God of slaves.

This round ill be replying to Cons statements and answering his questions. In debt to god. Con has requesting clarifcation about what debt humans have to god. The basic principle is found within parent to child relation, that a child owes loyalty and respect on a moral level. This loyalty and respect is technically forced, or without choice (or without free will), since rebelling will only prolong punishment, and respect and loyalty will eventually be given. Because obligation is built from morality and law, morality is acceptable to use. Con has also stated two points, 1) That humans can somehow payback our debt to god - what could we possibly do to repay this debt. Childern are in the exactly the same situation, and payment is given by loyalty and respect. 2) What could we give god that has any value to him. Good point, yet that's also true for childern. Childern cannot pay back, or give their parents anything that they couldnt already get themselves. A child cannot give a BMW as payment, but the parents could get a BMW. However we know parents find worth in the relationship between parent and child, a relationship which starts with loyalty and respect . This moral relationship grows into much more overtime, yet has no actual value such as a house or car, only moral value. The Goldfish Con has stated that gods authoirty over life doesnt imply we owe him a debt. Then he gives the example of how providing the enviroment for a goldfish to live doesnt force the goldfish to owe him (Con). True, this is because he isnt the creator of life or water, plants, and oxygen. He didnt give birth to the goldfish, or create the goldfish from nothing, so the goldfish has no obligation or loyalty to him at all, only god. If we jumped into this example even more, we'll more my point becomes clear. What if the goldfish had the ability to speak, and was relgious and knew he owed loyalty to god. Then Con tells the fish he owes him loyalty. The goldfish could rightfully say "Im only alive because god gave me life, you've only prevented me from death, but my lifes existances isnt indebted to you, because your not god. You (con) can only change the landscape so i may live at this time, so if i were to owe you my life, I would dishonour god who i'm rightfully indebted to." This is also true if someone tried this on a Monk. If a thug held a gun to a monks head and said "you owe me loyalty because your life is in my hands." The monk would reply "I owe my life to god, and i wont give you loyalty simply because you have the ability to take my life." This is Cons example, but ive gone into more detail to explain the differences. I agree that his example is correct, but the reason why it's correct it important. If this example is correct because of Cons argument, then it would disprove mine. The example simply shows the goldfish owes loyalty to god not man. So when Con says, "the goldfish doesnt owe me anything" he's correct. But if the reason why the example is correct is because the goldfish doesnt owe the man anything, but actually owes god. So the example edifys my position, not Cons, that everything owes it's life to god. Free choice. Slaves may have choice between obey or rebel, but this isnt true freedom, only the ability to choose between two restricted options given by force. This restricted choice isnt real freedom, but forced option without alternative. Con has used the example that slaves may obey or rebel, which proves they have choice. But this choice is simply obey or be punished. If we take this to it's extreme, we find that a choice between two options isnt freedom at all. If the options were, obey and live, rebel and die. This choice is the ability to chose one or the other, but this isnt freedom at all. If we look at the correct definition for freedom it means: Free·dom - Noun 1)The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. 2) Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government. So clearly the option between obey or disobey isnt true freedom. If I continue this train of thought and return to past events in history. Dictatorship's foundation is based off obey or die, but more technically it's, obey and by loyal to the country or die. This isnt freedom at all, although people are free to choose to obey or die. War was made and fought in the name of freedom which everyone understands, because the people were denied their true freedom. If im incorrect, we should say, we gave them more freedom instead of two option freedom? No. If two option choice isnt true freedom, then what's the opposite? Slave - Definition of slave -noun (especially in the past) a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. http://oxforddictionaries.com... Childern for a period of time are slaves to their parents, because they're forced to obey. Similarly humans are indebted to god without choice, since no child chose to be loyal to their parents, no human chose to be loyal to god. Therefore the obligated loyalty and respect applies for both cases because of the moral foundation. Personal Bias. Cons explains how my statement of debt to god is invaild without a foundation. This is incorrect because my foundation is morality which is rooted in obligation by definition, and to owe another is an obligation. The moral obligation between parent and child is real, which edifys the relation between god the creator and the created. The obligation continus even if the creator doesnt give demands, it simply means the creator hasnt asked for anything. A master may let his slave run free for ten days, but on the eleveth he demands loyalty, and the slave must obey or be punished. This relationship is similar to all dictatorships, to obey or be punished.