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]

If praying is more about getting our hearts aligned with God than rubbing a magic lamp, then persistence is a needed thing because it's not easy changing our mindsets and getting us to act sometimes.

As far as I'm concerned, it makes no sense for a real God to want us to persist in prayer. Can't he get it the first time we pray? If a God is unreal, then those who created him will tell us to persist in prayer his creators knowing full well that a made-up God cannot answer prayers.

Do you see how your conclusion aligns perfectly with Tanagers "genie in a bottle" approach? A genie has no other consideration but to satisfy his master's request - that's what makes him (the genie) the slave. He must use his powers to satisfy the request REGARDLESS of the genie's judgement as to whether the request is for the long term good of the individual or others.

I'm not sure if I agree completely with the genie analogy because genies are actually supposed to do what they are asked to do. If I understand correctly they don't deny their masters what those masters may be in very dire need of. Jehovah is not so dependable often refusing to help those who are desperate for help. I'd take a genie over Jehovah any day.

But for now let's stick with your analogy. Say I sell you a lamp claiming it contains a genii who will grant your requests. You rush home overjoyed that now you have the solution to some of your worst problems. You rub your hand raw on the lamp but no genii! Your needs go unmet as before. Exasperated, you return to me explaining that the genii seems quite absent and that you have not benefited as you had hoped. I blame you telling you that you are an unrighteous person who is too selfish for the genii to help. Would you believe that that lamp really contains a genii? If you have any sense at all, then you will conclude that I'm a huckster who lied to you to con you out of money.

So why stick with religion and prayer when it's as impotent as that genii? Religion's promises are every bit as empty as any conman who sells you a magic lamp telling you it will magically help you.

Unlike you, most believers don't view think of God as a slave that must use his unlimited powers to immediately satisfy their every desire. Rather they acknowledge an omnipotent Creator may have good reason, reason we may not always fully understand, to refuse request we might make. Accepting the above is a crucial component of what the bible calls... faith.

That conman I just posted about might well sell you that same kind of nonsense about his "magic" lamp. Hucksters are long on smoothing over their scams with a lot of words and short on actually fulfilling their claims and promises.

Finally, I should point out that your characterizing those who pray with no positive results as superstitious fools who just don't understand prayer like you do is cruel and is an insult to all those who suffer terribly with some problem they are desperate to solve. If they end up doubting that prayer works when their prayers fail, then will you mock them as superstitious dopes who don't know any better like you claim to?

[unknown soldier]

Here's a link to A Christian's Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism. It's a good book in that it shows the viewpoint that many apologists have of atheism. I recommend you read it.

Thank you.

You are welcome! It's good to be treated courteously.

Psalm 3:7 (NRSV) for example, has this to say:
Rise up, O Lord! Deliver me, O my God! For you strike all my enemies on the cheek; you break the teeth of the wicked.

I'm not sure this Psalm is the best example for your point. The Psalmist calls out to God for help, knowing that God has the power to stop his enemies, which often would only come through causing suffering for the evil-doer because of their self-centeredness. The focus is on him being saved, not the enemy being punished.

As far as my point is concerned, the focus of this Psalm, while debatable, isn't terribly important. This Psalm presents us with a Bible writer who calls on God to whack his enemy. It's essentially a prayer in which God is asked to do harm to the Psalmist's enemy.

...just because someone prays a certain way in a Psalm (or other text), this does not mean God approves of it in every way. I think God lets us and calls us to be honest in our prayers.

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 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?

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.

You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

If roasting people in a lake of fire is "perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect," then I'm glad I'm not perfect! Is that God's way of loving his enemies? Sadly, many people including the Inquisition tried to be as perfect as God by burning people alive.

I've noticed that many Christians tend to characterize those who ask God for things as being childish or ignorant. Don't you think that is a harsh judgment?

I do think selfish prayers are childish and ignorant. But I don't say that as an insult, looking down on people.

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 think it's safe to say that God is more likely to get something from you than you from him.

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.

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

Then why are many people homeless or hungry?

James is talking about a deeper sense of doubt. The double-minded in verse 8 literally is "of two souls/selves." It's a person whose heart is divided and they haven't decided for God yet. They are still wavering between self-reliance and reliance on God. If you aren't convinced God gives trustworthy wisdom, then you won't trust God's answers for wisdom (which, from verse 5, is what is being prayed for hear).

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.

I think it's safe to say that Butt doesn't expect anybody to be perfect, but unfortunately he does not tell us what imperfections God will overlook.

And you think the Bible says God will overlook some, but not others?

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.

God isn't against us having any fun, but that definitely shouldn't be the focus of our life. We should use our resources (money, time, etc.) on bringing joy, justice, and basic needs to others who don't have it.

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.

Persistance is for our sake, not His. He knows what we want and need even before we pray and even if we never pray.

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?

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.

[brunumb]

Unlike you, most believers don't view think of God as a slave that must use his unlimited powers to immediately satisfy their every desire.

Do you have evidence to support that claim?

We need look no further the religious texts on the subject. Gods are rarely presented at being at the whim and wish of their subjects The pagan gods, were depicted as being masters over humans not the other way round. Jupiter would kidnap humans for his amusement, Zeus had affairs with them and even though Hesiod's Theogony and Works and Days , and Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey do depict gracious magnanimous dieties, they were always so from a position of power.

The bible likewise depicts a God vastly superior to humans that expects them to bow to his will and even though there might be sects that believe god unconditionally grants all requests, they would have difficulty surviving faced with the evident demonstration that He does not.

And, as is quite usual, you have simply dodged the question. At least you didn't avoid answering the question by throwing back another question as is your wont. If you are going to make up claims and sweeping generalisations, be prepared to actually back them up.

[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

How do we know who and what people have prayed?

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

Those sceptics seem to be very gullible, or perhaps they are just making up claims without any evidence?

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

Can you show one example of person who prayed Bible God and did not get answer? And please also tell how can I really know the person prayed?

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

[gadfly]

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?

Curious about the nature of prayer in theist theology. Supplication seems to be a request. And in human affairs requests are sometimes granted and sometimes denied. Thus would it not be best to ask, Not, why God does not answer some prayers, but rather, why does God answer some prayers negatively and some positively?

So then, all prayers are "answered". Theists may complain why some are answered negatively and some positively. But when all considerations are made it would seem that the objection amounts to this: Prayer is meant to appeal to a magical source whose sole job is to provide me with what I want in this world for my own temporal pleasure.

[JehovahsWitness]

Can you show one example of person who prayed Bible God and did not get answer? And please also tell how can I really know the person prayed?

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

Yes please. I for one would indeed like to take you up on that offer, unless of course you were merely making empty rhetoric.

JW






RELATED POSTS

Are all prayerful requests guaranteed a positive response?
viewtopic.php?p=1024122#p1024122

[unknown soldier]

...in human affairs requests are sometimes granted and sometimes denied.

God is supposed to be all-mighty, and as such he can give us essentially anything that is logically possible. If we limit him a bit by saying he is all-good, then he can grant us anything that is morally good or at least harmless. So he is then different from people. People may be cruel or selfish and refuse to give others what they want or need. Even if people want to grant others their requests, they might not be able to because they cannot grant what is requested. So my point is that comparing God to people can result in illogical conclusions.

Thus would it not be best to ask, Not, why God does not answer some prayers, but rather, why does God answer some prayers negatively and some positively?

As far as I can tell, prayers get no answers at all, negative or positive. If what is prayed for is never delivered, then we just don't know why if we insist that God exists. If we consider the possibility that God is make-believe, then we are freed to see reasons that are quite obvious. For example, if Christians pray that an amputee's limb is restored, I can bet any money that it will never happen. The obvious reason if you think like an atheist is that there is nothing, God or otherwise, that can restore a limb. It's that simple if you're an atheist. Christians, by contrast, will either go on long and elaborate rationalizations to try to reconcile a loving, omnipotent, prayer-answering God with a failed prayer, or they will simply ignore the failed prayer.

Prayer is meant to appeal to a magical source whose sole job is to provide me with what I want in this world for my own temporal pleasure.

What's wrong with you having what you want and experiencing pleasure? The Christian God seems to want us to live deprivation and in misery. Could it be that God's creators know that a make-believe God cannot give anybody anything including pleasure?

[unknown soldier]

Can you show one example of person who prayed Bible God and did not get answer? And please also tell how can I really know the person prayed?

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

Yes please. I for one would indeed like to take you up on that offer, unless of course you were merely making empty rhetoric.

Oh God, in Jesus' name, change the Golden Gate Bridge to real gold!

See--no delivery. Now you need to get busy rationalizing the failure of that prayer. You may wish to attack me as a person morally unworthy of receiving a prayer request.

[JehovahsWitness]

Can you show one example of person who prayed Bible God and did not get answer? And please also tell how can I really know the person prayed?

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

Yes please. I for one would indeed like to take you up on that offer, unless of course you were merely making empty rhetoric.

Oh God, in Jesus' name, change the Golden Gate Bridge to real gold!

See--no delivery. Now you need to get busy rationalizing the failure of that prayer. You may wish to attack me as a person morally unworthy of receiving a prayer request.

I'm not satisfied you have demonstrated anything, much less prayer, you just seem to have typed some words on the internet. If typing is a demonstration of prayer, why would people's words that their prayers have been answered not be a demonstration of its power?

[unknown soldier]

I'm not satisfied you have demonstrated anything, much less prayer...

What? You mean I wasn't able to convince you that prayer doesn't work? I am so surprised that you do not see that my prayer failed.

...you just seem to have typed some words on the internet.

Is Jehovah God more likely to answer a prayer over the phone or YouTube if mere text doesn't suffice?

If typing is a demonstration of prayer, why would people's words that their prayers have been answered not be a demonstration of its power?

Well, JW, my claim is that prayer doesn't do anything. I prayed, and nothing happened just like I said nothing would happen. Now, for those who claim that prayer will make things happen, however they pray the prayer (orally in person, text, video, audio, telegraph, or smoke signals) doesn't matter as long as something happens caused by the prayer. If nothing happens, then the claim is falsified.

Of course, everything I just posted is so very obvious that it's strange that I even needed to spell it out. But I'm debating Christian apologetics, and common sense is often the enemy of apologists.