"Having lost his job, marriage and almost all his worldly possessions, the ex-lawyer Steve Myers (Billy Connolly) drops out of society for the quieter life of a fisherman. A freak storm brews up and his boat is dramatically destroyed when struck by lightning. But the insurance company won't pay, as the incident is deemed to be an 'Act of God'.

From then on the film revolves around the wily attempt of Steve Myers to sue God, through his representatives on earth - if indeed He exists. The ironic twist is that the religious body have to prove that God does not exist in order to win the case, while Steve Myers is desperate to assume He does, so that they can cop the bill.

The film deals with the greed of the insurance companies, more interested in their own profits than people's well being, and that of the different religions represented, while raising the question of God and his involvement in people's lives. Woven within the story are also the complicated family situation and the unfolding romance of Myers with a journalist heavily interested in his case. "

So with this film in mind ....

Is it right that insurance companies should be able to hide behind the 'Act of God' clause? Or do they need a certain amount of protection from possible massive catastrophes?


If lightning strikes are seen as 'Acts of God', should the church be held responsible for them and any other such freak occurrences? Why/why not?


If the phrase 'Acts of God' is just a figure of speech, then is God getting an unfair press? (and who's god?)


The Bible states that God is omnipotent, omniscient, sovereign and creator, as well as a whole lot more; surely then he must be responsible?


More questions than answers

It's called WEATHER on the planet earth.

Why is it that when ever something goes wrong we always want someone or something to blame.

I believe that the whole point of insurance is for those freak accidents or "Acts of God".

I don't believe, however, that the church should be responsible for the acts. The church is there to promote God and should only be resposible for thier actions such as the cursades or for thier saucy comments in the pulpit.

If it deemed an "Act of God" than take "Him" to court.

A better question might be: Why do people give money to the church to protect them from "acts of God"?

Check your history. People have been paying "protection money" to the church for centuries.

Some cultures used to conduct human sacrifice to protect themselves.

Now we are blaming the politicians and insurance companies?

Let's get real.

It today's age it's absurd to be calling acts of nature "acts of God". I'm a bit surprised that insurance companies are still doing that. I thought they took a different route. Like simply stating precisely what kinds of damages they will or won't cover. If they won't cover natural whether-related damage then why not just say so.

In short, I don't see why anyone is calling it an "Act of God" today. Even religious people don't believe that God is guiding every lightening bolt. So even religious people wouldn't necessarily agree that it is an act of God.



I don't think so. Even if they believed that it was an act of God they shouldn't be held responsible for it because churches merely worship God, they don't tell God what to do.

Well, then again, maybe they do! Via prayer!!!

Maybe if you could show that someone prayed for the damaging act of God you could sue that person for requesting the act. Although, if they prayed for God to damage something and their prayer was answered, maybe you should think twice before you sue them? They might pray that God damage you!



In this day and age it should be referred to as "Acts of nature" - or simply "weather, earthquakes, floods, etc." In fact, when it comes to homes don't they already specify those things individually. I know some insurance will cover fire but not tornado damage, for example. And even fire, will only be covered it is isn't intentional arson. If a criminal comes and sets your house on fire on purpose, then the insurance won't pay. But if a burglar breaks and accidentally sets your house on fire then they will pay.

It's really weird. I think they will also pay if the fire was started by lightening would is a natural act (or an act of God if you want to call it that). So it all depends on how they have it written up.

I personally don't think they should use the phrase "Act of God" at all anymore. I would think that even religious people would agree that's not a good use of the term.



If God created this universe then he's ultimately responsible for everything in it. Even the acts of men.

If humans are nothing more than God's pets, then he should still be responsible for his pets. If he lets his bad pets run around killing his good pets, then he not a very good pet keeper.

If you have a pet you're responsible for what it does. If God has human pets then he ultimately is responsible for that they do. It's no different. Why should God not be responsible for the pets he creates?

i think maybe it should be deemed " catastrophic disaster insurance" and leave god(s) out of it all together.

that said - insurance co.'s are no more than legal corp.'s for gambling not much different than vegas - they are betting on the odds.
odd's they have decades of info on as to how many how often - so that they can be the winner in most cases - except when katrina's strike etc.. what i dont think should take place is the goverment using federal money - our money to bail them out if they do loose!! if catastrophies break the bank - then they should suffer the results. its only a matter of time till some ctastrophe happens that will wipe all of them out - and the least of our concerns will be whether or not were covered. but only if we survive.

If lightning strikes are seen as 'Acts of God', should the church be held responsible for them and any other such freak occurrences? Why/why not?

do you mean the corporate organization or the the individuals??

Is the movie actually called The Man who Sued God? and if it's not can you tell me the title. That sounds like a movie I would like to watch.

That is what it is called.

It stars a very funny British comedian called Billy Connolly.

I remember reading on Richard Dawkins website that when an lighting struck to a huge Jesus statue somewhere in the world,the religious who commented said it was just a random event..

but then again when lighting strucks down an evil doer or something similiar it's seen as an "act of god"

anyway it's best to keep god away from such matters like insurance,it just ends up getting really absurd.

If insurance companies are still using that "acts of God" phrase they need to change that. I would think they are no longer using that, but there are probably some who still might be doing it.

Perhaps the guy should have found the names of all these people who are actually walking around claiming to be Jesus like that guy in Florida who started his own church. He is plenty rich, I'm sure he would settle just to maintain his claim to being the representative of God on the earth.

He could find all of these gurus who make that claim, including Harold Klemp, the living ECK master of Eckankar. He also claims to be the God man of the entire universe.

He should name the Pope himself in the suit too, as he claims to represent God also. I'm sure all these people who make these claims would be happy to settle.

Then, these Godmen could sue the Insurance companies and demand proof that they were responsible, and they could claim that the Devil did it.


Jeannie

Is it a conspiracy of God and his devil ?.
.