Lincoln, NE Legislator Sues the Lord Of Knowledge

The Associated Press has reported that a self-described agnostic and Nebraskan legislator has sued God. It says,

"State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God last week, seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

This indictment overlooks one obvious problem, everything is God's property to do with what He pleases. That includes us. It also fails to notice that not all killing is wrong, and that men have already declared war on God, so that when he retaliates, it is always justified on at least two counts. God kills, but never murders, and He cannot violate his own laws. But state legislators do this all the time.

So here I have listed my 8 reasons why you should avoid the temptation to sue God -- the substance of the Book of Job -- and why charging God with wrongdoing is foolish in the extreme.

1. Men are extremely sinful, and God has no sin at all. This means that, should He decide to countersue, you are (so we say) "toast."

2. God knows everything, including all future events -- both possible on any other supposed condition, and real -- the ones which actually come to pass. This means He saw it coming, and already had billions of years to prepare a defense. The Bible says, in so many words, that God believes the dictum which says that the best defense is a good offense.

3. God is good, which means He hates evil. Sueing Him is necessarily evil, since He cannot err or do what is wrong, thus the plaintiff invites disaster with no possibility of winning, except in a very crooked court. This will only indict the whole lot of them.

4. The man who claims to be an agnostic, and sues God -- even if only to make what he imagines is a hypothetical challenge, admits he might be wrong since agnosticism necessarily leaves the question open. This means he might -- on his own view -- be insulting his own future Judge. If he claims the possibility is even slight, angering an omnipotent Being is more foolish than starting World War III, which could only unleash a limited amount of destruction.

Rule #1 for the week is "never deliberately anger an Omnipotent Being."

5. God is by nature all-wise and thus does not do foolish things. Thus, whatever He does, no matter how strange or harmful it may appear to us, simply shows that we are working with insufficient information. This very discrepancy thus proves that we are not qualified to judge Him. Even were He to explain WHY He does what he does, this is no guarantee that the smartest human ever could even BEGIN to understand it. We are simply not wise enough to judge in such lofty matters. Let the mouth-covering begin (Job's response to God's answer at a time when God actually DID show up to answer charges just like those lodged in Nebraska.

6. The Book of Job has already answered the charges. This guy needs to read up, and shut up, before he gets himself and those he represents -- all killed. God reserves the right to do as He pleases in heaven and in earth. Thus, if He finds this man "annoying" as a bad example to others, our foolish legislator, may find himself in need of another legal document, usually called a last will and testament. God does as He pleases. This is risky behavior like no other.

7. When God thinks, the Bible tells us, He thinks covenantally. One aspect of covenants is the notion of representation. This means that this fellow has just put everyone in the state of Nebraska, not only himself, in a highly precarious position, and made them guilty of blasphemy. Charging God falsely is blasphemous, a crime God promises to punish directly, should the civil magistrate fail so to do.

It is written, "You shall not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His Name in vain." This is one of the promises of the Bible. Since God cannot lie, we may expect a response from Him, sooner or else later. Timing is God's prerogative.

8. If the state of Nebraska files this case, even if only to publicize the point, the entire state has in fact sued God. If they do it in a federal court, this puts the rest of us at risk too. The U.S., you will have noticed already has too many problems. We don't NEED more problems, and we certainly do not want omnipotent enemies.

9. If the state of Nebraska accepts and files the indictment, it has (like insurance companies) acknowledged God as a legitimate and real legal party. This would directly result in the refutation of the legislator's most basic assumption (agnosticism), meaning He is actually suing an omniscient and omnipotent Being. I cannot imagine a more foolish course of action.

10. Assuming the prior point, that NE files and processes the indictment, this would itself be sufficient grounds to disqualify the legislator from holding office since placing one's entire constitutency -- and perhaps country -- at extreme risk unnecessarily and foolishly is just the opposite form of behavior he was employed to exemplify in the first place. Remember, "God" is listed as the Creator whose existence, blessing, and aid form the basis of all "inalienable rights" which citizens of this country have.

But inalienable does not mean that God cannot remove them, only that we cannot. The rights rest with God, not with the renter. He extends or revokes at liberty, just like the state of NE does with drivers who weave all over the road habitually. This fellow has steered his entire state into oncoming traffic. His agnostic outlook admits this may be the case, and the founding documents of his country (and the state constitution of Nebraska) affirm this is likely what he has done.

Life is hard enough without other people putting you at great risk you do not want. Christians in the state of Nebraska should sue (or puruse a referendum depending on the state's regulations) for his prompt resignation. This list provides adequate legal grounds (though in seedling form) for how to begin proceeding in terms of legal reasoning.