The Contract/Covenant With God

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

[Lacewing]

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.

If God changes the terms of the contract, how do you know... and how do you hold him legally accountable?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

If God changes the terms of the contract, how do you know... and how do you hold him legally accountable?

A contract exists only when both parties accept the terms. In principle, no party can change the terms of the contract unilaterally and enforced them upon the other party to be bound by the changes.

If God changes the terms of the contract, then the believer has to accept the changes by entering into a new or revised contract and the old contract is null and void.
Any all-powerful-moral God would not change the terms of the existing contract agreed upon.

Btw, do you agree a true believe must enter into 'contract'/covenant with God in accordance to God's terms as laid down for the believe to accept?

[Lacewing]

If God changes the terms of the contract, then the believer has to accept the changes by entering into a new or revised contract and the old contract is null and void.

Any all-powerful-moral God would not change the terms of the existing contract agreed upon.

Btw, do you agree a true believe must enter into 'contract'/covenant with God in accordance to God's terms as laid down for the believe to accept?

I think you're making all of this up.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If God changes the terms of the contract, then the believer has to accept the changes by entering into a new or revised contract and the old contract is null and void.

Any all-powerful-moral God would not change the terms of the existing contract agreed upon.

Btw, do you agree a true believe must enter into 'contract'/covenant with God in accordance to God's terms as laid down for the believe to accept?

I think you're making all of this up.

I am asking for views.
What are your views on this, is there a spiritual contract or not with God?
If yes, provide views and evidence if any.
If no, provide view on why no.

Re the above it is essential one understand the Principles of Contract which apply to explicit and implied contracts.

When a couple cohabit for a long time [justified and proven], some courts will judge there is an implied contract even if there are no proper and legal marriage certificate.

However, about one-third of the states recognize common-law marriage, under which two people are deemed to be married if they live together with the intent to be married, regardless of their failure to have obtained a license or gone through a ceremony. Although there is no actual contract of marriage (no license), their behavior implies that the parties intended to be treated as if they were married.
http://www.opentextbooks.org.hk/ditatopic/20625

From the above, would there be an implied contract between a theistic believer and his God [if it is not explicitly done], after all there are promises of eternal life in heaven in exchange for full compliance to God's command.

I have some views on the OP but will present it after reading views from others.

[Lacewing]

What are your views on this

I do not believe in a god... but if I did, it would seem ridiculous (to me) to think of having a contract with that all-powerful, all-knowing god of all creation. Can you really fathom how expansive that would be beyond human constructs? It seems that your concept of god is rather small and mechanical.

On top of that, your scenario doesn't make sense. Here's what you said:

If God changes the terms of the contract, then the believer has to accept the changes by entering into a new or revised contract and the old contract is null and void.

Any all-powerful-moral God would not change the terms of the existing contract agreed upon.

So, which is it? Are we talking about a God that would change the terms of the contract -OR- are we talking about a God that would NOT change the terms of the contract?

And if the believer has to accept any changes that God makes, then why would you need a contract -- because clearly God is calling all the shots?

You see? It's human nonsense being applied to a god. Now why don't you explain what your motives are for doing that? Why are humans always applying their piddly little realities to a god? I think it is so that they can claim to KNOW that god, which THEY are in fact creating themselves, and (to some degree) in their own image. And in doing so, it makes them feel godly.

If someone is going to believe in a god... why not consider that such an entity/energy/force would SURELY be beyond human ideas and comprehension... and free of human emotions and behaviors and needs and judgments? All of that is human baggage. And (I think) it's ridiculous to apply it to a god.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What are your views on this

I do not believe in a god... but if I did, it would seem ridiculous (to me) to think of having a contract with that all-powerful, all-knowing god of all creation. Can you really fathom how expansive that would be beyond human constructs? It seems that your concept of god is rather small and mechanical.

I am a non-theist.
The point is an all-powerful, all-knowing god would expect his believers to enter into a 'contract' at least an implied one if not explicit, such that the believers must comply with all the commands of god in exchange for the promises that God made.

Btw, the holy texts like the Bible [NT] made a offer to people to become Christians by an acceptance to believe in Jesus Christs and they will be saved. An 'offer' and 'acceptance' is the basis of a contract, explictly or impliedly.

On top of that, your scenario doesn't make sense. Here's what you said:

If God changes the terms of the contract, then the believer has to accept the changes by entering into a new or revised contract and the old contract is null and void.

Any all-powerful-moral God would not change the terms of the existing contract agreed upon.

So, which is it? Are we talking about a God that would change the terms of the contract -OR- are we talking about a God that would NOT change the terms of the contract?

And if the believer has to accept any changes that God makes, then why would you need a contract -- because clearly God is calling all the shots?

The above is not my scenario but based on the question you asked.
I would not expect a God to be capricious and deceitful in this sense, i.e. changing his supposedly 'perfected' texts and the offer therein.

You see? It's human nonsense being applied to a god. Now why don't you explain what your motives are for doing that? Why are humans always applying their piddly little realities to a god? I think it is so that they can claim to KNOW that god, which THEY are in fact creating themselves, and (to some degree) in their own image. And in doing so, it makes them feel godly.

If someone is going to believe in a god... why not consider that such an entity/energy/force would SURELY be beyond human ideas and comprehension... and free of human emotions and behaviors and needs and judgments? All of that is human baggage. And (I think) it's ridiculous to apply it to a god.

Personally the idea of a God is nonsense and illusory but then it is a critical necessity for the majority to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

In the Abrahamic religions there is an element of a covenant or spiritual contract between God and believers.

Note;

Students of the Bible hold wildly differing opinions as to how many major covenants exist (or did exist) between God and humanity, with numbers ranging from one to at least twelve. [7] (See covenant theology and dispensationalism for further information on two of the major viewpoints.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_ ... _covenants

In Islam the mention of a covenant between Muslims and Allah is quite explicit.

Our Covenant with God
https://submission.org/friday_covenant_trade.html

• [Quran 48:10] Surely, those who pledge allegiance to you (يُبايِعونَكَ), are pledging allegiance (يُبايِعونَ) to God.God approves their pledge; He places His hand above their hands. Those who violate such a pledge, commit the violation to their own detriment. As for those who fulfill their pledge with God, He will grant them a great recompense.
  
  [Quran 9:111] God has bought/اشتَرىٰ from the believers their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of God, willing to kill and get killed. Such is His truthful pledge in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran - and who fulfills His pledge better than God? You shall rejoice in making such an exchange (بِبَيعِكُمُ).This is the greatest triumph.

The above Arabic words in between parentheses, "yubayeuonaka", "yubayeuona" and "bi-bayekum", translated as "pledge, pledging or an exchange", are from the root ba ya eyn which gives all the derivatives for "an executed trading transaction or deal".
When a buyer-seller deal is made, a hand shake is usually a sign and an act for being committed to fulfill the promise and execute the sale. Valuing the commitment to that agreement between the involved parties to close and fulfill that trading transaction, the word is often used in stylish Arabic literature to indicate pledges, oaths or covenants.

That's how God has used that root for three derivatives in the above verses.
Besides the honor of having "God's hand shake; He places His hand above their hands", we also have the absolute assertiveness of the validity of the trading contract/covenant with God; exchanging our life time on earth, striving for His cause, and no one else, with the eternal bliss of Paradise.

The terms of the contract are precisely listed and detailed in Quran.

My point here is to assert;
To be a Muslim one must enter into a spiritual contract/covenant with Allah.
Seemingly for Christian [not that clear to me] must also enter into a contract with God. [to confirm].

As for other theistic religions I presume the same applied in either explicit or implied manner. Anyone has anything to comment on this.

Where there is a contract between God and its believers, then there are heavy consequences for humanity. [to be discussed later].

[Veritas Aequitas]

To theistic believers,
do you believe you have entered into a covenant [spiritual contract] with your God, i.e. accept God's offer in exchange for eternal life in heaven?

[HexHammer]

Do you agree

No, I'm quite sure when the Hippie returns he will undo religion, it's pure nonsense and outdated!

It's heavily suggested in various scriptures.

Bible, Book of Revelation "and I saw no temple in New Jerusalem"

Muslims, "Jesus son of Mary will break the cross"

Prophecy of the Popes "(113 pope) Petrus Romanus will feed his sheep during the many tribulations. The city of the 7 hills will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people."

[Lacewing]

The point is an all-powerful, all-knowing god would expect his believers...

Says who? Humans?

I'm not trying to be difficult or mess with your agenda (whatever it is). I'm just questioning what you're claiming -- because you're basing the rest of what you say, on what you claim. Can you not see how much you are creating/superimposing?

Seriously... why would an all-powerful, all-knowing god NEED to expect anything?

Furthermore, if you think (as you said) that "the idea of a God is nonsense", then why are you asking about nonsense contracts? Are you trying to get believers to acknowledge they have a contract, so that you can then show some error or consideration regarding contracts? You seem to be arguing for the logic of something you claim you don't believe in.

[belief in a god]... is a critical necessity for the majority to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis

This is interesting to consider. Certainly such a "need" occurs as the result of human indoctrination. We aren't born this way. We are born as part of creation and we simply accept it. The belief in a particular god (and all that goes with it, as defined by humans) is something we become brainwashed with (by others), such that we come to think our entire existence hinges upon it, and we cannot live or imagine without it. So is it really a "critical necessity"? Brainwashing can fade and evolve. Theism could be a tool that some continue to use and evolve as they find it useful... while some might set it aside.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The point is an all-powerful, all-knowing god would expect his believers...

Says who? Humans?

I'm not trying to be difficult or mess with your agenda (whatever it is). I'm just questioning what you're claiming -- because you're basing the rest of what you say, on what you claim. Can you not see how much you are creating/superimposing?

Seriously... why would an all-powerful, all-knowing god NEED to expect anything?

Furthermore, if you think (as you said) that "the idea of a God is nonsense", then why are you asking about nonsense contracts?
Are you trying to get believers to acknowledge they have a contract, so that you can then show some error or consideration regarding contracts?
You seem to be arguing for the logic of something you claim you don't believe in.

That is my point, theistic believers need to understand they have entered into a contract/covenant with their God either explicitly or implicitly.
We need to understand the "nonsense contracts" that theists has believed they have entered into, to understand why SOME theists had translated that 'nonsense' to commit so much real serious evil acts and violence around the world and they will continue to do so within their contractual obligation to God.

Actually what is more important is for non-believers understand the point.

[belief in a god]... is a critical necessity for the majority to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis

This is interesting to consider. Certainly such a "need" occurs as the result of human indoctrination. We aren't born this way. We are born as part of creation and we simply accept it. The belief in a particular god (and all that goes with it, as defined by humans) is something we become brainwashed with (by others), such that we come to think our entire existence hinges upon it, and we cannot live or imagine without it. So is it really a "critical necessity"? Brainwashing can fade and evolve. Theism could be a tool that some continue to use and evolve as they find it useful... while some might set it aside.

Btw, there are loads of human "needs' that are primal and instinctual thus not due to indoctrination, e.g. sex, food, water, security, breathing and the likes.

I argue the need to believe in a theistic god is based on a primal need that is almost near to "breathing" and it is more fundamental than food and sex.
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.

Abraham [a representative of theists] was willing to sacrifice his own son to God, and some theists will do that under various conditions. Many a mother or father would gladly sacrifice their sons or daughters as suicide bombers in compliance with their divine obligation within the contract/covenant they have signed with their God.

Yes, my point is to drive the truth that theists [especially the Abrahamic] have entered into a contract/covenant with their God, i.e. to obey God commands as in his holy texts in exchange for eternal life in heaven/paradise with loads of other freebies thrown in.

This is one important point [among others] that most non-theists missed when they debate or discuss issues [evil and violent acts] related to theistic religions.

You agree on this?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you agree

No, I'm quite sure when the Hippie returns he will undo religion, it's pure nonsense and outdated!

It's heavily suggested in various scriptures.

Bible, Book of Revelation "and I saw no temple in New Jerusalem"

Muslims, "Jesus son of Mary will break the cross"

Prophecy of the Popes "(113 pope) Petrus Romanus will feed his sheep during the many tribulations. The city of the 7 hills will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people."

I am non-theist and not religious. I believe [in the future not immediately] all religions [theistic and non-theistic] must be weaned off and be replaced by fool proofs alternatives to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis within the psyche of all humans.

In view of the range of glaringly evident evil acts and violence by SOME believers we need to understand the effective principles that work within theism and religions.
One of this is re the OP, a believer [especially Abrahamic] must enter into a contract/covenant with his God to obey all of God's command laid out to qualify to receive the promise of an eternal life in heaven [with bonus of virgins thrown in for some].
Thus if God's terms contain certain elements [which we view as evil acts] the contracted believer will view them a good and has no choice but to carry out those acts as obligated within the contract 'signed.'
Believers who kill non-believers viewed their acts as 'good' in theirs and the eyes of God since they are getting rid of pests that threaten their religion.

This is why where there are terrible evil acts and violence by SOME [albeit very significant] believers against non-believers we must refer to and review the contractual terms as laid within the holy texts of the religion/ideology.

[-1-]

I don't think in Christiandom there are individual or collective contracts between god (supposing that he exists) and people, hyumans, individuals.

There is an offer, by god written in the bible. But humans don't consciously need to know the terms. Apparently a good soul goes to heaven whether the soul's vessel is a Christian or not, (however way you define "Christian"... opinions vary), but a bad soul goes to G'ehenna etc.

No human agreement is needed for fulfilment. Compliance, yes, agreement, no.

That's a.

B. is that for a contract to be valid, the parties may not be forced, coerced, or connived into signing the contract. By threatening man by god to an eternity of hellfire voids the contracts entered into by humans, for they had been unduly threatened vith violence into signing the contract.

One may argue that suffering in the eternal flame is not a tool of coercion, but simply a tenet of the contract. This I don't know how to resolve... the parties need to take it to court to be decided by an experienced judge.

[-1-]

Do you agree

No, I'm quite sure when the Hippie returns he will undo religion, it's pure nonsense and outdated!

It's heavily suggested in various scriptures.

Bible, Book of Revelation "and I saw no temple in New Jerusalem" --that should be "new and improved Jerusalem""

Muslims, "Jesus son of Mary will break the cross"

Prophecy of the Popes "(113 pope) Petrus Romanus will feed his sheep during the many tribulations. The city of the 7 hills will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people."

I am non-theist and not religious. I believe [in the future not immediately] all religions [theistic and non-theistic] must be weaned off and be replaced by fool proofs alternatives to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis within the psyche of all humans.

In view of the range of glaringly evident evil acts and violence by SOME believers we need to understand the effective principles that work within theism and religions.
One of this is re the OP, a believer [especially Abrahamic] must enter into a contract/covenant with his God to obey all of God's command laid out to qualify to receive the promise of an eternal life in heaven [with bonus of virgins thrown in for some].
Thus if God's terms contain certain elements [which we view as evil acts] the contracted believer will view them a good and has no choice but to carry out those acts as obligated within the contract 'signed.'
Believers who kill non-believers viewed their acts as 'good' in theirs and the eyes of God since they are getting rid of pests that threaten their religion. The goal justifies the means, and the left justifies the right.

This is why where there are terrible evil acts and violence by SOME [albeit very significant] believers against non-believers we must refer to and review the contractual terms as laid within the holy texts of the religion/ideology.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't think in Christiandom there are individual or collective contracts between god (supposing that he exists) and people, hyumans, individuals.

There is an offer, by god written in the bible. But humans don't consciously need to know the terms. Apparently a good soul goes to heaven whether the soul's vessel is a Christian or not, (however way you define "Christian"... opinions vary), but a bad soul goes to G'ehenna etc.

No human agreement is needed for fulfilment. Compliance, yes, agreement, no.

That's a.

Note there is such thing as an implied contract, note this example;

However, about one-third of the states recognize common-law marriage, under which two people are deemed to be married if they live together with the intent to be married, regardless of their failure to have obtained a license or gone through a ceremony. Although there is no actual contract of marriage (no license), their behavior implies that the parties intended to be treated as if they were married.
http://www.opentextbooks.org.hk/ditatopic/20625

The above refer to marriage but the principles are the same.

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.

Once a person agree and 'sign' on a contract, then ignorance of the terms [due to negligence, etc.] is no defense.

B. is that for a contract to be valid, the parties may not be forced, coerced, or connived into signing the contract. By threatening man by god to an eternity of hellfire voids the contracts entered into by humans, for they had been unduly threatened with violence into signing the contract.

One may argue that suffering in the eternal flame is not a tool of coercion, but simply a tenet of the contract. This I don't know how to resolve... the parties need to take it to court to be decided by an experienced judge.

God's threats of people of going to hell has no effect until the contract is signed, e.g. to atheists or believer of another religion.
Therein the contract, God's threat is only effective if one do not comply with the terms, then, one will be punished to hell [note guilt].

My main point here is whether there is a contract or not between God and believers.
Usually a believer is induced to sign a contract in exchange for the promise of an eternal life in heaven.
It may happen a person signed due to the threat of hell, but still there is still a contract that exists. Duress is one reason that can void a contract but I do not agree being sold the threat of hell is one kind of duress. A person who signed to have a surgery would have senses a threat of potential death, but that is not duress.

But your point is valid in the sense that a God who promote a contract based on fears of hell is not a benevolent God but rather an immoral and perhaps an evil God.
A God is supposed to be omni-benevolent thus an evil God is a contradiction therefore such a God does not exist when we argue about god's existence.

The OP is based on the assumption God exists.