I agree with your core concept only in so far as it relates the spiritual. Yes, Christ came to reverse spiritual entropy and restore order. But, the result of sin on the physical universe was an irreversible curse of disorder and chaos.
The only way to escape entropy is the utter destruction of this world and the establishment of a new one. That is the promise for believer in Jesus, to reign with him in the new world. In that sense, we most certainly are freed from ultimate spiritual entropy.
However, we still live in a cursed world run by consequences of evil actions. Therefore, our situational physical entropy is still our curse to bear. Christ saves our spiritual, and promises to save the physical in the end, but until then the curse is real.
I heard some Catholic tendencies in your post. Are you Catholic?
Nope, not catholic... mormon.
I see much of what happens in the physical world as metaphorical or a "type" of the spiritual... and I understand the spiritual with greater depth by looking for real world equivalents. So the sacrament is symbolic of what occurs spiritually and that's the most important part.
Just because you and I do discourse occasionally. My wife is a former mormon (LDS). Her two elderly parents both in their late 80s are mormons and live with us. Every sunday the elders or other members will come see them. They have trouble making it to the church. I am an atheist/deist. I NEVER challenge their beliefs even though I view quite a few things wrong with the mormon faith. If people invite me to discuss, I will do so, but I truly believe that we all have a path and it is wrong of me to try to force you off the one you are on and onto mine. My path could totally be the wrong one for you and you very well could be right where you need to be. So even though I DO debate with you, I completely respect your right to your faith. I would never have debated science and religion with you, but you opened the door. By now you might think you invited a vampire into your house. :)
Let me ask you this. I come across you sitting on a train track quite comfortable and happy. I know that a train is coming and share that information with you. You tell me that is my opinion and state plainly that you don't believe me.
Where does my obligation to try to convince you end? After one try? After seven?
The problem we have is that this is not about choosing alternative paths to alternative destinations. This is life and death. The people sharing this with you believe that with all their heart.
So when you ask them to respect your right to be wrong they are caught is a very severe conflict: Which is the greater evil? To ignore your right to be wrong or to let you die because of it?
Oh I do understand this. Yet this true of any cult as well. Yet at what population of followers does a cult cease to be considered a cult and become a religion? Even Christianity was viewed as a cult at one time, same with many of the different denominations.
Now let's go with a non-Christian cult. They all instill their followers with imperatives. Things they truly believe must be done. That does not mean they are correct, and it has nothing to with science proving/disproving something which is the only thing I am addressing. I am NOT telling you that your religion is wrong, or why you should or should not speak about it. I'm only stating that science as a tool cannot prove or disprove it simply to it not being possible to get beyond the hypothesis stage in the scientific method. That's it.
Let me address what you spoke of from a Christian point of view. (Yes I was raised Christian and have many wonderful debates with Christian priests, ministers, pastors, who were friends).
Free Will.
God gave man free will supposedly. This is actually a pretty common belief outside of Christianity as well.
So why would a man be so arrogant as to tell a person to give up that free will or be damned? If you don't agree with me you are damned, you'll go to hell, etc.
Saving me
Now let's take another perspective. It isn't always the case, but in many denominations the concept comes up of "What about people that our missionaries never get to reach, to teach about Jesus? When they die are they damned?" To which I usually receive an answer that when they die they will be asked by God (or Jesus) himself.
So that leads to the question of WHY a mere man would think he should be damning people? If you as a man ask the question of another man, and they do not embrace the faith they are damned. Yet had you left them alone and they were not challenged with that question it would be God himself who asked them.
Who do you think I am more likely to believe you, or God?
So does that not kind of indicate that men are damning other men by forcing this choice upon them?
Let me spin that to a positive now. Perhaps men are living a very vile and evil life, and you believe they are likely to go to hell instead of heaven, so if they are not course corrected they may not even get asked by God.
I know quite a lot about the origin of the concept of Heaven and Hell. The concept of Heaven did exist in the Judaism as far as I can find. Yet Hell did not. In fact it was not added to Judaism until after those of this faith encountered people of the Zoroastrian faith (which was quite powerful at the time). Up until this point there was a reference to The Satan but that was simply a helper to God. The Zoroastrians had a dualistic system with a good being and an evil one in conflict, and heave and hell. It was after this that Judaism began to incorporate Heaven and Hell, and the idea of an evil being opposed to God. You see this changing of the faith to incorporate beliefs from religion continuing in history, even after Christ. December 25, is known to not be the true day that Christ would have been born. It was a very prominant pagan holiday. It was changed as such. The now popular appearance of Satan... that comes from Hades, and Pan (Greco Roman religions). In many cases they didn't fight "pagans" by forcing them to christianity, they changed Christianity to be more compelling to the pagans to switch.
Pointing to a lot of errors made by humans and even so-called "Christians" throughout history says nothing about the veracity of Biblical Christianity. It is a standard none of us can meet.
To be sure, we are dealing with a needle of truth in a haystack of lies - one constructed by satan, "the father of lies" as Jesus put it.
We know more about satan and Hell from what Jesus taught than any other source. That's another great reason to take it seriously.
At to your point about free will. God is recruiting people to serve in His government and become members of His family. He needs people who will be loyal and faithful and trustworthy with that kind of power. So he sets up the situation we find ourselves in. Plenty of free will opportunity to walk away and join satan's side. Since God has made it clear what joining satan means, whose fault is it if that's the choice you want to make?
Again, choose your side. Hell is not a threat, it is the default consequence of not choosing to accept a position in God's kingdom.
Appeals to authority are meaningless to me.
If I do good in my life and help people and will not bow and worship and that dooms me, so be it. I would never worship anyone so petty.
EDIT: Clarify. Even if there is a God, I will NOT worship them. I consider it petty and human like. My acts and my works should be how I am judged. If someone judges me in other ways, their problem, not mine. I do not believe I need to WORSHIP anything. Even if something created the universe, constructed me with their own hands, I need not worship them. If I made an army of robots it'd be kind of silly to make them worship me. Worship is a petty human concept. Which is another reason I don't buy into so much of it. It requires accepting APPEALS TO AUTHORITY. I will not.
That's fine. Your loss.
I truly respect your position as well. Having faith is illogical. But, we all have faith in something.
The difference is, my faith compels me to warn others that their faith is destroying them. There cannot be more than one path to God. If there were, Jesus was useless and unnecessary.
There are many denominations of Christianity based on slight differences that are what Paul calls "disputable matters". We are all free to choose what makes sense to us. But that is not to say that you can stray arbitrarily far from the truth.
The only thing that matters is that we admit we can't meet God's standards and that He had to reach down and do it for us by suffering the consequences of our shortcomings for us.
That's it. All other religions (those made up by humans) continue to insist that there are things we can do to earn our own salvation. These are presumptive, arrogant and by their very nature offensive to God.
So, don't sweat the small stuff that divide us. Focus on the Only Thing that matters.
I see. I didn't realize Mormons held to a more literal interpretation of the sacraments (Christ internalized). Interesting.
The above post is probably the least of our disagreements. So, I'll leave it there. Interesting discussion!
They don't... this is my own personal metaphor that I consider as I ponder on the significance of the sacrament.