Philosophy Now Forum

I can certainly understand/agree that SOME theists might see themselves as in a contract with a god... but you are essentially claiming theists are in a contract whether they realize it or not... as follows:

That is my point, theistic believers need to understand they have entered into a contract/covenant with their God either explicitly or implicitly.

Yes, my point is to drive the truth that theists [especially the Abrahamic] have entered into a contract/covenant with their God.

In the case of Christians or Muslims, even if one does not explicitly agree, but if one believe and acts accordingly like every other Christians/Muslims, e.g. praying to God for various reasons, then there is said to be an implied acceptance of the offer by God.

You also said:

My main point here is whether there is a contract or not between God and believers.

You continually argue that there IS a contract, so I don't think YOU are exploring whether there is or isn't... I think you're claiming how it is.

This is why theists are mostly [not all] like a 'drowning' persons who will do anything to defend and maintain their beliefs. This is so obvious, note some theists will kill non-believers even upon drawings of their prophet and based on command from their God.

Consider this: It might often/usually have nothing to do with any idea of a contract -- it might instead have to do with one's own ego. The ego wants to be RIGHT... the ego wants control... and the ego can do just about anything to preserve ITSELF. A god might take the blame, but the reality has nothing to do with a god.

I regret to say, but I disagree with your objections to, and ameliorations of my opinion.

"Suppose god exists." You said atheists and other pagans are exempt. No they are not. They did not enter into a contract, but the terms of an implied contract apply to them too. According to Christian faith, anyhow.

You further supported your by now fossilized (as in "set in stone") opinion that a contract between god and man exists much the same way as a marriage exists between two people who live together for a certain length of time.

I contest this opinion of yours, too. Almost ALL people who would be or are affected by such a law KNOW that law. Whereas the pagan sun-worshipper in Paupua-New Guinea may not even remotely heard of the Christian god, yet if he behaves badly, he goes to hell, and if he behaves nice and in a Christian way, he will go to heaven. This is not at all due to an implied contractual obligation, since the Papuan has no knowledge of the bible, yet the Christian god will treat him equally and on the same reward system as He would treat any cardinal, pope, or commoner.

So your analogy between marriage by default and atheist / pagan do-gooders is, that the marriage partners KNOW the law, and the Pagans may or may not be aware of the teachings of the Christian god. Therefore the reward (heaven) or punishment (hell) to a Papuan is consequential, not contractual.

------

The preceding presupposes that Christian god exists and He is the only god in charge. (I don't believe that, but I accept this condition as a "given" to make the points of the argument.)

Much like Lacewing noticed, I am sure too that your opinion is set, i.e. that god and humans have a contract no matter what. You can't be convinced otherwise. Not by reason anyway.

So I won't entertain further discussion or argumenting on this topic with you, veritas aequitas, because it is a waste of time to read old arguments over and over again, and to be frustrated by someone being so committed to his or her opinion that logic even can't penetrate their defense of it.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:34 pm I can certainly understand/agree that SOME theists might see themselves as in a contract with a god... but you are essentially claiming theists are in a contract whether they realize it or not... as follows:

That is my point, theistic believers need to understand they have entered into a contract/covenant with their God either explicitly or implicitly.

Yes, my point is to drive the truth that theists [especially the Abrahamic] have entered into a contract/covenant with their God.

In the case of Christians or Muslims, even if one does not explicitly agree, but if one believe and acts accordingly like every other Christians/Muslims, e.g. praying to God for various reasons, then there is said to be an implied acceptance of the offer by God.

You also said:

My main point here is whether there is a contract or not between God and believers.

You continually argue that there IS a contract, so I don't think YOU are exploring whether there is or isn't... I think you're claiming how it is.

I am quite sure Muslims has to enter into a contract with their God [note link above] and there is some kind of contract for Christians and Jews.
I did place some question marks in my post with other theists and I have not explored into other religions.

But if any theists prayed to God and expect some help, there has to be contract/covenant between the theist and God.

I believe those theists who are pantheists, deists, panentheists will not likely to have entered into a contract with their God which they simply respect [with awe] but not expecting any thing [e.g. eternal life] from their God.

This is why theists are mostly [not all] like a 'drowning' persons who will do anything to defend and maintain their beliefs. This is so obvious, note some theists will kill non-believers even upon drawings of their prophet and based on command from their God.

Consider this: It might often/usually have nothing to do with any idea of a contract -- it might instead have to do with one's own ego. The ego wants to be RIGHT... the ego wants control... and the ego can do just about anything to preserve ITSELF. A god might take the blame, but the reality has nothing to do with a god.

It is possible for the ego to come into play but I do not believe it is the norm when believers commit terrible evil deeds and violence on non-believers.

The point is the term of the contract between the believer and God in certain religion compel the believers] contractual obligation to kill non-believers in some given conditions plus there are contractual incentives to kill.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:30 am Do you agree,
for one to qualify as a believer of say Christianity or Islam, one must enter into a religious contract or covenant with God explicitly or implication?

Here is an explanation regarding the basic principles of a Contract;
https://www.simpsons.com.au/documents/v ... rincip.pdf

If there is a 'contract'/covenant then there must be agreed terms to the contract to be observed by both parties and neither party can change the terms of the contract unless both explicitly agree to the changes.

Agree to the above?

By what I know if contracts, I agree. By what I know of terms of service, disagree, as they change. Infant baptism, or even child confirmation, is not a contractually binding agreement in my view.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:30 am Do you agree,
for one to qualify as a believer of say Christianity or Islam, one must enter into a religious contract or covenant with God explicitly or implication?

Here is an explanation regarding the basic principles of a Contract;
https://www.simpsons.com.au/documents/v ... rincip.pdf

If there is a 'contract'/covenant then there must be agreed terms to the contract to be observed by both parties and neither party can change the terms of the contract unless both explicitly agree to the changes.

Agree to the above?

By what I know if contracts, I agree. By what I know of terms of service, disagree, as they change. Infant baptism, or even child confirmation, is not a contractually binding agreement in my view.

I agree infant baptism and child confirmation is not contractual binding as in most principles of contract. The contractual parties must be capable of making independent decision and not insane.

Re Islam, the terms of the contract is immutable as laid down in the Quran and cannot be change unilaterally by humans.

Quran 5:3
Prohibited to you are ....
...
This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion.

'Perfected' and 'Completed' imply immutability and no changes.
There are other verses in the Quran that support the above demand.

The NT is not claimed to be absolutely perfect in details, but the doctrinal principles are portrayed as immutable. From God's perspective, which believer[s] has the authority to go against and change God's principles and command??