Talk:Nebraska Senator sues God/Comments

ROFL -- I love the last line of the article: "God could not be reached for comment." Good job, this is fabulous reporting. Zidel333 12:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No one would...
No one would sue Buddha! I swear, protestants have too much power in the U.S. Contralya 13:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG Hollywood
There was a movie where this happened several years ago. Never saw it, but it was in the previews for Left Behind. I think the lawsuit was a sign of the Apocalypse of something, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

T-shirt
Does this guy always avoid wearing a suit for his official portraits? Even on Wikipedia, he's in a t-shirt. -- Zanimum 16:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And by "this guy", I mean the Senator, not God, as God appears to be bare-chested. --  Zanimum 16:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright
I thought the lawsuit was being filed against God in Michealangelo's portrait - the resemblance is uncanny! Seegoon 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not uncanny, but in retrospect there is a likeness. --  Zanimum 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking exactly the same thing!
 * I think Sen. Chambers looks quite a bit like God in the portrait. Hmmm Family rivalry?? Spacey sjca 19:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)spacey_sjca

Read the Chambers v. God document via "External Links"
At first I thought it was kind of funny, but by the time I got to Count V, where it states that God laughs at the destruction and misery, I started realizing that it isn't funny. God (at least the one that came out of the Middle East) isn't a nice being, and It certainly can't be a loving, caring one if It's so into punishment. And I don't get it at all why people have that belief in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. I find it horrifying that we are a world of sheep, thoughtlessly following a dogma made up by God's so-called Agents. It really saddens me that some of those sheep are people I care about, but they are afraid to explore themselves or the world for fear they may be exposed to something that could strain their faith. ARRGGH Blind, blind, blind. Spacey sjca 19:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)spacey_sjca
 * Yawn. Next. irid:t 20:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You did not read the story right. The article isnt about god. its about frivolous lawsuits. Senator chambers merely pointed this out by making a nonsense, but quite funny, lawsuit himself. 62.194.170.62 20:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Chambers
Should your case even be considered, these would be next:

There is this teacher, who told one of his students whom the teacher believed to be more capable than his exams showed. And the teachers tells the student (using more elaborate words or suggestions): "If you continue like this, you´ll end up in the gutter."

The student sues the teacher because of this threat.

Likewise, there is this politician or scientist telling people what will happen without massive ecological rethinking and reforming.

The people sue the politican/scientist.

God is the word (John 1:1), and the word is the word of warning and consideration.

That much for disasters caused by god - the bible warns the people of these disasters, but more so suggests these things occur because of the actions of men, which seems believable, considering mankind's ability to affect the environment.

God does not directly cause these disasters - god is responsible insofar, as not having prevented people from causing them.

The way of god is to do things by people - if people don´t do it right, then obviously god´s ways of making people do something are insufficient.

If you attack god for not preventing disasters, you urge him to put more pressure on people to act that way, urge god to utter more warnings/threats.

Does god actually claim to be responsible for disasters? Personally, I´m sure god tries to protect the truly guilty by posting himself between them and the victims, to prevent the guilty from being lynched, because lynching the guilty afterwards does not truly help fighting disasters, instead it helps people developing ways to make the powerless look guilty, to have them lynched.

Terrorism is the logical evolution of the tools used by god (acting through believers) to make even the powerful and invulnerable feel the need to act.

The poor reaction to terrorism is to destroy the terrorist - the responsible reaction is to work on the causes for terrorism.

When the western civilization reached the point where people started thinking and asking: how do omnipotence and goodness go along with all the bad things happening in the world?

The answer was: god grants the freedom of choice.

There are those wonderful movies about the old southern plantations, slaves singing and dancing happily...

This is the world of the omnipotent and good god NOT granting free will to the people.

Everbody does what The Lord says, everything works just the way The Lord wants it to be.

Now look at the world we have today: no slavery, people get sick because of eating too much, behaving badly, and so on.

Which world do you prefer: the perfectly structured slavery, or people deciding for themselves what their lives and other lives turn out to be.

Free Will is why there can never be a fair trial against god.

If god speaks, and people were sure it was god speaking, omniscient, omnipotent, what would happen?

You consider disobeying god, even merely trying to use a loophole in the words of the one who can read your thoughts and judges accordingy -> you´d be absolute certain with no doubt at all about you receiving an eternity in hell for it - so you obey.

The words of god given in the bible are not that way - you can´t be sure there wasn´t just some pre-Christ equivalent of a car salesman using the name of the one not be doubted to get rid of some junk, something like this.

God speaking for himself robs people of their free will.

A fair trial against god requires a defense - this defense is contrary to the Free Will concept.

A trial against god requires god to becomie the slavekeeper god (again).

I don´t believe in god to be someone that should be put before trial - because I don´t believe lynching scapegoats to be the most efficient way to get people developing solutions for the problems at hand. .

I believe god to be the underlying spirit of people interacting with each other. I believe that the godly rules are meant to define this way of how you want people to treat each other.

If the creationists are right, god will be that which will have created - god will be, and will have done.

After all this:

In my personal opinion, you sued god not because you expected an answer, but to receive ATTENTION.

Well - if you´d get the attention of people interested in this subject...

When you attack god, I expect you to present us an alternative idea! Just one more thing - what does the omnipotent, omnipresent has no mortal leader or law-giver will ever be able to offer?

You can´t envy what neither you nor one of yours will ever be able to usurp.

BTW, do you consider Mr George W. "I believe in god" a legitimate avocato dei?

.g.r.b.l


 * I'd like to point out that you have completely missed the point, and probably haven't read the article. The suit is against God because God cannot be sued practically, but there is nothing in the legal system to prevent suing someone who cannot be held to justice.
 * (And I'd love to see an Avocado God.) irid:t 22:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chambers set a trap for a mouse, and told people it's supposed to catch bats. Well, I´m a mouse. You´re right, I stumbled across the BIG CATCH PHRASE someone accusing god and I just spit out what had developed in my mind during the preceding weeks, incidentally.

The thing is, there are numerous other silly trials, This doctor threatened me with death in less than a year if I refuse to do his will. Legally, it is no problem to convict someone in absentia, it's common practice for war criminals.

I consider Chambers to be a politician, someone who says one thing while intending something different, because telling people to want to achieve the different thing makes you look evil to the public, and if the thing happens with you explicitly not intending it makes you look taken by surprise. I consider the atheist Chambers to be, well, not nice.

Chambers intention in my opinion:

U.S. authorities must give a reason for not refusing the trial, and this reason is likely to be:

"The U.S. authorities officially do not believe in the existence of god."

On the other hand, if there was a trial and god was sentenced for genocide, so what, usually this just helps to raise the books sales.

BTW, the pictures attached to the article suggest that Chambers himself might put himself in danger by having god´s reputation damaged. He´s a look look-alike, and if people cease to trust in god, his voters might cease to trust him (women vote by picture).

grbl

PS: Folks, DON´T read the article, or at least, don´t confuse words with intentions.

Popular politicians try to convince you to they aim at your brain when really they are going for your heart. Your first impression is correct, because the first impression is what these politicians count on when manipulating the people. After that, you´ll receive a lot of fine print telling you why the politician is not guilty, does not bear any ill will, does things by law, etc.

The 20th century is full of popular polticians sending people to die in gulags while using rational and other phrases to make the rest of the world feel this is ok, nice, necessary, etc.

God is a tool to preserve the social order - religion is opium for the people, but what Marx doesn´t tell, it is ok because it´s opium for people who´d otherwise do something harmful.

Chambers questions the exisiting social order - he profits from forcing the he establishment to confess officially they consider god a hoax.

I believe belief is a good thing - if it´s a productive belief. Look at believer regions all over the world, and think.

PPS: I ended up in this discussion by first reading a Yahoo-article on tuesday, then looking up the name Ernie Chambers in the wikipedia (my native language wikipedia doesn´t contain the name (or at least didn´t, then)).

At the bottom of that article, there was a link to what Chambers actually said, and when I was half through, the word bowl eggs came to my mind.

I already had learned Chambers was atheist (which is different from agnostic, because an agnostic ignores god, while an atheist fights belief), plus a civil rights activist (and god is about preserving order).

On the other hand, Chambers trying to fight the hilarious possibilities offered by U.S. law doesn´t make much sense - these are revolutionaries' delight.

A news article is supposed to be unbiased - and giving us Chambers words plus Chambers bio I consider sufficiently unbiased.

But telling people they should read the article when they judge by Chambers bio is inappropriate. Reading is one step short of understanding.

Nothing more - moderator, read this, then free the space I wasted by this text, but consider it next time

...
go go go ernie erni ernie

xxx

Why in God's name?
This is proof how ridiculous we are. I love how Senator Chamber is proving his point but I disagree with why he is proving it. From the information in this article it seems ridicoulous that there would be a court ruling to remove the words "rape" and "victim" from the courtroom during a case involving a VICTIM of RAPE. I feel that it is proof that we are giving to much lee-way, that we are censoring difficult information because we don't want to deal with it even though that is what we are there to discuss. If we can't be expected to come up with our own objective opinion because we hear a couple of distressing words, why do we have judges or juries. Why don't we have a system where all of the evidence is plugged in to a calculator and sentences are determined by the probability that the crime was committed by this person. 00:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

i think someone wants attention
honestly i think this is just some scheme for this guy to try and get some attention honestly its impossible to sue "God" and even if it was possible god being the divine diety he is could instantly use his power to win the case.

Note to posters
As shown from opinions posted above, people seem to post here without reading the article. READ THE ARTICLE before posting please. Contralya 01:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

God Countersues Man
In a stunning twist, God countersued the entire human race for distruction of property and loitering. "I clearly said they could eat of any tree except that one. That fruit was off limits," He remarked, "But did they listen?  No.  There are consequences, people!" Meanwhile, Morgan Freeman sued the senator for infringement of "look and feel." --76.18.66.115 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, sir, you have made it into our archives. [[Image:Smile.png|20px]] irid:t 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't laugh at the original article, I did laugh at this comment :) Sherurcij refusing to add Original Reporting until PD Articles are allowed'' 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the accolades. I didn't realize it would actually come true!  Also, for a less sensationalist, but no less amusing court case, see the time somebody sued Satan.  That case was dismissed, not over the question of the existence of the defendent, but rather in what manner he would be served with notice, and to which jurisdiction the case would belong.  Incidentally, I find it a fascinating look at our culture that God was sued in 2007 for practically the same offenses as Satan in 1971.  --75.161.65.233 06:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

the justice will be awarded to mr. chambers in the Court of Lord
good luck mr. chambers.

I wonder if the good senator has seen the episode of "Touched by an Angel" where guest star John De Lancie sues God over a drought that threatens his farm? —24.196.131.78 16:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Alan

Smiteing
So how long do you think it is until God smites the senator?

?
can u sue God???????????????????? i'm confused, can this guy get any stupider, i didnt even read the article all i did was read the title and i am confused!!


 * "stupider" is not a word.

I HAVE to respond to this one!
I RARELY, IF ever respond to anything. However, this one was great. I want to join him as well and follow suit. (little pun there) Some people may think it's a frivolous law suit. I say, read the story again! Ask yourself...Why did he do this? What point is he trying to get across. Think about it! I will definately be forwarding this article along. There is a lot to talk about. Jeanne in North Carolina

Crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!
How can you sue the Great God Almighty. Your fighting a battle you will not win. If your going to sue God your might want to try filing a lawsuit againt your newborn child. you just dont to it. If you think you can get away with judgeing God. You better be right

Which God?
The suit against God is evidently an effort from one person that doesn't believe that He exists. If the demandant does't believe that the persecuted doesn't exists, is evidently trying to make a joke on the judge of the case and, therefore, of all the United States legal system.

If he believes that "GOD" is responsible for all the disasters that he mention in his sue, he has to proof that the accused part exists and has a reasonable number of evidences that make a case.

By other side, if the pursuit is for terrorism, a CRIMINAL accusation is the one that should proceed.

But finally, the real question is WICH GOD?

The Hinduism has hundreds of gods, the hebrew one is apparently different from muslim´s, the tribal gods are thousands, without counting the hundreds of gods that have been adored for centuries.

If he is speaking about the God of the Bible, the Holy Book says in it that Jehovah is God, but also says that Moses would be a god before Pharaoh, and in Psalms says (as Jesus interprets) that all the believers are gods, and is very important that satan is called "rhe god of this world" in the New Testament.

The same Holy Scriptures, tell that there are 3 sources of tribulation in the world:

1. The sin of men: The sin (not talking about punishment) has direct comsequences over the sinner and all the society. Some scholars tell that the ten commandments are the best way to preserve and make society work. If somebody sins, is damaging not only himself but all his neighbours and all the ecological system, have you ever heard about the butterfly effect? it really works in the real world!

2. Satan and the demons, Satan, as the Bible says, was the first one that tried to call God to be judged, but not for something that God had done, but one thing He doesn't: make Satan another god as God. Therefore, he is trying to destroy anything that God loves and do. Then, he is using men to make as much damage as he could to God's Creation. He lied the woman and make her a servant, and she seduced de man and he become a satan´s servant through sin. Then, Satan is destroying as much as he can in the Creation through men and demons.

3. God, The Bible says that God make the goodness and tribulation, but also says that He doesn't disappoint the men voluntarily, but in order to correct and call them to repentance to live and enjoy living.

But, if all this arguments are not enough, the following are the main of them:

If, as it seems to be, the God he´s talking about is the Christian one, the Bible begins with the words: "In the begining God created heaven and earth". If anyone should write in the future a book about me, it would say in some place: "that day David build his own house with his own money in his own property", and if some other day I would decide to break one of my house´s walls, or to destroy my own house, who could say: "Let us make a sue against David for the destruction of his house!?

Evidently, if God created the Heaven and Earth, He´s the LEGAL OWNER, and He can do with HIS CREATION all the things that He wants. If you read Ezekiel 18:4 "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die" (KJV), therefore, if HE IS THE OWNER OF ALL SOULS, He has the right to make anything with His property, and ANY JUDGE THAT RESPECTS THE LAW can´t deny the right to ANYBODY TO DO WITH HIS LEGAL PROPERTY WHAT HE WANTS TO DO. If that judge decide to condemn GOD about that, it will make JUDISPRUDENCE that will deny to any other person to do what HE WANTS with His LEGAL PROPERTY.

God can destroy men not only because they are His Creation and His LEGAL property, but for sin, because the law says that "the payment of sin is death", but He can´t be accused of cruelty because he provided all of us the way to be saved from death and the comsequences of sin: God Himself sent His Only Begotten Son, to die on the cross to pay the price of our sin, and to offer us the redemption and salvation.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16 KJV), if anybody believe in Christ and repent from his sins, will be saved, and, alltough he would die phisically, he will be resurrected to enjoy a brand new life without any pain in heaven.

But finally, anybody that read this, would say: "that thing is not real, I don't believe that!", you are in your own right, but then you must not believe in that ridiculous suit, because it is based on the Bible, and is evident that the senator is manipulating it to make a joke about God and on the LEGAL SYSTEM, because if the Bible is the base of that suit, it has to be judged with the Bible as basis, and not any other source.

Remember what Lincoln said: "You can fool some of the people part of the time, but not all the people all the time", this senator, evidently, has no much to offer to his voters, and need to make bad JOKES to appear in the daily. He wants to make fool the people, with ridiculous accusations against the ONE that he believes can't defend himself, I only tell him and all the other that wants to do that:

Remember only some months ago, when Ariel Sharon said about the violent dissocupation of the "occupied lands" of Israel, when jewish old men and children were violentated by the Israeli hosts to take them away from their homes: "If God has something to say, let Him come to tell me!", only a few days after that, he got a fatal desease that become himself in a vegetable.

You can challenge God, but you can´t win. He is the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords. Don´t play with Him, is better to love him and serve Him, because he allways make good to them that are near Him.

On sueing God...
Dear Senator; please remember that God turned juristiction of Earth over to Lucifer before the fall of Mankind therefore it is Lucifer not God that you should be sueing since Lucifer is in control of security on Earth... Please amend your case to suit the actual facts of the situation.

Peace in the Light, Rev. C. A. Leslie-Faye KCSOL

PS My email for formal contact is cathosol.us. Please send no nonsense or spam there as it is for business.
 * Father/pastor/reverend: Most assuredly I tell you, God seeded the invention of a spellchecker. "Suing" "Jurisdiction". irid t i [mailto:ironiridis@gmail.com e]  02:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rev.,

does this mean I have to send prayers of gratitude to Lucifer whenever security does something that turns out to be useful for me?

Anyway, I don´t recall the bible telling us Lucy took over - instead there is something in the Revelations about a serpent coming free every thousand years or so for a brief period of time...

I've read the article and many more documents about this stuff, but is evident that the position of "prove that anyone can sue anyone" is not only absurd but is trying to make a JOKE about the USA LEGAL SYSTEM, because it is a very harmfull thing to use the judges to play with society and media.

'For god's sake'
Read the article before posting please. It is really annoying how people don't notice that the reason he is doing it is to prove that anyone can sue anyone, not because he thinks it will go somewhere. Contralya 14:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

haha, its about time somone sued that @#$%#er

--- anya

Let people read for themselves
Where's all the information on this? The court papers and so forth? Can they be downloaded?
 * Yes, but the PDF doesn't work for some people. It doesn't work for me.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 18:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the court papers filed by Chambers - Are scans of God's response(s) availible online?

I can't wait until they try to arrest God for failure to appear in court.

This is insane

This dude is a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'''

Here's a thought:
How about trying to sue the AGENTs of the various gods? Sue Pat Robertson, or the Falwell estate, or the even the local catholic shaman? Are they not doing "god's work?" Do they not forgive sins in their god's name? Perhaps we could sue the agent, and it would simply be up the agent to seek indemnification from their principal? I like it.64.241.37.140 22:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau