Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

[unknown soldier]

If there's one issue that keeps apologists busy, it's the issue of unanswered prayer. Skeptics often point out that the hungry children who pray for food often die of starvation. If God exists, then why don't we see better results from prayer? Christian apologist Kyle Butt answers this question on pages 229-244 of A Christian's Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism. He explains that effective prayer must conform to the following:

1. Prayer must be "in the name of Jesus." That is, prayer must be in accord with Jesus' teachings and authority.
2. It is necessary for prayer to be in accord with God's will. God has a way of doing things that no prayer can change.
3. The person praying must believe she will receive what she requests. Otherwise, she won't receive what she requests!
4. The person praying must be a righteous person. So all you sinners, forget it!
5. Prayer won't work if the petitioner prays with selfish desires.
6. Persistence in prayer is important. One or two prayers might not be enough.

I'm eager to read what other members here have to say about these guidelines, but allow me to start out saying that if 1 is true, then anybody who is not a Christian won't benefit from prayer. I wonder if those non-Christians see that their prayers aren't doing any good.

Guideline 2 seems odd. It's like God saying: "I'll do anything you ask as long as I want to do it."

I'd say that 3 can result in a "snowball effect" which is to say that if a doubter's doubt can lead to a prayer not being answered, then the doubter might doubt even more!

Regarding 4, it seems to me that sinners need answered prayer more than the righteous.

Guideline 5 also seems odd because if you're petitioning God for something you want or need, then you are thinking of yourself, and what's wrong with that?

Finally, 6 doesn't explain why God can't just grant the petition with one prayer request, and neither does it tell us how many prayers it takes to succeed. Could it be that the person praying is praying for something that in time she'll get whether she prays or not?

[The Tanager]

Contextually, it is what it says. Adding a context of how prayer actually works (it doesn) is not the context of the Biblical guarantee and assurance. Effectively, you are playing the 'God knows best' card as a small print escape clause for why the Biblical promise is not panning out

No, Im supporting why I think your interpretation of what the guarantee is is incorrect.

Im perfectly fine with Mark and Matthew adding other thoughts to the story that maybe stood by itself in an earlier source, while Luke doesnt choose to make those same connections there. He makes other connections in other stories (or the original writer does, it really doesn't matter who for this point). All ancient writers felt free to rearrange material to fit their agenda. That doesnt mean they just made the stuff up; they could easily be just bringing in different connections for the same events.

In Luke, its just said that the disciples couldnt do it. Why not? Not addressed.

In Mark, the author addresses why they couldnt do it: lack of prayer. What prayer (just like any word) means depends on who is being asked and what their understanding of it is, sometimes in line with the wider culture, sometimes different. Thus, your idea of prayer (or mine) cannot be read into the text simply because the term prayer is used. What is needed is a fuller understanding of what Jesus meant by prayer.

In Matthew, the idea of them having "little-faith" rather than "faith" even the size of a mustard seed is focused on. One with "faith" in the wider context is clearly one who prays. To Jesus, one who prays in "faith" (rather than "little-faith" if such a one prays at all) is one who asks Gods will be done on earth, that their basic needs be met, their sins forgiven, etc. (Matt 6:9-13). Asking that Gods will be done on earth is asking for Gods wisdom on what one ought to do. The guarantee here is that those who ask in "faith" will get what they ask for.

There are no contradictions in this. Different elements focused on in this instance in their accounts, but not contradictions. And they all speak about faith and prayer in other places in ways that dont contradict each other. A source doesnt say, for example, those with "little-faith" can move mountains or prayer is about not that Gods will be done, or that casting out a demon is done through saying some magic words, etc.

The approach of "ask for whatever you want and God guarantees youll get it" is a type of prayer that would come from someone having "little-faith" since they arent praying as Jesus modeled and, here in Matthew, Jesus says that doesnt get them what they wanted.

[The Tanager]

"Since Allah is not a real god, Muslims are just viewing the actions of humans through an Islamic lens.
Hindu's through a Hindu lens and on and on only to arrive at:
The Christian God is real and it is not humans being humans, it is the Christian God working through these people."

This thinking is inconsistant. Please see the noted conclusion arrive at. Not the one you invented about saying one view is correct and the other incorrect.
It's the mechanism on how a conclusion is arrived at that is inconsistant, not the claim.

We both acknowledged that we do not know if humans are just doing what humans would do and some see that through the lens of their favorite god concept. Therefore there is no need to challenge a god claim in this instance. The mechanism used to justify the claim has been analyzed and is faulty.

I'm trying my best to understand your point, not invent anything. Do you mean the above in premise-conclusion type of form? That because one thinks Islam and Hinduisms are false, that, therefore, Christianity is true? I agree that is certainly faulty. If I'm still missing it please map out "this thinking" in a new way that might help me grasp it.

My approach is this: If Christianity is true, then the Christian God is working through people who pray to Him in "faith" [and those of different "faiths" won't have God working through them in that same way]. I don't see that as inconsistent. I think this is most probably true, but I agree it isn't known (if by that you mean certain). Nor do I find that lack of certainty a big deal at all since basically only things like definitions and pure mathematics can reach that kind of certainty.

[TRANSPONDER]

Contextually, it is what it says. Adding a context of how prayer actually works (it doesn) is not the context of the Biblical guarantee and assurance. Effectively, you are playing the 'God knows best' card as a small print escape clause for why the Biblical promise is not panning out

No, Im supporting why I think your interpretation of what the guarantee is is incorrect.

Im perfectly fine with Mark and Matthew adding other thoughts to the story that maybe stood by itself in an earlier source, while Luke doesnt choose to make those same connections there. He makes other connections in other stories (or the original writer does, it really doesn't matter who for this point). All ancient writers felt free to rearrange material to fit their agenda. That doesnt mean they just made the stuff up; they could easily be just bringing in different connections for the same events.

In Luke, its just said that the disciples couldnt do it. Why not? Not addressed.

In Mark, the author addresses why they couldnt do it: lack of prayer. What prayer (just like any word) means depends on who is being asked and what their understanding of it is, sometimes in line with the wider culture, sometimes different. Thus, your idea of prayer (or mine) cannot be read into the text simply because the term prayer is used. What is needed is a fuller understanding of what Jesus meant by prayer.

In Matthew, the idea of them having "little-faith" rather than "faith" even the size of a mustard seed is focused on. One with "faith" in the wider context is clearly one who prays. To Jesus, one who prays in "faith" (rather than "little-faith" if such a one prays at all) is one who asks Gods will be done on earth, that their basic needs be met, their sins forgiven, etc. (Matt 6:9-13). Asking that Gods will be done on earth is asking for Gods wisdom on what one ought to do. The guarantee here is that those who ask in "faith" will get what they ask for.

There are no contradictions in this. Different elements focused on in this instance in their accounts, but not contradictions. And they all speak about faith and prayer in other places in ways that dont contradict each other. A source doesnt say, for example, those with "little-faith" can move mountains or prayer is about not that Gods will be done, or that casting out a demon is done through saying some magic words, etc.

The approach of "ask for whatever you want and God guarantees youll get it" is a type of prayer that would come from someone having "little-faith" since they arent praying as Jesus modeled and, here in Matthew, Jesus says that doesnt get them what they wanted.

I rather think your Interpretation is not only incorrect by rewriting what the Bible actually says to agree with what you'd prefer., but is a flawed argument. First as to airy dismissal of what you can't reasonably deny (but I give you props that you don't try) that Luke's version reflects the original and Matthew and Luke added something more. They could both have been 'M' material (1) but they differ and in fact contradict, plus Mark runs on for quite a while (as he does with the execution of the Baptist) and that shows that he could edit the synoptic original on his own account.

Fine, but you ignore that this reduces it to Jesus being able to do it and the disciples not. But then you go on to discuss prayer as though it was something that Jesus said and not something Mark made up. You can't easily shrug off additions by Mark and Matthew and then act like they are reliable Jesus -utterances. In any case, this is Jesus saying 'prayer' and clearly something that has to be done in addition to seed -sized Faith (a modicum of which the disciples surely had) and Jesus expects the disciples to know what this is because he had already given an example of how to pray.

And - yes - there is contradiction with Matthew who says nothing about prayer, but they don't ..hang on...Yes Matthew has Jesus say (in an extra that you were happy to consider an 'add -on') that they didn't have enough Faith, though Faith as much as a mustard -seed would have been enough. Not a mention of prayer; and that is a contradiction, despite your attempt to argue that Faith and prayer are the same. Clearly they are not. Jesus in the Sermon (as well as Luke 11) shows us what prayer is and how it should be done.

I've said this before, but atheists show more respect for the Bible than apologists do because we respect what it says; we don't fiddle and misrepresent it to suit ourselves.

Anyway, the significance of Matthew's addition is that it is matched in 21.20 where Jesus makes specific and practical demonstration that praying for a result (if one has Faith) will get the result; every time. No exceptions. No 'If God thinks you should have it" or "Mind you, you may have to wait". A guarantee is given and you and I and every Christian (deep down) knows it doesn't happen.

Let's check Mark...yeah 11. 24 Practical guarantee, no small print or get out clauses. And you deny what the Bible says when you argue that it really means something else. If that wasn't made clear, never mind Jesus explaining what prayer actually is, then he's lying to his disciples. Nice apologetics job Tanager.
,
But be of good cheer. It isn't in Luke, so, like the curing of the afflicted boy, it is an add - on of the kind that you can say you are fine with. It is not to be regarded as an authentic Jesus -saying. If you want to thank me one more will get me to 900

(1) as I call it - like Q but common to Matthew and Mark (not in Luke) as Q is common to Luke and Matthew and not found in Mark.

[TRANSPONDER]

erratum Of course I mean Matthew and Mark, in line 3, not Matthew and Luke.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #303]

First, a clarification of what I said. I said (or at least tried to convey) that I would be fine with Mark and Matthew bringing in connections to other collected stories. Its also quite possible that Luke took that part out because he says things about prayer and faith in other places. Even if Mark and Matthew are bringing in connections from other material it could be very similar material. These kinds of connections do not mean it isnt an authentic Jesus saying. Ancient biographies didnt write things strictly chronologically or feel they had to keep the same story in their version as identical to each other or the source material. Not identical is not the same as pure invention. You disagree and have said why. I feel it is poor reasoning. You feel my interpretation is poor. Not sure there is more to be said there.

Second, that "atheists show more respect for the Bible than apologists do because we respect what it says; we don't fiddle and misrepresent it to suit ourselves" is simply rhetoric. Everybody thinks they dont misrepresent the material to suit themselves and the other views do (either intentionally or, more charitably, unintentionally). Thats just another way to say "my interpretation is right" not support for that interpretation. I put no stock in trying to rhetorically spin things like this. Just let each others thoughts speak for themselves and we all will make up our own minds on which interpretation seems correct. I thank you for sharing your thoughts and giving me something to bounce my thoughts off of.

Third, in Matthew 21, the fig tree is coupled with Jesus cleansing the temple, which is an indictment on the Jewish religious establishment. That kind of belief is contrasted to the faith Jesus has been talking about all throughout the gospel, one that relies on God for wisdom and strength, as Ive said. If you have faith like that, then no exceptions. The story serves the same purpose in Mark 11.

Fourth, to call all things (if you are/do, I may be misunderstanding you) not in Luke an add-on by others goes against the scholarly tide that Mark was the earliest gospel. To call things not shared by all gospels (again, if you are/do) "add-ons" seems clearly wrong to me. Obviously, writers can choose to leave out stories, bring in unique sources and stories, and stuff like that. But perhaps I misunderstood you on what you meant there.

[TRANSPONDER]

First, a clarification of what I said. I said (or at least tried to convey) that I would be fine with Mark and Matthew bringing in connections to other collected stories. Its also quite possible that Luke took it out because he says things about prayer and faith in other places. Even if Mark and Matthew are bringing in connections from other material it could be very similar material. These kinds of connections do not mean it isnt an authentic Jesus saying. Ancient biographies didnt write things strictly chronologically or feel they had to keep the same story in their version as identical to each other or the source material. Not identical is not the same as pure invention. You disagree and have said why. I feel it is poor reasoning. You feel my interpretation is poor. Not sure there is more to be said there.

Second, that "atheists show more respect for the Bible than apologists do because we respect what it says; we don't fiddle and misrepresent it to suit ourselves" is simply rhetoric. Everybody thinks they dont misrepresent the material to suit themselves and the other views do (either intentionally or, more charitably, unintentionally). Thats just another way to say "my interpretation is right" not support for that interpretation. I put no stock in trying to rhetorically spin things like this. Just let each others thoughts speak for themselves and we all will make up our own minds on which interpretation seems correct. I thank you for sharing your thoughts and giving me something to bounce my thoughts off of.

Third, in Matthew 21, the fig tree is coupled with Jesus cleansing the temple, which is an indictment on the Jewish religious establishment. That kind of belief is contrasted to the faith Jesus has been talking about all throughout the gospel, one that relies on God for wisdom and strength, as Ive said. If you have faith like that, then no exceptions. The story serves the same purpose in Mark 11. And Luke doesn't choose to include it or didn't have access to it from his sources.

No chance of that working, chum. IF Mark and Matthew had agreed on what Jesus had said after he had learned that the disciples couldn't drive the demon out, it would make some case that Luke had it in front of him but chose to leave it out because he'd covered that ground elsewhere. Excuse me but I do not buy this excuse that significant words of Jesus are left out because the matter had been covered elsewhere. No more than I buy the excuse (tried on by one apologist at least) that Mark left out the resurrection appearances because everyone knew the story.

No, the clue that Mark and Matthew contradict in what is said (quite aside that you tried to argue that Faith and prayer was the same thing - it is not what is spoken) is evidence (not to say proof) that they both added individual ideas and That is why Luke doesn't have either of them; it was not in front of him and he only copied what was in his source.

That said, I need hardly address your attempt to dismiss my demonstration of attempts to fiddle and rewrite the Bible as 'rhetoric'. I reckon I've demonstrated that is just what you tried to do. And that without going onto the wriggling and evasion of what the Temple - cleansing was about when it is the marmalizing of the fig -tree that we are talking about. Even if I conceded that it was showing the shortcomings of the Priesthood and Lawyers (I think it is about the rejection of Jesus) that is absolutely nothing at all to do with the promise that what they ask in prayer will be granted if they have Faith. It is hard to see your red herring as anything but the fiddling I spoke of, even without the excuse that other material is brought in from somewhere else. It is still NOT what was in the original text and (as you concede as an alternative) Luke didn't have access to it.
indeed i
The methods (not to speak of agenda) of the writers becomes clear. There are indeed examples of importing of material, such as the miraculous draft of fish. After the resurrection in John, at the calling of the disciples in Luke and a sort of poetic metaphor in Matthew 13.47. That material is dragged in from somewhere else and is not (by all reason) an accurate record of what Jesus said and did, even if one were to try to argue that the same thing happened on two different occasions, though nobody mentions both.

I don't want to get off the topic, but the usual excuses and fiddling and rewriting the Bible to excuse contradictions that undermine Gospel reliability wears very thin, and it is dismissive to ... to dismiss it as Rhetoric. This is no more than denial of hard evidence and saying there isn't any. The sort of thing I have got used to in debating Christians. I'd say my case was coherent and valid, and your excuses and evasions are not.

I can't force you to accept the case I made or even concede that it stacks up (while irrelevancies about denouncing the Priests and truly niffy red herrings about prayer and Faith are the same do not) but I don't see how any Reasonable person can't see that my argument is sound and yours isn't.

[The Tanager]

I can't force you to accept the case I made or even concede that it stacks up (while irrelevancies about denouncing the Priests and truly niffy red herrings about prayer and Faith are the same do not) but I don't see how any Reasonable person can't see that my argument is sound and yours isn't.

I still thank you for giving me space to share my views and sharing what you think of them for others to consider in light of your own arguments, as well. I don't feel I have anything new to add here.

[Clownboat]

"Since Allah is not a real god, Muslims are just viewing the actions of humans through an Islamic lens.
Hindu's through a Hindu lens and on and on only to arrive at:
The Christian God is real and it is not humans being humans, it is the Christian God working through these people."

This thinking is inconsistant. Please see the noted conclusion arrive at. Not the one you invented about saying one view is correct and the other incorrect.
It's the mechanism on how a conclusion is arrived at that is inconsistant, not the claim.

We both acknowledged that we do not know if humans are just doing what humans would do and some see that through the lens of their favorite god concept. Therefore there is no need to challenge a god claim in this instance. The mechanism used to justify the claim has been analyzed and is faulty.

I'm trying my best to understand your point, not invent anything. Do you mean the above in premise-conclusion type of form? That because one thinks Islam and Hinduisms are false, that, therefore, Christianity is true? I agree that is certainly faulty. If I'm still missing it please map out "this thinking" in a new way that might help me grasp it.

My approach is this: If Christianity is true, then the Christian God is working through people who pray to Him in "faith" [and those of different "faiths" won't have God working through them in that same way]. I don't see that as inconsistent. I think this is most probably true, but I agree it isn't known (if by that you mean certain). Nor do I find that lack of certainty a big deal at all since basically only things like definitions and pure mathematics can reach that kind of certainty.

Do you think the Hindu Gods work through humans?
Do you think Allah works through humans?
Does the Christian God work through humans?
Are you answers consistent or inconsistent?

Since we both acknowledged that we do not know if humans are just doing what humans would do and some see that through the lens of their favorite god concept, we can't pretend that in a special instance, a god is actually doing what we don't know.
Since we can't know if the gods are involved, it is inconsistent to see a god involved in one religion while ignoring it as an explination for another.

[The Tanager]

Do you think the Hindu Gods work through humans?
Do you think Allah works through humans?
Does the Christian God work through humans?
Are you answers consistent or inconsistent?

Since we both acknowledged that we do not know if humans are just doing what humans would do and some see that through the lens of their favorite god concept, we can't pretend that in a special instance, a god is actually doing what we don't know.
Since we can't know if the gods are involved, it is inconsistent to see a god involved in one religion while ignoring it as an explination for another.

No. No. Yes. Yes. It is not inconsistent to say one god (or sets of god) exists and works through humans while other god(s) that people believe exist don't actually exist and, therefore, can't work through humans.

If you mean "know" as 100% certainty, then I do acknowledge that we don't know if humans are just doing what humans would do. That is not inconsistent with my (in my view the most reasonable) belief that the Christian God does exist and work through those who pray in faith to Him.

I don't know why anyone would think these are inconsistent. Or I'm still misunderstanding your point.

[Diagoras]

Do you think the Hindu Gods work through humans?
Do you think Allah works through humans?
Does the Christian God work through humans?
Are you answers consistent or inconsistent?

Since we both acknowledged that we do not know if humans are just doing what humans would do and some see that through the lens of their favorite god concept, we can't pretend that in a special instance, a god is actually doing what we don't know.
Since we can't know if the gods are involved, it is inconsistent to see a god involved in one religion while ignoring it as an explination for another.

No. No. Yes. Yes. It is not inconsistent to say one god (or sets of god) exists and works through humans while other god(s) that people believe exist don't actually exist and, therefore, can't work through humans.

If you mean "know" as 100% certainty, then I do acknowledge that we don't know if humans are just doing what humans would do. That is not inconsistent with my (in my view the most reasonable) belief that the Christian God does exist and work through those who pray in faith to Him.

I don't know why anyone would think these are inconsistent. Or I'm still misunderstanding your point.

Coming rather late to this party, so apologies in advance for any raking over old, cold ground already covered, but perhaps the claim of inconsistency by Clownboat might be more accurately replaced with 'special pleading'? Thus:

"Since we can't know if the gods are involved, it is special pleading to see a god involved in one religion while ignoring it as an explanation for another."

Your response ("It is not inconsistent to say...") doesn't adequately explain why the Christian god must be singled out as existing while those of other faiths - despite being believed in - cannot. After all, there do exist claims of prayers to Allah being answered (for example).