Another essay from my collection. Of note, this one was inspired by another poster on one of the sites I used to visit, however I don’t recall the poster’s name or what site this originally came up on. I’d like to give that poster credit for the original concept, so if the subject here rings a bell and you know who posted the idea previously, let me know. The essay is a more fleshed out and greatly elaborated take on the concept. _________________________________
I was brought up as an Episcopalian and went to church nearly every Sunday between the ages of about five through about fifteen. I recall many sermon topics and biblical teachings, but the topic that seemed to come up more frequently than others is the concept of a personal God. Certain priests and laypeople really gravitated to the idea that God was available on a personal level and claimed outright (and reiterated many times) that God wanted to have a personal relationship with everyone. This, of course, was coupled with the idea that God was also an all loving God. So, not only did this God want to hang out as buds, but in theory wanted the best for those folk it hung out with. Kind of like an invisible friend, but with the added bonus of being…well…Almighty. I confess, I really loved the idea of having God as a personal friend who was…well, in theory…really much cooler than any of my human friends. As you might imagine, I started to become a little annoyed and rather disillusioned when said supposed cool friend never actually did anything…well…cool. In fact, after a number of years it became quite clear (and rather disappointing) that this God didn’t do anything personal, at least not with me.
Let me be clear about something: my beef with the lack of personal interaction has nothing to do with my “requiring” this God to “prove” its personal friendship (which is a criticism some have leveled against my point in the past.) This is not a case of, “if you really were my personal friend, you’d give me a pet Godzilla for my birthday.” Rather, this is the recognition that over a good ten years, this supposed personal God never did anything personal or even anything that most people take for granted as normal acts of personal kindness. Over the years, I’ve come up with a thought experiment to illustrate the obvious paradox. The concept is pretty simple to grasp: if the claim that God is (or can be) a personal, loving friend, why are there empty toilet paper rolls?
Think about that for a minute or two. I mean, really think about it. Then consider this thought experiment.
Let’s say you are at home and you feel the urge to go to the bathroom. You waltz on in and sit down to do your business. You look over and discover (oh no!) the toilet paper roll is empty! Damn!
Now let’s say you’re not home alone. Maybe your spouse is home, or your brother or sister, or maybe one of your kids or one of your parents, or maybe a friend is visiting. It doesn’t matter who else is in the house really. The critical element is that someone who, at least on some level, cares about you and with whom you have a personal relationship is in the house.
So you call out to this person, “honey? The toilet paper roll is empty. Can you bring me a new roll?” Now, what are the odds this person, who supposedly loves you and with whom you have a definite personal relationship, is going to bring you a new roll of toilet paper? I submit that if you answered anything other than 1 (note: odds are a ratio of the number of desired or likely outcomes against the number of undesirable or unlikely outcomes. If there is no likelihood of any undesirable outcomes, then the ratio is 1. 1 is equivalent to 100%), you might want to start reevaluating your relationships.
The point is that the vast majority of people, if they are honest, all admit that pretty much any personal relationship loved one would bring them a roll of toilet paper. Even the antagonistic relationship siblings I’ve asked have universally all agreed that they’d eventually relent (after a certain amount of some kind of grief and teasing) and bring their sibling a roll.
Now, let’s take the same basic scenario, but this time none of your immediate family or a visiting personal human friend are at home. What are the odds of a roll of toilet paper appearing if you ask God to get you one?
I’m not being flippant here (well…not entirely). The fact is, this just doesn’t seem to happen. And the thing is, the “personal” in personal God has to mean “interactive” with a particular person. That’s the definition of personal. So, if this God can’t or won’t do some interactive something as simple as bringing someone a roll of toilet paper, how can it be considered “personal” in any sense of the term?
Of note, one of the most common responses I get when I offer this apparent paradox to folks – usually theistic folk – to consider is that, well…providing someone a roll of toilet paper would be incredibly trivial for a God. My immediate rebuttal is always, “but what isn’t trivial to a God?” I’ve never gotten an answer. Seriously. The moment I’ve noted that if we’re talking about an entity that supposedly is the creator of the universe and ask what act could be defined as “not trivial”, the people arguing for actions too trivial for such a God tend to realize there’s no honest argument. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that some folk haven’t tried to double down with the old, “God decides what is His prerogative” usually coupled with some variation of “and the Lord works in mysterious ways.” I just roll my eyes. Such responses strike me as more supporting of my point that this supposed God isn’t very personal.
Keep in mind too, if you really think about it, if an act like bringing someone toilet paper is too trivial for a God to bother with, in what sense would said God ever interact with anyone? I’ll be getting into more detail on the issues of omni-gods (that is, a God with omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and so forth), but the point is that if there is some way to actually measure certain actions as trivial for some God, why wouldn’t said God just do them? I mean, what’s the loss? Unless said omnigod has limitations or some form of action parameters, then it would seem that trivial actions would actually be something a God would do with abandon since they would definitely demonstrate the personal element to its faithful and would have no actual impact on the God’s ability to do other rather more important things simultaneously (whatever those might be.)
Kind of makes me wonder why coffee isn’t just ready for drinking every morning…
What about other divine beings? The Bible mentions many other beings besides God and humans. These beings were later ranked by Dionysius the Areopagite.
Which is your right.
Of course it is not just you who should be having problems with the Biblical account of creation and how to interpret it. In Genesis we read, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”. This plural form has always proved difficult for scholars to make sense of.
Good.
I think we both agree that the white-bearded old man God is a non-starter.
Goethe:
But perhaps with Goethe we can see, God in Nature, and Nature in God.
Well we can all begin to imagine immense suffering. But how are we to describe ultimate suffering?
And it’s not my place to sell it to you. All we can be is true to ourselves.
Robin:
Hi, Robin. You might be thinking of this:
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
steve, to Robin:
I’d be happy to wipe my own ass if God would just bring me the goddamned toilet paper.
Who said anything about “every whim”? We’re just talking about the common decency of helping out a fellow being in need.
Imagine a supposed friend saying to you “Get your own damned roll of toilet paper. I’m not here to serve your every whim.” That’s the statement of an ass, not a friend.
The God you worship is an ass, steve. (Or he would be if he actually existed.) He doesn’t deserve praise or prayers. Rather, he needs remedial instruction in compassion from the many human beings who are his ethical superiors.
And no, this argument doesn’t rest on the single example of unheeded pleas for toilet paper. As Robin points out in the OP, your God refuses to perform countless similar acts of kindness, including ones that are much more urgent.
The God you believe in could help us with less effort than you or I would expend in lifting a finger. For a God of such power to say “It’s beneath me to show you the small kindness of bringing you a roll of toilet paper” is the mark of pure assholishness.
If he actually existed, he wouldn’t be worthy of worship. Either way, you’re better off redirecting your worshipful energies in a more constructive direction.
How are you doing, keith’s? Long time… whatever…
BTW: You wouldn’t happen to know what those “more constructive directions” would be, would you …?
J-Mac,
Ah yes, that great conundrum: how to redirect one’s worshipful energies in a more constructive direction.
Well, the pastor at my church put it thus, when explaining why services were suspended through the summer months: “We believe that the best way to worship our creator is to go out, commune with nature and enjoy the glory that is creation.”
You may or may not notice the absence of the need for a personal god in that viewpoint.
J-Mac:
Hi, J-Mac.
Toward me, of course. In the form of offerings. Monetary, not burnt.
Hey Keiths! Long time!
Yes…that’s very much what I was thinking of. H/T and thanks for starting the thought. 🙂
This right here is my point exactly. That and claiming that such a “god” meets some definition (any definition actually) of “personal” just doesn’t work for me.
If there is no Creator we all vanish, right?
keiths,
Have you taken the “vaccine” yet?
It is highly mandated by the former seasona influenza committee, RNA-JOKE and CDC. Have you compiled?
Those with some brains left must realize this panic-demic situation is the ultimate expose and the execution of the religion called scientism…
If the so-called ” vaccines” can do 10% of damage I think they can do, we are screwed…
For those who care:
1. Israeli government agreed to a 10 year exclusive “vaccine” contract with Pfizer with a condition they will not release the side effects data for 10 years…
Why?
Did’t you think about your past how governments used their propaganda to exterminate you?
I sure hope I’m wrong about this what looks like a set up for pure evil…
Robin:
Believers should get into the habit of asking themselves, when X happens, whether they would do X to their spouse, their child, their relative, or their friend.
Would I leave a friend stranded on the toilet when I could bring them a roll of toilet paper? No, of course not. You don’t treat friends that way. Why should God get off the hook for such behavior?
Suppose I saw a 90-year-old neighbor struggling to shovel snow off her sidewalk after a heavy snowstorm. Would I just shrug and say “Oh, well. Too bad for her”? No. I’d get out there and do it for her. God could remove that snow with far less effort than I. Why doesn’t he? And why do believers excuse this execrable conduct?
It doesn’t even have to involve personal relationships. Would I allow a random stranger to die in an accident if I could prevent it? Worse yet, would I actually choose to cause their death? No.
God continually fails to prevent such tragedies. He caused, or at the very least allowed, the death of 200,000+ people in the 2004 tsunami. And these weren’t random strangers. They were God’s children, according to Christian doctrine. Would you cause your beloved child to die a horrible death or allow it to happen if you could prevent it? And if, unlike God, you couldn’t prevent it, wouldn’t you at least try to warn your child of the impending danger? God couldn’t even be bothered to do that. Why do believers make excuses for their God when they would condemn any person who acted this way?
Would I have allowed the Russians to invade Ukraine, killing and torturing Ukrainian civilians, if I could have prevented it? No. But God did. I don’t know a single Ukrainian, but God supposedly considers all of them to be his children whom he personally loves. Why couldn’t God be bothered to do something for his Ukrainian children that I (and most of us) would gladly do for perfect strangers?
Every day there are millions of things, great and small, that God refuses to do for his “children”, but that we wouldn’t dream of refusing to do for our own kids. Why is God such a lousy parent?
For those who believe in a personal God: Why is your supposedly personal God so bad at personal relationships?
Something I read in a Walker Percy novel today:
J-Mac:
Um, no.
CharlieM:
Why doesn’t God simply endow us with the requisite wisdom? What does suffering teach us that God couldn’t imprint upon us at the time of our creation?
A human parent can argue that some things can’t be taught except through experience, but that doesn’t apply to a creator with the ability to “teach” anything by simply creating us already knowing it.
Suppose your kids took the toilet paper in order to “decorate” someone’s trees for Halloween. They’ve never done so before. Are you then to be blamed for your lack of foresight?
Also, I gather from past comments that you are happily married. Or at least married :-). Suppose your wife were stranded on the toilet and asked you to help. Would you say “No. It’s your lack of foresight that got you into this mess. Accept responsibility and learn from your mistakes.”?
Note that my point about learning through suffering applies not only to an omnipotent God but also to any God who isn’t too weak to instill knowledge at the moment of a person’s creation.
KN, to Alan:
Yes, just like many atheists. That’s why the “if God doesn’t exist we might as well rape and pillage” argument is so asinine — and disturbing. Asinine because conscience doesn’t disappear the moment someone stops believing in God, and disturbing because the theists making this argument are saying something very scary about their own morality.
I agree with all that — empathy and conscience don’t depend on “believing in God”, at least not in the sense that matters when we’re putting on our epistemological hats.
I’m not even sure that people who do say that only theists have good reasons to act morally, really believe that.
They might believe that they believe that, but there’s a difference between really believing something, and believing that you believe something. Or, for all I know, someone might believe that only theists have good reasons to act morally, lose their faith, and then discover that they still have other good reasons for acting morally.
I suspect that it’s only the very few high-functioning sociopaths who really are motivated to act morally only because they believe that they are being watched at all moments and will be judged for their actions upon their deaths.
But, insofar as we have a society that tends to push us towards becoming high-functioning sociopaths and rewards us for turning out that way — as CEOS, private equity bankers, hedge fund managers, and the like — the thinnest possible veneer of morality is better than none at all.
If anyone was wondering, I am still here. I’ve just been preoccupied with other things, all very enjoyable. I might not be as active here as I have been, but to continue where I left off:
I think Flint made a point that is worth thinking about when he said the following in reply to Fair Witness, “… thanks for filling in a lot of the details. Those are where the devil lives.”
Up to this point, the devil who St. Paul called “the god of this world”, has been ignored so far in this discussion about toilet paper.
Humans are not the first beings that God supposedly granted the power to make choices. Lucifer is said to have been a fallen angel through his own choosing. And the temptation of Jesus recounted in the Gospels involves the devil promising Him what was his to give, which consists of, “all the kingdoms of the world and their glory”. If we are to value our freedom, we have to understand that, in Christianity, the devil was also granted his freedom.
So, the analogy of a person getting toilet paper and giving it to the person in need of it, if it is to be accurate, should involve three people, not two. There will be another person in the house who owns its contents, and it is up to them who gets any of it. If another person were to take a roll of toilet paper without permission that would be stealing.
The discussion is about the relationship between God, the devil, and humanity and so the analogous mundane event must include the person wishing to provide the paper, the person responsible for providing the paper, and the person in need of the paper.
Many posters here are asking God to go back on His word.
I don’t know what theological teachings you’re following (or inventing), but just to point out that it’s not really clear if angels have free will in the same sense that humans do. Augustine argued that the rebellious angels choose to rebel in the very moment of their creation, but that they lack the ability to change their minds — their wills are permanently set to “rebel mode”. Unlike humans, nothing happened to them that caused them to rebel — they chose rebellion in the exact instant of their creation, and are punished for this for all eternity.
Good. I am genuinely glad to hear that.
The person who created the entire universe in six days is stumped by providing a roll of toilet paper because He is somehow …. incapable of asking for permission? Really?
Omnipotence, you are doing it wrong.
From Christianity.com
Not that this matters, as the tempter is said to have been in a position to offer Jesus, “all the kingdoms of the world”. How he got there is basically irrelevant.
Thank you.
I don’t believe in six literal days of creation, I don’t believe God is omnipotent.
Is He capable of asking: “Do you mind if I take this role of toilet paper to Charlie please?”
Even if this scenario was realistic, why would He ask such a question? The request would either be refused, or it would be granted with conditions attached.
Has anybody thought about the processes whereby toilet paper becomes available for the person in need of it. God would need to be constantly shifting a vast amount of toilet paper, worldwide. Now I’m sure God would be looking at the bigger picture.
In the production and distribution of toilet paper, what is the cost to the planet in use of resources, chemical pollution, production of greenhouse gases? Shouldn’t God think about not only us, but also our children’s children’s children.
How many of us put our own personal comforts before the health of the planet? I know I certainly do this much of the time. Why should we expect God to be a party to our wasteful habits? And this is what you are asking of Him.
Meanwhile I sit here on my throne, lip quivering, wondering why God is being so cruel to me. Oh well! I’ll just have to make like a Muslim of old and use my left hand. My God, my God, why do you make me have to do such horrible things?!
LOL, I didn’t realize that such small acts of personal attention would inevitably result in the global destruction of the earth ecosystem.
Let’s try a bit more constructive direction: Do you view your relationship with God as personal (if you don’t mind me asking. I realize this is a rather personal question)? If so, what convinced you that this is actually the case?
I fully understand if you do not wish to answer that question on an online forum so do not feel obliged. It’s just that I expected some personal anecdotes in this thread and I am curious.
God doesn’t seem to give a damn about our children’s children’s children. He would personally wipe our asses to save on toilet paper if he did.
Have you ever thought about the number of toilet rolls are used worldwide?
We use 22 billion kilometers of toilet paper globally a year. That’s almost 50,000 times the distance around planet Earth
The layer of greenhouse gases trapped in the atmosphere is built up from multiple individual releases. Forests and trees come to mind. 🙂
I find it very constructive to actually think carefully about the implications of our dealings with everyday events and relatively simple objects. The roll of toilet paper sitting in my bathroom didn’t just magically materialize. It has its own detailed history just like every other roll of toilet paper in existence.
I believe in a spiritual world populated by individuals reaching up to the Godhead. I believe we can have a personal relationship with Christ but through our actions and distractions opportunities pass us by.
That’s as much as I’m going to say on personal relationships at the moment.
We have all gone through a stage where we have had our asses wiped for us. We were totally dependent on someone else for our survival.
Would you have wished that you had remained at that stage, or do you prefer having more control over your own life? Would you think that you had led a fulfilled life lying flat on your back with God tending to your every need?
You seem incapable of grasping the fact that you’re talking to atheists. We outgrew the childish need for a control freak in the sky many moons ago, often not long after our parents stopped wiping our asses.
I’m willing to bet most believers will affirm they would have failed as students, as parents, at their jobs, etc. if it wasn’t for God’s help and/or will. You’re the ones who need to have your asses wiped for you, apparently.
According to the bible, Jesus/God washed his disciple’s feet at one point, so it’s not like he can’t be a loving and caring guy when he wants to, right? Now he’s nowhere to be seen. He wouldn’t need to wipe everyone’s asses to prove that he gives a shit, helping someone in dire need, sometime, somewhere, somehow, would be a start, you know. The fact that many lowly mortals can do much more than him in that regard would seem to indicate that he doesn’t give a shit, indeed. It’s either that or.. well, that there’s no such thing as a god to begin with, which is the most reasonable conclusion to draw in light of the available facts.
When you make pathetic excuses for him like those, you’re no really making them for “him”, you’re making them for yourself and your irrational beliefs.
I’ve said this a few times here, I think, but the argument about a God intervening to alleviate suffering is an infinite regression (unless you change at least the “omniscience” requirement). Your God created the Universe for what exactly? Why not just heaven, eternal life and hallelujahs from the get-go?
Yeah, one must be a real heel to deliver a roll of toilet paper to a person stuck without in the lavvy.
I fear you will be perpetually missing the point, but at least you do so in an amusing way.
I am not sure I understand, but thanks for your answer.
I think the majority of us, theists and atheists alike, outgrow a childish idea of God. What many atheists argue against is this childish version that most people have outgrown.
This “control freak in the sky” has been accused of doing nothing. How does standing back and doing nothing suddenly become controlling? He seems to be controlling by purposefully not taking control.
Have you forgotten your statement that this being who, according to you doesn’t exist,
How much more control would you like your supposed control freak to take? Should he have taken control of the invention, manufacture and distribution of toilet paper for our convenience and comfort? That would have saved us the trouble and some trees into the bargain. Maybe he could have made us more like cats, able to lick our own backsides, obviating the need for toilet paper in the first place.
I don’t think anyone should be asking God to help them succeed. Rather we should be taking personal responsibility, and at most asking for the strength to cope with our failures some of which will be of our own doing and some not.
Very young babies quite often get distressed when their mother is nowhere to be seen. Just because they are ignorant of her proximity does not mean they are being neglected.
Do you think that having someone to attend to his toiletry needs made King Henry VIII a better person or added to his well-being?
Even if it were possible for God to do as you ask of him, is it right to ask God to have anything to do with helping add to the profits of companies such as Procter & Gamble?
Let’s say you did believe in God. Would you wish Him to let us be free with the consequences that we take responsibility for our own mistakes, or would you prefer that He step in at every turn doing everything for us? Would you be happy if your parents still had as much control over your life as they once had?
There was a lack of toilet paper for everyone in ancient Palestine at the beginning of the Christian era, so everyone had the same problem. Should God have ensured that toilet paper was available then so that Jesus could hand out sheets to all who needed them? He could have had something written on each sheet, perhaps, “Follow me and I will ensure the cleanliness of your nether regions” 🙂
Not true at all. Most christians believe in the god of the bible, who is depicted as a petty tyrant.
Err, you don’t get it, do you? The god of the bible, the one’s who’s supposed to be all loving and caring (when he’s not being a petty tyrant, I guess), is nowhere to be seen now all of a sudden, but we’re supposed to believe he exists? The blatant contradiction is yours. I’m not saying he’s both a control freak and also that he does nothing at all. How is that so hard to understand?
More of the same crap. What a waste of time.
Ah, here we go with your silly analogies. I’ll try one of my own: god is clearly not like a mom who goes out of sight of her baby for a split second, nor is he like a caring father that finally lets his kids spread their wings, he’s more like the guy who bangs your mum and flees as soon as he realizes that she’s pregnant. He was never there for you and never will, but unlike god, at least you have good reasons to believe your father does indeed exist.
It’s not about what I prefer, and it’s not about what I think a “god” should do. This is a common theme among theists, you guys are incapable of getting it. If god existed, there’s a gazillion things he could do that would convince me of his existence, whether I like those things or not, whether I think that’s something he should do, or not. Get it now? The thing is, if god is supposed to be all loving and all that stuff, the fact that he’s nowhere to be seen simply makes it even more ridiculous to believe. You could have made god the god of terminal brain hemorrhage or something like that, then at least it wouldn’t be so obviously absurd to believe in him.
God is depicted in Scripture in many ways, some of them as a petty tyrant (arguably) and many of them not. The ancient Israelites expressed their understanding of God as best they could, in metaphor and poetry, because they knew nothing of mathematics as a rigorous procedure, let alone science.
Anyway, the famous canard that the Old Testament God is a God of anger and the New Testament God is a God of love is a piece of anti-Semitic propaganda.
I see what you mean. And many of those are Christians, despite the fact that Jesus was a Jew, go figure!
True, the god of the bible seems a bit bipolar and unstable. What’s your take on this, KN? Do you think there’s a conception of God worth believing with what we know by now? And how does science help in that respect?
As in all things, how we begin depends on where we can go.
I think that Spinoza was right when he argued that if we begin with a conception of God as an absolutely or infinitely powerful being, it follows as a matter of logic that
1. God necessarily exists.
2. Nothing exists independently of God.
3. God and Nature are identical
In other words, God becomes nothing more nor less than the fundamental interconnectedness of all things.
Insofar as the dream of science is to behold that interconnectedness, in all facets and aspects, at every scale of spatio-temporal magnitude, then I would say that the goal of science is to know God.
This has nothing to do with the God of scripture or of organized religion, since in all those cases, God is described as a person. Spinoza’s God is not a person — although it is certainly true that each person has a unique relation to the universe.
God then becomes a placeholder for what we are incapable of understanding. (Which doesn’t prevent us from making up stories.)
I find myself unable to distinguish between Spinoza’s god and there being no gods at all. Seems that a non-Spinozan god would be one that introduced true paradoxes into reality – a hypothesis for which we have no evidence.
Kantian Naturalist,
Thanks, and apologies, because it’s not the first time you have explained those things here.
I have sympathy with people who have an issue with the orthodox views of God. I could never bring myself to believe in teachings such as God being both omnipotent and all loving. Why do innocent children have to suffer and die? Surely reality contradicted the assertions of the Christian denominations I was familiar with!? I could see a lot of problems in the teachings of the Church. That is why I widened my search for answers.
Back to the matter of toilet paper. I can think of a few possibilities for you not getting your wish. It could be as you believe that God is non-existent. Or it could be that the divine realm cannot or will not interfere in human affairs.
I can think of a scenario in which I call to my wife to bring me a roll of toilet paper, but she cannot get it to me without my help. She is stuck on the other side of a locked door. Perhaps you have to unlock the door, metaphorically speaking. Asking God to bring you the paper is not enough. He will only grant your request if you ask with enough faith to believe that it will happen. The toilet paper doesn’t appear, but it is through your lack of faith and not because God can’t supply it under the right conditions.
Another possibility is that God has ceded some of his power to a being such as Satan. God gives humans the option of either succumbing to temptation or following the good. In giving in to temptation we allow Satan to have control of the toilet paper, so to speak. We have allowed the tempter to block the path between us and God.
Or one thing I’ve already implied. On balance, in the great scheme of things, supplying a roll of toilet paper is more harmful than beneficial.
Or it could be that there is a law of karma in effect that not even the Divinity has any power over.
Those are a few possibilities to think about. And I think it is good to think about these things.
It’s my belief that evolution is happening throughout reality from the grossest matter to the heights of spirit. From inanimate nature right up to the Godhead.
Through plants, animals, humans, angels, archangels, principalities, powers, virtues, dominions, thrones, cherubim, and seraphim, all are in the process of evolving. The angelic hierarchy is listed in keeping with the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and Dionysius the Areopagite.
And evolution being a complicated affair some beings get left behind in the process, although nothing is static.
If there is any truth to this perspective anyone who thinks of death as oblivion or resting in peace can think again. Death is not the end, it is a new beginning. Of course, that will be too big an “if” for many of those active here to entertain.
Here are my beliefs: The Old Testament is a collection of writings taken from the traditions of the Jews, who it is said were God’s chosen people. What does this mean. It means this group was the most suitable at the time for preparing for the event that occurred at the beginning of the Christian era. They had evolved the ego to a high degree compared to other races. Christ could descend from spiritual heights and experience life and more importantly death in a physical body within that culture. Christ made it possible for humans to take up an individual path in freedom, without any need for commandments such as laid down in the Old Testament. It does not matter whether one is a Jew, a man or a woman, Chinese or African, we can go forward as individuals. Christ did away with the need for religious sects, but humans being humans, we still feel the need to remain in our separate cliques.
If the Divine world wished to make its presence obvious to all, Christ could have been active in Rome rather than in some Roman outpost. Jesus could have written down his teachings for posterity.
But the whole point is that we are left to our own devices and so that it would be in freedom that a person would follow the example of Christ and choose a selfless, moral life as opposed to looking for ways that benefitted themselves, grabbing what they could get.
Awareness of the spiritual realm was cut off from humans so that we would be under no obligation or coercion to take the journey back to it as a free decision.
God does not want to persuade you of His existence, He leaves it up to the individual to make a free decision without any external persuasion. If He was in the business of persuasion then we would be entitled to call him a tempter.
Follow Me and you’ll never want for toilet paper ever again. 🙂
This does not work as far as my hypothetical goes.
In my hypothetical, the person going into a bathroom with no toilet paper is at his or her home. I was rather specific about that. It is very much a specific hypothetical about loving, personal relationships and why claiming, as some religions do, that some god is a personal, loving god is questionable at best.
But even if we were to extend the hypothetical to someone else’s personal residence, I don’t see how your rebuttal works unless you are insisting that the person using the owner’s facilities is somehow trespassing. That just seems odd to me.
Oh for goodness sakes…
My hypothetical includes the caveat that there is toilet paper in stock in the house. I’m not suggesting for a moment that said god would have to “steal” toilet paper from some other source in order to fulfill the request. I mean…really…
But I do have to wonder why an omnipotent god would even have such a quandary anyway. As Corneel notes above, “omnipotence, you’re doing it wrong.”
Honestly, if we’re really going to get wrapped about some ecological or conservationist axle with regard to toilet paper, any loving, personal omni-god worth its salt ought to be able to simply clean any messiness with but a thought. Perhaps It could simply make the process non-messy in that particular instance. The possibilities are, literally, endless for an omni-entity.
In “Been There, Done That”, I note some of the characteristics that I think no “god”…or at least anything I think would meet the what I would be willing to call “god”…could possibly have. Of import, I’m not against the concept of “god” in principle. However, like Spinoza, I don’t think anything I would accept as “god” would be a recognizable, formed entity. I tend to think of It as more like a characteristic of existence.
At the very end of the series Daredevil, Matt Murdock is talking to Sister Maggie about an issue between them. By way of showing his view of the issue, he relates how the priest of the church, Father Lantom, tried to relate an analogy of “God’s Plan” to Matt when Matt first lost his eyesight. Father Lantom explained that God’s Plan was like a beautiful tapestry and that person’s act is like a piece of thread contributing to that tapestry. The curse of being human is that while living, we only get to see the back of tapestry, with all the pulled threads and muddied colors. Now, to fully understand why this analogy works so well, you have to understand that Matt Murdock is Catholic. Given my beliefs and my view of “god”, the tapestry isn’t an analogy of a god’s plan, but rather an analogy of god Itself.
CharlieM,
For the record, Charlie, I have no problem with any of the scenarios you describe above. Any of those of clearly a possibility. In writing the Toilet Paper hypothetical, I’m hoping that others, particularly supposedly “devout Christians” examine their notions of their god as a personal, loving entity and begin to consider other possibilities.
You need to ask yourself, “how relevant is my hypothetical situation to the Christian idea of God?”
Christianity would not be Christianity without the inclusion of the struggle between good and evil, without opposing forces such as the adversary, the tempter, the devil, Satan, Lucifer, the serpent, the dragon and other supposed evil spirits.
Do you think that God would best serve individuals by satisfying every need they have for their own comfort without regard to the wider consequences.
If I was aware that God was catering for my every need, then, through His actions I would have no reason to doubt His existence. My belief would be conditional on outer circumstances. But if God wished us to believe in Him as a free decision, not feeling any compulsion to do so, then His interference in the way described cannot happen.
Sitting on the toilet realizing there is no paper and there is nobody available to bring some to me, I can react by becoming angry and frustrated, but this won’t change the situation. I could equally not allow the situation to rule my emotions. I react with equanimity and figure a way out of my dilemma. It is by overcoming the first reaction and following the second option in everyday situations like these that we advance as human beings.
By catering for our every need, God would deny us this opportunity.
So you are saying a personal relationship with God is impossible, since God cannot do us small favors like bring us some toilet paper without stimying our opportunity to overcome small setbacks and to advance as human beings?
Did I understand that correctly?
Do we imagine that the idea of God should be as and over-arching “mother”? You will never run short of toilet paper when “mother” is around. “Mother is going to keep baby healthy and clean”
If our idea of God is as Universal Spirit, is it he, she or it, how can this be anything personal? Do we worship some vague entity, some unknowable spirit? Christians have a focal point for their worship, and that is Christ. Many will claim a personal relationship with Christ and Christ made it clear that to follow him meant giving up certain things. If he asked followers to give up their possessions, why would he then supply them with the possessions they have been asked to give up? I think Christ would like us to “grow up” and learn to distinguish that which is important from trivialities.
Life leads us into situations which will not be to our liking. We can sit there thinking, “why me?” Or we can see the situation as an opportunity. Obstacles are there to be surmounted and if we have the personal strength to overcome them without seeking help from without at every stage, then we will get a sense of achievement.
It would be good if those believers in an omnipotent God would contribute to this discussion. I have already given my views in that regard.