Friday, September 21, 2007

Taking God to court

Nebraska state Sen. Ernie Chambers, trying to make a point about frivolous lawsuits, filed suit against God last week. He accuses the Almighty of making threats, inspiring fear and causing death and destruction.

Now doesn't this open a divine can of worms.

If we could successfully sue God for everything that exists or happens that we think is a mistake, the list could go way beyond war and natural disaster. Take mosquitos (please). Couldn't a less annoying and disease-carrying insect have filled that ecological niche? I demand recompense for every torturous bite!

It has become painfully clear to me that the universe fails to precisely suit my wants. It doesn't cater to my comfort, either physically or emotionally. I don't like it, for example, that my beloved cats instinctively want to slaughter lovely birds instead of, say, grazing on the overgrown bushes. I don't understand why other people are so selfish, putting their needs above mine. If I were God ...

Ah yes. That's the point, isn't it? We don't really want compensation or an apology. We want to be in charge. Regime change. Surely we would do a better job of it. Doesn't human history testify to our wisdom and restraint and ability to make the right choices?


Case closed.


VISIONER said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

You are right. We can do better job at it for sure. Just look at the 10 commandments. Just for example, take the "Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol" I think just about anything would be better, for example "Thou shalt not eat so much fried food".

But I digress, religious people claim God has will (animals don't) thus being responsible for his actions. So why not get him in front of the judge? Unless you claim that God is really not the one responsible for everything after all.

D.J. said...

"So why not get him in front of the judge?"

I'm assuming by your comments that you don't believe in God, but if he does actually exist, and you owe your very existence and self-awareness to him, consider the audacity of making that statement about the maker and Lord of all creation. Romans 9:20-21 puts it this way.

"But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?”"

We don't like to hear that (just as the Christians who asked Paul the questions that prompted that response didn't like to hear it) because, as Jane said, the reason for our questioning is the pride that says we could do it better.

"Doesn't human history testify to our wisdom and restraint and ability to make the right choices?"

Well put.

Anonymous said...

DJ, so you are saying that God loves us but certain conditions apply? Like one has to be servile and not question him?

I am sorry to say but my father was better then this, his love was unconditional (as love of a parent should be) even when one was disrespectful and question his authority.

I could not imagine treating my children the way "just and loving" God treats "his children" as it is really detestable and shows child abuse at its "finest". (Killing first person that greeted when one returns home, almost killing his own son because God told to...)

Not for me, I would rather spend my life in hell (but then again no such place exists) then even contemplate killing my own kid. I guess I am just immoral like that.


Anonymous said...

how does one say to those who attack you attack what you do not understand in ignorance. So many of the comments here are based on any number of watered down misconceptions that are begun by people who do not really know that which they speak against.

We cannot compare the OT GOD with the NT GOD (old covenant vs. new...). But I am throwing pearls before swine.

My statement to EVERY's your sure you are basing it on truth (read it for yourself, then reject if you so desire) but stop being so ignorant as to eat what the masses feed you.

Anonymous said...

So OT God and NT God are different? Since when? Is God schizophrenic or bipolar or something?

What do we not know? Enlighten us with the truth, show us some evidence! Right now it is you who claim things w/o evidence and preach from pick and choose perspective.

I am an atheist who has read (critically, not with some rose glasses) the Bible and it is clear it is work of fiction. (It looks like it was written like it was written by a man several thousand years ago and not like all knowing God inspired thing. No mention on the true amazing things we know now and people before us didn't.)


The_Weaver said...

I have a completely different spin on this issue, as I substitute "prayer" for "dialogue" the answers are observed within Nature Herself. I do question, because it is impossible to understand, comprehend, let alone pen down the consciousness and the intentions of the Divine. By asking questions I come to know Her much better and thus deepen my relationship with Her.

Science is awe inspiring to me, and doesn't cause me to question my faith, but fills me with the wonder of Nature. She is the most brilliant artist and the whole of Nature from the smallest particle to that which contains the greatest mass (possibly the smallest particle) is the manifestation of infinite creativity. That's why all life is sacred so, no, I wouldn't drag Her before a court.

Humans have to accept the responsibility for the destruction of this planet, the mass slaughter of wildlife, taking more than needed, because we believe that this is "our" planet. We need a scapegoat, have always needed a scapegoat, whether it's another culture, the devil, the Divine, other religions, philosophies that don't match our own. It's ridiculous; it's a sign that no matter how old we become we still behave like children. It begs the question as to whether or not we're capable of anything more.

Also, within our grandiose conceptualizations of Divinity there seems to be no room that the Divine has no greater intelligence to have done something like evolution, and that's due to pride in ourselves. The Divine is far more brilliant than us. Furthermore, there seems to be no room for the Divine to have a great since of humor. That's equally as insulting. I think God gets the joke, and considering that this is a litigious society and that's based on greed, maybe God is having a wry chuckle.

Anonymous said...

the weaver: just for the record, evolution doesn't require any intelligence for the same reason as gravity doesn't. Humans just have hard time to grasp facts (evolution, gravity etc... are facts) and sometimes harder time accepting good explanations of these facts. Good example is people having hard time understanding evolution theory with natural selection, I don't see how as it is so simplistic in its nature and well explains evolution.


The_Weaver said...

I mentioned somewhere else within "Sacred Space" That I've got a BA in Religious Studies from UNCG. (I love dialogue among people with different idealogies just dialogue, no attempts to convert, subvert, etc). So, that was my point coupled with my complete lack of understanding as to why evolution and evoltution with natural selection or really any scientific discovery would cause people in various religious communties to automatically assume that there was going have to be some radical paradigm shift. Then everything they believed would be invalid. Why can't people accept that Deity in whatever manifestation they visualize is just "that capable." Looking at it through the eyes of a believer, I think it's a slight towards the Divine, but that's me, like you it's very evident. It's so easy. Some people don't see it, just like grasping the assertion that some faiths have that there's is the one and only truth. (I just opened a massive can of worms by putting religion beside science. I hope no one makes me do vectors).

The_Weaver said...

I realize I just made a huge error in my last post. I also placed theories and discoveries beside each other and the two are rarely the same.

Theories develope over time and consist of observed discoveries, laws, tested hypothesis, and these theories become refined over time, but are never truly and completely thrown out.


Anonymous said...

the weaver, science is not just another religion. Difference is really huge. In science we know exactly what it takes to prove as wrong in religion there is nothing one can do. We can see that in writings of DJ and others here.

Gravity and gravitational theory are two different things and so are evolution and theory of evolution with natural selection. Second just describes first.

For example I know exactly (and so did Darwin) what it would take to convince us that theory of evolution with natural selection is wrong. For example finding human fossil in Precambrian rocks would be one of it. There is no such safeguard built into religion.


Fall Line said...

I often wonder how many of those who profess to be Atheists have actually done the scientific homework needed to come to that conclusion. After all, if you are to place your faith in science, then you should understand what science says about the birth of the universe, Einstein's theory of relativity, background radiation, and the differences between macro and microevolution. If you are an Atheist, you need to get your answers from science not from the Bible. Only then will you begin to understand that something cannot come from nothing.

Anonymous said...

Fall Line,

of course something can come out of nothing! Nothing is not stable condition.

We don't put faith in the science. Not at all. We demand evidence from it in order to trust it. This is the main difference between it and religion. You are taking religion on faith and not evidence. In science we know exactly what will make certain scientific theory false, in religion no such safeguard is built in. Can you tell me what amount of evidence will convince you that your religion and holy writ are wrong?


The_Weaver said...

I wasn't implying that science was another religion. I apologize if I gave that impression. However, and this may sound strange to you, but I think a person of spirit should be forever absorbed in science. For one, it adds to the mystery of all and two, basically it keeps a person informed of what's going on in the universe and on this planet. No, again, I apologize, science is not a religion.

Here's something about science, however, that is incorrect via your statement. Science does not seek to "prove" anything, as science can't prove anything. The word "proof" is only found in mathematics and philosophy. While mathematics is used to explain science, it in and of itself is not science. Science is purely based on empirical (observable) evidence which can be seriously flawed. This is why everything within science changes; hence you gotta keep up with the times. -This is explained in basic science and evident in journals. "Proof" is alwas
in quotes. Besides, proof, by it's definition, doesn't mean truth. However, let be known to others, what we known through scientific research and observation currently about the origin of life is pretty substantial. It doesn't get you off the scientific hook, but what I stated above is why I can couple science as it's own system with my spirituality.

However, I have one issue about the notion which dictates that religion is based solely on faith (I do read "blind faith" in that pronoucement). This concept excludes human experience. Now the argument against that will be that the human mind can almost "trick" a person into thinking they are having a real divine experience. That is a deliberate attempt to invalidate the experience of another person even if it is a proclaimed sublime experience, and it can't be done. However, it doesn't have to be believed. It's just food for thought.