Since we have lots of people here who like to debate I have an interesting topic to bring up!

Let me set the stage:
* A bar owner wants to expand his business and add on to his bar.
* A local church doesn't approve and prays for god to do something to stop it.
* Lightning strikes the bar and burns it to the ground.
* The bar owner is suing the church for causing god to strike it and ultimately destroying his business.
* The church claims no responsibility for the lightning strike and denies any responsibility.
* The judge says: I have a bar owner who believes in the power of prayer and an entire church who doesn't.

Discuss:

lol.

lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jesus was just a bartender, in the end.

Insurance companies have already set the precedent. No one is responsible for an act of God.

lol

heh

TY that isn't the point of the story here :p Not to mention insurance covers lightning.

If you have the coverage

depends on if the church did something to entice the lightning strike, like putting an ungrounded lightning rod in it :P

TY: The first form of property insurance was "fire" followed by "lightning" historically. Is there a insurance property policy that excludes or doesn't cover lightning? I really don't think there is. Not in America at least.

MilitantOrgy: They prayed for "god" to do something? Do you not believe in the power of prayer?

requiem the flaw in that is 2 people prayin to win the lottery. 1 wins and the other dont yet he loves us all the same still? somethin seems a bit skewed here

Wouldn't separation of church and state preclude a court of law from making a decision in this case? It would kind of demand acknowledging God does exist.

Not everyone carries the property insurance they should

TY: the point of the story wasn't about an actual court ruling but rather if the people in the church really believed in the power of prayer. If they truly believed in the power of prayer wouldn't they be responsible for the damage?

For example if I go to you, TY, and say you know what I don't like that bar I wish something would happen to it would you please do something about it. And then you go and burn it down... I would be found guilty and also be held responsible for the damages right? Well if the church really believed in the power of their own prayer then they would have to admit they asked god to do something and he responded to their request which makes them responsible?

It's really for you to decide! I just thought it sparks a little bit of debate :D

Ok TY: find me an american insurance company that does not cover lightning damage for property insurance (i.e. Homeowners Insurance). I really don't think there is, I work in the insurance industry btw. Also don't get side tracked this has nothing to do with the topic.

I am not saying that if he had insurance that it wouldn't cover it. I am saying not everyone has insurance even though it is a good idea to have it. Geez

and since the other responses were just lol, your welcome for me getting it started

Goes to show that religion is most valuable by those who can twist it to work in their favour!

separation of church and state doesn't apply to aethiests. they have no church. or their church is the state, so they have a conflict of interest.

He should take the insurance money and build a huge bar that looks like a church from the outside.

No, I don't think you'd be found responsible for that. What you're referring to here would be conspiracy to commit a crime. In order for you to be charged and convicted for the burning down of the bar, it would have to be proven that you entered an agreement to get the bar shut down through an illegal act.

You stated to TY that you wanted the bar shut down, and asked if he would do something about it. If he agreed to get it shut down, you never understood that he was going to do it through illegal means. You could have assumed that he was going to get the bar shut down because it had health code violations, they had unpermitted construction completed, unpaid taxes, imminent domain, starting a boycott of the bar, etc. There are many ways one could attempt to shut down a bar. Just simply mentioning that you want him to shut it down, is not a criminal offense.

The same goes with the first example. You'd need to prove that the Church entered into an agreement with God to have the bar shutdown through illegal means.

I don't think the power of prayer is the issue here. The church would/should assert that nobody can know the mind of God. He works in mysterious ways, after all. There is no proof that the churchgoers were the ONLY ones to pray or that God wouldn't have struck the bar even without their prayers.

The burden of proof would be on the bar owner to show that it was specifically the prayers of the church and nothing else that led to God's decision.

What does that have to do with the scenario?

I still want to know what a "secernio" is.

I hate when new words are created that I have no understanding of :P