TomK - If they are caused by a god or goddess to destroy 700 homes, make people evacuate and lose their jobs and livelihoods, I would have to say the god or goddess that caused the lava flow wasn't a particularly nice entity, and yes, I would go as far as calling them evil for all the suffering they caused.
So if a god/dess causes the lava flow and consequent destruction and suffering, the god/dess is evil, but if nature is the cause of the the exact same lava flow and consequent destruction and suffering, nature is somehow not evil? Why isn't nature held to the same moral standards as the gods and goddesses? Or is anything that causes destruction and suffering to be considered evil?
Imagine that god/dess and nature are two words describing the same thing - a collection of processes and forces largely outside of human understanding, prediction, or control. Why does simply changing the label for the exact same set of events create differing moral implications and expectations?
TomK - a god that doesn't cause wars [etc, etc]. But no such god exists.
Prove it.
So if a god/dess causes the lava flow and consequent destruction and suffering, the god/dess is evil, but if nature is the cause of the the exact same lava flow and consequent destruction and suffering, nature is somehow not evil? Why isn't nature held to the same moral standards as the gods and goddesses? Or is anything that causes destruction and suffering to be considered evil?
Imagine that god/dess and nature are two words describing the same thing - a collection of processes and forces largely outside of human understanding, prediction, or control. Why does simply changing the label for the exact same set of events create differing moral implications and expectations?
TomK - a god that doesn't cause wars [etc, etc]. But no such god exists.
Prove it.