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]

We are talking about preventing evil like abuse, rape and murder by having some limits to free will. You have not shown that preventing us from acting on evil thoughts is a complete violation of our free will.

If one is going to fault God for allowing the evils of abuse, rape, and murder, then I don't see why one would stop there. A truly good God (in that understanding) would have to do away with all evils, they would only allow the best choices to be made so as to take all evil away. That is not "some limits" to free will.

As part of that, I guess you really need to establish that we do actually have free will given to us by God. If we have free will, and it is given by God, then it comes down to what you prefer. Evil acts like the above being freely committed by those people inclined to act on their evil thoughts, or those thoughts being suppressed by God to protect innocent victims.

Why do I need to do that? We have been talking about the latter issue and I have been disagreeing with you on that point. To now have the prior free will vs. determinism debate would be to switch what we are talking about. And, in that conversation, both of us would have the burden of establishing our view, not just one of us.

As I said in another post, many believers are more than willing to give up an incredible amount of freedom for their beliefs. I am willing to give up the ability to act on evil thoughts for the sake of my fellow human beings. Isn't that what love requires?

No, love would be annihilated by doing so. Love requires freely choosing to not act on evil thoughts for the sake of our fellow human beings.

[The Tanager]

Tan, here's the promise and its relevant context from Matthew 21 (NRSV):

Jesus Curses the Fig Tree
18 In the morning, when he returned to the city, he was hungry. 19 And seeing a fig tree by the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing at all on it but leaves. Then he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once. 20 When the disciples saw it, they were amazed, saying, "How did the fig tree wither at once?" 21 Jesus answered them, "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, Be lifted up and thrown into the sea, it will be done. 22 Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive."

Now we can all check the context to see if I'm taking verse 22 out of context. I am not taking verse 22 out of context. If anything the context underscores that my interpretation is correct. Jesus is clearly telling his disciples that what they pray for they will get.

Here's where you're going wrong: You read a Bible passage that's a false promise. By faith you cannot accept that Jesus' promises are false. So you go off to find a passage that you hope smooths over the problematical passage and substitute what you think that other passage means for the otherwise obvious meaning of the problematical passage! Sure, you might find other similar passages that say something different, but in so doing you find contradictions rather than clarifications.

Why, then, is Matthew 21:22 a false promise? If you dispense with your faith, then the scales will fall from your eyes. Matthew put those words into the mouth of Jesus to attract converts. Promise people the moon, and they will come.

I didn't go off to find a passage, I looked at the verses before and after the 5 you think are relevant in the same text. Your claim here rests on these 5 verses being the only relevant context. Why do you think that? Do you think the author is just putting disconnected stories one after the other and, if so, why?

Of course the details may differ, but the results are much the same.

You weren't arguing that the results were the same, but that the principle to get there was the same. Theoretically, I could gain a lot of money through hard work the customers want done or by stealing it from them. By your reasoning, this makes working an honest job and stealing the same thing.

And why use the word "judge"? Just say that God kills people.

There are different reasons to kill and that can make a difference on one's moral judgment of the act. Judgment through killing would be more accurate than either just 'judgment' or just 'killing'.

Why do you think the point of having them spy was to get intel for God?

Spies gather intel. A real God doesn't need to.

Exactly. The ancient Israelites believed the same. They don't turn around and then report to God what was there. So there must be a different reason God asked them to spy out the land, something for the Israelites. God wanted them to see what they were fighting for (bountiful resources) and what they were up against (people too strong for them without God's help).

God's ignorance is evident in the very first chapters of Genesis. He didn't know that the snake would be more convincing than he was, for example.

Why do you think that?

So, take away free will. You were supposed to offer an alternative other than that.

Nothing would make me happier than to know that people's will to do evil has been taken from them.

But that's not what we were talking about there. You said God would have better options than taking away free will or eventually killing those who stubbornly exercise their freedom to do evil when faced with more peaceful opposition. What are those alternatives?

I'd say that the failure of prayer tops my list of reasons to doubt that the Christian God exists.

How does God not giving in to one's demands prove that He doesn't exist?

Why do you think having free will means having every single desire one could have?

Because it is human nature to want to be free to fulfill one's will. If you want something, and you can get it, then you take it.

That's not the same thing I just asked about. You were arguing that to have free will must include having the will to murder and rape (which sounds like having the desire to murder and rape). Here you are not talking about humans having every desire, but wanting the desires they do have to be fulfilled.

...I want to freely choose good over evil.

What's the point if you don't want evil to begin with?

The same thing I've said all along: freedom and love.

You mean you want the freedom to do evil. That's very strange unless you have plans to do evil.

Or see freedom and love as good things.

I'm not begging the question because I know that when I don't get what I want or don't accomplish what I try, then there is normally no answer unless a person is involved. Even then, I can hear or read that person's "no." God never answers no; all that happens is that a prayer fails.

That's still just begging the question. Does God answer a prayer? You say no, the prayer fails. Your support for that? All that happens is the prayer fails.

No you aren't making that up, but you (and plenty of Christians) are misunderstanding the Biblical message, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many Christians throughout all of Christian history).

You apologists are so much smarter than we skeptics understanding what we cannot understand!

And you don't think you understand these issues better than me? That's what having an opinion means. We both do it in all sorts of fields. It's perfectly fine to do.

When I read The Ten Commandments and The Sermon on the Mount, I think that we are meant to do what we are being told to do. I see no options to disobey.

Of course, I'm too dumb to understand what I'm reading and need you smart apologists to explain it to me.

If you don't look at the broader context taking parts of a writing out and applying the context you think it's addressing because of your modern concerns and experiences in life, then, yes, you run a greater risk of misunderstanding what is being talked about. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. I'm open to that. But the case that will change my mind is going to have to consider and make the best sense of the whole context.

From what Christians have told me and what I've read in the Bible, God does indeed demand love and allegiance. To reject God's demands has very dire consequences.

It seems like you view the God of the Bible like a young kid, whose love is selfish and that, if you don't want to play with Him, then He will call you names or try to push you out of frustration, but only since this God is all powerful, His punishments are going to really hurt. I agree with you that some Christians give off this concept. I disagree that the Bible does.

I think God made humans to work best in a relationship with Him, like cars are built to run on gas or electricity. That to take one's self out of that relationship naturally brings the consequences that are painful, like trying to fuel up a car with other materials, to where damage will be done and the car won't do what it was built to do. It's not extra, disconnected punishments being put on us.

[brunumb]

If one is going to fault God for allowing the evils of abuse, rape, and murder, then I don't see why one would stop there.

If it is a fault of God for allowing those things then it is what it is. You can't say that it is not fair to suggest God prevents those evils because it might mean that he has other faults that should also be addressed. Stick to the one issue. It would not be a complete violation of free will to have some things limited for the betterment of humanity. God would have to agree given that he violated Mary's free will by impregnating her before asking if it would be ok.

[brunumb]

No, love would be annihilated by doing so. Love requires freely choosing to not act on evil thoughts for the sake of our fellow human beings.

Love would not be annihilated by doings so because that's not all there is to love.

[unknown soldier]

I didn't go off to find a passage, I looked at the verses before and after the 5 you think are relevant in the same text. Your claim here rests on these 5 verses being the only relevant context. Why do you think that? Do you think the author is just putting disconnected stories one after the other and, if so, why?

When I look up Bible passages, I usually use Bible Gateway. It has headings that set off related text. In the NRSV, the heading is The Lesson of the Withered Fig Tree. I can just read these headings and the verses below them to get the context.

You weren't arguing that the results were the same, but that the principle to get there was the same.

Well, yes, the principle of the attack on 9/11 is basically the same as Christians believing God has absolute power. What God wants, God gets!

There are different reasons to kill and that can make a difference on one's moral judgment of the act. Judgment through killing would be more accurate than either just 'judgment' or just 'killing'.

That makes little difference at least to me. Passing judgment to kill children still results in dead children. You can't make something bad out to be good by using a nice word to describe it.

Spies gather intel. A real God doesn't need to.

Exactly. The ancient Israelites believed the same. They don't turn around and then report to God what was there. So there must be a different reason God asked them to spy out the land, something for the Israelites. God wanted them to see what they were fighting for (bountiful resources) and what they were up against (people too strong for them without God's help).

If God wanted the Israelites to see their victims prior to killing them, then he could have just granted those attackers a vision. Was he unable to do so? It's odd that the Israelites didn't just ask God what they were getting into. After all, God was presumably talking to them. My explanation is that this whole story is a work of fiction, and the author of this tall tale didn't think to have God tell the Israelites all they needed to know.

God's ignorance is evident in the very first chapters of Genesis. He didn't know that the snake would be more convincing than he was, for example.

Why do you think that?

Assuming God wanted what was best for Eve and Adam, he should have known better than to leave them to their own devices while a crafty snake lurked nearby to talk them into eating some fruit thereby cursing all humanity. So God evidently didn't know better.

You said God would have better options than taking away free will or eventually killing those who stubbornly exercise their freedom to do evil when faced with more peaceful opposition. What are those alternatives?

I must have misspoke. I think that people should have their will to do evil taken away. If you disagree, then you oppose taking away a gunman's will to shoot down kids as he heads for their school.

How does God not giving in to one's demands prove that He doesn't exist?

It's very simple: A good God who can help people would help people. Since there are so many people in dire need of help not getting it, God's existence is then very questionable if not disproved.

What's the point if you don't want evil to begin with?

The same thing I've said all along: freedom and love.

In that case people have no freedom to be safe if you have the freedom to harm them; your free will violates their free will. One of the reasons why the concept of free will is illogical is because one person's free will would be in conflict with another person's free will if the two persons have mutually exclusive goals.

Or see freedom and love as good things.

Why not just settle for the will to love? Besides, if you really love people, then you would oppose any person's choice to harm them. Free will then is in conflict with love for others. Yes, freedom can be a good thing, but it can also be a horrible thing.

Does God answer a prayer? You say no, the prayer fails. Your support for that? All that happens is the prayer fails.

Prayer has failed me many times, and I never had any answer. All I had was a failed prayer on my hands leaving me wondering why it failed.

And you don't think you understand these issues better than me? That's what having an opinion means. We both do it in all sorts of fields. It's perfectly fine to do.

That's not what having an opinion means. Did I ever tell you that you don't understand these issues? I don't think so. I just point out your factual and logical errors, and then I let you decide what you may or may not understand.

If you don't look at the broader context taking parts of a writing out and applying the context you think it's addressing because of your modern concerns and experiences in life, then, yes, you run a greater risk of misunderstanding what is being talked about.

Again, I do consider the context of what I read like I have documented on this thread. I'm not stupid.

It seems like you view the God of the Bible like a young kid, whose love is selfish and that, if you don't want to play with Him, then He will call you names or try to push you out of frustration, but only since this God is all powerful, His punishments are going to really hurt. I agree with you that some Christians give off this concept. I disagree that the Bible does.

That's what I've read in the Bible. He can be very childish at times having temper tantrums and breaking us, his "toys," when we displease him. I can live knowing that the Bible portrays a God like that. I don't fight it. Why do you fight it?

I think God made humans to work best in a relationship with Him, like cars are built to run on gas or electricity. That to take one's self out of that relationship naturally brings the consequences that are painful, like trying to fuel up a car with other materials, to where damage will be done and the car won't do what it was built to do. It's not extra, disconnected punishments being put on us.

These kind of analogies don't work because God presumably does not have human limitations. Unlike human car manufacturers, he can build cars that can run on anything or nothing at all and that are perfectly safe.

Apologists keep forgetting that their God isn't human--or is he?

[The Tanager]

If one is going to fault God for allowing the evils of abuse, rape, and murder, then I don't see why one would stop there.

If it is a fault of God for allowing those things then it is what it is. You can't say that it is not fair to suggest God prevents those evils because it might mean that he has other faults that should also be addressed. Stick to the one issue. It would not be a complete violation of free will to have some things limited for the betterment of humanity. God would have to agree given that he violated Mary's free will by impregnating her before asking if it would be ok.

First, I didn't change the issue. You are arguing that a good God would prevent abuse, rape, and murder. If one did only that, then I agree that it would not be a complete violation of free will. My question was: why would this "good God" prevent abuse, rape, and murder and not other evils? I don't think such a being would. If such a being would not, then it would completely violate free will.

Second, we need to make sure we are focusing on moral free will here. Were God to make someone pregnant, this is not a violation of one's ability to make free moral choices, which is what we've been talking about.

Love would not be annihilated by doings so because that's not all there is to love.

Why not?

[The Tanager]

That's not what having an opinion means. Did I ever tell you that you don't understand these issues? I don't think so. I just point out your factual and logical errors, and then I let you decide what you may or may not understand.

You point those out because you think I misunderstand the issues. I've done the same.

Again, I do consider the context of what I read like I have documented on this thread. I'm not stupid.

I don't think you are stupid. I do think you are wrong about what we've been discussing, including what context is important. And you think I'm wrong.

When I look up Bible passages, I usually use Bible Gateway. It has headings that set off related text. In the NRSV, the heading is The Lesson of the Withered Fig Tree. I can just read these headings and the verses below them to get the context.

Where does Bible Gateway say these headings set off related text, that one section has nothing to do with another before or after it? And even if it did, then why?

First, notice that you've changed what was being talked about but are treating it as all the same thing. You claimed that I was saying that if you don't get anything good from your enemies, then you should kill them and that this was the same thing the 9/11 attackers were thinking. I corrected your misunderstanding because I actually said that we should seek the good of our enemies and leave the consequences of that up to God.

Then the new issue, which is still not an accurate comparison. Believing that God gives you the right to kill anyone who disagrees with your religion is not the same thing as God using nations to judge each other, including judgment of the "chosen" nation. The Israelites didn't think they were to go all over the world killing "infidels".

...

Well, yes, the principle of the attack on 9/11 is basically the same as Christians believing God has absolute power. What God wants, God gets!

Yes, omnipotent beings get what they want. But even in this third attempt there is still a difference between this Christian conception of God and the 9/11-type of Muslim conception of God because of the different wants ascribed to them.

There are different reasons to kill and that can make a difference on one's moral judgment of the act. Judgment through killing would be more accurate than either just 'judgment' or just 'killing'.

That makes little difference at least to me. Passing judgment to kill children still results in dead children. You can't make something bad out to be good by using a nice word to describe it.

First, the question I was responding to was specifically about God judging evil nations through other tribes warring with them, not God judging children.

Second, whether something is bad or not is the question under discussion. Here you are just stating it is bad, not supporting why it is bad. If one's life is eternal, then why would it be evil for God to allow some innocent people to die as part of a wider judgment on evil nations that are causing many innocent deaths? Or if you don't think it is evil, then what are the better alternatives available for a good God?

If God wanted the Israelites to see their victims prior to killing them, then he could have just granted those attackers a vision. Was he unable to do so?

What reason is there to think that visions would have been better than the Israelites seeing things with their own eyes? Most people trust their eyes over visions.

It's odd that the Israelites didn't just ask God what they were getting into. After all, God was presumably talking to them.

Why do you think the Israelites weren't told anything before seeing it for themselves?

My explanation is that this whole story is a work of fiction, and the author of this tall tale didn't think to have God tell the Israelites all they needed to know.

You have lost the context again. Your critique was assuming the tale were true to show a fault in Christian theology. To argue the tale is untrue is a new critique and needs support. Feel free to prove this to be a work of fiction.

Assuming God wanted what was best for Eve and Adam, he should have known better than to leave them to their own devices while a crafty snake lurked nearby to talk them into eating some fruit thereby cursing all humanity. So God evidently didn't know better.

This seems to rest on it being good to override one's free will, which we disagree on.

I must have misspoke. I think that people should have their will to do evil taken away. If you disagree, then you oppose taking away a gunman's will to shoot down kids as he heads for their school.

I can and should freely exercise my will to try to stop him. Why shouldn't God? God is omnipotent. God doing this would take away all human free will. I'm not in that position.

It's very simple: A good God who can help people would help people. Since there are so many people in dire need of help not getting it, God's existence is then very questionable if not disproved.

What do you mean by "help people"? And what is your support for a good God doing that?

In that case people have no freedom to be safe if you have the freedom to harm them; your free will violates their free will. One of the reasons why the concept of free will is illogical is because one person's free will would be in conflict with another person's free will if the two persons have mutually exclusive goals.

You are confusing having limits to one's existence and having a free moral will.

Or see freedom and love as good things.

Why not just settle for the will to love? Besides, if you really love people, then you would oppose any person's choice to harm them. Free will then is in conflict with love for others. Yes, freedom can be a good thing, but it can also be a horrible thing.

You can't have the want somebody's good without freedom (i.e., the ability to want). Wanting human freedom annihilated is in definitional conflict with love for others.

Prayer has failed me many times, and I never had any answer. All I had was a failed prayer on my hands leaving me wondering why it failed.

Do you mean that you can't think of any reason a good God would have said no? Do you mean that you know the various logical possibilities, but don't feel God has made it clear which one is correct? Something else?

That's what I've read in the Bible. He can be very childish at times having temper tantrums and breaking us, his "toys," when we displease him. I can live knowing that the Bible portrays a God like that. I don't fight it. Why do you fight it?

I don't think the Bible gives off that image. Let's talk about specific passages, if you want.

I think God made humans to work best in a relationship with Him, like cars are built to run on gas or electricity. That to take one's self out of that relationship naturally brings the consequences that are painful, like trying to fuel up a car with other materials, to where damage will be done and the car won't do what it was built to do. It's not extra, disconnected punishments being put on us.

These kind of analogies don't work because God presumably does not have human limitations. Unlike human car manufacturers, he can build cars that can run on anything or nothing at all and that are perfectly safe.

Apologists keep forgetting that their God isn't human--or is he?

The cars in the analogy are built to run on gas or electricity. It does not matter if other cars could have different fuels or be made by different beings for the point of this analogy. Putting un-natural things into these cars will keep them from doing what they were made to do. Likewise, taking God out of his role beside us keeps humans from doing what they were made to do.

[unknown soldier]

Where does Bible Gateway say these headings set off related text, that one section has nothing to do with another before or after it? And even if it did, then why?

Bible Gateway used to have an option to see a passage's related context. Unfortunately, I don't see it anymore. It's fair to say that the option was taken out because all you need to do is read the surrounding text to see what the context is. That's what I do.

But even in this third attempt there is still a difference between this Christian conception of God and the 9/11-type of Muslim conception of God because of the different wants ascribed to them.

I see. So Biblically inspired killing is based on a good motivation while Islamic killing is based on a bad motivation.

...the question I was responding to was specifically about God judging evil nations through other tribes warring with them, not God judging children.

Tan, nobody is so stupid as to fail to realize that wiping out a whole nation involves killing the kids in those nations. You are deliberately skirting that fact.

Here you are just stating it is bad, not supporting why it is bad.

I don't know how to prove that butchering babies is bad. I don't normally need to explain unless I'm debating a Christian apologist.

If one's life is eternal, then why would it be evil for God to allow some innocent people to die as part of a wider judgment on evil nations that are causing many innocent deaths?

It's evil to kill everybody if you can avoid collateral damage. Besides, I don't believe in "evil nations." All nations have both good and bad in them.

...what are the better alternatives available for a good God?

He should take away people's will to do evil.

What reason is there to think that visions would have been better than the Israelites seeing things with their own eyes?

You honestly can't figure that out?

Most people trust their eyes over visions.

So the Israelites would not have trusted God's visions. I'm not sure if I would have trusted them either.

Assuming God wanted what was best for Eve and Adam, he should have known better than to leave them to their own devices while a crafty snake lurked nearby to talk them into eating some fruit thereby cursing all humanity. So God evidently didn't know better.

This seems to rest on it being good to override one's free will, which we disagree on.

Any moral adult will use force to pull young children out of the street for the kids' own good. God evidently can't figure that out.

I think that people should have their will to do evil taken away. If you disagree, then you oppose taking away a gunman's will to shoot down kids as he heads for their school.

I can and should freely exercise my will to try to stop him.

Then you violate his free will to murder. I thought that you think the will to murder is really good.

God doing this would take away all human free will.

Not all free will, of course. Only the will to murder.

What do you mean by "help people"? And what is your support for a good God doing that?

You can't figure out what "help people" means?

In that case people have no freedom to be safe if you have the freedom to harm them; your free will violates their free will. One of the reasons why the concept of free will is illogical is because one person's free will would be in conflict with another person's free will if the two persons have mutually exclusive goals.

You are confusing having limits to one's existence and having a free moral will.

Who said anything about "limits to one's existence"? Anyway, I just found a fatal flaw in your idea off free will.

You can't have the want somebody's good without freedom (i.e., the ability to want). Wanting human freedom annihilated is in definitional conflict with love for others.

If it was up to me, I would take away the capacity for people to hate other people or at least the ability to act on that hate.

Do you mean that you can't think of any reason a good God would have said no? Do you mean that you know the various logical possibilities, but don't feel God has made it clear which one is correct? Something else?

As far as I can tell, there are no good reasons for God, assuming he exists, to deny what I asked for. God never made any of it clear to me. All I got was nothing, and that includes no answer. The results are exactly what I would expect if God doesn't exist. So sensible person that I am, I concluded that there is no God.

The cars in the analogy are built to run on gas or electricity.

If I was God I would let people just fly to wherever they wanted to go in perfect safety and comfort. I would power this human flight myself so nobody needed to worry about fuel.

See, Tan; it's easy to come up with solutions to problems if you are a real omnipotent God.

...taking God out of his role beside us keeps humans from doing what they were made to do.

I would make people able to do whatever they want in perfect safety. A real God could do that. A God made up by religious conmen, on the other hand, would leave skeptics and believers arguing over why he can't seem to get anything right.

[brunumb]

Second, we need to make sure we are focusing on moral free will here. Were God to make someone pregnant, this is not a violation of one's ability to make free moral choices, which is what we've been talking about.

Moral free will? When did that distinction come about? Is this an example of moving the goal posts? When someone gets impregnated without being asked first or given the opportunity to say no, that is clearly a violation of their free will, moral or otherwise. She becomes an unwitting incubator. It makes me wonder how Christians view surrogacy.

[brunumb]

...what are the better alternatives available for a good God?

He should take away people's will to do evil.

And if he doesn't want to do that then the omnipotent one should take on more responsibility and intervene in ways that prevents evil. Jamming the gun of a potential mass murderer for example. He allegedly created an entire universe, so there should be no problem too big for him to overcome.