Comments:Judge in Nebraska says thou shalt not sue God

This is brilliant. It reads like something from The Onion. --128.243.253.112 14:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

== I think the judge who wants to sue God is wasting his time.God will not appear in court,at least not inperson ,as for the plages ,hurricanes ,there is nothing we can do to stop them,as for the famini ==

we can always do something at least a little bit,I say this because the judge is concerned about it and is one of the reason he wants to sue God.I repeate he is wasting his time, there are more issues we should get busy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.160.135.225 (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a judge that wants to sue God, it's a state Senator.

Similarity to Satan case
There was a similar result in a much earlier court case, in which someone tried to sue Satan for calamities in his own life. The result was identical: since Satan could not be served, he could not be sued. (In addition, the judge stated that the case had the potential to be a class action lawsuit comprising the whole of humanity, and as such was not correctly placed in that jurisdiction.)

The plaintiff is correct in stating that since God is omniscient, He has notice. However, is under the jurisdiction of that particular court?

The obvious countersuit by God is that, having created man in a perfect world and given him free will, it was man's choices that caused these catastrophes, and ruined the perfect world He made. --75.173.52.13 04:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The obvious counter-counter suit is that this world has never been perfect. -Aless.mac (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If the world was perfect, wasn't it reckless to put people onto it when there was a known high risk? True, Adam & Eve got themselves thrown out but 1) was the censorship of knowledge by God correct? 2) were the consequences of abuse, specifically the imperilment of their lives, adequatly explained? and 3) what justification was there for leaving all the offspring, ultimatly comprising all humanity, to suffer the same fate.


 * Perhaps a better reason why there is no point suing God is that, since there is no contact with Heaven, whatever they use as a currency up there is not acceptable down here - no payouts, altough you could get that injunction; then again, how would that be enforced? As an interesting asside, since God is immaterial here and mankind legally holds the material goods until death, meaning God owns nothing here, does he qualify for legal aid? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow...
What a waste of time and tax money... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.70.7 (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That was the whole idea. The guy who filed this suit was trying to force the government to make changes to the legal system to stop stupid lawsuits like this from being filed. He just did this to show that anyone can sue anyone for any reason. It's a protest suit;). Gopher65talk 16:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

God isn't the causing the issues you proclaim, you (man/woman/child) are causing the problems.
You proclaim to know God Almighty, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, and yet you are profoundly misinformed and to make an obvious point, I feel it is safe to state that you, sir, are not an avid reader of the Bible.

Romans Ch. 12 Vs. 2

An be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what IS that good, and acceptable and perfect, will of GOD.

Romans Ch. 14 Vs. 4

Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

I John Ch. 3 Vs. 1

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of GOD; therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not.

I John Ch. 4 Vs. 4

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

I will pray for God to touch your heart.

You should read the Bible daily, and then you'll see (open your eyes, renew your mind). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.8.82 (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thou Shalt Not Sue God...
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! Just another sign that this country is rapidly deteriorating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.250.165.138 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh?
Wait a minute... There was lawsuit where the words "rape" and "victim" could not be used? And a judge ruled in favor of that? Man, are we stupid. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The judge didn't 'rule in favor' of that, it was his rule that the words 'rape' and 'victim' could not be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.20.214 (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The reasoning for judge's rule (hopefully) was to prevent emotional bias and to shift the focus to the evidence from what is essentially rabble-rousing. The words "rape" and "victim" carry strong emotional values to them and are loaded as defendants are assumed innocent until proven otherwise.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion.  Stevenchartis (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

the non-existent one cannot be sued, only can be praised