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

a reply to: beezzer

Its the extremists on both sides that worry me.. kind of makes a sandwich out of the rest of us.. which usually gets ate in the process..

a reply to: beezzer

It's not about being afraid of her success beezzer... It's about the fact that she is doing it in the first place. Of course the lawsuit will go nowhere, it CAN'T go anywhere. The mere fact that the defendant is listed as "all homosexuals" means it can't go anywhere. The problem is that she is trying to usurp the Constitution with her "righteous" beliefs. She should get the same condemnation as any terrorist trying the same through violence. Just because her attempt is non-violent doesn't mean she should get away with it.

originally posted by: Klassified
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.

I think it can be stated that the belief in gods generally includes recieving some kind of information from them. Even if it is just the belief that a god simply lets you know he exists. I can't make a distinction between the two.

I know there is no way to force people to change their minds. Nor would i if it was possible. What i can do is show people why they shouldn't believe.

Why they should accept on their own accord to be responsible for their own thoughts and actions and throw away the crutch of a forgiving all father. When the individual people in society can accept that there is no devil tempting them. That is when they will be strong enough to resist or ignore the things they feel they are tempted by.

originally posted by: Klassified

Could you demonstrate it for us, with documentation?

Low hanging fruit ^^^


Start here - The Summa Theoligica


Natural Law has nothing to do with the laws of nature - didn't they teach that in bible college?

originally posted by: Seamrog

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.

See. This is called a filler post. All you are doing is saying that I'm wrong, then refusing to elaborate on why. You address absolutely NONE of my points and then finally reiterate how not-so-secretly smug you are that you are somehow smarter than me with this knowledge you refuse to share. These are ALL tactics of a losing argument by the way. If you had an actual POINT, you'd have posted it already. Instead your argument is this, "You're wrong because I say so! And you are dumb and uneducated because you are wrong!" There are SO many fallacies with that reasoning its absurd. Then you have the audacity to wonder why you get infracted and the moderators are somehow on my side... Next you'll be telling me its some sort of conspiracy to keep your opinion silenced or something.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

It's not about being afraid of her success beezzer... It's about the fact that she is doing it in the first place. Of course the lawsuit will go nowhere, it CAN'T go anywhere. The mere fact that the defendant is listed as "all homosexuals" means it can't go anywhere. The problem is that she is trying to usurp the Constitution with her "righteous" beliefs. She should get the same condemnation as any terrorist trying the same through violence. Just because her attempt is non-violent doesn't mean she should get away with it.

You are right.

She should not have the freedom to express herself legally.

I don't know what I was thinking.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

to make a lawsuit this frivolous, did it not occur to you that she is perhaps ill?

You know.. that was my first thought.. your first thought is to punish all Christians everywhere..

so weird...

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: beezzer

Its the extremists on both sides that worry me.. kind of makes a sandwich out of the rest of us.. which usually gets ate in the process..

Extremists will always exist in a free society.

The only way to eliminate them is to stop being such a free society.

a reply to: beezzer

Where have I said anything about stripping rights away from her? Since when is speaking condemnation against someone, stripping the right to lobby the government away from them?

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

It's not about being afraid of her success beezzer... It's about the fact that she is doing it in the first place. Of course the lawsuit will go nowhere, it CAN'T go anywhere. The mere fact that the defendant is listed as "all homosexuals" means it can't go anywhere. The problem is that she is trying to usurp the Constitution with her "righteous" beliefs. She should get the same condemnation as any terrorist trying the same through violence. Just because her attempt is non-violent doesn't mean she should get away with it.

You are right.

She should not have the freedom to express herself legally.

I don't know what I was thinking.

She has every right to bring a case as ridiculous as this to court. And the judge has every right to laugh her and her "righteous fervor" out of the courtroom after he/she gives this bigot a crash course on constitutional law.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Seamrog

Baltimore is not a situation about immorality either.. it was some people protesting, and some other people stealing and destroying. Stealing and destroying stuff we already have laws against.

The question of gay marriage should in no way shape or form be a discussion on whose religion will make this countries laws.. there are just too many...

I follow Jesus.. he ate with the sinners... he didn't sit with the pharisees in judgement of everyone.

Baltimore is about the results of 40 years of moral relativism. It is the logical end of moral relativism - which you sort of imply with your last sentence there.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Krazysh0t

to make a lawsuit this frivolous, did it not occur to you that she is perhaps ill?

You know.. that was my first thought.. your first thought is to punish all Christians everywhere..

so weird...

Punish all Christians? Where did I say that? Why are people putting words in my mouth this morning?

a reply to: beezzer

freedom of expression is not freedom to misuse the legal system.

do you disagree that that is exactly what this nebraska woman is doing?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

People use people like this to take away the rights of other people.. ever notice that? I sure have..

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

All you are doing is saying that I'm wrong, then refusing to elaborate on why. You address absolutely NONE of my points and then finally reiterate how not-so-secretly smug you are that you are somehow smarter than me with this knowledge you refuse to share.

I can't help it that you cannot comprehend the difference between the Natural Law, and the laws of nature.

They are NOT the same.

That IS the point. You just don't get it.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Oh. So now you are assuming my actions for me? Then you create some point about mental illness to attack that assumption. There is a word for that. It's called a strawman.

At no point have I even GENERALIZED Christians in this thread, let alone expressed a desire to suppress their rights. And I'm kind of offended you suggest that I would too.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: beezzer

freedom of expression is not freedom to misuse the legal system.

do you disagree that that is exactly what this nebraska woman is doing?

I'm not a judge (nor jury, nor executioner as so many apparently are)

I'll leave that to the judge and the legal system to determine.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Klassified

Could you demonstrate it for us, with documentation?

Low hanging fruit ^^^


Start here - The Summa Theoligica


Natural Law has nothing to do with the laws of nature - didn't they teach that in bible college?

Yes. They do teach that in "bible college". You don't see the problem here?

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

It's not about being afraid of her success beezzer... It's about the fact that she is doing it in the first place. Of course the lawsuit will go nowhere, it CAN'T go anywhere. The mere fact that the defendant is listed as "all homosexuals" means it can't go anywhere. The problem is that she is trying to usurp the Constitution with her "righteous" beliefs. She should get the same condemnation as any terrorist trying the same through violence. Just because her attempt is non-violent doesn't mean she should get away with it.

You are right.

She should not have the freedom to express herself legally.

I don't know what I was thinking.

She does have the right to try. Just like the westboro bunch. No one has taken that away from her. Luckily, very few people will agree with her. And with my help, some people who don't understand why she is wrong may be slightly more intune with the actual problem she is highlighting with her frivolous lawsuit.

I am all for open conversation. It is people like you who want to ignore the problem and are comfortable with the status quo simply because it does not bother you.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Krazysh0t

People use people like this to take away the rights of other people.. ever notice that? I sure have..

Yeah, like the right for two people in love to get married.