Bush-loving Republican. Conservative Christian. Welcome?

Or so the mythology goes ...

~Ulrika~

Did Jesus exist? Italian court to decide

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.

Which reminds me...

Oh, and to address the core of Eggy's point, the political spectrum seems to be cleaving along educational levels, in part I think, because Bush and crew explicitly pandered to that civil divide. As the SL playerbase is self-selectedly intelligent / creative / educated, what you are observing are attributes that tend to correlate highly with the modal SL player.

Coco, I think the way your beliefs formed from the kind of melting pot you describe comes through a lot in the way you argue in various topics. You're stubborn about what you think but you tend to go out of your way to demonstrate to those that you're arguing with that you understand what they're trying to express, even if you don't agree. I think that's great. It goes back to what I said about people caring more deeply about being understood than agreed with. I think if more people took the extra step of trying to show the other side of a debate that they at least understand the other point of view, it would go a long way towards diffusing vitriol and helping discussions stay more productive. It's something I'm not sure I'm particularly good at and could use work on. It's often hard for stubborn people to do

Careful, the last guy to try to espouse that belief got nailed to a cross.

Thank you, Chip! You are absolutely right, that I want to be understood more than agree with, and I want to UNDERSTAND as well.

However, it's also true that I am pig-headed. Rather astoundingly pig-headed. It takes quite a bit to get me to see and understand the other view sometimes, in case you hadn't noticed. Sometimes people talk and talk and talk forever on these forums at me, about anything, before I finally see what they are getting at and where they are coming from, and then it's Oh! I see what you're saying.

Or so the mythology goes ...

~Ulrika~

So, why was this 'dig' even necessary, especially for a tongue-in-cheek remark?

Take a valium. Drink a beer. Hug a puppy. Sleep in tomorrow. Pet a kitten. Get tickled. Have some cake. When you're done, reread the thread title, reread my sentence, and then pause on the smiley.

~Ulrika~

My point was valid. But alas, this is your modus operandi when someone makes a valid point against you. Make them look stoopid, or better yet, ignore it, altogether. Smiley aside, wouldn't the tolerant act have been to just let it go? In a very real way, I see your tactics as the opposite side of the Stankleberry coin. Or, maybe it's just the Madison Avenue in you: Repeat often == brand recognition.

Another point. This is a casual, conversational forum. Nobody expects to come here prepared with reams of research ready to back up every claim. If that were the case, we'd all be hanging out at the Mensa forums. We come here with our general impressions, our varying educational backgrounds, our individual cultures and our unique familial histories (among other factors). I certainly realize that there are points when idealogical debates go overboard, and lose their relevance in a forum like this. Even so, aren't we more like ambassadors than lobbyists? And, aren't we all free moral agents? Who said we all have to believe the same things? Why does it matter to you, other than from a public policy perspective, the way someone else believes?

Ulrika, you can't have your cake and eat it to. You can't both set the terms for the argument and then dictate how your opponent can react to it. If anyone needs a valium, it isn't me. How about I hand you a mirror so that you can come to terms with the fact that you, too, are a mere mortal human?

here comes the realistic part--some change requires relentless discourse (most of the time talking about the same things over and over and over again until no one can ignore your nagging), ample time to carry on with the looooong conversation, and perhaps a little bit of aggression (or threat of aggression)--physical, political, economic, whatever may be appropriate and justifies the ends sought--thrown in to seal the deal. Point being, discussion alone may not be enough to get to where you want. Pleeeenty of discussion, time, and enough force to tip the balance of power may be needed too.

So, why was this 'dig' even necessary, especially for a tongue-in-cheek remark? In the context of a discussion about tolerance, you again show no tolerance for persons of faith, and further, mock them in no uncertain terms. These tactics are campy and vulgar.

Actually, Paolo, you're really the one being intolerant in this particular instance. No offense. Ulrika's comment wasn't aimed at any individual. It wasn't a personal insult against anyone. It was an expression of her belief that the crucifiction is a myth. I happen to share that belief. You often choose to take any expression of belief that differs from your own as a personal insult when it's not. You choose to play the victim. You're not being victimized.

I'll say it again... ideas are not people. You are not your belief. What you're asking for is for Ulrika to silence her beliefs in order to appease you and others who believe as you do. That is the very definition of intolerance and it's one of the most dangerous and insidious aspects of religious belief... the tendency to see those who do not share it as an enemy and their dissent as something that negates their humanity. You're using political correctness as a weapon.

You can disagree with the idea without insulting the people who hold the opposing viewpoint.

I don't disagree with your points, but unfortunately the above is simply untrue. You can't choose for someone else whether or not they'll take insult.

Saying "I don't believe in god", or "I don't think there is sufficient evidence to believe in god" or something, that's one thing.

Saying "I don't believe in god, and anyone who does is stupid" or "I don't believe in god, and if you do, you've been brainwashed", that's something else.

You can choose to take offense at that but Ulrika can't make that choice for you except to eliminate any chance of it by remaining silent. To quote Paolo, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

My point is, you don't have to be silent to be diplomatic, or, if you prefer, tollerant. Theres a line in conversation where you cross over from stating your opinion to being offense... It's not just completely random. (Some people will take offense at completely random things, but I'm adressing the majority, not the extremists.) You can express your views on a subject without denegrating the opposition in most cases.

I could not give a full an honest accounting of my opinions on religion without offending anyone. It would be completely impossible.

You'll rarely see an atheist play the victim.

It's often the result of emotional rather than logical argument ... That's why I believe constructive debate on such topics absolutely requires people to separate ideas from the people who hold them.

Some people will get offended if someone even says they don't believe in god. But, I repeat, there is no reason to deliberatly antagonize, which seems to be some poster's style.