God of slaves.

God created us unconditionally. Our lives are, in a sense, a gift.Pro says otherwise. He says that in the moment of our creation, we somehow signed a metaphorical contract with god, which we must pay back in our lifetimes with respect and loyalty.He goes further. He says that god has forced us into this contract to the extent that we have no freedom of choice. In particular, he says, god is holding us in two ways: moral obligation threat of punishment (hell) These two methods, though independent, are not contradictory. For example, parents have a moral obligation to care for their children and, at the same time, have a duty-of-care under law. It's interesting to speculate why two methods are needed, though. An atheist would be influenced by neither method, while a devout deist would probably find the second method redundant. Indeed, there are several logical inconsistencies in Pro's theory. Of course, neither one of us has evidence, documentary or otherwise. We are both merely stating an opinion. Therefore, the question needs to be decided logically. Our lives being a gift from god is not only more pleasant, it is also simpler and more logical. Therefore, if either theory is true, it must be the gift theory. God's weak threat If god wanted to threaten us, he could do a much better job. All he would need to do is show us hell for a moment when we sinned. Even once or twice would be enough. We would be terrified. We would do whatever he wanted all the time. But god has not done that, from which we can only conclude that he does not want us to be controlled by fear of hell. He wants us to be free to choose. Finally, there is no reason to think that there even is a hell. It is not a logical consequence of god the creator. Pro needs to provide at least some evidence of hell existing (it seems extremely unlikely to me). Moral obligation MORAL OBLIGATION. A duty which one owes, and which he ought to perform, but which he is not legally bound to fulfill (1) Therefore, even if we do have a moral obligation to god, something that Pro has yet to prove, we are still not in any sense "bound" to fulfil it. We are not coerced. We are not slaves. We still have free choice. Respect and loyalty Pro claims that our side of the contract requires us to give god respect and loyalty during our lifetimes. Please note that this is only Pro's opinion, based on his observation of parent-child relationships. Are respect and loyalty internal or external behaviors? Of course, in interhuman relationships, given that we can't read minds, we mean respectful and loyal behavior. God, however, can read our innermost thoughts and feelings, so respect and loyalty to god must include behavior, thoughts and feelings. Can thoughts and feelings be coerced? If they can be, then we would be more than god's slaves - we would be his automatons. It would be like in 1984: we would be wandering around crying tears of joy and love for god. But the situation is not like that. Clearly, it is possible to live lives of disrespect to god without punishment in our lifetimes. There are all kinds of atheists, idolaters and satanists. God could have prevented this if he had chosen to. But he hasn't, which means we are not slaves - we are free to choose to worship him or not. Perhaps we are in the ten free days that Pro has spoken of and in the eleventh day we will know god's fury. But there is no evidence for such a thing. It doesn't follow logically from the idea of god the creator, and it would be completely inconsistent with god's behavior up to now. I think we can discount it. (1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...