Nebraska Woman - Representing God & Jesus - Files Lawsuit Against "All Homosexuals"

Wait, she's railing against homosexuals? After all, Jesus hung around twelve guys all the time, wore Birkenstocks, and a guy (Judas) kissed him. What would they say nowadays about his behavior?

a reply to: Woodcarver

I would like to see a people vs god case go up and when god is proven to be "not real" in a court of law, then maybe we can move on

i second this motion

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: beezzer

You go, beez! Freedom and individuality! (And you know that doesn't mean I agree with you, I just support your stance - that's for others who may not know...)

You can't force people to belive things but they can be tricked into believing in anything. I just like to bring the veil down whenever i can.

nvm..

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: beezzer

You go, beez! Freedom and individuality! (And you know that doesn't mean I agree with you, I just support your stance - that's for others who may not know...)

Funny thing about freedom and individuality.

If you actually support that, then people will never agree completely. . . because. . . you know. . . . freedom and individuality.

What scares me is anyone who wishes, or tries to have everyone on the same page. Because then you'd have no freedom, and individuality would be gone.

What separates us from every other species is that some may look in the sky and see a cloud, while others see a unicorn playing a vigarous game of chess with a hippo wearing correctives lenses.

Have a great day, BH.

a reply to: OpinionatedB
ain't worth my time, and well I already gave my opinion at to the legal standing of this lawsuit...
there is none!!
she has as much standing as the ambassodor of Iran would have suing american women for not wearing proper clothing while the clothing they are wearing is perfectly legal here. (less really at least the Iran ambassador has diplomatic recognition)

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Krazysh0t

and how many discoveries have I read about things that cannot be explained within the understanding of what we understand about those laws?? oh I don't know the rings of saturn comes to mind!!

Rings of Saturn? How do the formation of the rings of Saturn violate the laws of physics? Just because science may not fully understand something doesn't mean that it violates natural laws though. AGAIN natural laws are mathematically precise. If it exists in the universe, it follows those laws.

so are you saying that the physiological effects that a medication one takes has nothing to do with natural laws? I would disagree since at the core of everything there is those laws at work! They are what binds elements together, as well as holds worlds within their orbits.

I'm suggesting that people don't know what natural laws REALLY are. There is no mathematical formula that outputs the answer "homosexuality is wrong". And if that is the case then that cannot be a law of nature. End of story.

but to me when you speak of natural laws, you are speaking of certain energies and powers that were put into place at the beginning of time that formed the planets, gave them life, and well has the power to manage it all. There are scientific rules that if we could learn and understand that would not only explain why we are held onto the surface of this planet but also why I have a craving for whatever...we just don't know most of them.
And well we would be able to put those laws into mathematical equations.
X number of people would be too many.
Y number of women would be capable of producing z number of babies.
one women would contribute w amount of estrogen.
therefor when the number or women within the group is capable of producing more than x number of babies well each women would have to contribute enough estrogen for the population control mechanism to kick in.

That isn't a natural law. You are describing a scientific hypothesis that USES those laws to describe a process of the universe. Then we must test this hypothesis, if it holds true throughout all the tests then it becomes a theory, but it will NEVER be a law.

if one can believe in a god and is willing to live by ancient codes of conduct that were laid down millenia ago, why is it so far fecthed to think that maybe that god had laid in place a way to ensure that man wouldn't overrun his creation and by doing so destroy everything?

It isn't far fetched that such a process could exist, but it isn't a natural law.

nvm

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: beezzer

You go, beez! Freedom and individuality! (And you know that doesn't mean I agree with you, I just support your stance - that's for others who may not know...)

Funny thing about freedom and individuality.

If you actually support that, then people will never agree completely. . . because. . . you know. . . . freedom and individuality.

What scares me is anyone who wishes, or tries to have everyone on the same page. Because then you'd have no freedom, and individuality would be gone.

What separates us from every other species is that some may look in the sky and see a cloud, while others see a unicorn playing a vigarous game of chess with a hippo wearing correctives lenses.

Have a great day, BH.

Beez. I know your just keepin it lite. But this is actually a pretty serious issue with over 1/2 of the worlds population believing in whatever fairy tale they like. How could this not be harmful? I'm fine with children and adults using thier imaginations to the fullest. But i don't want my laws affected by people who cannot tell the dif between fantasy and reality.

My president believes in gods! That is the scariest thing in the world for me. not to leave out all of the other people who actually have access to world destroying arsenals who don't believe in the same god my president does.

Just because science may not fully understand something doesn't mean that it violates natural laws though. AGAIN natural laws are mathematically precise. If it exists in the universe, it follows those laws.

no, it proves that we don't fully understand those laws!!
and ya I wouldn't even consider my idea an hypothosis, it's just my idea. a possibility. and since I see it as such I can see homosexuality as being something that might just be part of God's plan, maybe even a by product of our own stupidity when it comes to the corruption of our environment and well I find it hard to believe that they should be penalized in any way.

a reply to: Woodcarver

You know you are right.

Yet. . . .

I know I am right.

Now, we can agree to disagree, and respect each others opinions. . . . or. . . what?

The "what" part is where madness lies.

This woman has her beliefs.

You aren't being forced to adhere to them, nor is it required to even respect them. But she does have that freedom.

I don't understand why you would want to deny freedom.

a reply to: Woodcarver

My president believes in gods! That is the scariest thing in the world for me. not to leave out all of the other people who actually have access to world destroying arsenals who don't believe in the same god my president does.

For me, it isn't believing in gods that bothers me. It's what those people believe god is telling them to do that really concerns me. It's when they justify their words and actions by an ancient book that god supposedly inspired, instead of critical thought, that I start getting uncomfortable. By all means, believe in god or gods. Just don't try and force your beliefs on the rest of us. Just my two cents.

a reply to: dawnstar

I think you are missing my point. I'm not saying that there isn't a process that involves homosexuality in the universe that helps place a natural cap on the breeding limits of a population. I'm just saying that it isn't a natural law. Natural laws are the glue that hold the universe together. If it violates a natural law then it isn't physically possible.

This argument is centered around a layman trying to substitute a layman definition for a word in for a word that has a precise definition in science. It doesn't work that way. If I were to have sex with a man tomorrow, the very act isn't going to unravel the universe. Therefore it isn't an "unnatural act".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You have no understanding of what a classical understanding of Natural Law is, and apparently the moderator objects to that being pointed out.

Not his first time, tellingly.

originally posted by: beezzer
You aren't being forced to adhere to them, nor is it required to even respect them. But she does have that freedom.

Erm... Did you read the article? She CLEARLY wants to force others to adhere to her beliefs.

I don't understand why you would want to deny freedom.

Deny someone to push religious beliefs onto a secular government?

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You have no understanding of what a classical understanding of Natural Law is, and apparently the moderator objects to that being pointed out.

Not his first time, tellingly.

Oh I know exactly about this supposed classical understanding of Natural Law. What you are talking about is wrong and outdated though. That is like saying that the Table of Elements is wrong because the classical understanding of elements is that they were wind, earth, fire, and water.

Also, you should probably educate yourself as to what an ad hominem attack is, because that is what you've been doing since you started talking to me.

a reply to: dawnstar

Excellent point !!! you made a few pages back about them not caring about their wives and daughters enough. I don't think that was the only problem but was certainly one of them. I think the fact that the men of the city were operating as predators had a lot to do with it also. I have noticed that even within homo sexuality there are those that would force their will upon others...this is not acceptable !! Regardless of sexual orientation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Oh I know exactly about this supposed classical understanding of Natural Law. What you are talking about is wrong and outdated though. That is like saying that the Table of Elements is wrong because the classical understanding of elements is that they were wind, earth, fire, and water.

Also, you should probably educate yourself as to what an ad hominem attack is, because that is what you've been doing since you started talking to me.

Thank you for this delicious reply.

While I suspect the moderator agrees with you here, I would be remiss if I did not point out that - again - you are incorrect.

My objection to your insistence that you understand the concept of Natural Law has nothing to do with you personally. It is just demonstrably wrong.

I understand your problem with it though, as it completely crumbles many houses of cards.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you that afraid of some 66 year old woman representing God that filed a suit against LGBT's ?

*laughs*

Tell you what, I get all really ascard too if the judge rules in her favor.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*chuckles*

a reply to: Seamrog

My objection to your insistence that you understand the concept of Natural Law has nothing to do with you personally. It is just demonstrably wrong.

Could you demonstrate it for us, with documentation?