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]

I am not arguing morals. I am treating the idea of a perfect Creator as someone who creates perfect things. In the case of Christian interpretation of another religions mythology regarding The Creator, the argument is that human beings are not perfect by design. IF something has no morals [is not morally correct] and your argument is that they should have morals, THEN the beings have been created imperfectly.
The only way around that is to add UNLESS the beings were purposefully created to be imperfect. [morally imperfect in the case of your particular argument]

You assume moral perfection is part of what it means to be 'perfect,' here. The Bible does not. My argument does not. If you want to use those terms in that specific way, then, sure, humans were created "imperfect." Was your critique just semantics? If not, then what is your critique?

1. That the Bible mythology speaks to God not being content to call Himself Father until He tests humans as worthy?

The whole mythology speaks to that very thing. I would be morally blind not to notice it.

Empty rhetoric, which is useless in rational discussion. Give actual support to move the discussion forward.

2. That science is a more logical storyteller of God?

Morals - as they are, evolve through human interaction with the environment and seem peculiar to the human animal. Christian mythology say's we were born without morals but with the potential to learn them and act accordingly. That is no different to what evolution of the human mind tells us. Where the paths separate appears to be the forbidden fruit whereby - without it - we would not have inherited the need to form morals in the first place.

The Genesis story is not about the origin of morals. Humans knew the moral choice before eating the fruit.

[brunumb]

The only way to achieve that is to change them into robots. The only way that an incorruptible heaven works is if it is populated by human robots.

No, it is logically possible to have humans who always freely choose the good. The difference from Eden is that these humans have already disobeyed, realized their bankruptcy, and then put their continual trust in God who helping them to unlearn all their selfish ways.

I think there is a lot of wishful thinking behind that assertion. It may be logically possible, but that is no guarantee that it is also probable. The only way it would be a certainty is if people became robots once allowed into heaven.

[brunumb]

As someone who does not believe in God, I am regarded as somehow rejecting God. I do not see myself as a corrupt or corrupting individual. In fact I would regard myself as acting in a more Christian way than many devout Christians. How is eternal suffering a just outcome for my life?

I agree with CS Lewis' assessment. He wrote that "when a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse, he understands his own badness less and less. A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right...Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either."

Jesus' message is for those who realize they are corrupt, self-centered, damaging to others and themselves. It is for those who compare themselves to the moral law, not us broken people next to them. These people see their need for outside help.

There is danger in thinking one is something they are not.

I don't really care what Lewis had to say and take that as nothing more than a back-handed attack on myself.

[William]

The Genesis story is not about the origin of morals. Humans knew the moral choice before eating the fruit.

It is not my argument that it is. I did not bring free will or morals into the argument. You did. You have yet to explain why.

You can start by explaining how humans knew about moral choice before they had the ability to know good from evil. Surely logic has it that knowledge of good and evil have to develop first before morals can be understood.

Give actual support to move the discussion forward.

As I wrote "since your argument is that no human being is morally perfect, neither you or I can make the call either way in regard to The Creator."

I am not the one arguing for the validity of the bible version of The Creator. Nor am I arguing that The Creator is the one you refer to as 'God'.
If you think the Christian Mythology is speaking of something else, then say so...I myself have yet to meet anyone calling themselves "Christian, who does not see the story as one of morality...so am interested in how you see it...not that it changes the fact that neither you or I can make the call either way in regard to The Creator...or we can agree to drop it altogether as irrelevant to the argument.

2. That science is a more logical storyteller of God?

Not what I wrote. I specifically mentioned that the story Science gives us is far better than the one Christians give us. I am obligated to accept that nature is a reflection of The Creator's...creativity but am not morally obligated to refer to the creator as "God" (the god of Christians) as to do so might muddy the waters...Science itself does not busy itself with the idea of a Creator to the point of guessing what the Creator might be like - nature is quite capable of providing us with that information nonetheless.

Earth Herself holds the evidence necessary to provide the true storyline...so no need for mythology - Christian or otherwise regarding the nature of The Creator(s)

[brunumb]

I don't see how a loving God could not allow Hell, because the alternatives seem to be either (1) override free will or (2) allow corruption to eternally touch everyone.

How does a loving God allow Satan free reign to corrupt people in this world?

Satan does not override human free will, we choose to follow that voice over God's voice. Our corruption is our own doing and we would do it with or without Satan.

You did not really answer my question. If our corruption is our own doing then Satan is not necessary as a corrupting influence. Surely we would be better off if his voice was not there to follow. Why does God allow him to exert his influence? You appear to be too ready to blame humans for all their weaknesses and failings, but the buck ultimately stops with God.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #236]

William wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:48 pm

Your argument that this particular idea of The Creator took away access to "The Tree of Life" [by the way -after the fact], only shows that he could have done so in the first place by keeping the Children from harm and preventing that harm from happening.

Yes, by taking away their free will, which is not a loving act.

It has not been established beyond speculation that gifting a being free will is a loving act in the first place. The way the argument of free will is presented by interpretation of Christian mythology I have noted, IF free will allows a being the "ability to be perfect"
(as you wrote) THEN even with free will, we are still imperfect. The main point being that clearly the mythology itself shows us an idea of a Creator who either isn't perfect OR is (perhaps) perfect and purposefully created imperfect beings. The mythology itself leans toward the idea that this being created the imperfect on purpose. He may be perfect in the sense that he was more than capable of doing so...the question might then be "should he have done so?" and for that answer one needs to uncover his purpose.
The claim being that the Christian Bible mythology does the job of uncovering his purpose...nothing of any substance in 2000 years of Christian occupation clearly shows us that Christianity is doing that job...


Your argument about hell as some kind of holding cell for that which is considered evil (as you believe evil to be) so that the 'rot' as it were, cannot corrupt everything else, suggests that all creation is under threat, which is at odds with the idea that [heaven in this case] is incorruptible.

If anything, the two domains are both holding cells of sort, each administering its own purpose in relation to free will beings still encased in the mythology of using the knowledge of good and evil...perhaps the perfect act of use of free will is to let go of that knowledge...

as you wrote:

If humans were created as morally perfect, then they would not be as good ('perfect') as they could have been created. Having free will is better than being morally perfect robots.

This produces an image of a Creator who is not satisfied with his creations because they are all simply robots and cannot love him of their own free will, so he sets about creating an environment [science] where he can produce creatures with free will. We still don't know that it is a loving act because the results appear to have surprised the god and while he tried to be patient he also appears to have wanted things to hurry along so occasionally personally interfered. In interfering - perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not - he tampered with the results so couldn't trust that those who personally witnessed him actually loved him for who he was/is or because they feared what would happen to them if they did not love him.

But before all that could happen, he had to find a way in which to activate the free will in the beings he created, and for that he needed them to have a sense of right and wrong - thus the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil...but how to get them to eat of the fruit?

Well the story tells us in enough detail for us to get the picture of how this was achieved. Enter The Dragon, stage left....all from the mythology itself. These conspiracy all trace back to that overall Middle Eastern Mythology. The same mythology Christians peddle...



Without those ingredients, how was free will to be of any use to anyone?

[tam]

Peace to you all,

Just an fyi,

It was not the tree of knowing good FROM bad. It was not the tree of knowing right from wrong.

It was the tree of knowing good AND bad.


Some seem to think that Adam and Eve would only know right from wrong (good from bad) unless they ate from that tree (of knowing good and bad). But that is not the kind of tree it was. And why in the world would a person die after eating from it?

Note:

1 - Solomon was praised for wanting the wisdom to discern right from wrong.

So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. 1 Kings 3:9


2 - God did not threaten to kill Adam and Eve if they ate from that tree. He warned them what would happen (cause and natural effect).

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”


Eat and you will die.

NOT... eat and I will kill you.




**


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[William]

Peace to you all,

Just an fyi,

It was not the tree of knowing good FROM bad. It was not the tree of knowing right from wrong.

It was the tree of knowing good AND bad.


Some seem to think that Adam and Eve would only know right from wrong (good from bad) unless they ate from that tree (of knowing good and bad). But that is not the kind of tree it was. And why in the world would a person die after eating from it?

Note:

1 - Solomon was praised for wanting the wisdom to discern right from wrong.

So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. 1 Kings 3:9


2 - God did not threaten to kill Adam and Eve if they ate from that tree. He warned them what would happen (cause and natural effect).

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”


Eat and you will die.

NOT... eat and I will kill you.




**


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

This is probably besides the point at this stage Tammy. My argument isn't about deciphering the different interpretations of Christian mythology and your point makes no difference to my argument, as far as you have so far noted...

It was not the tree of knowing right from wrong. It was the tree of knowing good AND bad.

The title we are given is that it was" the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". How is one to know either unless one personally experiences both?

But then we enter the realm of how differently good and evil are individually interpreted so our knowledge does not appear to be uniform and therefore not complete and therefore not full knowledge...knowing good and bad (as in experiencing these polarities) isn't helpful in any particular way...other than - as I have already noted - it is the ONLY way in which to create beings of free will...who will actually act that out in order that the results can be studied...

1 - Solomon was praised for wanting the wisdom to discern right from wrong.

My argument is that this is the direct result of knowing good and bad...no more no less and nothing remarkable in that...

2 - God did not threaten to kill Adam and Eve if they ate from that tree.

Who are arguing that?

He warned them what would happen (cause and natural effect).

While - of course - knowing all along that they would - for how else can this god produce an actual free will being? That is the question Christian mythology does not seem to know how to answer...

Eat and you will die.

NOT... eat and I will kill you.

What about eat and I will watch you all die and see what happens as a result?

The point is, he whom creates the rules made it that way so effectively one can argue that yes - "I will kill you using the machinery I created in order to do this..." is part of the rule of the mechanism.

In that, I am making the statement without judgement one way or the other. I am not knowledgeable enough about what is good and evil to make a call on that (Christian idea of) gods purpose and plan for human beings....it is what it is...

[The Tanager]

I think there is a lot of wishful thinking behind that assertion. It may be logically possible, but that is no guarantee that it is also probable. The only way it would be a certainty is if people became robots once allowed into heaven.

Yes, the only way we would get 100% probability is if they became robots. Probability is only so useful.

I don't really care what Lewis had to say and take that as nothing more than a back-handed attack on myself.

It's not an attack on you, it's an assessment on everyone, myself included.

You did not really answer my question. If our corruption is our own doing then Satan is not necessary as a corrupting influence. Surely we would be better off if his voice was not there to follow. Why does God allow him to exert his influence?

Satan isn't necessary as a corrupting influence. Without Satan, some other voice would try to corrupt us and we use our voice to corrupt others regardless. Still, we aren't forced to listen to the corrupting voices, even if that voice is ours alone. God allows free beings to make choices and affect others because a world with free will is better than one without.

You appear to be too ready to blame humans for all their weaknesses and failings, but the buck ultimately stops with God.

You appear too ready to not blame humans as though they have no ability to overcome outside influences; I have a higher picture of humanity than that appears to present. But, yes, again, this world is God's doing. It's a better world than the alternative.

[The Tanager]

It is not my argument that it is. I did not bring free will or morals into the argument. You did. You have yet to explain why.

Actually unknown soldier first brought up free will, claiming a Biblical passage went against it. Then unknown soldier said free will is used as an excuse to get God off the hook with evil. I explained how I thought it wasn't. Then unknown soldier had more critiques and I responded to them. Then other people made critiques of what I was saying, eventually you. Everything I have said is in response to critiques made against Christianity, usually that Christianity is inconsistent, not that some element is untrue. My responses have (rightly so) been of a defensive manor in that way.

You can start by explaining how humans knew about moral choice before they had the ability to know good from evil. Surely logic has it that knowledge of good and evil have to develop first before morals can be understood.

In spite of what you said to Tam, your argument here does seem to take a particular interpretation of what the tree of knowledge of good and evil is. The humans didn't know good from evil until they ate of the fruit. Adam and Eve know what God says is good to do: don't eat the fruit. Eve decides to eat it anyway because she saw it was good for food, that it was a delight to her eyes, and the tree might make her wise (without having to trust God and in direct contradiction to trusting God), three things she determined to be 'good,' and she went with what she deemed 'good' rather than what God deemed 'good.' Contextually, she is choosing for herself what is 'good' for her to do rather than trusting omniscient wisdom's idea of what is good for her to do.

It has not been established beyond speculation that gifting a being free will is a loving act in the first place.

I've given my reasoning in this thread, not speculated. The choice is to either gift a being free will, giving them the possibility of experiencing love, or to enslave their will, giving them no possibility of experiencing love but making it so they cannot commit evil either. What do you think the better choice and why?

The way the argument of free will is presented by interpretation of Christian mythology I have noted, IF free will allows a being the "ability to be perfect"
(as you wrote) THEN even with free will, we are still imperfect.

We've got to get clear in how you are using these terms 'perfect' and 'imperfect'.

If one thinks of 'perfect' in the sense of a batting average, then you are wrong. Humans would have a 'perfect' moral choice average (i.e., be morally perfect) until they first disobeyed God's omnsicient wisdom.

If one thinks of perfect/imperfect in a prescriptive sense, then you are still wrong. Humans with free will are, logically, neither morally perfect in this way nor morally imperfect.

The only way I can agree with your statement above is if we take 'imperfect' to simply mean "not morally perfect (in its prescriptive sense).

The main point being that clearly the mythology itself shows us an idea of a Creator who either isn't perfect OR is (perhaps) perfect and purposefully created imperfect beings. The mythology itself leans toward the idea that this being created the imperfect on purpose.

So, in the third sense of 'imperfect' above, yes, Christianity says God purposefully created imperfect beings.

He may be perfect in the sense that he was more than capable of doing so...the question might then be "should he have done so?" and for that answer one needs to uncover his purpose.
The claim being that the Christian Bible mythology does the job of uncovering his purpose...nothing of any substance in 2000 years of Christian occupation clearly shows us that Christianity is doing that job...

I am not sure what you mean in the second part. As to whether God should have done so, I think that creating 'imperfect' (third sense above) creatures is a better thing for a Creator to do then to create morally perfect (in the second sense above) beings because the latter aren't personal beings with the ability to love while the former is, and personal beings with the ability to love are better than having robots in spite of the evils that may occur.

Your argument about hell as some kind of holding cell for that which is considered evil (as you believe evil to be) so that the 'rot' as it were, cannot corrupt everything else, suggests that all creation is under threat, which is at odds with the idea that [heaven in this case] is incorruptible.

You appear to understand my view of heaven and hell as neutral places, which they are not. Heaven, by definition, is those places which have no corruption in it. Hell, by definition, is those places which have corruption. Without this distinction, then we just have one realm that is full of corruption, i.e., simply a Hell and no Heaven for eternity.

If humans were created as morally perfect, then they would not be as good ('perfect') as they could have been created. Having free will is better than being morally perfect robots.

This produces an image of a Creator who is not satisfied with his creations because they are all simply robots and cannot love him of their own free will, so he sets about creating an environment [science] where he can produce creatures with free will.

That is not the image because it assumes the Creator first made robots and then beings with free will, which I have not claimed. I spoke of the choice between the two.

We still don't know that it is a loving act because the results appear to have surprised the god and while he tried to be patient he also appears to have wanted things to hurry along so occasionally personally interfered.

Where does the text show a surprised God? Where does the text show God wanting to hurry things along? Interference isn't necessarily "hurrying things along". God is patient and constantly involved in the lives of humans in the Biblical picture, both because of His love.

In interfering - perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not - he tampered with the results so couldn't trust that those who personally witnessed him actually loved him for who he was/is or because they feared what would happen to them if they did not love him.

Where does the text show this? God is presented in the Bible as knowing our deepest thoughts. Or where is the logical argument that this is the only logical interpretation one could have?

But before all that could happen, he had to find a way in which to activate the free will in the beings he created, and for that he needed them to have a sense of right and wrong - thus the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil...but how to get them to eat of the fruit?

Well the story tells us in enough detail for us to get the picture of how this was achieved. Enter The Dragon, stage left....all from the mythology itself. These conspiracy all trace back to that overall Middle Eastern Mythology. The same mythology Christians peddle...

Where does the text show this? You seem to be reading that into the text instead of out of it.