Global War On Christ Continues

[JohnRM]

John,

Please inform yourself better .
It is unbelievabele how you (or rather, the article) mix things up here! This is about Christans trying to shut up others!
As they always do .


This trial is not about a dude trying to vanquish Christianity. It is, in the very first place, about a Christian priest trying to seal the mouth of an atheist.
This atheist said to the preist: If you think you can shut me, please prove Jesus existed.
Cascioli (the atheist) has written a book. In this book he tries to prove the non-existance of Christ. In a reaction the priest started to preach the book is false and that people should not buy it.
As such, the priest uses (or abuses, that is what this civil lawsuit is about) his powers to harm mr Cascioli's business (which is writing & selling atheist books .

That is what is going on here, and not the other way around!


Maybe, if the religious apsects are taken out, it is easier to understand.

Imagine you write a book where you claim that using wood as a construction material is dangerous.
Imagine I am a popular TV personality, and in my TV-show, I tell people they should not buy your book, because wood is perfectly safe as a construction material.

In such a case, you have the right to start a civil law suit against me and ask me to prove wood is safe.

In perfectly in one's right to voice disagreement with the statements of a book. This guy has now come back and made a broader retaliation against all Christians. That is the problem, here. Everyone has the right to speak, and everyone has the right to have their speech challenged. This guy is saying that nobody has the right to challenge those things he claimed in his book and he took the guy to court. That is nonsense.

 

[JohnRM]

John,

Please inform yourself better .
It is unbelievabele how you (or rather, the article) mix things up here! This is about Christans trying to shut up others!
As they always do .


This trial is not about a dude trying to vanquish Christianity. It is, in the very first place, about a Christian priest trying to seal the mouth of an atheist.
This atheist said to the preist: If you think you can shut me, please prove Jesus existed.
Cascioli (the atheist) has written a book. In this book he tries to prove the non-existance of Christ. In a reaction the priest started to preach the book is false and that people should not buy it.
As such, the priest uses (or abuses, that is what this civil lawsuit is about) his powers to harm mr Cascioli's business (which is writing & selling atheist books .

That is what is going on here, and not the other way around!


Maybe, if the religious apsects are taken out, it is easier to understand.

Imagine you write a book where you claim that using wood as a construction material is dangerous.
Imagine I am a popular TV personality, and in my TV-show, I tell people they should not buy your book, because wood is perfectly safe as a construction material.

In such a case, you have the right to start a civil law suit against me and ask me to prove wood is safe.

It is perfectly in one's right to voice disagreement with the statements of a book. This guy has now come back and made a broader retaliation against all Christians. That is the problem, here. Everyone has the right to speak, and everyone has the right to have their speech challenged. This guy is saying that nobody has the right to challenge those things he claimed in his book and he took the guy to court. That is nonsense.

And if that isn't enough, I will let Mr. Cascioli back me up on what his true aim is...

"I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church"

Are you seriously going to try and dispute this?

 

[carlosMM]

No chance.

I agree it will not happen, but I must say his case has merits! Hearsay, especially when it concerns dubious claims of 'Lordship' is not admissible in court!

 

[carlosMM]

In perfectly in one's right to voice disagreement with the statements of a book. This guy has now come back and made a broader retaliation against all Christians. That is the problem, here. Everyone has the right to speak, and everyone has the right to have their speech challenged. This guy is saying that nobody has the right to challenge those things he claimed in his book and he took the guy to court. That is nonsense.

False, he doesn't say nobody has the right, he jsut says that the priest has no right as his lies!

 

[JohnRM]

False, he doesn't say nobody has the right, he jsut says that the priest has no right as his lies!

One can assert that Cascioli's use of intimidation (the act of lawsuit) is intended to prevent further dispute of the statements in his book.

By the way, you are not lying if you truly believe what you are saying.

 

[Kayak]

By the way, you are not lying if you truly believe what you are saying.

I'm not sure about this one. I don't think it is that simple.

Is a proffesor is allowed to propagate a falsehood just because he/she believes it? Same for a politician. Others must be allowed to challege those statements to make such a person back up their words.

 

[JohnRM]

I'm not sure about this one. I don't think it is that simple.

Is a proffesor is allowed to propagate a falsehood just because he/she believes it? Same for a politician. Others must be allowed to challege those statements to make such a person back up their words.

No, he is not, but that does not mean that he is lying. Also, you are talking about a public institution versus a newspaper. There is quite a bit of difference, and yes, the newspaper can be challenged too, but it should not be in court and the threat of financial loss or jail time should not be in the picture.

 

[Kayak]

No, he is not, but that does not mean that he is lying. Also, you are talking about a public institution versus a newspaper. There is quite a bit of difference, and yes, the newspaper can be challenged too, but it should not be in court and the threat of financial loss or jail time should not be in the picture.

Well how would you as an individual challenge something like this printed in a newspaper? It would be like trying to yell over someone with a megaphone.

 

[carlosMM]

One can assert that Cascioli's use of intimidation (the act of lawsuit) is intended to prevent further dispute of the statements in his book.

One can also say that the moon is made from blue cheese

The churches have a history of intimidating people.
A lawsuit is not intimidation - after all, if it is unfounded it will get thrown out of court.

By the way, you are not lying if you truly believe what you are saying.

If you know that your claim is factually wrong then you are lying - whether you believe it or not! 'I believe' is just an excelelnt excuse to spread lies. See churhc history! See US churches and evolution!

 

[The Last Conformist]

This Cascioli guy does seem crazy.

I suppose a crazy taking on the craziness of Christianity is fitting

 

[carlosMM]

No, he is not, but that does not mean that he is lying. Also, you are talking about a public institution versus a newspaper. There is quite a bit of difference, and yes, the newspaper can be challenged too, but it should not be in court and the threat of financial loss or jail time should not be in the picture.

You know what, instead of whining, why don't you prove Jesus existed and has any similarity to the biblical figure?

(hint: he wasn't born in Nazareth, not at any date the church trumpets out, there's no court files, no serious history writer noted him down at all - lack of evidence makes Jesus a myth - not a fact! He may have lived, and he may have been nuts enough to want to reform Judaism. But claiming he existed 100% sure is BS).

 

[silver 2039]

You know what, instead of whining, why don't you prove Jesus existed and has any similarity to the biblical figure?

(hint: he wasn't born in Nazareth, not at any date the church trumpets out, there's no court files, no serious history writer noted him down at all - lack of evidence makes Jesus a myth - not a fact! He may have lived, and he may have been nuts enough to want to reform Judaism. But claiming he existed 100% sure is BS).

Everyone knows Jesus lived in India

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

Thus begins Holger Kersten's book "Jesus Lived in India". This German book is a thorough, methodical and authoritative examination of the evidence of Christ's life beyond the Middle East before the Crucifixion and in India and elsewhere after it.

This article is a summary of Kersten's exhaustive research into Christ's travels after the Crucifixion, his arrival in India with the Mother Mary and finally his death and entombment in Kashmir. Kersten notes the many parallels of Christ's teachings with other religious and cultural traditions and suggests that at least some of these figures may have been one and the same personality. It is not possible, Kersten asserts, to disprove that Christ went to India. The current information documenting Christ's life is restricted to the gospels and the work of Church theologians. One can hardly trust these sources to be objective considering their obvious interest in maintaining the authority of their Church and its grip on the masses.

The Russian scholar, Nicolai Notovich, was the first to suggest that Christ may have gone to India. In 1887, Notovich, a Russian scholar and Orientalist, arrived in Kashmir during one of several journeys to the Orient. At the Zoji-la pass Notovich was a guest in a Buddhist monastery, where a monk told him of the bhodisattva saint called "Issa". Notovich was stunned by the remarkable parallels of Issa's teachings and martyrdom with that of Christ's life, teachings and crucifixion.

For about sixteen years, Christ travelled through Turkey, Persia, Western Europe and possibly England. He finally arrived with Mary to a place near Kashmir, where she died. After many years in Kashmir, teaching to an appreciative population, who venerated him as a great prophet, reformer and saint, he died and was buried in a tomb in Kashmir itself.

Thats right! Kashmir is the Holy Land not Israel!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAH!

That would explain quite a few things actually.

 

[JohnRM]

One can also say that the moon is made from blue cheese

The churches have a history of intimidating people.
A lawsuit is not intimidation - after all, if it is unfounded it will get thrown out of court.

First, congradulations for learning how to use the roll-eyes smiley. Hell, even I am starting to think that I am wrong!

The Church does have a history of intimidation, sure. I suppose that clears the way for all future accounts of intimidation. Great!

A lawsuit IS intimidation and you know it. It is done thousands of times per day for many different reasons. If you dispute this, then we have nothing more to talk about.

If you know that your claim is factually wrong then you are lying - whether you believe it or not! 'I believe' is just an excelelnt excuse to spread lies. See churhc history! See US churches and evolution!

If you know your claim to be factually incorrect, then you cannot truly believe your claim.

 

[carlosMM]

First, congradulations for learning how to use the roll-eyes smiley. Hell, even I am starting to think that I am wrong!

you may not know this, but your post is what is called a 'flame'.

The Church does have a history of intimidation, sure. I suppose that clears the way for all future accounts of intimidation. Great!

maybe it does for you.

A lawsuit IS intimidation and you know it. It is done thousands of times per day for many different reasons. If you dispute this, then we have nothing more to talk about.

Sure, it may intimidate wrongdoers. We have a nice saying where I come from: Getroffene Hunde bellen (Dogs you hit will yelp!)

If you know your claim to be factually incorrect, then you cannot truly believe your claim.

Crdeo quia absurdum - Thomas of Aquin

does that ring a bell? it is not a far step from there to believing what you know to be wrong. Btw, talk to a psychologist about this. That will open your eyes.

 

[Rik Meleet]

(..)By the way, you are not lying if you truly believe what you are saying.

Yes you are. Lying = "Not telling the truth". Whether you know the truth is not important. Some people claim that there is more than 1 truth; but that's not true either.

Do Christians really believe that if Christ never existed that Christianity would collapse ?? No way. Religion isn't influenced by facts, logic nor proof; it's based on faith. If you can believe what has been disproved, you are a true Christian.

 

[JohnRM]

You know what, instead of whining, why don't you prove Jesus existed and has any similarity to the biblical figure?

(hint: he wasn't born in Nazareth, not at any date the church trumpets out, there's no court files, no serious history writer noted him down at all - lack of evidence makes Jesus a myth - not a fact! He may have lived, and he may have been nuts enough to want to reform Judaism. But claiming he existed 100% sure is BS).

You may not know this, but your post is called "going off-topic". We are discussing the case at hand in Italy, not my personal beliefs.

 

[JohnRM]

Yes you are. Lying = "Not telling the truth". Whether you know the truth is not important. Some people claim that there is more than 1 truth; but that's not true either.

Do Christians really believe that if Christ never existed that Christianity would collapse ?? No way. Religion isn't influenced by facts, logic nor proof; it's based on faith. If you can believe what has been disproved, you are a true Christian.

According to U.S. Courts, any Polygraph test and Dictionary.com, you are not. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Dictionary.com says this...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lying
note: you have to scroll down a bit...

lie

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

 

[JohnRM]

you may not know this, but your post is what is called a 'flame'.

If you say so. Good luck getting a Moderator to agree with you.

maybe it does for you.

Well, then how is your statement relevant otherwise?

Sure, it may intimidate wrongdoers. We have a nice saying where I come from: Getroffene Hunde bellen (Dogs you hit will yelp!)

I am not going to bother explaining this to you, but you should read up. The legal system is chock full of frivelous lawsuits.

 

[carlosMM]

You may not know this, but your post is called "going off-topic". We are discussing the case at hand in Italy, not my personal beliefs.

you know what - I WAS NOT discussing your personal beliefs. The case is about whether Jesus existed, so as you claim he does I ask you to prove it.


Your avoiding the question speaks for itself.

 

[JohnRM]

you know what - I WAS NOT discussing your personal beliefs. The case is about whether Jesus existed, so as you claim he does I ask you to prove it.


Your avoiding the question speaks for itself.

First, quote a post of mine, here, where I have stated that Jesus does exist.