, that's why I asked. I bet I could find you lots of atheists who don't question the historical existence of Jesus. The thread's not really about the divinity of Jesus, it's about whether he was an actual historical figure or not. That Italian guy is going to try and prove that he didn't really exist at all, son of god or not.
This person, who isn't even known by his real name, has become so deeply ingrained in the western psyche that even those who don't believe in him rarely question his actual existence. Just read KD's post above, where she admits that it never occurred to her that he might not have existed at all. I'd love to see some more scholarly work done on this, and I think the Italian guy's case is interesting, but like I said, he's not going to get a fair hearing in Italy, that's for sure.
ALL atheists do KD....what world do you live in?
Agnostics question the existence of both.....atheists believe there is no such thing as a God or his son...
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
posted on January 5, 2006 06:58:26 AM
profe - ONCE again.
that's why I resent being lumped in with atheists or agnostics just because I may question the existence of someone who wasn't even know in his own time as Jesus.
I'm saying I've NEVER called you an atheist nor an agnostic.
THAT sir is MY point.
On your 'it appears to me'.....but, of course you could NEVER be wrong, like so many of the lefties here are when they chose to take what I've said in a different manner than I meant it either.
I don't CARE how it appears to you, profe, I made MY point quite clear to you more than once. Anything other than that is a matter of opinion and of ones faith.
AND maybe, just maybe profe you MISSED KD's derogatory physical and sarcastic description of Jesus she not that long ago posted here.
posted on January 5, 2006 07:04:44 AM
So then, would you say the following statements is true, in your opinion, or not?
Someone who questions the existence of Jesus is either an atheist or an agnostic.
I'm just trying to get some clarification here.
I added bold tags so that we'd know what statement I'm referring to.
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
[ edited by profe51 on Jan 5, 2006 07:06 AM ]
posted on January 5, 2006 07:23:51 AM
profe, I refuse to start playing games with you too.
I have NEVER "lumped you" in with either atheists nor agnostics.
I have NEVER done that with anyone here or anywhere else.
I have NEVER said anything about anyone's religion....
.....except KD's 'supposed God' she believes in. A 'God' that she won't say whose religion or belief system SHE got her 'God' from. So I did say looks to me like she's just made one up in her own little head.
BUT since she won't discuss it by answering questions....like 'where did you learn about YOUR God?' ....it appears to me she's made one of her own up in her own head.
There are several posters here who are SELF-ADMITTED atheists.
When I refer to them....you seem to go into some kind of defensive mode like I'm "lumping" you in with them.
To be more clear....until such time YOU call YOURSELF an atheist, as others HAVE done on these threads, I will NEVER be 'lumping' anyone in that catagory.
posted on January 5, 2006 11:10:22 AM"... except KD's 'supposed God' she believes in. A 'God' that she won't say whose religion or belief system SHE got her 'God' from."
posted on January 5, 2006 02:16:28 PMTo be more clear....until such time YOU call YOURSELF an atheist, as others HAVE done on these threads, I will NEVER be 'lumping' anyone in that catagory.
Good, I think I have that part now Linda. You know I'm not an atheist, and although you don't say as much, by my writing this you should also know now that I am not agnostic. From now on when you make blanket statements about stuff atheists and agnostics do, even if it's something I also do, I won't assume it means you think I'm an atheist or an agnostic.
I'm not playing games. I still have the impression that you feel that all atheists question the existence of Jesus. That's why I asked for your opinion one way or the other on the statement above. It could be answered with a simple yes or no, agree or disagree. I really have to wonder why that's so hard for you to do. The statement was:
Someone who questions the existence of Jesus is either an atheist or an agnostic.
This has nothing to do with me. I know that you know that I'm neither an atheist or agnostic. I'd just really really like to know if your statement
ALL atheists do KD....what world do you live in?
Agnostics question the existence of both.....atheists believe there is no such thing as a God or his son...
means what I think it means. This would be a real easy way to clear it up.
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
posted on January 5, 2006 02:22:26 PM
This must be a spreading disease from all liberals here. Continuing to tell others HOW THEY should post.
profe - I would have expected that someone like yourself MIGHT have been able to comprehend my statements the FIRST time I told you it wasn't true. But NO, it took three times to get though to you on YOUR PROBLEM.
posted on January 5, 2006 02:41:48 PM
It's not about me any more Linda, we've successfully cleared that up. It's about what you said. I've copied it twice and asked you for a clarification. You refuse to give it. Therefore, I'll logically conclude as follows:
Linda believes that ALL atheists question Jesus' existence. Since this thread is not about the divinity of Jesus, but rather his physical, historical existence, and since Linda ALWAYS posts a little 'OT' before going off topic, we must conclude that that was what she was addressing in her statement above, the historical existense of Jesus, nothing more.
Further, since Linda refuses to respond to the very simple statement I posted, I have decided to conclude that she does, in fact believe that anyone who questions the existense of Jesus is either an atheist or an agnostic.
There is no other logical conclusion to be reached until such time as Linda refutes this by responding to the statement otherwise.
I'm not telling you how to post Linda, I offered you the chance to clarify your position so it wouldn't be misunderstood. You've chosen not to. Bueno pues.....
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
