The hell of Mormon afterlife

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: The hell of Mormon afterlife

Post by _Res Ipsa »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote: ...on what principled basis can you rely on any of [the Old Testament] to tell you about the nature of God? Isn’t that part of what makes a book become scripture — that it tells us how this entity called God relates to us?


I think that's where the New Testament comes into the picture. Jesus shows us that the gospel is ultimately all about God's love. Jesus' works were all about love and forgiveness. Now, if Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, why would He have made such a radical change from 'monster God' to loving God? I don't think He did. He was the loving God all along.

Of course then you have to wade through the Jehovah/Christ/God of the Old Testament, granted. But, if Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, then I think that adds some evidence that the Old Testament may have things sort of screwed up here and there.

Maybe we ought to judge the God of the Old Testament by juxtaposing Him to Jesus?

Regards,
MG


If the Old Testament got something as fundamental as the nature of God 180 degrees wrong, why would anyone with a lick of sense trust anything the book has to say about God at all? Why should I extend to the book a presumption of truth in any respect? If I read a book on cosmology that started out by claiming that the earth was the center of the solar system, I wouldn’t trust anything in it that I couldn’t independently verify.

On the other hand, did Jesus claim to be the Old Testament God? Perhaps it was the authors who wrote that stuff in the New Testament were the ones that got the nature of God wrong. I mean, if we’re going to allow the editing of these books to fit whatever it is we want God to look like, then anything goes, right?
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: The hell of Mormon afterlife

Post by _Res Ipsa »

mentalgymnast wrote:
1. The Old Testament cannot be completely trusted for its veracity in every instance.


The Old Testament cannot be completely trusted for its veracity in any instance. Your only criteria for “trustworthiness” is stuff in the book that you personally like.

2. The 'monster god' of the Old Testament is unfounded even if you take the core elements of the genocide stories and place them at the feet of Old Testament prophets and Israelite battle forces/leaders.


This is weaselly gibberish. The Old Testament repeatedly portrays its God as a narcissistic prick. He curses all of mankind because the first woman ate from the wrong tree. He cursed all of Cain’s descendants for Cain’s actions. He drowned the entire population of earth, including innocent children, except for a handful. He subjected Job to hell on earth to settle a bet with Satan. And then when Job asked him why, he replied who the “F” are you to be questioning me? He demanded blood sacrifice of innocent creatures. He obliterated two cities, again including innocent children. He commanded Abraham to kill his own child. He turned a woman into a pillar of salt for looking back at her home. He ordered the genocide of the Cananites. The ordered the slaughter of all the Midianites except the young girls. He hardened the heart of Pharoah so that he’d have an excuse to torture and kill Egyptians. And that’s just off the top of my head without using the Google. No “core elements” or foot placement needed.

3. It's important to remember that the Old Testament 'monster god' portrayal seems to be a necessary/integral part of the world view of Dawkins and his disciples. That will color their interpretations/views.


And, of course, the last refuge of apologist scoundrels — the ad hominem fallacy. Dawkins has “F” all to do with how the Old Testament describes its God. The monstrous nature of the Old Testament God is glaringly apparent in the actual words of the book. Nobody needs to be a disciple of anyone to see it. I’ve read several of Dawkins’ books on biology and evolution, and found them to be quite good. I never read The God Delusion because I can make up my own mind about religion. And Dawkins is kind of a prick himself. If he’s a leader, he’s not my leader.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: The hell of Mormon afterlife

Post by _Res Ipsa »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Morley wrote:By this argument, we should also judge the God of the New Testament by his earlier antics as the Old Testament's Jehovah.


I don't think that works. Jesus of the New Testament had many witnesses that portray Him as something other than what you are judging Him as being by inference.

I'm surprised that you're even making that argument. It falls flat on its face at first blush. To even make this argument I have to think that you are heavily invested in the argument that the God of the Old Testament was a 'monster god'.

Throughout this thread there has been very little wiggle room in allowing for the possibility that the God of the Old Testament wasn't a 'monster god'.

I find that interesting.

Regards,
MG


Of course you’re surprised. You don’t understand how bad your own reasoning is until Morley shows you how fallacious it is. Even assuming that the two are the same, which is a huge stretch, it is just as valid to assess Jesus through the lens of the Old Testament as it is to assess the God of the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus. You’re the guy who created a God with MPD — not Morley.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: The hell of Mormon afterlife

Post by _Shulem »

Apostate Mormon wrote:For me, the reason I give the Old Testament some credit rather than discarding it completely is the dependance in which the New Testament has on Old Testament prophecy, etc.


New Article of Faith:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly and we give the Old Testament some credit rather than discarding it completely based on the dependance in which the New Testament has on Old Testament prophecy"

:lol:
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: The hell of Mormon afterlife

Post by _Res Ipsa »

Shulem wrote:
Apostate Mormon wrote:For me, the reason I give the Old Testament some credit rather than discarding it completely is the dependance in which the New Testament has on Old Testament prophecy, etc.


New Article of Faith:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly and we give the Old Testament some credit rather than discarding it completely based on the dependance in which the New Testament has on Old Testament prophecy"

:lol:


Well said.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: The hell of Mormon afterlife

Post by _mentalgymnast »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Morley wrote:By this argument, we should also judge the God of the New Testament by his earlier antics as the Old Testament's Jehovah.


I don't think that works. Jesus of the New Testament had many witnesses that portray Him as something other than what you are judging Him as being by inference.


honorentheos wrote:Hi MG,

Out of curiosity who among these many witnesses would you say is the strongest for your claim?


I'm looking at the New Testament as a whole. Do you see the New Testament portraying Jesus as being of like mind/character as Jehovah in the Old Testament?

Regards,
MG
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: The hell of Mormon afterlife

Post by _Shulem »

mentalgymnast wrote:I'm looking at the New Testament as a whole. Do you see the New Testament portraying Jesus as being of like mind/character as Jehovah in the Old Testament?


The Book of Revelation portrays him waging war with those on earth who oppose him. Jesus rides a horse and with a sword slays those who oppose him. Then he commands the birds to eat the people up.

Jesus damned Christ! It's Jehovah, all over again!

I am not a Christian!

:mad:
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: The hell of Mormon afterlife

Post by _honorentheos »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Morley wrote:By this argument, we should also judge the God of the New Testament by his earlier antics as the Old Testament's Jehovah.


I don't think that works. Jesus of the New Testament had many witnesses that portray Him as something other than what you are judging Him as being by inference.


mentalgymnast wrote:
honorentheos wrote:Hi MG,

Out of curiosity who among these many witnesses would you say is the strongest for your claim?


I'm looking at the New Testament as a whole. Do you see the New Testament portraying Jesus as being of like mind/character as Jehovah in the Old Testament?

Regards,
MG

The various authors of the New Testament do not describe Jesus in a consistent manner. For example, Mark described Jesus as becoming angry or annoyed with people while Luke's description is of a very passive, philosophical Jesus. Mark includes the story of Jesus turning over the moneychanger tables at the temple which each author then puts a spin on with their version as well. Mark's Jesus is a bit more hardnosed and a man of the law. The other authors view him quite differently and their writings convey these differences.

Besides this there are variations in the various manuscript versions of the text. Most famously on this subject, variant MSS of Mark 1:41 specifically describe a Jesus that gets angry with a leper over their being annoying to him while your KJV and other variants it was translated from describe Jesus as having pity.

Most importantly, though - we have no reason to accept that any of the authors of the Gospels or the Epistles were actual witnesses to the life of Jesus.

It seems to me you want to present the following argument:

1) God is unchanging. Whatever the written records say, God's character is consistent.
2) The descriptions of Jesus (Jehovah) in the New Testament are of a gentle, loving being of almost infinite patience, charity, and forgiveness.
3) The descriptions of Jesus (Jehovah) in the New Testament are witness accounts from closer to our time, so they are much more reliable than descriptions of Jehovah (Jesus) found in the Old Testament.
4) The descriptions of Jehovah (Jesus) in the Old Testament that include his ordering violence, being spiteful, and otherwise being an unpleasant sort of being are inconsistent with 2).
5) Because of 1) and 3), we must assume that Jesus (Jehovah) as described in the New Testament is the more reliable description. The reason for 4) is likely people attributing things to God that he didn't actually say or command in their writings to justify their own bad behavior.

Seem about right?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: The hell of Mormon afterlife

Post by _mentalgymnast »

honorentheos wrote:It seems to me you want to present the following argument:

1) God is unchanging. Whatever the written records say, God's character is consistent.
2) The descriptions of Jesus (Jehovah) in the New Testament are of a gentle, loving being of almost infinite patience, charity, and forgiveness.
3) The descriptions of Jesus (Jehovah) in the New Testament are witness accounts from closer to our time, so they are much more reliable than descriptions of Jehovah (Jesus) found in the Old Testament.
4) The descriptions of Jehovah (Jesus) in the Old Testament that include his ordering violence, being spiteful, and otherwise being an unpleasant sort of being are inconsistent with 2).
5) Because of 1) and 3), we must assume that Jesus (Jehovah) as described in the New Testament is the more reliable description. The reason for 4) is likely people attributing things to God that he didn't actually say or command in their writings to justify their own bad behavior.

Seem about right?


Pretty close. Also I would dovetail in with #4 that the Old Testament in some respects may contain 'tall tales' used to describe battles and other events. Figurative fish stories, so to speak.

Regards,
MG
_fetchface
_Emeritus
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: The hell of Mormon afterlife

Post by _fetchface »

I think that the actual evolution of Yahweh is pretty interesting. As stated on everyone's top scholarly reference:

Wikipedia wrote:In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a typical ancient Near Eastern "divine warrior", who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies;[9] he later became the main god of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and of Judah,[10] and over time the royal court and Temple in Jerusalem promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses.[11][12] By the end of the Babylonian captivity (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the true god of all the world.


I think that when Yahweh is viewed as an evolving idea, the Old Testament starts to make perfect sense. Yahweh was probably originally the "God of war" in the Canaanite pantheon which was worshipped by the early Israelites. Archeology shows them to be polytheists throughout periods where the Old Testament claims they were monotheistic.

At some point, the worship of Yahweh grew in cultural importance and he became a "jealous god" and demanded the stop of worship to others in the pantheon. Monotheism starts out as Monolatry and gradually grows into Monotheism as the Jews obey the edict not to worship the other Gods of their pantheon.

The Old Testament is compiled at a much later date and the earlier events are interpreted by the redactors through the lens of Monotheism. Once you drop the redactor's filter everything the early Israelites do makes much more sense now. No wonder they kept worshipping their idols. They were polytheists! They didn't "know" that they were doing anything wrong. They have to worship and appease all of the gods that they believe in! Duh!

Try reading the Old Testament through this lens and everything clicks into place. Why does early Jehovah seem so concerned with battles and killing? Because he's the God of War. What else would he be interested in? Why are the Israelites so bent on worshipping idols rather than the obvious One True God? Because it is not at all obvious to them that he is the One True God. The pillar of fire and all of the supernatural stuff was made up, that's why it didn't convince them. It all makes sense now why they might turn right back to the golden calf. They are just trying to make sense of the world.

Further confusing things is that these early stories are made up. They are totally inconsistent with archaelogical evidence. The escape from Egypt and a unified campaign of the conquest of Canaan never happened like that, the Israelites were likely just Canaanites themselves who migrated from the lowlands to the highlands during a period of political instability to find a safer place to live. Then they made up or incorporated stories that they heard into a founding myth of their culture over time.

The Bible contains a lot of made-up stories but mixed in there is the true story of the evolution of the God of Abraham, and the subsueqent birth of the Christian God, slowly evolving from a (probably) Cannanite God of War. Pretty fascinating stuff.

And as a God of War, early Yahweh is going to look pretty morally harsh, and is going to demand strict discipline. He's got enemies to conquer and you don't get that done by coddling your soldiers. But Yahweh has made a special covenant with the Israelites that if they strictly obey him, he'll get them some land to prosper on. Strict obedience is key to battlefield success...
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/
Post Reply