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?

[unknown soldier]

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

We were talking about whether they were different motivations. You were saying they were the same. If you still think they are the same, then respond to my critique.

I'm not going to quibble over some insignificant differences between your brand of sacred religious violence and Islam's brand of sacred religious violence. If both involve Gods that are to be obeyed to the point of death, and they both do involve such Gods, then they are similar enough to me.

You switching what is being talked about and applying what I said there to something else is not me skirting the issue.

Just understand that you God reputedly wiping out entire nations involves killing innocent people.

...my view is that the language of killing children may very well be hyperbole. Why do you think it isn't?

Even if the "language of killing children" is hyperbole, it's still sick. And I see you are shifting the burden of proof. You want me to prove that the Bible's violent stories are not hyperbole? You need to prove they are hyperbole.

...if you can show it isn't hyperbole, then we would need to discuss what alternatives would be available to God and make arguments for which one we thought is the better choice.

An alternative is not to kill children. It's the better choice because that way there are no dead babies lying around. I understand that God is both good and smart. If so, then he can figure that out.

...if those parts of the Hebrew scriptures were inaccurate, what would this show about the Christian conception of God and His existence, which is the main thing we were talking about in this thread.

No doubt much of if not all of the genocide stories in the Old Testament are myths. God cannot order any genocides if he doesn't exist. So the "Christian conception of God and his existence" appears to be an enormous error based on hatred for others.

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

OK, if you can't figure this out, then the obvious answer is that if the Israelites could rely on visions from God, then they wouldn't need to go to all the trouble of spying out the land they wished to invade.

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

And yet you still think God should choose to tell them in visions?

Sure. As tricky as God's visions might be, they're less risky than to spy on people who know you're out to kill them.

How is that violating his free will? I am exercising my free will to try to stop his exercise of free will.

If you stop his free will, then you take his free will away!

God would stop every single bad choice.

He's welcome to stop my bad choices any time.

No longer do we have a being exercising their free will through their limited powers, but a being doing so with unlimited power, making every single choice.

Nah--he would only stop bad choices. We could still exercise good choices.

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

So, a good God allows the other evils, but not murder?

You're taking what I said too literally. I was discussing murder, and that's why I said: "Only the will to murder."

You seemingly believe that having a free will means having no obstacle to your choices being completed. That's not what free will is.

Then please post your definition of free will. Whenever you get into trouble, just change definitions!

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.

Which logically takes with it the possibility of love.

What you're saying is demonstrably wrong. I love without hating and hate without loving all the time.

How does that defeat my point? To remind you, that point was that God made humans to work in a specific way: with His help. When they don't accept His help, then humans (themselves and others) are damaged.

It would be really stupid for God to create us vulnerable to damage if he didn't need to.

The God of the Bible is not like a young kid who tries to punish another kid who has rejected Him.

Actually, the men who created your God fashioned him after petty, insecure, and vain human rulers. That's why the Bible God becomes jealous and violent if people worship other Gods in much the same way a human despot will punish those he rules over if they aide other rulers.

[brunumb]

Nah--he would only stop bad choices. We could still exercise good choices.

I think I would modify that a little. He could prevent us from acting on thoughts that would do harm to others. Sometimes we make bad choices that we actually learn from and grow as individuals. We just shouldn't act out evil thoughts where others will suffer unnecessarily.

[The Tanager]

Of course it does! This was imposed on her by a conscious agentand she had no choice in the matter. Good grief, it's not the same as getting infected by a disease.

Are you saying that if God allows the disease to happen when He could have stopped it, that he is not guilty of imposing the disease on someone? I thought you agreed that even allowing evils to happen would put God to blame.

Regardless of that, I still disagree with this clarified principle you think is true. If I were to physically force you to pull the trigger of a gun to shoot someone you thought it immoral to shoot, then while your action isnt free, your will still is. You can still think the action was morally wrong.

Couldnt God just do that, then, and not negate free will? That is only controlling one moral action, though. With a God who stops all evil actions we are talking about all moral actions being controlled. While, technically, the will could still be free, its a meaningless freedom if no action can be free.

[The Tanager]

I'm not going to quibble over some insignificant differences between your brand of sacred religious violence and Islam's brand of sacred religious violence. If both involve Gods that are to be obeyed to the point of death, and they both do involve such Gods, then they are similar enough to me.

But this fourth attempt is still too vague. It would include a god telling you to be willing to die to save an evil doer and a god telling you to kill yourself in order to punish the evil doer. How is that principle "similar enough" for you?

Even if the "language of killing children" is hyperbole, it's still sick. And I see you are shifting the burden of proof. You want me to prove that the Bible's violent stories are not hyperbole? You need to prove they are hyperbole.

I have supported why I think the language is hyperbole. You havent responded to it.

An alternative is not to kill children. It's the better choice because that way there are no dead babies lying around. I understand that God is both good and smart. If so, then he can figure that out.

Again, assuming you can show the language isnt hyperbole, what would happen to these babies, if they were left alive?

No doubt much of if not all of the genocide stories in the Old Testament are myths. God cannot order any genocides if he doesn't exist. So the "Christian conception of God and his existence" appears to be an enormous error based on hatred for others.

Of course if God doesnt exist, then these stories are inaccurate. That wasnt the point of what you responded to. You have been arguing that the Bible stories show an evil God. My point is that if you could show that, then this still doesnt prove the non-existence of the Christian God, which is what youve mainly been attempting to do here.

OK, if you can't figure this out, then the obvious answer is that if the Israelites could rely on visions from God, then they wouldn't need to go to all the trouble of spying out the land they wished to invade.

But you agreed that the Israelites would trust their own eyes better than visions. If God wants them to know what they are up against, why give them something they wont trust?

Sure. As tricky as God's visions might be, they're less risky than to spy on people who know you're out to kill them.

No spy was harmed.

If you stop his free will, then you take his free will away!

You stop his will from becoming an action, you dont stop his will from being what it is.

Nah--he would only stop bad choices. We could still exercise good choices.

But in any situation one choice would be good and the rest would be less good.

Then please post your definition of free will. Whenever you get into trouble, just change definitions!

I havent changed anything. Free will involves moral choices, not things like "I want to fly."

What you're saying is demonstrably wrong. I love without hating and hate without loving all the time.

Why do you think I said that? I said that if love is choosing the good instead of the bad, then taking away ones ability to choose the bad means taking choice away. The action will be good, but that good wasnt chosen. Love requires choosing.

It would be really stupid for God to create us vulnerable to damage if he didn't need to.

If one wants free beings, then one cannot take away all possibility of damage. So, you would have to say that creating free beings is stupid. But why think that?

Actually, the men who created your God fashioned him after petty, insecure, and vain human rulers. That's why the Bible God becomes jealous and violent if people worship other Gods in much the same way a human despot will punish those he rules over if they aide other rulers.

What specific examples do you think show this?

[brunumb]

Of course it does! This was imposed on her by a conscious agentand she had no choice in the matter. Good grief, it's not the same as getting infected by a disease.

Are you saying that if God allows the disease to happen when He could have stopped it, that he is not guilty of imposing the disease on someone? I thought you agreed that even allowing evils to happen would put God to blame.

What are you going on about with all this focus on disease stuff that smells a lot like distraction and obfuscation? The issue you are dodging is that God violated Mary's free will and people seem to be quite happy to accept that. Having a god deliberately and purposefully impregnate you without your prior consent is nothing remotely like inadvertently catching a disease.

[Clownboat]

Being proud of having faith is like being proud of being ingnorant IMO.

Possible that is because of what you believe "faith" to be. Bibliclly faith is something to be sought after and valued.

If people were not being misled by their religion, they would be able to see faith for what it is IMO. The fact of the matter is that religions have a dog in the race. For them to maintain their dog, they are required to push faith. There is no mistery here and it is plain to see (for anyone that doesn't have a dog in the race of course).

I believe you when you say you have been convinced that faith is something your religion has convinced you to seek after and value. You make my point for me as such thinking is nonsensical in the real world. We all know this, except for some humans when it comes to their preferred religion.

It is just a fact that faith is needed in order to believe in Bigfoot, Nesse, and Jehovah god. That you find faith of value is on your religion for convincing you of such a thing. Faith does have value to those gaining from the faithful though and so it perpetuates in relgions as you demonstrate.

[Clownboat]

Of course it does! This was imposed on her by a conscious agentand she had no choice in the matter. Good grief, it's not the same as getting infected by a disease.

Are you saying that if God allows the disease to happen when He could have stopped it, that he is not guilty of imposing the disease on someone? I thought you agreed that even allowing evils to happen would put God to blame.

What are you going on about with all this focus on disease stuff that smells a lot like distraction and obfuscation? The issue you are dodging is that God violated Mary's free will and people seem to be quite happy to accept that. Having a god deliberately and purposefully impregnate you without your prior consent is nothing remotely like inadvertently catching a disease.

In a time when it was common for the gods to impregnate females of the humans race, perhaps people from that time would have viewed it as an honor and could ignore the fact that Mary's free will was violated?

I wonder why all the gods stopped having sex with our females?

[The Tanager]

What are you going on about with all this focus on disease stuff that smells a lot like distraction and obfuscation? The issue you are dodging is that God violated Mary's free will and people seem to be quite happy to accept that. Having a god deliberately and purposefully impregnate you without your prior consent is nothing remotely like inadvertently catching a disease.

It was an additional point I wanted clarification on. I used disease as an example because it is what came to mind. I could have talked about a car accident, an earthquake, other things. If God just allows evils, but does not directly cause them, is God still responsible in some way? I think He is. I was wanting clarification of your view.

After asking about that, I did go on to address your claim that God violated Marys free will. As I already said, Luke portrays a willing Mary and Matthew doesnt address the issue at all, so Im not sure how you can say this went against Marys will. But taking Marys impregnation out of it, I still think it a point worth talking about, so I did.

You seemed to be arguing that having a conscious agents action decide something about your life is necessarily a violation of free will. I dont think that is true, so I gave a counter example. If I forced you to pull the trigger, shooting someone you thought it immoral to shoot, then your action isnt free, but your will is. Your free will is not violated. What do you have to say in response?

[JehovahsWitness]

If people were not being misled by their religion, they would be able to see faith for what it is IMO.

Again that would depend on if their definition of faith coincided with yours. Those that have an alternative definition might not. Your opinion is duly noted.


Have an excellent and most joyfilled weekend,



JW

[brunumb]

You seemed to be arguing that having a conscious agents action decide something about your life is necessarily a violation of free will. I dont think that is true, so I gave a counter example. If I forced you to pull the trigger, shooting someone you thought it immoral to shoot, then your action isnt free, but your will is. Your free will is not violated. What do you have to say in response?

By that reasoning, why then could God not prevent people acting on their free will to entertain evil thoughts? I highlighted the key word in your response. How do you rationalise being forced to do something as exercising free will if your action isn't free?

By the way, the examples of car accidents and earthquakes are no different from catching a disease. Also, even if being impregnated by a god might have been an honour for some, it is still a violation if achieved without prior consent.