Bingo:
Cite - search for “Satan” on this page
No further information on that page, but it shows I wasn’t just imagining it.
pan
Hmm. Sorry to triple-post a hijack, but I also found this .pdf file that explains the whole thing.
Apparently the plaintiff’s name was Mayo. Rich, thick and smelling faintly of eggs, by any chance?
pan
Ya know, Lib, I don’t know if you’ve ever tried it, but if you take a Vidalia, peel it, then put it in aluminum foil with some butter, stick it in the oven and bake it, that’s some pretty good eating.
Well, here is the boulder issue again. Is anything impossible for him? If the answer is no, then he can make himself mortal and subject himself to human judgement if he chooses. Let’s assume he does.
This obviously (or at least most likely) will never happen. The real goal is to compare the morality of that god to the morality of our legal system and see how god measures up to the standards we humans have set for ourselves.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. That’s the part right before he decides to burn me for an infinity of time like an evil sadistic fuck. Ooohh. Scary stuff, but I don’t think it would make a very good movie. What else ya sellin?
DaLovin’ Dj
Not that I am re;ligious at all, but as I understand it God’s punishment is simply the absence of Him. It’s got nothing to do with fire.
Is anything impossible for Him? Define “impossible”. Some statements are not “true” or “false”, but have a logical value of “undefined”. If you strip God of everything divine and make Him a man then you are simply trying a man and this whole discussion becomes moot. If you are trying God then you are not trying a man and the discussion is moot.
The what, who and how of that which you are seeking to try is the crux of the issue.
pan
Yummy. My wife isn’t crazy about onions in particular, but she loves Vidalias. We’ll have to try that, thanks.
Looks like you confused judging yourself with God judging you. “You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.” — Jesus
If nothing else, you’ve changed my mind about Czar. At least he confines such tone and language to the Pit. Why don’t you just go ahead and request that this thread be moved there? You never intended any sincere debate anyway.
You know, this is an explanation for the old six-days bit – He coulda completed the work in six days, but it took Him 5,200,000,000 years to do up the EIS! 
However, on the presumption that He was indicted as though a U.S. citizen (and, by the way, what does that mean for believers who live in other countries – if I were Canadian or Norwegian or Dutch, I’d be very pissed at the idea of the U.S. claiming jurisdiction over the case!) – a criminal prosecution could be easily challenged by the idea that any charges would be ex post facto and therefore call for dismissal – unless you have some reason to presume that His “crimes” continue to the present.
BTW – The Hebrew names are Elohim, a specialized variation on the plural of el, the generic term for god – carrying the implication that Elohim is the fulness of what a god is supposed to be, more or less; Adonai, meaning “my Lord”; and YHWH, the actual name He claims, loosely translated as “He who is” or “He who causes to be.” “God” as a proper name for Him in English is simply a parallel usage and pseudo-translation of Elohim. The Bible is an Englishing of a Greek plural word ta Biblia, meaning “the books” – with reference to the idea that the book so named is a collection of books. I presume you would capitalize the Encyclopedia Britannica as the name given to that volume by its editors and publisher, even though encyclopedia is a fairly common name for an amalgamated collection of knowledge and that British people are free to use whatever encyclopedia they choose.
That is precisely what we Christians have been saying for a fair amount of time – He did.
Yeah, well, since when were you put in charge of His morality? What you’re doing is about akin to what conservative Christians keep trying to pull on gays, atheists, and so on – set up a straw man and then indict it on the basis of your prejudices. We didn’t buy the literal truth of the Bible when FriendOfGod was trying to assume it; what makes you think we’ll do it for you?
Just for the record, that’s probably the most idiotic line I’ve heard on here from a regular and moderately respected poster in years. You’re free to form such conclusions as you choose to about what we’re attempting to sell as grounds for belief, but it would be really nice if you bothered to listen to us instead of doing the little-child rant about “evil sadistic fuck” – because the Christians here feel about the same towards your straw-man God as you do – we wouldn’t believe in an evil sadistic fuck either. The best evidence we have, though, suggests that He is not.
But, like any true believer, it’s obvious that nobody is going to change your mind by reason or argument – you have The Word and anybody arguing from a different perspective just can’t be right. Have fun doing your rant; seeya!
The basic problem with the OP is reflected in the silly title: after all, if God were human, he wouldn’t be God, would he?
The “Q” example is even sillier- after all, if there were a higher power than God, one capable of stripping away his powers, then the one-God (Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, whatever) model that Christians, Jews and Moslems subscribe to would be invalid.
It comes down to this- IF there really is one omnipotent deity, HE created us and our world. As a result, HE gets to set the rules, not us, and no human has the authority to charge with any crime.
On the other hand, if there ISN’T any such god, then Dalovindj is really wasting his time trying to accuse a non-existent being of crimes he couldn’t be responsible for.
kabbes, Suppose the god decides to do it himself. Maybe he doesn’t have to lose his powers. He just shows up in court, performs a few tricks to convince everyone of his identity, and then we compare his confessed actions to our penal code and see where the conflicts are. We could get George Burns to play the part if he were still with us.
Poly:
Did you even read the thread?
Re: “ex post facto” From the OP:
Re: jurisdiction From a later post of mine (After zev brought this issue up the FIRST time):
Now, let’s see . . .
So the idea that he might do it again shouldn’t seem like too much of a stretch.
Bull. I’m responding to the common fundie sentiment that the bible is literaly true and god is perfect. I have a sense of morality and the US penal code matches it in many ways (don’t murder, don’t blackmail, don’t steal). I do not have an expert knowledge of US law (like some here do - get it? a search for knowledge - imagine!), and I would like to make a detailed list of the violations to use as an example when speaking to fundies. While they will frequently tell me I can not judge god, they are wrong. I certainly can judge him. Whether anything happens as a result is a different matter. But I hold any intelligent entity, whose actions I can know of, up to a moral code that I have developed based on experience (here represented by US law). God or no. For all I know an alien overlord wrote the bible to keep us at war for entertainment. I will fully evaluate any persons (or gods) actions and judge them against my own before I ever consider such a thing as worship. I would encourage everyone else to do the same. What good is a god if you have to give up your morality for it?
Well, I am certainly glad you don’t. It is an awful book in numerous ways when read literally. But literalists DO exist. Alot of them. There have ben at least 2 links in this thread (which you don’t seem to have read anyway).
Well if we can stay away from forboding predictions of what happens when you die which have no basis in concrete evidence then I won’t make light of it. If you would like to entertain serious debate about the issue it is probably worthy of it’s own thread. In the end a written book is heresay and doesn’t prove anything. I would like a cite to show that I will ever be judged by anything when I die which is verifiable and testable. If you want serious debate on the issue, fine: "The best evidence we have, though, suggests that He is not. ": What evidence? A thousands of year old book? Heresay. Feelings? Could easily be delusional or conditioned responses to misunderstood phenomenon. You’ll need something a little more concrete. Let’s leave “predictions” about my future fate out of this if you don’t mind. I will treat them the same way I treat horoscopes - as superstition.
Incorrect. Thanks for playing though. I absolutely accept that I could be wrong, but the evidence would seem to indicate that I’m not. I am not omnicient so I base my opinions on an incomplete data set. Until I can figure out a way to get alot more data, I must accept that I do not know with 100% certainty anything other than that I exist. Could be a slave in a fundies god world, or I could be a brain in a vat. Something tells me it’s something far more amazing than any of these things. We’ll only find out if we keep looking. Later.
Lib:
[/quote]
Why don’t you just go ahead and request that this thread be moved there? You never intended any sincere debate anyway.
[/quote]
Incorrect. I am trying to make the case for applying common morality to any decision about who or what to worship. You are the one who keeps throwing in the pit attitude from your very first post in this thread. If I had misplaced the topic it would have been moved by now. I suggest you take your own advice.
DaLovin’ Dj
DJ, you’re still missing my point.
God can only be tried as a human if he committed those acts as a human. If he did not then he was acting out of a knowledge base that neither you nor I can ever comprehend. It’s like you being tried for murder if you go back in time and kill Hitler*. Except that it is even less culpable than that example because if God does exist then then time we spend as meat is an infinitessimal fraction of the sum of our existence, so from God’s perspective meatdeath is irrelevant.
By postulating the existence of a divine being in the first place - which you must do in order to have the debate - you are implicitly accepting that all bets are off as regards to its behaviour. Not to mention the fact that if you are using a Biblical God, you are taking on board the literal facets of the Bibilical God, which includes perfect love. You cannot use the Bible without accepting that God’s perfect love, which necessarily precludes it acting against our interests.
That is why the debate is flawed. You want to assume that not only is the God human but that it has always been human. You want to take the bits of the Bible that condemn God but leave out the bits that show that any act by God is necessarily an act of love, even if we don’t understand it to be so.
You’re playing with fire. You have to choose one way or the other. Personally I find the whole story slightly ridiculous (sorry to those who do not) and give God as much credibility as the tooth fairy. But using the material available, it’s simply not possible for me to put God on trial. In doing so, you assume too much.
pan
*OK bad example, because I don’t think that our committing murder is justification for stopping others committing murder, but the analogy isn’t totally without worth.
I had never heard of Vidalias (by that name) until now; do you cook them until they caramelise?
kabbes, the bible in this case is first person testimony, so self-proclaimed moral judgements by the defendant are not show stoppers. We can get experts in love {Dr. Ruth? - What a movie!) to provide a rebuttal to testimony that said actions are loving. Both sides will be heard and judged on their aparent merit. Let’s assume congress passes an ammendment allowing ex post facto info and allowing for his non-human origin. Civil and criminal. Or don’t if you don’t want to. There are lots of other threads around here.
DaLovin’ Dj
Captain, how long do you bake them, and at what temp? Mange, here’s a link so you can learn all about them.
OK, DJ. I concede that both Lib and I were adequately offended by the approach you were taking to ourselves take a rather unchristian attitude towards you.
However, bottom line on this is that a lot of Christians throughout the history of the religion have not taken the fundamentalist, Bibliocentric view that you’re raising. In short, you cannot suggest the use of the Bible as literal fact to denigrate a God whom only a small part of his followers believe inspired the Bible in any verbatim, literal fashion. And without that, it becomes the document most of us would recognize: a collection of myths, legends, poetry, a little slanted history, parable, polemic correspondence, proverbs and other wisdom literature, and so on. In short, you’re trying to bring the God of the Fundamentalists into the dock for trial, but expecting those of us who don’t believe in that Divine Weasel to argue against you.
Over and above which, the question of what standards you judge God on comes into play – if He’s the accused, who makes the laws? Why are they applicable against Him? What makes our own standard of morality so universal that it can be used to indict and convict God?
BTW, did you ever read Job: A Comedy of Justice, by Heinlein, where Satan quite literally does just this – issues a complaint against how Yahweh treated a second Job figure to the Cosmic Better Business Bureau, so to speak? It’s a really enjoyable story, and one of Heinlein’s best.
I don’t think there’s anything unchristian about wiping the dust off your feet, collecting your pearls, and moving on.
No. We can not get “experts in love” because there is no human expert in divine love. We can not get such a rebuttal since we do not have the absolute knowledge that God has, nor do we have God’s knowledge as regards what happens after death. What relevance does a century’s meatlife have compared to an eternity of spirit anyway?
You’re still trying to convict a human’s actions. Even if God makes himself human now, he was still not human when he did what he did. So any attempt to judge from an imperfect knowedge base is fruitless.
pan
Well he would have to present his evidence over the course of the trial - improve the knowledge base. If he could explain a reason for his actions, then perhaps he would be aquitted on those grounds. I am looking for the initial enditement. What could he possibly say to defend his actions in these cases is an interesting topic itself. Doesn’t God post here?
As far as who can be an expert we can let the jury decide how much credibility they will give the witnesses after hearing their credentials. Psychologists testify all the time. The judge decides who to allow as an expert.
DaLovin’ Dj
God is a Libertarian and would hence not accede to the indictment of a society of which he was not a part. 
I confer with my Client, and follow His plan, if that is His wish. In the case where He wishes me to decide, I try the following:
At my Client’s arraignment, I move for immediate dismissal of all charges based on allegations that my Client is now, or ever has been God. Such a charge is a prima-facie violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state, and the court is enjoined specifically from establishing a legal recognition of any individual as God. Likewise, such evidence that the prosecution is able to present to sustain arraignment on any charge is based solely on the court’s acceptance of the Bible as legally admissible evidence, again in direct contravention to the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Further, in order to arraign, the court must establish authority over God, and that too is a violation of the separation of Church and state. The argument that my Client is now human, and therefore no longer God is religious in nature, and also not within the legal venue of the Court, for Constitutional reasons.
If arraigned, my Client declines to plead, on advice of council. We ask that he be released on universal recognizance, because of his longstanding position in the community, as a being of reliable, and responsible character. I have, your Honor, a very long list of Character witnesses, who wish to testify in that matter, and offer to accept responsibility for his appearance in court. We request the first available court date, and move that the matter is of sufficient importance to the community that extraordinary effort in that regard is justified.
At trial I move that the Judge declare his own belief in God, and request that he recuse himself, in either the case that he does not believe in God, or that he does believe in God, because he has already decided an issue germane to the facts in dispute in the matter being considered. In the case where he is an agnostic, I also ask if he believes that a human being can be God, and if not, insist that he dismiss the indictment forthwith.
I move to dismiss all charges on the same basis presented at arraignment.
I request that the court take judicial notice of the matter of the existence of God in the opinion of every participant, and I object in all cases of belief, or specific non-belief, as above. If the Prosecutor is an atheist, or a non Christian theist, I move he be indicted immediately on charges of malicious, and false prosecution, and all charges against my Client dismissed.
At jury selection, I move for dismissal of any juror who does not believe in God, and move for a mistrial, since any jury selected on the basis of religious belief is unlawful in the United States.
Move for a mistrial on the basis of the prosecution’s contention that my Client is now God, because the charge is a violation of his rights under the Constitution, and establishes a religion. If the prosecution maintains that my client is not God, ask the remainder of the charges be declared moot, and ask that the prosecutor be censured by the court for bringing false charges. In the case where the prosecution maintains that my Client was God at some other time, and is now not God, I ask that He be examined by a competent authority, and since the United States cannot legally makes such an examination, again move for the dismissal of all charges. Since my Client, a human is stipulated by the prosecution not to be God, if God is guilty of a criminal act, then the prosecution itself declares my Client not to be the perpetrator.
At the conclusion of each days deliberations, I ask the court to appoint special officers assure that the United States does not follow the example of other governments in their treatment of persons reputed to be God, or his close relatives.
Inevitably, of course, my Client will be convicted by the United States, and sentenced to death. I suspect he will decline an appeal, and will be executed. I will then file suit to be considered next of kin, in the matter of the disposition of his earthly remains. Further matters would not be of interest to the court.
Tris
So you were Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea in a previous life?!? 