Thursday, October 08, 2009

Act of God: Defending God

Whoever invented the phrase “act of God” must hate God.
The inventor refers the phrase “act of God” to natural calamities, disasters, mayhem, perils, damages.
This is unfair because it creates a mis-impression that everytime there is a natural disaster, it is a result from God’s intervention.
We--- as Christians--- believe that God does not desire to harm His own children.
Besides, if there is a natural calamity, there is no evidence, nay eyewitness, that God really was principal by direct participation in causing such calamity.
Neither can there be evidence that God masterminded the perpetration of such calamity.
So by blaming natural disasters, and human sufferings to “acts of God” is a product of human imagination.
It is hearsay.
It is a conclusion that has no basis.
So I do not know why human sufferings resulting from natural causes like volcanic eruption, lightning, landslides, flooding, are attributable to “acts of God”.
The phrase “acts of God” is even accepted as part legal language.
The Supreme Court recognizes the phrase acts of God.
For example, the case Philippine Bar Association versus Court of Appeals (October 3, 1986) defines an act of God this way:
“An act of God has been defined as an accident, due directly and exclusively to natural causes without human intervention, which by no amount of foresight, pains or care, reasonably to have been expected, could have been prevented”.
I disagree with this.
In the first place, if it is an accident, then how could it be an act of God?
To legally recognize the phrase “act of God” is, to my mind, illegal.
Even the Bible clearly states that God's plans are not for man to suffer but to prosper.
For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future (Jeremiah 29:11)
On the other and, and to be fair, I think reference to an “act of God” is equated with an event caused by natural causes, as opposed to events attributable to acts of man.
But this is no excuse.
We should not bring God into the picture as a cause, when natural disasters occur.
There are other more appropriate words like “force majeure” (fuerza mayor) for “fortuitous events”.
Kawawa naman si Lord.
The Supreme Court should be the one to remove the phrase “acts of God” from the annals of jurisprudence.
God must be rolling in anger everytime a natural disaster happens, and people refer to it as an “act of God”
It’s unfair to God.

No comments: