16 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBut God should be entitled to the same due process as everybody else. The omniscient ought not be victims of discrimination.
The idea behind service is to give the Defendant notice of the action. Since, as Ernie points out, God already has actual notice, God's sneaky attempt to avoid service shouldn't avail him.
You can yell at your neighbor "I'm suing your sorry ass" over the fence, but that doesn't count as actual notice. Simply announcing to God that he is being sued shouldn't carry any more weight.
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles"The court itself acknowledges the existence of God," Chambers said Wednesday. "A consequence of that acknowledgment is a recognition of God's omniscience."
But God should be entitled to the same due process as everybody else. The omniscient ought not be victims of discrimination.
You can yell at your neighbor "I'm suing your sorry ass" over the fence, but that doesn't count as actual notice. Simply announcing to God that he is being sued shouldn't carry any more weight.
Surely, if the court acknowledges the existence of God, it also has his address?
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou yelling at your neighbor doesn't actually mean that you have "sued his ass" and thus doesn't import actual notice. Moreover, it does not provide notice of the specific allegations. Whereas, God is aware of the filing and of every allegation in the Complaint.
But God should be entitled to the same due process as everybody else. The omniscient ought not be victims of discrimination.
You can yell at your neighbor "I'm suing your sorry ass" over the fence, but that doesn't count as actual notice. Simply announcing to God that he is being sued shouldn't carry any more weight.
God is getting the same due process as Joe the Plumber or Joe SixPack; he has been given actual notice of the suit and its allegations. Therefore, I don't see any Equal Protection argument.
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by snowinscotlandYou have erred. "The courts" know of me (that I exist). But they know not where I live. (not yet anyway--and I plan to keep it that way)
"The court itself acknowledges the existence of God," Chambers said Wednesday. "A consequence of that acknowledgment is a recognition of God's omniscience."
Surely, if the court acknowledges the existence of God, it also has his address?
16 Oct 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydBut if that is the case, you can never be sued. The courts cannot serve notice (unless you are, as in this case, omnicient, and therefore already know of the notice (not to mention the prosecution case, the defence case, the way the jury will vote, the verdict, the outcome, etc etc etc))
You have erred. "The courts" know of me (that I exist). But they know not where I live. (not yet anyway--and I plan to keep it that way)
18 Oct 08
Two thoughts.
Surely any Christian could be served with the notice as they claim that God lives in them? Or must the court believe that God lives in them?
Surely the ruling "Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant" is dangerously close to an admission that the court does not believe God exists?