Zamfir wrote: Also , the eternal punishment would be an aspect of reality, as real and fundamental as any aspect of the world as we know it. Saying 'if you break the rules you go to hell' would be as true as physical laws, as logic even. The morality implied by those rules would not be quite what we call morality either, but it would have a real meaning that arguably surpasses our current based-on-nothing views of morality.
Why? As you say, it would be like a physical law. But no one thinks there's a moral component to the statement, "If you jump from a great height, you'll die on impact."
No, but we do mostly fit morality around such things. If someone chooses to jump, we do not consider the dying as an immoral, wrong outcome.
That creates a double-sided limitation to morality. Any morality vaguely based on happiness or utility for people (eithter individuals or larger groups) would have to submit to the divine commandments, in the same way that such a morality cannot prescribe you to cut your arm off for example.
But on the other side,there would be no place left for a morality that claims to go deeper, that claims that people have to sacrifice parts of a pleasant life for higher, more just principles. After all, the creator of the world would know such principles as good as anyone, and he tells you that there are none expect his rules.
Of course, you could still have your own morality anyway, but it becomes sort of pointless, the way discussing angels on a pin is pointless for us in our none-rapture world.