It’s true, but I can’t remember who brought the charges…I’ll find it, and get back to you with it.
I’ve heard the same story about the Holocaust too. I think Elie Wiesel says that he saw it happen at Auschwitz.
The original story could be apocryphal, but it’s attributed to someone, and I can’t remember his name right now. It’s the same person who (also might be an apocryphal story) had someone come up to him and say, “I made a deal with G-d. I said, 'G-d, forgive me everything I’ve done, and I’ll forgive everything You’ve done.”, and then he answered, “You should have held out. You could have redeemed the entire world.” I can’t remember the name of the person it’s attributed to…I thought it began with a Z, and the only person I can think of who’s name begins with a Z (present company excepted, of course) is Rabbi Zakkai, but it’s obviously not him. I think the original story is a Hasidic story, but I’m not sure.
Sorry, but you’re missing an important distinction. While there may be many bibles, there’s only one Bible, and that is the book’s proper name. No other religion refers to its scriptures as a bible, so you’re not favoring anyone. But it does come across as very anti-Christian, and that doesn’t make you seem very open to the kind of dialogue that you might want. This is the last I’ll say about it, but please do think about what I have to say.
Good luck getting a conviction. Even a rookie Public Defender could beat this rap. You use the generic term ‘god’, to indicate that you are not trying any particular god. Do courts often put ‘man’ on trial?
“Your honor, the charges don’t specify any one particular god. So how can you even know that it’s my client who is on trial?”
Case dismissed.
Can’t you think of a better way to vent your issues with religion?
It is a conceited thing to name your god as such. I will not accept the inherant implication that their god is the one true god nor that their bible is the one true bible. Come up with a better name and I’ll capitalize that as I would typically capitalize Yaweh or Zeus.
Don’t like it don’t read it. This is why this forum is here.
DaLovin’ Dj
Well, I said I wouldn’t say anything more about this, but you’re not making any sense. The actual, proper name of the book is The Bible, and it is in fact the only book with that title. That’s not a matter open to interpretation; there actually is no other book with that title. Will you not capitalize The Odyssey because there are other stories that are odysseys? I await your answer to that question, along with an explanation–please don’t disappoint.
Oh, just for reference, I am an atheist, through and through. But I’m also a lover of logic, and I’m concerned that that’s what’s missing in the capitalization thing.
The Odyssey is a work of fiction. The people who named the bible claim it is true, and that it is the only true word of god. I don’t buy any of it - there is no evidence to support these claims - so I won’t give in to the conceited naming that went on. A big difference is that the book being named the odyssey (sometimes I don’t capitalize because I am a lazy typist) does not imply that all other odysseys are invalid.
Hope it was worth the wait.
DaLovin’ Dj
Seems like no one (except Lord Ashtar) wants to answer the OP’s question - they’d rather look his use of capitalization or the procedural details of U.S. law (or both). I haven’t read enough of THE BIBLE to know exactly what crimes GOD would be guilty of, but I think the main question is how to reconcile the current U.S. legal system (which should be somewhat similar to most current moral beliefs) with a potential standard for morality, the GOD of THE BIBLE.
One answer is that THE BIBLE is just stories. This could mean that there is no GOD, or it could mean that GOD is more good and perfect than THE BIBLE makes him out to be. A good example of the latter interpretation (with slightly different key players) is here.
Or, we could say that one could act without regard for rules against murder or anything else, as long as he (or she or He) did what is best. Since people aren’t knowledgeable enough (or are too selfish), they need rules like “don’t murder” because the vast majority of people who thought it would be for the best to kill someone would be wrong. GOD, presumably, should face no this limitation, so He might kill on occasion, but it would all be for the best. You might question if GOD’s “illegal” activities were really for the best, but that would be another thread. Although it’s not the best translation, you can read more about this idea of settling for laws as a second-best here (replace the word “science” with “knowledge” if/when you read this).
(Yeah, I’ve been reading too much Plato.)
I’m surprised that no one has linked to this. I’m not sure the story is true, but I didn’t notice any capitalization errors, and that’s the important thing.
Captain Amazing, Zev_, a version of the story is reproduced in an anthology by Jorge Luis Borges and Antonio Bioy Casares(“Cuentos Breves y Extraordinarios”), who give as their source Martin Buber (but aggravatingly don’t specify further). In it it’s a civil lawsuit for breach of contract, and the plaintiff almost withdraws but the Rabbis argue that the court must not be intimidated; after they “let the record show” that they cannot withdraw to a place sequestered from God, they find for the plaintiff.
As to the OP, maybe, MAYBE you could accuse "John Doe aka ‘God’ and unspecified John Does who may be also going by the name of ‘Gods’ " of incitement to a bunch of crimes, if you could prove that the contents of the Torah/Bible/Koran/Vedas/etc accurately portray “God”'s own words and that driven by this, the followers of the cult commited some atrocities.
Notice you first have to prove which God or god or gods is/are the real one(s)
As to the signed Bible as confession of acts commited by God himself, we could bring in a ton of archaeological/paleontological record evidence that the phenomena attributed to “God” never happened (Eve out of a rib), are wildly exaggerated retellings of a natural event (the Flood), an overmythologized retelling of a more mundane event (the Exodus, the Nativity) or that a hundred other things in it did go literally as it says there, so the document is unreliable. (I love it. Defending God and putting down Literalism at the same time. Mmmm, good)
Then we can get to impugning the reliability of the scribes, translators and interpreters; and accusing the leaders of the various religious and political factions of having used God as an excuse for their own power struggles, w/o his consent.
Of course, there is one bit of a conundrum in this that insofar as the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God is concerned. This deity, except for the very specific and localized instance in which a vast majority of Christians believe him to have assumed a simultaneous human condition, is by definition impossible to be “stripped of deity” and turned into a criminally liable person. He is indeed Above The Law forever (anyway He is also outside of Time, in these beliefs) in human terms. So if we found this being , in the situation of being at our mercy that dalovin’dj posits, (hey, waitaminnit… wasn’t this the plot of a Star Trek episode about Q?) then to the believers he could not possibly be THE God, and they would want their turn at this alien phony for massive misrepresentation. (Fundies would have it easiest: they’d say this is actuallly Satan masquerading as ‘God’ to see how many of us he can turn against the “real” Big G)
That’s classic. I love the onion. We are going to advertise our next show in there.
DaLovin’ Dj
Damn MrO, I wanted to be the one to bring up the negligence / abandonment charge, though I could not have phrased it as well as the link.
I think that the OP has a flaw.
Since I believe that Man created ‘God’, it is Man that should be accountable.
All those murders in the name of ‘God’… men were responsible, they just laid the blame on their invisible scapegoat. Very convenient defense. Fortunately our courts don’t accept “God told me to do it” today. Thank ‘God’ for secularism. 
All of those millions killed by natural disasters…they were caused by forces explainable by science. When the lives destroyed were those of ‘the wicked’, Man claimed the acts for their ‘God’ to give him a powerful reputation. It’s always nice to have the strongest god on the block in your favor.
Man created ‘God’ just as he created all other gods. It is impossible to hold an imaginary character responsible for its fictional actions.
dalovindj, I’m not trying to dis your OP, I think it’s a great one. But I just wasn’t able to suspend my disbelief long enough to accept ‘God’ as a real entity. I’m sorry for being so literal about it.
God is everywhere, right? Criminal trespassing.
Isn’t there an inherent paradox(or something like one) in this exercise?
Either:
The Bible is to be considered true and admissible as evidence, but that means that there is a God who can (arguably) do whatever he pleases.
Or the Bible is a silly myth (although I’m sure nobody would ever suggest that) and your defendant cannot be found.
Or am I missing the third way again?
Oh, goody. Me, too. Finally something we can agree on. You know, Vidalias are in season now. Check your grocer’s produce section.
Clearly he doesn’t like to capitalise proper nouns per se.
You’re also missing the true issue here.
If gOd was put on trial, what would he swear upon?
pan
And anyway, who would believe His testimony?
The layers of sillyness in this debate go deep. We’ve had many perfectly reasonable discussions as to the morality of the actions ascribed to God in the Bible. However none of those tried to actually posit God as a US citizen. It’s hard to know where to start - the complications involved merely in rendering an omnicogniscant being in human morality terms are boggling and that’s before you’ve actually tried to define that being as a mortal.
Nevertheless, I am reminded of a bona fide US trial case of a number of years ago, told to me in university by a friend who was studying law and had come across the case in a lecture.
It appears that there was a chap that actually tried to sue Satan and his staff on earth for “placing obstacles in his path”.
The case was, however, thrown out for the following three reasons:
- Satan was not a citizen of the US.
- He couldn’t prove obstacles had been placed in his path
- (and I kid you not) Satan’s “staff on earth” were too numerous to be all tracked down and sued.
We live in strange, strange times.
pan