Italian priest ordered to prove Jesus existed

[Skyceman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Not much. I'm just saying that any "facts" presented by that bunch are quite possibly wrong because they believe fiction (the ark story) is fact. Who knows what other "facts" are not facts in there?

Just for fun though I'll say what you quoted is correct. So now we know that Judaism and Christianity didn't borrow the messiah from Mithra and Zoroastrianism. So what?

Rouge, that's the whole problem right there. Right from the start, what may be fact is assumed non-fact. Why? Because you probably sought validation to fit a prejudice: All believers must stretch truths or create facts to believe that crap in that archaic book. The same can be said for the opposite side. Non believers stretch things as well. Very rarely does either side state holes in their own theories - its all painted one way most of the time. And this is not to say that the site I quoted is doing that either.

The sad part of all of this is that one never learns if they cant see things from both perspectives objectively. I've been on the "other side" as an atheist. I constantly fed my mind anything that aligned with that paradigm just as a believer may do. Any source "claiming" evidence that rubs against my opinion is written off as lies and mistruths. Too many hold security in their opinions and can't let go of anything that goes against it. I've been guilty of that but I strive to look and think beyond. Some of you may find this hard to believe.

AS a believer I do not claim to have all the answers just as I never did as an atheist. If it were all black and white with the evidence that exists today then I guess we'd all have trashed that Christian myth long ago. Yet each side still holds itself up with some degree of faith - some degree of estimations of what exactly happend 2000 years ago.

Anyways, Rouge, I'm not fingering you out here. I guess I'm just a little fed up with what I feel is this forums constant intolerance of people who do believe. I don't want alignment - just some degree of mutual respect that we can share different views instead of being written off as some crazed nuts who were somehow brainwashed at some point. Maybe then and only then can we actually learn from each other for once.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

Anyways, Rouge, I'm not fingering you out here. I guess I'm just a little fed up with what I feel is this forums constant intolerance of people who do believe.

That's just the thing in this case, though...the priest came down on a non-believer, and is now being made to back it up. Because if he can't, it's slander. Whether he's right or not, he needs to prove that what he said is correct.

[Cowperson]

The whole thing does smell like a bit of a stunt on the judge's part.

The judge didn't want the case but was ordered to take it by an appeals court.

From the original link:

The judge had earlier refused to take up the case, but was overruled last month by the Court of Appeal, which agreed that Mr Cascioli had a reasonable case for his accusation that Father Righi was "abusing popular credulity".

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E29677,00.html

His presence is felt with your spirit (heart) not your mind
I realize this is wholly unsatisfactory to you, but it is all I have.

Well, you gotta believe in something. I believe the Oilers will miss the playoffs.

Cowperson

[photon]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

I guess I'm just a little fed up with what I feel is this forums constant intolerance of people who do believe. I don't want alignment - just some degree of mutual respect that we can share different views instead of being written off as some crazed nuts who were somehow brainwashed at some point.

Very well put. There's often been an undercurrent of intolerance towards people of faith here. Not overt, but noticable.

People who have opinions with no support deserve to get roasted from time to time. But this is a forum that's intended to be a place for Flames fans to relax and enjoy each others company and have interesting and sometimes frustrating discussions. But no one should have to feel they aren't welcome because of one aspect of their lives, and I know some people have felt that way.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

I guess I'm just a little fed up with what I feel is this forums constant intolerance of people who do believe. I don't want alignment - just some degree of mutual respect that we can share different views instead of being written off as some crazed nuts who were somehow brainwashed at some point. Maybe then and only then can we actually learn from each other for once.

Thank you Skyceman. You've said what I've been wanting to say for quite some time, but could never put it as tactfully as you just did. I am tending to stay away from the religious discussions because it frustrates me to feel "ridiculed" for my beliefs and tends to get me mad. I've probably deleted over a dozen posts before I hit the submit button because they were typed in anger and not reason.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by photon

Very well put. There's often been an undercurrent of intolerance towards people of faith here. Not overt, but noticable.

People who have opinions with no support deserve to get roasted from time to time. But this is a forum that's intended to be a place for Flames fans to relax and enjoy each others company and have interesting and sometimes frustrating discussions. But no one should have to feel they aren't welcome because of one aspect of their lives, and I know some people have felt that way.

Well Im not so sure about this...I am probably the most vocal without a doubt when it comes to being a non-believer and I think that this board has far more believers than non-believers by a long shot. There are maybe 5-6 Non Theists, 20-30 middle of the roaders and 10 or more true believers. But thats just a guess based on the hammering I constantly take for my beliefs. Thats ok though cuz I come in with eyes wide open. I have a passion for my beliefs as strong as, or greater than most Theists do, and if they wanna play they gotta pay...and I thoroughly enjoy the rappaport with those who have something to say. There is NO doubt that the Theists here take GREAT pleasure at trying to hammer myself, troutman and Cow.
I think it is MUCH tougher for a believer to get their head around my beliefs than for me to understand theirs...because I have been in their shoes.
This doesnt make me a better person...nor does it make the Theist a better person...it does create genuine discussion that helps all of us learn more about each other. If someone wants to call me out and act like a prick I wont waste much time with them at all...but I know theres many here who love this banter! Right Firefly?

Now about that proof?

[photon]

Heh, I wasn't think of you at all Cheese!!

I don't know about the ratios though (hey, a poll!), I've always got the sense that when someone tries to talk about their faith they get piled on.. but then I guess defending is always harder.

Seriously though discussion is good and fun and if people want to engage then they should, and if they want to avoid they should. Faith that's never been tested isn't faith at all.

It's just an observation based on a long period of time rather than just a single poster or incident. I've never brought it up because I thought either was was being too sensitive and sympathetic to that side or I was just imagining it. I just want people to feel welcomed here regardless of faith, race, or PC orientation (PC/Mac).

Anyway, didn't mean to derail the topic with my tiny soapbox.

[Cowperson]

I guess I'm just a little fed up with what I feel is this forums constant intolerance of people who do believe. I don't want alignment - just some degree of mutual respect that we can share different views instead of being written off as some crazed nuts who were somehow brainwashed at some point.


Cheese doesn't mind telling you he's intolerant of true believers and hopes you're all surprised when you die and your only reward for piety is worms crawling through your eyes in the cold, cold ground.


I don't mind telling you Jesus didn't exist, evolution is a fact and I wish you a good day at Church.


There's a difference.


Cowperson

[AC]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't know about the ratios though (hey, a poll!)

Thats a good idea, I think there would actually be a surprisingly large number of atheists (myself included).

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Buff

Thank you Skyceman. You've said what I've been wanting to say for quite some time, but could never put it as tactfully as you just did. I am tending to stay away from the religious discussions because it frustrates me to feel "ridiculed" for my beliefs and tends to get me mad. I've probably deleted over a dozen posts before I hit the submit button because they were typed in anger and not reason.

Interesting post Buff. Why would you feel ridiculed about something that you obviously feel so strong about? I take a good whack from many, but it certainly doesnt make me feel less strongly about my beliefs, and to this point I havent had anyone come up with any verifiable proof that I should change. Maybe you are the man with the info? Dont get mad...share your ideas and give us the proof you have that there is something out there.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I guess I'm just a little fed up with what I feel is this forums constant intolerance of people who do believe. I don't want alignment - just some degree of mutual respect that we can share different views instead of being written off as some crazed nuts who were somehow brainwashed at some point.


Cheese doesn't mind telling you he's intolerant of true believers and hopes you're all surprised when you die and your only reward for piety is worms crawling through your eyes in the cold, cold ground.


I don't mind telling you Jesus didn't exist, evolution is a fact and I wish you a good day at Church.


There's a difference.


Cowperson

ROFLMAO...Cow you intolerant bugger...you are hypothesising of course!
Oh and its not worms...its maggots!

[icarus]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know about that.

We don't know all the details but the impression I get is that these two guys live in the same town and the priest is badmouthing the atheist in a newsletter he is sending around to the locals. Isn't that slander?

It's not slander if the priest can back up his claims so they've said "back up your claims". My Italian journalism rules are a little rusty, but over here I think a defense against a slander charge is being able to prove what you said.

Of course we don't know what he said so I'm really just rambling now.

The whole thing does smell like a bit of a stunt on the judge's part. The priest will probably end up writing an apology in the offending newsletter and that'll be about it.

It's not a slander case, it's a case of "abusing popular credulity" which is apparently an offence under Italian law. I know nothing about this charge or Italian law, but a judge making someone prove the existence of Jesus Christ to defend against this charge is a bit silly really. In our country we have a hard enough time proving hundred year old aboriginal title claims.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by icarus

It's not a slander case, it's a case of "abusing popular credulity" which is apparently an offence under Italian law. I know nothing about this charge or Italian law, but a judge making someone prove the existence of Jesus Christ to defend against this charge is a bit silly really. In our country we have a hard enough time proving hundred year old aboriginal title claims.

seems like semantics to me. From my understanding of things, the guy broke the law in his attack on the non-believer, until and unless he can prove that he is right and the guy he called out is wrong. In order for him to be right, Jesus must exist, so in orderto prove that he is right, he has to prove that Jesus exist(ed/s). Noone expects him to be able to do it - this is just the judge's way of getting an easy resolution to a silly case.

Had things gone the other direction and the non-believer attacked the believer's views in a similar manner, my understanding is that the same thing would apply, and the non-believer could be required to prove the non-existence of Jesus (even more impossible).

The end result is that the guy will be found guilty of a crime that he DID commit. Whether or not we agree that this should be a crime is moot. Apparently, in Italy, it is.

[The Familia]

I hate **** like this. "Prove to me that Jesus exists" or "Prove to me there is a God." Heres an idea. Prove to me in concrete evidence that neither of these exist. Is there any concrete information that clearly states that Jesus or God don't exist? If there is I would like to see it, if there isn't than everyone should just shut the hell up and stick to what they believe or don't believe. No one knows for sure either way, so I think it would be appropriate for people to stop asking the stupid question.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by The Familia

I hate **** like this. "Prove to me that Jesus exists" or "Prove to me there is a God." Heres an idea. Prove to me in concrete evidence that neither of these exist. Is there any concrete information that clearly states that Jesus or God don't exist? If there is I would like to see it, if there isn't than everyone should just shut the hell up and stick to what they believe or don't believe. No one knows for sure either way, so I think it would be appropriate for people to stop asking the stupid question.

but then we wouldn't have an OT forum now would we

[AC]

Originally Posted by The Familia

I hate **** like this. "Prove to me that Jesus exists" or "Prove to me there is a God." Heres an idea. Prove to me in concrete evidence that neither of these exist. Is there any concrete information that clearly states that Jesus or God don't exist? If there is I would like to see it, if there isn't than everyone should just shut the hell up and stick to what they believe or don't believe. No one knows for sure either way, so I think it would be appropriate for people to stop asking the stupid question.

Sure, but by that logic, can anybody prove that Zeus doesn't exist?

Remember that the rules of logic dictate that the burden of proof falls upon the affirmative position: that a god DOES exist.

No more evidence supports the Christian god than supports the Greek or Roman gods.

Can I absolutley prove Zeus is nonexistent? No.
Do I believe that Zeus exists? No.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

seems like semantics to me. From my understanding of things, the guy broke the law in his attack on the non-believer, until and unless he can prove that he is right and the guy he called out is wrong. In order for him to be right, Jesus must exist, so in orderto prove that he is right, he has to prove that Jesus exist(ed/s). Noone expects him to be able to do it - this is just the judge's way of getting an easy resolution to a silly case.

Had things gone the other direction and the non-believer attacked the believer's views in a similar manner, my understanding is that the same thing would apply, and the non-believer could be required to prove the non-existence of Jesus (even more impossible).

The end result is that the guy will be found guilty of a crime that he DID commit. Whether or not we agree that this should be a crime is moot. Apparently, in Italy, it is.

Clearly you are an expert in Italian law. Not only have you read the provision for "abusing popular credulity" in Italy's civil code, you have interpreted it correctly, and moreover you already know that the guy is guilty without knowing the facts of the case!

The way I interpreted it, the case is not one of attacking the non-believer but of attacking public credulity. In informing my interpretation, I did a search and found this:

"According to art. 661 Italian Penal Code, there is an abuse of popular credulity when someone, by means of fraud, deceives a great number of people."

Now I don't know as much about Italian law or civil law in general as some here apparently do, but here in Canada when you bring an allegation such as fraud against someone the onus is on you as plaintiff to adduce evidence that fraud was committed, which here would involve proving that claims about Jesus Christ are false. The defendant would merely have to rebut these claims; proving that his claims about Jesus Christ are wholly true would be superfluous.

But of course that is Canadian law, and like I say I don't know anything about Italian law so I will defer to those who do.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by icarus

Clearly you are an expert in Italian law. Not only have you read the provision for "abusing popular credulity" in Italy's civil code, you have interpreted it correctly, and moreover you already know that the guy is guilty without knowing the facts of the case!

The way I interpreted it, the case is not one of attacking the non-believer but of attacking public credulity. In informing my interpretation, I did a search and found this:

"According to art. 661 Italian Penal Code, there is an abuse of popular credulity when someone, by means of fraud, deceives a great number of people."

Now I don't know as much about Italian law or civil law in general as some here apparently do, but here in Canada when you bring an allegation such as fraud against someone the onus is on you as plaintiff to adduce evidence that fraud was committed, which here would involve proving that claims about Jesus Christ are false. The defendant would merely have to rebut these claims; proving that his claims about Jesus Christ are wholly true would be superfluous.

But of course that is Canadian law, and like I say I don't know anything about Italian law so I will defer to those who do.

touchy...

Alright...I was going on the impressions I received from the article and the discussions here. What I thought was the case is that Person #1 (anti-christ ) published a book questioning the existence of Jesus. Person #1 (believer) publicly attacked Person #1's knowledge and beliefs and, therefore credibility. You stated that "it's a case of "abusing popular credulity" which is apparently an offence under Italian law". According to my definition of "abusing popular credulity", that is exactly what he did. I did not look up what the Italian Penal Code had to say as to how it should be determined. I merely took my understanding of the subject (note the preface to the post of "From my understanding of things"), combined it with what I had read in the article and here, and came up with a train of thought in which it made sense. Having read the actual wording of the penal code now that you have posted it, it looks like I was wrong.

You're right. I made some assumptions and was mistaken. Fair enough. No need for such bitter sarcasm.

My apologies for not exhaustively researching all aspects of the case before posting. I'm sure you do this every time you post. I bow to your greater diligence and authority.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by icarus

"According to art. 661 Italian Penal Code, there is an abuse of popular credulity when someone, by means of fraud, deceives a great number of people."

The whole thing is a little over my head, but maybe in the arguing of the case the judge has decided that perhaps this Priest fellow has been "decieving a great number of people" with all this Jesus business and has asked him to prove that he isn't decieving them, and answering that question will resolve as to whether or not he slandered the guy in the newsletter?

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The whole thing is a little over my head, but maybe in the arguing of the case the judge has decided that perhaps this Priest fellow has been "decieving a great number of people" with all this Jesus business and has asked him to prove that he isn't decieving them, and answering that question will resolve as to whether or not he slandered the guy in the newsletter?

As I'm sure icarus would point out (but I'm going to beat him to it )...

I don't know how things work in the Italian courts, but in Canada it would have to be done the other way around. It would have to be proved that he WAS deceiving them (i.e. proving Jesus doesn't exist). The whole innocent until proven guilty thing. The onus would be on the guy bringing the charges to provide proof, rather than the defendant. In Canada. In Italy, I don't know.