Why, precisely? I am trying to understand the hair-splitting that's going on, and I can't do it without being intellectually dishonest with myself and others. The place and period-specific interpretation of SMA is being used as a lens to view religion through, and it can't be done.
Because that's not how religious people think.
Let us take the example of 27 successive defeats despite fervent prayer. The following are a few possible explanations:
1. My god does not exist (atheism)
2. My god hates me because it is hateful (evil deity argument)
3. My god hates me because I am sinful (divine retribution)
4. My god does not care about me because I am insufficiently devout (tough love)
5. My god does not care about me because I am insufficiently important (limited divine attention span)
6. My god has preordained a future which includes my defeat (deterministic arbitrary god)
7. My enemy's god is stronger than my god (theomachy)
8. My god has decided to hand me over to another god as part of on obscure divine drama (Book of Job)
9. My god has a larger messianic plan that requires my temporary defeat (divine historical imperative)
10. My god desires for me to have a crisis of faith (character building)
11. I have misunderstood the nature of my god's character (incorrect worship)
For a medieval, option #1 is the most difficult option because
god is a basically believed idea. God's existence was a point of only very limited disputation. There are
numerous available RP responses, of which
many are acceptable for SMA, allowing
myriad opportunities for different types of characters. Why must we always go to option #1?
If the occasional very exceptional character chose #1, that'd be one thing. But making it normal is something else.
