is to admitt that god does not exist. i don't get it.
"somebody needs to teach him the difference between hospitality and hospitalize"
Because the case was that the church bears reponsibility for 'acts of God'. If the boat was destroyed by god, then the church should pay. (If it wasn't then the insurance company should pay.)
If god exists then god is responsible for his acts. If god doesn't exist it follows that god could not be responsible for the consequences of the Acts. The only way the church could then win is by proving that god does not exist and thus god, and by extension his representatives, is not liable for the damage to the boat.
shareFirst, there is no evidence that God did said acts - the theologies of predestination and the role of chance must play a part. Next, one must prove that only Christians are right about God. If, then, Christians are right in their belief of God, then all humans are representatives of God because of the belief in humans as image-bearers (in the cultural context, one who bore the image of a king or important person was their representative). Given that God is not available for prosecution, it is the job of the representatives (i.e., humanity). Since the insurance company is the one that was hired to pay for such things, it is their reponsibility to pay.
Another way the Church could win is if they could theologically prove accidents. But then again, I haven't seen the movie.
haha right. thanks heaps.
"UTAH!.. get me 2"
It's to dowith the 'Act of God' clause in insurance policies.
That's how they avoid paying for accidents, Connely's character took itto it's logical conclusion and the film is more about Insurance companies screwing the little man, than about saying God doesn't exist.
What if He does exist, but he isn't actually involved in the decision making re storms, landslides etc? What then? He exists, but isn't responsible. Or if He has the capability to prevent those events, but doesn't, is it His fault through lack of prevention?
I'm just pondering here, not trying to put anyone on the spot.
I'm anespeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericumbobulations...
Lets assume that God exists and causing things to happen is his job. You can't sue him for doing his job. That's like a coastal city trying to sue an ocean for damages left by beach erosion.
And furthermore, God is not a person or a company. Religion does not represent or claim to represent God, but meerly studies and examines God. This probably isn't the best analogy, but don't blame the people who invented the atomic bomb, blame the people who used the atomic bomb.
All the church(es) had to say in defense was that the insurance companies were not adequately prepared to determine what is or is not an act of God. They weren't at the defendant's table. Throw them under the bus and be done with it.
But the Churges (not Religions!) claim they are able to tell people what to do to avoid God's wrath. Christianity even says that Pope is God's representative in that whatever Pope forbids on Earth, is also forbidden in Heaven, and whatever Pope approves/allows on Earth, is also approved/allowed in Heaven.
So, it's more like if someone said "If you pay me 100 $ a month, I'll make sure no Atomic bomb ever hits your house." Then, if that bomb fell on you, you'd naturally say that they didn't deliver.
===============
~ Alcator ~
[deleted]
It's because insurance companies like to use the excuse of "act of God" to avoid paying out for certain incidents, i.e. a boat being destroyed by lightening. The reason Billy sued the church is that they claim to be God's representatives on Earth and that therefore they are responsible for acts of God.
Therefore, the only way the church can avoid being held responsible for acts of God and sued for it is by admitting that he didn't exist and then they can't be responsible for it.
It's a genius concept.
http://urban-spaceman.blogspot.com/p/muhammad.html