I didn’t think it necessary to explain such a commonly held tenet of Christianity, that if an adherent tows the proverbial line then they are rewarded in the afterlife, and if they don’t they can expect punishment
I wouldn't think it necessary to explain the necessity of a critic having a clue.
If you intend to spend your efforts denigrating people, yes, having a clue is one prerequisite.
The striking part is how desperate you are to remain clueless:
Apparently I overestimated your cultural IQ.
Who, aside from you, can be an expert in your personal, ad hoc substitute for a real excuse?
After all, you're the one who needs the phrase, "God premise", because you apparently don't know the real words like soteriology, or even theology.
(We might note aside a once upon a time atheistic habit of writing "Xian" and "Xianty" instead of "Christian" and "Christianity", and never have I encountered the rational explanation of why anyone would go to the trouble of taking the abbreviation that allegedly chafes some people and adding extra lettres; it was as if they were determined to make a point of putting effort into being insulting. And as stupid as that sounded in some misty once upon a time, atheism at Sciforums appears to have gotten dumber over the years. How long before we're down to discussing, "That all-power thingy", because the word, "God", is too difficult for an atheist to figure out?)
Note the discussion of omnipotence ("all powerful", "all-powerful"), and free will. A mistake similar to one of yours occurs in
#43↑: "Can god be all powerful AND the universe be determined?" To answer proposed answer, "I would think not", makes demands, and places particular limits on God; neither is it insignificant that the demand and limit is anthropomoprhic and even personal. To the other, that personalization is a common error among theists and atheists alike. The question our neighbor runs up against is actually very similar to the atheistic question of determinism in the Universe itself. The most straightforward expression is that one requires God to have particular finite boundaries such as perspective, perception, and experience. More functionally, one fashions their own God for the sake of criticism, an act of both faith and fallacy. Your argument about "the God premise"—
But according to the God premise, if one follows the dictates of God as a devotee, then God wouldn’t be expected to cast one into hell. To do so would amount to a broken promise by God regardless of whether or not it engineered a determined reality.
—ignores scriptural considerations such as the One Hundred Forty-Four Thousand (
Rv. 7.3-8↱), and the Book of Life (Rv.
13.8↱,
17.8↱). Additionally, it presumes God's perspective and will according to your particular need.
And that error is what it is, but while our neighbor's presupposition occurs within the context of an ongoing inquiry seeking a resolution, yours superstitiously presupposes what you apparently don't really know about in the course of seeking satisfaction. Your assertion of "cultural IQ" only highlights craven dependency on ignorance, superstition, and fallacy.
Still, what a performance: That everybody else should do the work for you, so that you can devote your labor to fallacy and satisfaction, is itself a ridiculous proposition, yet here we are, with you describing what is "essentially Christian doctrine" (
#48↑) but relying on what the Bible tells you (
#50↑), complaining of cultural illiteracy while explicitly citing the "New Testament" (
#52↑) and "cultural IQ" (
#56↑), while offering no scriptural support, and, furthermore, making demands of others in both: "How would you summarize the carrot and stick message of the New Testament", and, "You take issue of my characterization of Christian expectation regarding the afterlife, yet offer nothing relevant to substantiate your beef. Where’s the beef regarding the critique of my statement?" The latter complaint is problematic: Do you not recognize the New Testament?
• It's just that by literalism, you're wrong; and should you then retreat to some convenient interpretation ensconced in apparent ignorance, you will be relying on articles of faith when prescribing your own theology and demanding others answer. Seriously, it's two thousand years later, and Christians still can't comprehend the One Hundred Forty-Four Thousand. (
#54↑)
What was that you were saying about how I "offer nothing relevant"? Perhaps you might have bothered with some substantial argument, instead of, "But I’m not wrong, and we both know that the relevant Bible citations will back my assertion".
• The functional summary of Christian redemption is John 3.16; not every English-language translation specifies the Earth, which is worth noting because we are again reminded the question of what it means to be Saved or Redeemed, or judged worthy, or to have one's name writ in the Book of Life since before time, remains unsettled among believers.
And your article of faith, likewise, is your own. Even still, if the summary of Christian redemption, salvation, or faith in Christ, or however we might identify the question, is to be sussed out from John 3, Sermon on Mount (Mt. 5-6) or Plain (Lk. 6.17-49), and Matthew 25.31-46, we still face significant mystery, as the resolution thereof remains to each beholder, 'twixt self and God, but some things are clear. (#54)
Again, what was that you were saying about offering nothing relevant? Maybe you don't like my argument, but pretending it isn't there is just another fallacy.
And you go on and on, making excuses for not having a clue:
Any argument I make regarding a particular god is done in accordance with its stated characteristics.
‡
... I simply made a statement that essentially reflects Christian expectations of salvation and punishment ....
‡
I simply made a statement that essentially reflects mainstream Christian thought, and you still haven’t shown that I haven’t.
All you're doing is making excuses for not having a proper argument. The one thing you did get right, though, is saying, "As for the nature of God, that all depends on which version is being postulated by those who feel the need to do so." But that also includes you and your "God premise" (
#42↑) postulates comprehension of God's perspective and will. The nature of the God you are criticizing in these posts depends entirely on which version of God you postulate.
And you're not making the "relevant Bible citations"; if the Bible tells you so, the question remains whether you are capable of telling us what it tells you. Furthermore, your sosobra Christendom relies more on your own adherence to superstition, per cultural literacy and "cultural IQ", than Bible in general or New Testament in particular. And your fondness for non-sequitur—(
e.g., #56, "That tends to be the nature of religious belief, that it requires a willingness to remain clueless to maintain such beliefs", "Sounds like you harbor doubts that your personal conduct warrants inclusion")—only reinforces the absence of any substantial argument.
While you mentioned your "Christian wife, friends and relatives", you apparently don't give much thought to their actual beliefs and how those work; your pretense that, "Unless someone is using their religious beliefs to adversely effect my real world ideals, I have no reason to take issue with such beliefs", simply doesn't hold up compared to your caricature sosobra. Pretending you "don’t need Christendom to be anything other than it is" rings falsely when your argument requires its limitation to some cultural idiom you seem rather quite unable to explain.
Moreover, self-righteous pretenses like yours, "Unless someone is using their religious beliefs to adversely effect my real world ideals, I have no reason to take issue with such beliefs", are what they are, but also entirely self-centered. If your articles of faith are just another clamoring noise in a cacophony of superstitious hollering, you're not actually helping anything or anyone other than your own satisfaction.
And that last, in turn, is what it is. At least you're honest about it being about you. Some people try to make it about the harm religion causes in the world, which is a useful sentiment, but often false insofar as their own self-righteous pretenses are just as religious as the religion they criticize, and only reinforce ignorant faith by further augmenting its self-measured empowerment. Which, in turn, leaves those advocates against religion and theism looking like part of the problem for pursuing personal satisfaction instead of any pretense of addressing religious harm. You, in turn, straight up declare the self-centered aspect of your advocacy. Indeed, it's important to know.
That said, religious zealotry is still religious zealotry.
____________________
Notes:
Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. 2 May 2019. http://bit.ly/2rJddky