The hell of Mormon afterlife

[_Shulem]

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.

Sorry, but you don't get that luxury because your church mandates that you believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it was translated correctly not as far as the stories therein are true or not.

You're a bad Mormon. You're an apostate -- a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[_Shulem]

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...

And let all the congregation say AMEN.

[_fetchface]

Sorry, but you don't get that luxury because your church mandates that you believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it was translated correctly not as far as the stories therein are true or not.

You're a bad Mormon. You're an apostate -- a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Have I mentioned that I'm proud of MG for making the decision to disregard scriptures that are morally offensive to him? This will create many, many logical problems for his belief system but fewer moral ones. It's a good trade.

Maybe now that he has taken this step, he can see how morally ugly it was for Joseph Smith to demand other men's wives as a loyalty test? Is he ready to take that step?

[_honorentheos]

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

Seems like a reasonable add.

Going back to 1), then. If God is unchanging it seems our best opportunity for figuring out what kind of being He is comes from attempting to do so today using the evidence around us rather than books from the past. He's unchanging, right? So whether Jehovah is described differently from Jesus in books over 2,000 years old that were written around 800 years apart themselves is looking in the wrong place, in my opinion. What He does today is what He was doing 4 thousand years ago as well as 2 thousand years ago. Or 150 years ago for that matter. And we don't need to rely on myths filtered through other people's pens to observe what we can observe in the universe around us.

So, let's do a thought experiment. Suppose we accept God existed but starting yesterday He moved on and we're going on autopilot now. No God in the picture. How are today and every day that follows going to be different?

[_honorentheos]

Have I mentioned that I'm proud of MG for making the decision to disregard scriptures that are morally offensive to him? This will create many, many logical problems for his belief system but fewer moral ones. It's a good trade.

Agreed.

The test, in my opinion, comes when a supposed modern-day prophet says something that they claim comes from God, though. Is MG's moral muscle up to doing the lifting to decide for himself and reject following direction that doesn't meet his own standards for ethical behavior?

[_mentalgymnast]

Suppose we accept God existed but starting yesterday He moved on and we're going on autopilot now. No God in the picture. How are today and every day that follows going to be different?

So I gather that under this scenario God is still permitted to exist.

If so, I don't know that I would expect much difference tomorrow in comparison to what we observed the day before yesterday. I am open to the idea of the Clockwork Universe being the model which would explain what we see behind us and before us. Clockwork universe with a God that hasn't moved on, per se, but multitasks and places greater priority on one thing or another that demands His direct intervention/attention. There are others that can do the day to day grunt work of helping people find their car keys and answer prayers, etc.

How many times...if you want to look at things numerically...has God directly intervened in the day to day workings of this planet and its inhabitants? No idea. But I suspect that you could count those times on your fingers without having to spend eternity counting.

I think there may be a lot of proxies/contract workers serving with the 'God project'. That is, to work and push forward the program of eternal progress. I think that we place way too much on God's shoulders. Is He in and through all things? Sure. Physically? Not so sure. Surrogates? Makes sense to me. Is God all knowing and omnipotent? I'm totally open to that. Does that mean that God (the mainframe) is sitting in the next room? Not necessarily. He may be networked to many servers that are then networked to stations/providers that perform godly duties/tasks.

Is this the way it all works? Obviously I am in guesswork/hypothesising mode. But you said this was a thought experiment.

So there you go. I could go on and on...

Fun stuff.

I sure don't want to put God in a box and tell Him how to run the show. Others, I suspect, differ. People are all over the place between micromanaging and macro managing. I'm more on the macro managing side of the spectrum. I think that there may be those here on this board that are more prone to see God...and even dictate to God...that He must/should micromanage EVERYTHING. That seems to cause a lot of distress and agitation from my observation point.

Back to the Old Testament. Was Jehovah (assuming that He is God the Son) micromanaging or micromanaging this period and these particular people in the historical timeline?

It's another interesting thought experiment, huh? Whatever the answer is/was I'm sure it played a part in what we do and don't read/see in the Old Testament.

Gee whiz, when you and others such as yourself leave God out in the cold as a non-entity it takes all the fun of speculating, doesn't it Honor? Once you've made your mind that God is dead it's a very narrow road to travel, at least in my humble opinion.

Personally, I prefer putting/placing a creator God in the mix.

Thanks for the thought experiment. Beats Netflix.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

Suppose we accept God existed but starting yesterday He moved on and we're going on autopilot now. No God in the picture. How are today and every day that follows going to be different?

So I gather that under this scenario God is still permitted to exist.

If so, I don't know that I would expect much difference tomorrow in comparison to what we observed the day before yesterday. I am open to the idea of the Clockwork Universe being the model which would explain what we see behind us and before us. Clockwork universe with a God that hasn't moved on, per se, but multitasks and places greater priority on one thing or another that demands His direct intervention/attention. There are others that can do the day to day grunt work of helping people find their car keys and answer prayers, etc.

How many times...if you want to look at things numerically...has God directly intervened in the day to day workings of this planet and its inhabitants? No idea. But I suspect that you could count those times on your fingers without having to spend eternity counting.

I was looking at it more like how much would things actually change if we assumed God stopped participating in the world assuming God existed in the first place. Would the automobile industry be changed due to people no longer being able to find their lost keys? Would sport teams start losing who used to win all the time? Would there be more natural disasters, more personal tragedies, fewer people's bodies being nourished and strengthened by their food? Or would tomorrow look essentially like yesterday?

Back to the Old Testament. Was Jehovah (assuming that He is God the Son) micromanaging or micromanaging this period and these particular people in the historical timeline?

It's another interesting thought experiment, huh? Whatever the answer is/was I'm sure it played a part in what we do and don't read/see in the Old Testament.

They certainly seemed to tell the story that way. But whatever one thinks, I have to argue that if we assume God is unchanging then going back to the Old Testament is a mistake.

Gee whiz, when you and others such as yourself leave God out in the cold as a non-entity it takes all the fun of speculating, doesn't it Honor? Once you've made your mind that God is dead it's a very narrow road to travel, at least in my humble opinion.

I think T. S. Eliot captured it well.

Because I do not hope to turn again
Because I do not hope
Because I do not hope to turn
Desiring this man's gift and that man's scope
I no longer strive to strive towards such things
(Why should the aged eagle stretch its wings?)
Why should I mourn
The vanished power of the usual reign?

Because I do not hope to know again
The infirm glory of the positive hour
Because I do not think
Because I know I shall not know
The one veritable transitory power
Because I cannot drink
There, where trees flower, and springs flow, for there is nothing again

Because I know that time is always time
And place is always and only place
And what is actual is actual only for one time
And only for one place
I rejoice that things are as they are and
I renounce the blessed face
And renounce the voice
Because I cannot hope to turn again
Consequently I rejoice, having to construct something
Upon which to rejoice

And pray to God to have mercy upon us
And pray that I may forget
These matters that with myself I too much discuss
Too much explain
Because I do not hope to turn again
Let these words answer
For what is done, not to be done again
May the judgement not be too heavy upon us

Because these wings are no longer wings to fly
But merely vans to beat the air
The air which is now thoroughly small and dry
Smaller and dryer than the will
Teach us to care and not to care
Teach us to sit still.

Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death
Pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

You'd be surprised how much more vibrant and enrapturing a world is that is largely more mystery than answers. I think that is one of the big mistakes the theist makes when looking out at the atheist or those who have come to the conclusion theism is wrong. That is, removing God from the equation doesn't answer all the questions, but rather it makes so many more things miraculous in ways it's difficult if not impossible to insert into the theistic worldview. A world where God is the answer to all questions is no different from the hardcore atheist who believes science has or will discover the answer to all questions. But those are just two polarly opposed views among so many more. Being without a book or authority figure telling one what is true, what is good, what is worthy means one has to discover what it means for something to be enriching and then go in search of those things. Finding and apprehending for oneself what is good, beautiful and true is...well. Better than Netflix I guess. ;)

ETA: A person who looks to the heavens and sees the stars put there by a divine father figure may view it with the same joy a kid feels receiving a present from their earthly father. But to look out at the immensity of...everything, and see it for the completely random beautiful thing it is gives it a different hue completely. To contemplate the occurrences that resulted in all of it, plus oneself not only being part of it but having the capacity to apprehend and appreciate it? You may think that reduces the miracle and contemplative beauty of it all, and what joy one can find in it. All I can say is I've seen it from both sides. It's a bit more unnerving to realize it's not a trip being controlled towards a positive destination under the expert hand of a divine pilot. But it's also somehow startling to realize that all the good and amazing things that have occurred due to human civilization arose out of the capacity for those things within human kind. Think about that for a moment. Everything you imagine to be good, beautiful and discovered as truth came from the innate capacity of human beings like you and I. And we're not done yet. In that sense, I don't think it's correct to call it living without god. It's putting things, including what is divine in each of us, in it's proper order to then be able to pursue it.

[_canpakes]

You'd be surprised how much more vibrant and enrapturing a world is that is largely more mystery than answers.

This.

I suppose a related question for MG would be to explain what makes life - or humanity - less special, or otherwise devoid of purpose, if there is no Biblical God in the mix.

[_Physics Guy]

I think if we simply agreed morality wasn't objective that we would be largely in agreement on the rest.

That may be true. And objectivity is hard even to define. If one is defending objectivity, but also if one is attacking it, it's hard to avoid begging questions and going around in circles.

In practical terms I'm willing to recognize extenuating circumstances in the past, or even in distant places today, but I think some things are hard to extenuate. If someone were hurting me I'd hope that not everyone would just declare that my tormentor's values were different but equally valid and therefore decline to help me. And I figure that principle shouldn't just apply to me.

The boat analogy works fine for me, though I see it operating on an ever changing ocean surface where the weather is unpredictable so what seems important when the sun is out becomes of lesser importance to some other part of the ship that needs worked on in a storm.

That's a nice addition to the analogy and I think it must also be true for science.

[_Physics Guy]

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) Canaanite God of War. Pretty fascinating stuff.

The Biblical title "Lord of hosts" is still repeated today, but I wonder how many people who hear it think that it means God gives dinner parties. It means "Lord of armies".

I try to think of it as indicating God's superhuman ability to look after lots of small details without losing the big picture, because armies were (and probably still are) the extreme example of large, complex groups trying to achieve difficult goals. The original meaning was presumably that the God of the Old Testament remained a war god for quite a while.