The Theology of Insurance
Scientists a step closer to steering hurricanes
So we’re going to “Play God” with hurricanes, eh? Hmm… interesting. Well, it could save lives. Hurricane Katrina took a pretty good swipe at the South Coast, as we know. If scientists could have diverted, who could complain?
Mr Alamaro said: “The social and legal issues are daunting. If a hurricane were coming towards Miami with the potential to cause damage and kill people, and we diverted it, another town or village hit by it would sue us. They’ll say the hurricane is no longer an act of God, but that we caused it.”
Oh. Them. Hmm… this leads me to an odd thought. Since the law defines “Acts of God” as things which we can make insurance claims against (floods, etc), then what is the theological position of such claims? Wouldn’t “Acts of God” have some purpose based on God’s Will? Presumably God does not do things without a purpose. And I think we should also note that God does not act unjustly. Therefore “Acts of God” are also “Acts of Justice”. So why would the Insurance Company compensate you, in that case, since God performed an Act Against You? If you think about this, I think you’ll see that it’s problematic. Once again, man is usurping God’s Judgement. First in the case of Insurance companies which pay “victims” of God’s Just Judgements via “Acts of God”, and in the second now going so far as to presume to alter “Acts of God”, and making them “Acts of Man” instead.
I don’t know where I’m going with this thought, but heck… it occured to me so I thought, dumbly perhaps, that I’d toss it out onto the InTArnEt and see what the other reader of this Blog might think. 
Tis an odd and irksome thought, eh?
Act of God - Wikipedia didn’t help resolve this question, by the way.
comments
Leave a Reply
-
Subscribe
