RE: This is why a Democracy is described as the political pig pen of political systems
Seeing as how God made man the only one who has control over what he does and considering the first part of the following :
"Man is created by God. Man did not quicken himself or construct his being ex nihilo. Having absolutely no input into his creation, can such a being dare claim ownership to his being?"
The real question is not dare he claim ownership, but dare he act as if he is not responsible for his actions? If God had wanted individuals to be subjects of others he would have made it so through natural law and not through academic rhetoric.
Seeing as you have chosen not to answer my question, I must assume your owner has not given you permission. So I will have to assume you have no owner, and thus disprove your stated theory in the most important way. No application to your own life means to me that your ideas are not wisdom, but a distractions from real value.
For what is man responsible, and to whom is he obligated, if he is "owns" himself? The humanist drivel of man being guided by his own "conscience" has produces innumerable misery upon God's creation. Man's delusion in arrogating ownership to that which he has no claim is the core of the rot that infects this universe. Under what principles or laws does a "free" man who "owns" himself stand, other than his fickle whims? When a man owns a property, he need not be responsible or obligated in its use or disbursement. You invoke God, and in the same sentence dismiss Him. That you sense some vestigial sense of obligation and responsibility for your actions hints at your dues owed to your master.
So who moves your hand? Is it you or your master?
I move my own hand by the allowance of my lord, the Second Person of the Trinity who owns all of humanity, Jesus the Christ. Who allows you to breath each day, is it by your will or the by the magnanimity of your creator and master? Just because renters and tenants are allowed usage of a property does not result in usage equating to ownership. At the end of the day, it is the owner, not the tenants, who has the final say in disbursement and use of the said property. Man is obligated to his owner and responsible for acting according to his purpose.
As far as I can tell. God doesn't want slaves, and is why you claim your hand as your own?
I am sure that those of your philosophical leaning perceive themselves as claygods, interacting with their supposed creator as equals, and approach life as a series of mercantile contracts negotiated between themselves and their supposed creator. We Christians, however, perceive our relationship with our God in proportion to our insignificance in comparison to the creator of the universe. Actually, such proportionate reverence towards the divine is shared among virtually all human religions past and present. Even atheist communism interacts with their god, the state, in the same relation.
When your contract called life on this planet terminates, is it a mutually agreed termination, or a unilateral one? By the particulars of a contract termination, a man ought to recognize the owner vs. the tenant in such relationship.
@soo.chong163 I would agree that what God wants will be. I think our basic difference is in what we think God wants.