Clarice O'C

----- Original Message -----
From: Luigi Cascioli
To: Clarice
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 3:24 AM
Subject: Lawsuit at Jesus


:
Luigi Cascioli has appealed to the European Court of Human Rights
:
Italy (Viterbo) - Following the January 27th. 2006 hearing, which resulted in the filing of the denounce against the Catholic Church, in the person of don Enrico Righi, priest of Bagnoregio, with which ends the legal procedure of the Italian Law, Luigi Cascioli has appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg). Considering it is the Court to which any person may appeal when a "cause is not publicly judged or it is by a judge who has demostrated not being independent and impartial", in his own country (Art. II -107 European Convention). We will soon publish a review of the filing of the cause spoken about. www.LuigiCascioli.it
:



If you want to be removed from this mailing list, please reply.

Clarice O'C

Official notice :

Wednesday morning 22/02 it will be diffused an interview of Luigi Cascioli from Radio Sydney.

To find it on-line go to the address www.sbs.com.au

When you are in the website in the section SBS radio Streaming on Demande, go on CHOOSE LANGUAGE to choose the language.

You need the real player installed to hear the file audio.

The interview, after the radio newcast, will be on-line from 1.00 am wednesday to 1.00 am thursday (for 24 hours).

Greetings.




If you want to be removed from this mailing list, please reply.

Doug Shaver

I loved the way Michael Kinsley put it once. He was moderating a debate about the ACLU, and at the end he said something like, "If it weren't for people who go too far, the rest of us would never go far enough."

Freiheit

Only strong atheism asserts that there is no god--traditional atheism is merely the lack of belief in a deity. Whereas the government has no right to assert the existence or nonexistence of a deity, it seems entirely in keeping with reason that where religions make claims they be held accountable. They have every right in the world to assert "We believe [blank]" but that doesn't give them the right to trick people into thinking they have good evidence if they really don't. All that this case is bringing forth is a demand for transparency--if there is no reliable evidence for your claims, everyone has a right to be made aware of that. Everyone is still welcome to believe whatever they want after they have been informed of that fact.

Freiheit

The Bible? A good source of morality? A defense for human rights? Surely you are joking? Have you ever read the Bible? Are you aware of the history surrounding the practices justified by the Bible?

As Jhuger says:

http://www.jhuger.com/biblethumpers

Clarice O'C

press release - to publish and divulge

Jesus at Strasbourg Court
Did Christ exist? Solicitors Giovanni Di Stefano and Domenico Marinelli
will attend to Cascioli's case at the Human Rights Court
:
Italy - Rome – Saddam Hussein, Tarek Aziz, Telekom Serbia, Milosevich, Kennedy, Lady Diana, are only some of the most notorious cases in which the renowned solicitors Giovanni Di Stefano and Domenico Marinelli have taken legal action. Di Stefano and Marinelli will attend to Luigi Cascioli's case, now. He is the scholar, former seminarist, author of the book of accusation "The fable of Christ – Irrefutable demonstration that Jesus never existed". Cascioli sustains that he has demonstrated, in an unequivocal manner, the "non historical existance of Jesus, called Christ". In september 2002 Cascioli suited don Enrico Righi, parrish priest of Bagnoregio (Viterbo), for “abusing popular credulity” and “change of identity”, because the priest wrote in a newspaper, that Jesus was born from Mary and Joseph and lived in flesh and blood. The Viterbo Court, after a long coming and going, filed away the case, even though the priest had not given any acceptable evidence of Christ's existance. Dissatisfied with this decision, Cascioli and his solicitors Di Stefano and Marinelli will address the Strasbourg Human Rights Court. "Law is based upon respect for National and International Legislation" Di Stefano comments, "we leave hypothesis and conjectures for the priests". If this case is reopened it will become of global importance, considering that it would question the very doctrine and foundation, on which is based Christianity and the Catholic Church. It would be a trial in which the ministers of the Church, that is the Vatican, should demonstrate what they have been sustaining for the last two thousand years: that Christ has existed, exhibiting admisible and precise evidence, instead of mere theological or philosophical arguments. Ref. www.LuigiCascioli.it

Information, interviews and adherences to: Axteismo, International Free Thought Movement axteismo@yahoo.it tel. +39 3393188116 http://nochiesa.blogspot.com




press release - to publish and divulge

Nuwanda

Scombrid, I'm a Christian and you're an atheist, but anyone who bags on Mike Murdock and TBN's ringleaders of the daily extortion circuses is a brother of mine.

In Kevin Trudeau's defense, I bet it's nice cream.

Clarice O'C

----- Original Message -----
From: Luigi Cascioli
To: Clarice O'Callaghan
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 2:27 AM
Subject: Lawsuit at Jesus - Appeal to Strasbourg


THE APPEAL MADE BY LUIGI CASCIOLI IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED - CASE N° 14910/06 CASCIOLI v ITALY

Luigi Cascioli.

Bob K

What we all need inre every aspect of our lives is truth--accurate concepts (mental representations/ideas of people and objects as they actually are and not as they are wanted to be) and accurate principles (mental representations/ideas of events, i.e., the relationships betwen or among people and objects, especially causal relationships--wherein people/objects who/which are causes cause the effects of changes of pre-existing people/objects or new people/objects, as they actually are and not as they are wanted to be).

With truth we can make effective decisions inre solving problems (learning how to achieve desires and avoid fears) and thereby maximizing happiness among ourselves.

Gods, as a class of beings thought, at least by some humans, to exist rather than being the content of ideas, are at least supposed to have more knowledge and and more capabilities for using that knowledge than mankind.

If so, then gods ought to be able to perform stunts that require more knowledge and capabilities than mankind.

If so, then proof of the existence of gods ought to be the appearance of at least one god in a form we can recognize and the performance of stunts that prove it has more knowledge and capabilities than mankind.

The problem has always been that the gods, if they exist, have a tendency to be mysterious, unseen/unheard/untouched/untsmelled/untasted, existing in places which are not clearly obviously observable to some observers, such as 'in the hearts and minds of men (and women, and children),' etc., and, therefore, reports of the interactions of gods with humans have always been suspect.

We need truth inre the existence of gods, and one god claimed by Xns to exist is J = JC = God/Godman/Godghost = One-and-Only Dying/Rising Savior-God.

At present, the J-God does not show up in forms we can recognize, and does not perform stunts which prove it has more knowledge and capabilities than mankind, etc., so we are forced to look at the indirect evidence which supposedly justifies belief in its existence.

Indirect observation is acceptable in science.

In physics, black holes--stars which have collapsed into a dense ball of matter whose gravitational pull does not allow light to escape its 'event horizon' and thus the black hole itself cannot be directly observed, but it can be indirectly observed by its effects on the orbits of nearby astronomical objects, and when those orbits 'wobble' the effect is claimed to be caused by a black hole.

But in physics, indirect observation of physical phenomena which cannot be directly observed is relevant to observation of physical phenomena which can be directly observed, thus, ultimately, in physics, as well as in other sciences, we are looking for physical evidence.

Trying to prove the existence of a J-God who/which showed up 2006 yrs ago by the indirect evidence of so-called eyewitness reports is a nightmare because of the requirement for establishing the credibility and therefore the accuracy of the eyewitnesses.

What is the truth inre the credibility of the eyewitnesses who claim to have observed directly the J-God?

What are the standards for proof of the credibility of the J-God eyewitnesses?

Waiting 40+ yrs after the existence of the actual persons/objects/events before writing down an account of the observations of the J-God is not a fact that is impressive enough to warrant accepting the eyewitness accounts as factual/true.

And when there are no reliable corroborations of the claimed facts by other eyewitnesses, and when there are conflicting/contradicting reports wherein facts claimed--such as earthquakes and the resurrections of the known dead, in Matt but not in Mark/Luke/John--are so startling that they surely would not have been overlooked by eyewitnesses and would have been far more widely reported among contemporaries than what is known to have been reported inre the supposed dying/rising of the J-God, then rational/reasonable minds would have to reject such reports and their claims, and, therefore, there is no justification for belief in the existence of the J-God as described by the supposed eyewitness accounts, and, therefore, claims of the existence of the J-God cannot ever be accepted as true, taught in public schools as truth, and used for making decisions inre public laws and policies.

If the J-God exists, it ought to get off its ass and show up and perform stunts that prove it has more knowledge and capabilities than mankind and thereby justify human belief that it exists, is real, etc.

So long as the J-God, if it exists, does not show up, perform stunts, etc., and thereby prove it exists, then humans are justified in not believing it truly exists, etc., i.e., no reasonable mind is obligated to believe in the existence of a concept for which there is no acceptable direct or indirect evidence.

Whatever court presides over the determination of the truth of the claims of Xns ought to rule that there is no direct or indirect evidence which justifies claiming the J-God existed or exists now.

And this case conclusion might serve to encourage people in other countries to get rid of all religions whose practitioners cannot jusfy by direct or indirect evidence, preferrably physical evidece, the claims they make inre currently mysterious gods/goddesses/demons/demonnesses (let's not forget the ladies), etc.

Kosh

CNN front page has a video on this now. Can't link it (it's javascript).

Note on the one Catholic priest they interviewed to counter the evidence claims. He made two points about "all the evidence":

- Josephus et al (ie, the late "witnesses" which have been obliterated so often).
- "Just look at the tens of millions of Christians" (Argumentum ad Numerum - Mormons anyone?).

So it seems the church has nothing more than what we usually see.