The Christianity Thread

So what does "separation" from God mean? And why should I care about being "separated"? Are Christians no longer "separated" from God?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Well, as I understand it, God is the one source of everything that is good. Everything. You drink a glass of beer, and you like it — well, ultimately, that pleasure that you feel comes from God. And yes, before you or anybody else asks, this holds just as much for sexual pleasures as for anything else.*

^{Yeah, this means that Christianity is, at its heart, deeply hedonistic. The only reason for its more ascetic aspects is that attempting to take possession of God's gifts in incorrect ways is one of the most common ways in which people are suckered into separation from God (and, therefore, from true pleasure).}

"Separation" from God means a state in which one is not able to receive God's gifts in their fullness. I think that it goes without saying that in this framework, this is a Bad Thing — and in particular, the possibility of absolute, eternal separation from God is a Very, Very, Very, Very Bad Thing.

"Separation" is a graded quality. If you are capable of feeling joy, even in the tiniest amount, then you are not fully "separated".

But on the other hand, nobody is fully "united" to God either, while on Earth.

And as I think I said earlier, I do not think that formal acceptance or refusal of Christianity matters that much, really. The former is correct and the latter is mistaken, I believe; but still, you can be (or think that you are) "atheist" and holy, or you can be (or think that you are) "Christian" and be in serious danger of damnation.*

edited 22nd Nov '11 12:32:07 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

How can "separation" be a graded quality? That would be like saying you're "a little bit pregnant", or "mostly dead". If I chop off my arm, then it's separated from my body. By definition, you either are separated from something or somebody or you aren't, right?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Well, perhaps "separation" is not the best term, but I did not know what else to use.

I see it more or less like this: God is, among other things, some sort of Source of joy and bliss. Such joy and bliss are freely given — it's not a matter of trying not to piss Him off or to suck up to Him — but everyone gets to choose whether to accept these gifts or not.

Ultimately, people end up accepting these gifts in their fullness (a.k.a Heaven) or refusing them in their fullness (a.k.a hell).

Now, if things stand like this, one would have to be dementedly self-destructive not to end in Heaven, right?

Right, but the problem here is the Original Sin — short version, we are so messed up that, out of our own, we are simply not capable of accepting God's gift in its entirely. Enter Christ, enter His sacrifice, and enter the possibility of salvation for everybody. But it's not trivial, because our own broken nature fights against us all the way up.

edited 22nd Nov '11 12:51:22 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.

Think of it like two connected lumps of clay, Lawyerdude. If you stretch them out, the connection gets thinner and thinner and close and closer to snapping, but up until they actually break into two, they're not separated, just more distant.

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic

So are you suggesting that God = happiness and bliss, but that human nature fights against those things? That is in contradiction to everything I've ever known about human nature. You know, as well as I do, that people are driven to seek pleasure and happiness. We like pleasure and avoid pain. People learn restraint in order to avoid giving in to our pleasure-seeking impulses, not to indulge them.

No, it's a single piece until it's pulled apart. And when the strand breaks, then it becomes two separate lumps. And then you mash them back together and they're a single lump again.

edited 22nd Nov '11 1:02:59 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Yes. Yes, I am suggesting precisely this.

Consider for example wrath. It brings untold amounts of suffering and destruction to the world, where forgiveness would bring much better results.

Or consider, I dunno, gluttony, or lust, or greed, or any other of the Capital Sins. These are impulses of human nature that, if pursued to their ultimate consequences, would make any person into a miserable bundle of atrocious suffering.

edited 22nd Nov '11 1:11:39 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

The lumps are getting more distant, even if both lumps are part of a single piece of clay. Are you just deliberately nitpicking now? I think you are. You're being highly disrespectful.

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic

You brought up the clay metaphor. If I can't understand what it means, then you need to be clearer.

Excessively indulging yourself rarely leads to anything good, and it's also true that people who do usually wind up regretting it. But that doesn't diminish the fact that people still seek pleasure. People smoke, drink and eat fatty foods because those things make them feel good in the short run. But you don't need a divine command to show a person that exercising self-restraint benefits them in the long run.

edited 22nd Nov '11 1:22:13 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Or see it in terms of a Wi-Fi connection getting weaker and weaker — yeah, you''ll still get a packet once in a while, but your ping times will get longer and longer and it'll take stupid amounts of time for your to be able to watch a video of a cat getting stuck in a box.

And if the connection fails altogether, no Internet for you. Forever .

edited 22nd Nov '11 1:20:33 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Pretty much. All of the "divine commands" tell things that you should know already. If you discussed the Ten Commandments with Seneca or with Confucius, they would have been in substantial agreement with them — perhaps they would have disagreed with part of the terminology, but not really with the contents.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

So we're in agreement that unrestrained indulgence generally leads to unpleasant consequences. But I still don't see how Jesus has anything to do with that. Christians indulge themselves with food, money, sex, anger and everything else just like nonbelievers do. Does their belief make them exempt from the consequences of those actions? Hardly. Or do they just not feel bad when they do indulge themselves?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

I have no idea where you got that conclusion from. Especially when everyone in the thread is suggesting quite the opposite.

edited 22nd Nov '11 2:07:01 PM by Justice4243

Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.

For what it's worth the whole concept is quite disturbing and offensive to me, and as such I'd really appreciated if it wouldn't be brought up again.

Thanks!

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Um...what concept?

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic

I never said that Christians are intrinsically more moral, or "better", in any sense of the word, than non-Christians. I actually went out of my way to point out that, in my opinion, formal allegiance or non-allegiance to Christianity counts very little, if at all.

What Jesus did was, basically, creating a path for allowing people to enter Heaven. Or, if you prefer, He is the path. Through His sacrifice, humans stand a chance to make it to the Good Ending after their death, despite their own personal failings — and, once again, let me emphasize here that I think that allegiance to what Jesus stands for is much, much more important than anyone's personal opinions over matters of religion.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

This.

edited 22nd Nov '11 2:17:22 PM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Why does it disturb you?

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic

Because it implies that non-believers are incapable of good.

Should be pretty self-evident really.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

By Shub-Niggurath's Hello Kitty adult diapers.

Just in how many ways do I have to say that I do not think that non-Christians are automatically damned, or that they are separated from God?

I tried to explain this in a previous post, if I am not mistaken. I admit that my explanation was confused, and I am not even entirely sure if it is correct, but I sincerely know of no better way to put it.

edited 22nd Nov '11 2:23:45 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

So you've said before. But as yet I still haven't heard a comprehensible answer for exactly how that is supposed to work. (Or even proof that it does, but I'll leave that aside for now.)

What did Jesus sacrifice? And to whom? And for what purpose? And how does that sacrifice accomplish what you say it accomplishes? I'm not saying you have to try to persuade me of the truth of your claim, I'm just trying to figure out the process in a way that makes even the slightest bit of sense to me.

And — In your own words, from post 673, Carciofus:

You yourself said that non-Christians are separated from God, the source of all good. Those are your words.

edited 22nd Nov '11 2:26:03 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

No it doesn't, not at all.

Non-believers are the same as believers, with the same moral spread. I know this even though I believe that God is the source of all good. Basically, just because you don't believe in Him, doesn't mean He doesn't believe in YOU.

Aka, He'll spread the good out for anyone who damn well can to find it, irregardless of their own opinion on Him.

^^Carc: I think they're deliberately misunderstanding and/or twisting words by now. Doesn't mean I'll stop explaining my beliefs.

^You realize a lot of the things you ask are things the greatest christian philosophers have been debating for centuries, right? You can't honestly expect all your questions to be satisfactorily resolved on an online forum. Have you tried researching and reading the works of christian philosophers you can relate to?

edited 22nd Nov '11 2:26:45 PM by Katrika

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic

Then don't talk about "distance" from said deity. Again. It's deeply offensive.

Like it or not, non-believers are truly deeply offended about core things in Christianity and other religions. For the good of civility, shouldn't we be trying to downplay those things and keep them out of the public square?

edited 22nd Nov '11 2:26:57 PM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

...Distance is bad, but not the fault of the person. And it doesn't work in the way you're thinking. Carc's point was that self proclaimed christians can be distant from God, and that non-christians can gain closeness with God through being moral, good people. I don't see how that's saying what you think it's saying at all.

But I'm real sorry I'm offending you. Truely, I am. But maybe, just maybe, you're also offending me pretty badly? Without intending to? Both of us, we need to WORK through the mutual offensiveness to find the understanding and middle ground, and that's what I'm trying to do.

edited 22nd Nov '11 2:30:10 PM by Katrika

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic