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?

[1213]

You can ask them or in some cases listen to them, of course….

That is difficult for me, because I don’t know anyone who is starving.

You honestly doubt that hungry kids pray for food only to starve?

Only thing I have is a word from atheist and I really don’t trust anything atheists say.

I've prayed to no avail. Would you like me to demonstrate?

Please demonstrate who and what you have prayed?

[JehovahsWitness]

I prayed, and nothing happened just like I said nothing would happen.

You CLAIM to have prayed but I do believe you offerted to demonstrate it. I have seen no such démonstration of prayer. If we take prayer to mean respectful address to God, you will need to demonstrate your address was (a) respectful and (b) that it was to God (as opposed to the internet)

As yet the only demonstration I see is that you have successfully demonstrated you can type.



JW

[unknown soldier]

I prayed, and nothing happened just like I said nothing would happen.

You CLAIM to have prayed but I do believe you offerted to demonstrate it. I have seen no such démonstration of prayer. If we take prayer to mean respectful address to God, you will need to demonstrate your address was (a) respectful and (b) that it was to God (as opposed to the internet)

As yet the only demonstration I see is that you have successfully demonstrated you can type.

Great apologetic there, JW! You shifted the burden of proof, and the proof you demand from me, the doubter, is proof that is, as you well know, impossible for anybody to come up with. Does this approach work for you in your conversion efforts?

As yet the only demonstration I see is that you have successfully demonstrated you can type.

Of course, when I seek proof for prayer in this forum, that's all I've gotten.

[The Tanager]

Are you sure about this rather novel interpretation of Psalms? You evidently feel that Psalms includes prayers that God never approved of, and they are included for the sake of allowing the Psalmist to honestly express his violent anger toward an enemy. Where is any hint that God disapproves of this anger?

I'm always open to changing my interpretation, but why do you think this is a novel interpretation? Do you think that every action and statement humans make in the Bible are necessarily approved by God unless explicitly rebutted immediately? If so, why?

I think Jesus' words we have been talking about show God's primary desire that enemies will turn, but so does the whole Bible. God constantly reaches out to those who are doing things He doesn't approve of, first to have them turn, but many times that doesn't happen. It's a mix of anger at humanity's evils, heart for us to change, patience, but eventual justice.

I think God doesn't want us to already have it all figured out before we pray. Part of the answer to that prayer will be God working on the heart of the one praying it.

Does the Bible actually say anything like this?

Ezekiel 36:26-27 talks about God giving us a new heart and putting His Spirit in us, so that we can walk in His ways and be His people. Psalm 51:10 has the Psalmist asking for a clean heart from God, to have our spirits renewed. Psalm 139:23-24 talks of God searching us and leading us away from the ways we should not be acting into the ways we should be. Psalm 86 is a prayer that mirrors asking for God to teach us and change our ways. Those are the first that come to mind.

God's desire of goodness for evil-doers is all throughout the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

You can seriously say that after reading Revelation? I see no desire on the part of God to do good to the "evil doers" whom he casts into a lake of fire.

What do you think a good being would do?

You should check JW's post to me and my reply to him on this thread. He mocked people who ask for help in their prayers as superstitious and stupid. I've seen other Christians do the same thing.

I'm not sure JW was mocking anyone; he was disagreeing with how some believers and non-believers view God: expecting God to satisfy their desires. But some Christians do mock those who disagree with them, you are right.

You exist and he doesn't exist. A being who doesn't exist can't give you anything or do anything for you. That's the very clear and obvious reason for the impotence of prayer. There's no need to struggle or write long books trying to explain it if you're an atheist.

If God doesn't exist, sure. Here all you've done is shown that some prayers are not answered the way the people praying them want them to be.

In verse 5 James just said that God gives generously to all without reproach.

Then why are many people homeless or hungry?

James 1:5 talks about wisdom being given generously to all without approach. Those who have some mental doubts aren't disqualified. Why there are homeless and hungry people is a different issue. I think humans are a big part of that cause.

In that case the very obvious thing for God to do is answer the prayer so the doubter has evidence to believe that God exists! Why can't a perfectly wise God figure that out? The answer is that James was stuffing all that into an imaginary God's mouth to explain away failed prayers.

Answer the way the doubter wants? Give them whatever they ask for? And what would that person then think about God? God exists, sure. But what about God's character?

I'm not sure what the Bible say on that subject, but yes, it seems reasonable for God to overlook minor imperfections in what he presumably created.

First off, God overlooks even major imperfections, if people choose to rely on Him rather than be self-reliant or self-serving.

Secondly, God didn't make the imperfections.

If God really exists, then he should give good things to people rather than have us puny, weak people do so because he is all mighty and can do a far better job than we can.

From the people I know who are poor, homeless, hungry, etc., they don't just need handouts, they are worth more than that, capable of more than that, have so much to offer the rest of us that won't be brought up by the "mighty ones" just swooping in to "save" them. I think there are very good reasons for God to have humans do this life together, working together, sharing with each other, experiencing joys together, etc.

How is that for our sake? If your can order a TV from a business that ships it to you with one order and a business that makes you "persist" by ordering it again and again without knowing when or if you'll ever get it, then which business would you order the TV from?

Do you have children?

Christians just don't seem to want to apply basic logic to their beliefs about prayer. If they did approach the topic reasonably, then they'd end up atheists realizing that prayers go unanswered because there is no God to answer them.

I'm applying logic in our conversation. There are other Christians like me, too. Let's continue to go deeper than the surface.

[unknown soldier]

Are you sure about this rather novel interpretation of Psalms? You evidently feel that Psalms includes prayers that God never approved of, and they are included for the sake of allowing the Psalmist to honestly express his violent anger toward an enemy. Where is any hint that God disapproves of this anger?

I'm always open to changing my interpretation, but why do you think this is a novel interpretation?

I've never before realized that some Christians do not approve of all the Psalms. Which Psalms are unholy, and how do you tell the difference?

Do you think that every action and statement humans make in the Bible are necessarily approved by God unless explicitly rebutted immediately? If so, why?

No, it seems obvious that much of the Bible is not what God condones (assuming he exists). However, the Psalms are, based on my own reading and understanding and what Christians have taught me, what he does condone. They are much like the Sermon on the Mount.

I think Jesus' words we have been talking about show God's primary desire that enemies will turn, but so does the whole Bible. God constantly reaches out to those who are doing things He doesn't approve of, first to have them turn, but many times that doesn't happen. It's a mix of anger at humanity's evils, heart for us to change, patience, but eventual justice.

Actually, the God of the Bible does horrible things to his enemies. His "reaching out" includes genocide and mass destruction. We need not wonder why he has enemies.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 talks about God giving us a new heart and putting His Spirit in us, so that we can walk in His ways and be His people. Psalm 51:10 has the Psalmist asking for a clean heart from God, to have our spirits renewed.

So much for free will! Do you really want the spirit of a mass murderer in your "heart"? If you walk in his ways, then please stay far away from me.

You can seriously say that after reading Revelation? I see no desire on the part of God to do good to the "evil doers" whom he casts into a lake of fire.

What do you think a good being would do?

Obviously a good being wouldn't do something like that! If I was God, I would never harm anybody, and I would be good to people regardless of what they've done.

You should check JW's post to me and my reply to him on this thread. He mocked people who ask for help in their prayers as superstitious and stupid. I've seen other Christians do the same thing.

I'm not sure JW was mocking anyone...

I'm sure he was mocking people who have prayed desperately to no avail and have understandably ended up doubters. Like many other Christian groups, the Jehovah's Witnesses show no mercy on those they brand apostates. I've seen them express approval of parents turning against their children who have left their cult.

...he was disagreeing with how some believers and non-believers view God: expecting God to satisfy their desires.

Then he disagrees with his own Bible. In the New World Translation Matthew 21:22 says:

And all the things you ask in prayer, having faith, you will receive.

JW posts now that all you ask for in prayer you will not receive! What could be more contradictory than that? It's very common for Christians to deny their own Bible this way when they realize that what they believe is not consistent with reality.

But some Christians do mock those who disagree with them, you are right.

More than that--many Christians mock those who have believed them and acted on those beliefs only to discover they've been misled. When those people speak out against their former religion, Christians will often talk down to them telling them that they are stupid and unable to "understand."

Here all you've done is shown that some prayers are not answered the way the people praying them want them to be.

Oh sure. Those with terminal illnesses who pray to live fill the cemeteries. Severely disabled people who pray for healing spend the rest of their lives in wheelchairs. They didn't get the answers they wanted. They got no answers at all, actually.

James 1:5 talks about wisdom being given generously to all without approach.

If that prayer request was granted, then they would know better than to believe James.

Those who have some mental doubts aren't disqualified.

You're contradicting what James said.

Why there are homeless and hungry people is a different issue. I think humans are a big part of that cause.

If you can't get God off the hook, then just blame people. I wonder what people cause earthquakes and famines.

Answer the way the doubter wants? Give them whatever they ask for? And what would that person then think about God?

I can't speak for everybody, but if God exists and is generous and helpful, then I might actually like him. I tend to like people who treat me well, and I appreciate their generosity and help. It's interesting how Jesus commanded people to love God. Jesus didn't seem to understand that if God was lovable, then God would earn people's love. Maybe it's a tacit admission that if God wants love, then he needs to demand it!

First off, God overlooks even major imperfections, if people choose to rely on Him rather than be self-reliant or self-serving.

I think that was what the Inquisition was thinking about themselves when they burned people.

Secondly, God didn't make the imperfections.

Then he didn't create most of the universe. It's very imperfect.

I think there are very good reasons for God to have humans do this life together, working together, sharing with each other, experiencing joys together, etc.

I think a better explanation for our needing help from other people is that there is no God to help us, but other people do exist and can help us. Those who created God realized that an imaginary God can do nothing, and so they had their make-believe God command that we help each other. And then rather than give thanks to the good people who deserve it, the God-makers take the credit for their God!

How is that for our sake? If your can order a TV from a business that ships it to you with one order and a business that makes you "persist" by ordering it again and again without knowing when or if you'll ever get it, then which business would you order the TV from?

Do you have children?

No, and I have no idea what that has to do with what I just asked. Please answer the question.

[JehovahsWitness]

You should check JW's post to me and my reply to him on this thread. He mocked people who ask for help in their prayers as superstitious and stupid.

That is untrue, I did nothing of the kind! Please provide provide the quote if you claim otherwise.

JW

[Bust Nak]

I've seen them express approval of parents turning against their children who have left their cult.

Moderator Warning

It is not permitted to say another person or group is a cult.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[The Tanager]

I've never before realized that some Christians do not approve of all the Psalms. Which Psalms are unholy, and how do you tell the difference?

I didn't say I disapproved of them. It's nothing new to think that some of the things recorded in Scripture is unholy; the Bible itself tells us so. It records sins and that doesn't mean God approves of it or that that piece should be thrown out. Psalm 3 is praiseworthy for its honesty, for turning to God in desperation for comfort, protection, salvation, etc. The other psalms are similar.

However, the Psalms are, based on my own reading and understanding and what Christians have taught me, what he does condone. They are much like the Sermon on the Mount.

But it's not all or nothing.

Actually, the God of the Bible does horrible things to his enemies. His "reaching out" includes genocide and mass destruction. We need not wonder why he has enemies.

What makes you think 'genocide' is the correct term? And what reason is given for the destruction?

Ezekiel 36:26-27 talks about God giving us a new heart and putting His Spirit in us, so that we can walk in His ways and be His people. Psalm 51:10 has the Psalmist asking for a clean heart from God, to have our spirits renewed.

So much for free will! Do you really want the spirit of a mass murderer in your "heart"? If you walk in his ways, then please stay far away from me.

Why do you think this counters free will?

Obviously a good being wouldn't do something like that! If I was God, I would never harm anybody, and I would be good to people regardless of what they've done.

You wouldn't do anything, ever, to the child abusing priests? To rapists? To murderers? If not, then why are you so against a god who would do/allow these kinds of things? Note that I don't agree with your depiction of the God of the Bible, but I'm trying to follow your reasoning.

Then he disagrees with his own Bible. In the New World Translation Matthew 21:22 says:

And all the things you ask in prayer, having faith, you will receive.

JW posts now that all you ask for in prayer you will not receive! What could be more contradictory than that? It's very common for Christians to deny their own Bible this way when they realize that what they believe is not consistent with reality.

Verses have a context. You are applying a context from your experiences/view/understanding onto this verse rather than looking at the context it was written in. That context is talking about where Jesus' authority comes from. It's about Jesus being in God's will. That will affect what you pray for and, of course, God will empower you to do the things God wants you to do. This is not contradictory at all. There is no denying the Bible. It's denying perceived-to-be-false interpretations of the Bible.

Oh sure. Those with terminal illnesses who pray to live fill the cemeteries. Severely disabled people who pray for healing spend the rest of their lives in wheelchairs. They didn't get the answers they wanted. They got no answers at all, actually.

No, they did get an answer: No. Now, whether that was a good answer or not is another question.

Those who have some mental doubts aren't disqualified.

You're contradicting what James said.

Then support your claim here. I talked about the Greek word James used, talked about the context that makes it so I think I'm right in line with what James said.

If you can't get God off the hook, then just blame people. I wonder what people cause earthquakes and famines.

You need to stop assuming you know my response to any further questions that are connected to the ones you bring up. First, I'm not letting God off the hook. God could have chosen to make things differently. But, that would be a worse God. I think free will is a great good. God didn't have to give it to us, but as a loving God, God does.

Second, people are to blame for their actions. Some have special circumstances that require greater patience and help than others with the choices they make that we must consider as well.

Third, earthquakes and famines may be necessary possibilities given the kind of physical existence we have. So, while I think they can cause suffering, I don't consider them evils per se. I think God wants us to use these opportunities to grow in our love for each other, caring for each other.

Answer the way the doubter wants? Give them whatever they ask for? And what would that person then think about God?

I can't speak for everybody, but if God exists and is generous and helpful, then I might actually like him. I tend to like people who treat me well, and I appreciate their generosity and help. It's interesting how Jesus commanded people to love God. Jesus didn't seem to understand that if God was lovable, then God would earn people's love. Maybe it's a tacit admission that if God wants love, then he needs to demand it!

You weren't talking about being generous and helpful, you were talking about God granting whatever people ask. Have you seen the movie Bruce Almighty? I recommend it. Jim Carrey, Morgan Freeman star. If God simply gave what people ask for there would be chaos and people would see God as a power source to manipulate for one's own ends.

I think that was what the Inquisition was thinking about themselves when they burned people.

The Inquisition is not God.

Secondly, God didn't make the imperfections.

Then he didn't create most of the universe. It's very imperfect.

What imperfections do you have in mind?

How is that for our sake? If your can order a TV from a business that ships it to you with one order and a business that makes you "persist" by ordering it again and again without knowing when or if you'll ever get it, then which business would you order the TV from?

Do you have children?

No, and I have no idea what that has to do with what I just asked. Please answer the question.

I have children. If I were to act towards them as you seem to want God to act towards us, then my children would not be helpful members of society when they grow up. They would have had everything done for them. They would not know how to deal with stressful situations. They would not know the joys that come from sticking with things that are hard. That kind of stuff.

[unknown soldier]

I've never before realized that some Christians do not approve of all the Psalms. Which Psalms are unholy, and how do you tell the difference?

I didn't say I disapproved of them. It's nothing new to think that some of the things recorded in Scripture is unholy; the Bible itself tells us so. It records sins and that doesn't mean God approves of it or that that piece should be thrown out. Psalm 3 is praiseworthy for its honesty, for turning to God in desperation for comfort, protection, salvation, etc. The other psalms are similar.

You didn't answer my question. How do you decide which acts or words in Bible passages are acts or words that God presumably disapproves of? We have for an example Psalm 3:7 which presents us with a person praying that God do terrible harm to that person's enemies. How do you know that God disapproves of what is being prayed? Note that the Psalmist says that God strikes the Psalmist's enemies and breaks their teeth! Is the Psalmist wrong about God doing so? How do you know?

However, the Psalms are, based on my own reading and understanding and what Christians have taught me, what he does condone. They are much like the Sermon on the Mount.
But it's not all or nothing.

What's wrong with "all or nothing"? Sometimes we do have all or nothing. It happens. Citing exceptions to the norm is fine as long as you demonstrate that there are exceptions. You have not demonstrated that any Psalm is contrary to God's will. You appear to be arbitrarily denying that God would support any Psalm that doesn't fit modern ideas of goodness.

Actually, the God of the Bible does horrible things to his enemies. His "reaching out" includes genocide and mass destruction. We need not wonder why he has enemies.

What makes you think 'genocide' is the correct term?

Genocide is mass killing. Would you prefer a nicer term like "ethnic cleansing"?

And what reason is given for the destruction?

You should tell me. It's your religion and morality. I think that the point of the destruction was to make sure that the victims of the invading Israelites had no resources to recover to defend their homeland.

Why do you think this counters free will?

I assumed that God giving somebody "a new heart" and "a clean heart" is his giving that person a new will. That doesn't sound free to me.

By the way, the Bible writers didn't understand that we think with our brains and not with our hearts. To this day Christians echo that ignorance.

You wouldn't do anything, ever, to the child abusing priests? To rapists? To murderers?

I wouldn't harm such people. If I had all-mighty powers, then I would not allow child abuse, rape, or murder to begin with.

If not, then why are you so against a god who would do/allow these kinds of things?

If God exists then he's cruel, stupid, or both cruel and stupid. I just demonstrated that I'm wiser and more merciful than he is.

Verses have a context. You are applying a context from your experiences/view/understanding onto this verse rather than looking at the context it was written in. That context is talking about where Jesus' authority comes from. It's about Jesus being in God's will.

OK, let's look at the context. From Matthew 21 (New World Translation):

18 While returning to the city early in the morning, he felt hungry.t 19 He caught sight of a fig tree by the road and went to it, but he found nothing on it except leaves,u and he said to it: “Let no fruit come from you ever again.”v And the fig tree withered instantly. 20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed and said: “How is it that the fig tree withered instantly?”w 21 In answer Jesus said to them: “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what I did to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen.x 22 And all the things you ask in prayer, having faith, you will receive.

I see nothing from the context here that tells us that verse 22 means anything other than what it clearly says. I took nothing out of context.

There is no denying the Bible. It's denying perceived-to-be-false interpretations of the Bible.

LOL. I'd recommend you not use that old trick of alleging a "false interpretation" with an atheist who knows the Bible!

No, they did get an answer: No.

Such an answer would contradict Matthew 21:22. But more to the point, I never heard "no" when my prayers failed. Do you actually hear such an answer when your prayers fail?

Now, whether that was a good answer or not is another question.

The answer to that question is no; it's never good when people continue to suffer.

God could have chosen to make things differently. But, that would be a worse God.

So you prefer a God of cancer and birth defects and earthquakes and ...

I think free will is a great good. God didn't have to give it to us, but as a loving God, God does.

If we have free will, then why can't I will that the churches be taxed?

Second, people are to blame for their actions.

Then why make a special exception for God? As a person, he should be blamed for his evil like the rest of us.

Third, earthquakes and famines may be necessary possibilities given the kind of physical existence we have. So, while I think they can cause suffering, I don't consider them evils per se. I think God wants us to use these opportunities to grow in our love for each other, caring for each other.

LOL So God can't let us grow in love for each other without killing thousands of us in earthquakes?

Have you seen the movie Bruce Almighty?

No.

If God simply gave what people ask for there would be chaos and people would see God as a power source to manipulate for one's own ends.

You seem to have a very dim view of people. I think people are sensible enough to make wise choices in what they want avoiding chaos. Besides, if chaos does result from our choices, then all we need to do is ask that the chaos end.

The Inquisition is not God.

The Inquisition believed they did what God wanted. They referred to burning people as an act of faith in Christ. I think it's safe to say that if the inquisitors focused instead on what people wanted, then nobody would have died such horrible deaths.

What imperfections do you have in mind?

Fanatical, harmful, and irrational religion tops my list of the universe's imperfections.

I have children. If I were to act towards them as you seem to want God to act towards us, then my children would not be helpful members of society when they grow up. They would have had everything done for them. They would not know how to deal with stressful situations. They would not know the joys that come from sticking with things that are hard. That kind of stuff.

If God exists, then there would be no stressful situations for anybody to worry about! They would have joy without any need for hardship.

And you're still not answering my question! If your can order a TV from a business that ships it to you with one order and a business that makes you "persist" by ordering it again and again without knowing when or if you'll ever get it, then which business would you order the TV from? No doubt you'd take the business that gets you the TV with one order. Why, then, use a different standard to judge God's way of answering prayer forcing you to "persist"?

[brunumb]

You wouldn't do anything, ever, to the child abusing priests? To rapists? To murderers? If not, then why are you so against a god who would do/allow these kinds of things?

I'm curious. What does God himself actually do in those circumstances? It appears that he allows religious organisations to be havens for pedophiles and sexual predators.