http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/european_football/article784417.ece

What was the outcome of this?

I looked over the article a little bit. I don't understand why a judge would even waste his time with such a thing. Basically this guy is sueing some christain because he thinks christ never existed. The sole existance of such a person doesn't at all prove that christanity is right, it just proves that all the bullshit is refering to a real person. This doesn't at all prove anything in the bible is true, christains would just use it as an excuse that they are right.

EDIT: Also i just noticed this and was wondering, why the hell is that article listed under sports>football?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Cascioli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Cascioli

Wow so he ended up gettin a fine? For what? Why would that be fraudulent for someone to sue someone for deceiving millions of people?

What "proof" does pagan and christan belief have that jesus existed, besides the simple fact that they say so?

Wow so he ended up gettin a fine? For what? Why would that be fraudulent for someone to sue someone for deceiving millions of people?

What "proof" does pagan and christan belief have that jesus existed, besides the simple fact that they say so?

In terms of valid, historical documentation? It's pretty much just the Bible, the earliest actual fragment of which dates back to over a century after then man supposedly died. Josephus and Tacitus mentioned him, but there's serious doubt that they were legitimate references, even doubt as to who they were referencing in cases.

The OT is even worse. The Jews were living surrounded by powerful nations who actually took an interest in what their neighbors were doing, and actually wrote it down.

What is the point in proving or disproving the existance of Christ? I believe in the existence, however I dont believe that it should be proven or disproven. I dont think too much good could come out of that. However, it really depends on what you believe in. Isn't it based upon your faith?

You put faith in the condom you might use, you have faith that it will never fail you and that you can go on having a slightly less stressed life. Never a 100% guarantee though, is it? I think that faith is similar with Christ, maybe? Just not visible like a condom. Its not like it will fail you if there is no heavan/hell, but having faith in it, may take you to heavan. If you know what I mean? I dont know too much about this stuff, just a collection of a few loose thoughts.

What is the point in proving or disproving the existance of Christ? I believe in the existence, however I dont believe that it should be proven or disproven. I dont think too much good could come out of that. However, it really depends on what you believe in. Isn't it based upon your faith?

You put faith in the condom you might use, you have faith that it will never fail you and that you can go on having a slightly less stressed life. Never a 100% guarantee though, is it? I think that faith is similar with Christ, maybe? Just not visible like a condom. Its not like it will fail you if there is no heavan/hell, but having faith in it, may take you to heavan. If you know what I mean? I dont know too much about this stuff, just a collection of a few loose thoughts.

Are you making an argument, or asking a question?

The only other helpful thing I can suggest is that you go look up what "faith" actually means. I suspect that would clear up alot of those question marks for you.

after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter

Public slander perhaps? He would have to prove that he was indeed right to avoid the charge