Normally contracts are not legal with children up to a certain age due to their immaturity. So there is no direct contract between the child and his parent.
However there is a social contract between the parents and society. In many society parents are penalized if they do not take care of the child accordingly or if they abuse their children.
Your answer is fine, but children are born with a birthright (again very one sided). Some Christians, along with me, talk about being “born again” and with this rebirth comes: being a child of God, many gifts and a birthright. The child’s birthright is totally legally binding and cannot be lost along the way, stolen by anyone and, under God’s rules, even He will not take it back, but the mature adult child can give it away.
God as the perfect parent has tons of responsibility, so God is totally unselfishly doing or allowing everything possible to help those willing individuals (potential children) to fulfill their earth. That everything includes satan roaming the earth, Christ going to the cross, tragedies of all kinds, hell to exist, death and even sin. God allows us to fail even though He does not want us to fail, so we can learn and grow from the experience. Again read the prodigal son story (Luke 15:11-32) to see how God the father acts. The Father in the story did all He could and was smart enough to know what the son would do up to the point of making the very free will choice to return or stay in the pigsty and take the punishment he fully deserves. Do you see the prodigal son making some “agreement” with the father?
A Christian cannot be one who can behave in any way he likes or he think what a Christian should behave.
A Christian has to abide by some conditions or terms set by God via Jesus.
These conditions and terms are covenanted terms stipulated in the Gospels and other texts and the covenant is implied or can be explicit [note the LDS promotes an explicit covenant].
I believe you are merely expressing from your own personal views as being a good Christian yourself. In addition, the 2+ billions of so claimed Christians come in all degrees of mental and psychological states and many may not be as a good Christian like yourself. Thus you have to take into the consideration the view from the perspective of all Christians and the whole of humanity.
I
do not have to “take into the consideration the view from the perspective of all Christians and the whole of humanity”, since God makes the rules. Christ tells us obeying the rules of man and offering that obedience up as worship is van worship.
“If you Love me you will obey me…” so we must first Love God and others and if you are not obeying you are not Loving. The New Testament helps us with ways to obey, but we first have to know and realize what all has been done for us, so we will Love Him.
Again, Christians are free to do what they “want”, but that is with the understanding they have Godly type Love.
There is always an implied social contract in adoption cases.
Note in cases of common law marriages, no official marriage contract is signed, but the courts will recognized an implied contract as inferred from the circumstances.
The 'offer' of eternal life is corresponded by an acceptance in believing in Jesus Christ's teaching which imply compliance with Christ's teaching which is from God. Such a circumstance imply a covenant [contract] is effected even if not explicitly declared as in the LDS [Later Day Saints] requirements.
Sorry, but even an “implied” contract is not in the New Testament for Christians, LDS is not a standard by which “most” if any Christians use. LDS has their own added religious book (the Book of Mormon) and use only the old “King James Version” in English and believe their leaders today are equal to the first century apostles.
The offer of eternal life is either accepted as undeserved charity or rejected and at any time after being accepted can be given up.
As I had argued 'faith' is not an objective basis to determine "who is a Christian" especially in defense and differentiating the evil and violent acts of SOME Christians from Christianity per se.
Faith = belief without no proof nor reason
In the context of the whole of humanity it is not a wise move to simply claim one is a Christian or one is 'X' without solid and sound groundings.
If you have on hand a very strong defense, why do you want to reject it.
A very small faith (trust) which all mature adults have just has to be “directed” toward the Creator of the universe
to become a Christian. God has made it as easy as possible, since all mature adults’ sin (do stuff which hurts others) and is initially burdened by the guilt and is seeking relieve. All possible relieves do not work in the long run with the exception of trusting God to forgive you.
After becoming a Christian, the person gets to do lots of good stuff which helps them to not devalue what has been done for them and thus reach the point of giving it away.
God also gives the Christian the indwelling Holy Spirit to know God will fulfill all His promises.
That is the point.
As I had said, what objective basis do you have against the accusers that Christianity is an evil and violent religion because SOME Christians had committed evil and violent acts. Note this is a very common accusations and in most cases, genuine Christians are not able to produce an effective response and defense.
Most Christians will defend by saying the Muslims were aggressive as the initiators and thus the crusades response was just-war. What about the inquisitions and other evil and violent acts by SOME Christians.
Now that I have introduced a very strong and effective defense, why do you want to reject it?
Your counter-attack against Muslim accusers would be;
ALL Muslims are covenanted explicitly with Allah upon convenanted terms that condone [to even encouraging] them to kill non-Muslims under very vague threats [even drawing of cartoons!]. I regard myself as a reasonable expert on Islam so I know.
Those people (including crusaders) were not “Christ like” and thus not Christian. They later might have become Christian or were Christian before doing any evil. The “spiritual leadership” at the time should take most of the blame.
I certainly cannot defend their behavior.