Man sues god

The suit was launched by Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers, who said he might appeal against the ruling.

He sought a permanent injunction to prevent the "death, destruction and terrorisation" caused by God.
Click to expand...

Well it looks like someone's going to hell!
 
God gave man the greatest give - free will.

This means that God relinquished all control over man and allowed man to make independent decisions. God cannot directly interfere with man's actions because that would mean taking away free will. Its not Gods fault that there is suffering in the world - it is mans.

Heh note, I'm not religious at all, just using believers own text to explain the situation.
 
Asdrubael said:
God gave man the greatest give - free will.

This means that God relinquished all control over man and allowed man to make independent decisions. God cannot directly interfere with man's actions because that would mean taking away free will. Its not Gods fault that there is suffering in the world - it is mans.

Heh note, I'm not religious at all, just using believers own text to explain the situation.
Click to expand...



Yeah but surely he must be loaded
that's more then enough reason to sue him surely?
 
:p God has no money, no gold. Why would he need any of that. Money is just paper, gold is just metal, there value is the belief of value that man puts in them.
 
Asdrubael said:
:p God has no money, no gold. Why would he need any of that. Money is just paper, gold is just metal, there value is the belief of value that man puts in them.
Click to expand...


Yeah but if it gets him out of trouble surely he could create more trees and such to obtain these things?
 
BBC said:
Page last updated at 11:56 GMT, Thursday, 16 October 2008
Click to expand...
About time? A bit late, I think. :p

Kinda pointless if you ask me. Rather than to prove any point about religion he says he did it to show "anyone can sue anyone else, even God" well yeah, obviously. That's how lawyers make their money. I don't imagine his lawyer agreed to take on this particular case on a 'no win no fee' basis...

Though I did agree with the guy who fought to try and get 'Under God' removed from the pledge of allegiance and those who tried to get 'In God We Trust' removed from US banknotes and as the national motto of the United States. The state has no place promoting religion like that, and in both of those instances the offending phrases were added much later ('Under God' 1954, 'In God We Trust' 1956) - They certainly aren't traditional.
 
Back
Top