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]

You haven't demonstrated that love would not be possible.

What do you mean by 'love'? A physical attraction? Emotion? Choosing good for someone? Something else? I mean it in choosing good for someone. You can't choose something if you don't have the freedom to choose. You can do good without a free will, but you can't love them by doing so.

We are in no position to make any assertions concerning their motivations. If we don't believe that they were in line with the teachings of Jesus, that is no more than a subjective opinion. If there are no criteria for determining if any actions are done in God's name, then all we are left with is the word of the perpetrator and our own personal biases.

We don't have to guess, we can read materials from that time. We can compare those to the teachings in the Bible. And yes, it will be our interpretation, our opinion, but so what? Everyone can make up their own mind to what makes rational sense. Just because people will disagree, so what? That doesn't mean one isn't a better interpretation than another. Probably only pure mathematics can give us 100% correctness in life.

If an entire population is not guilty then where is the justice in killing them all? An omnipotent God should have the ability, not to mention the compassion, to punish the guilty while sparing the innocent. I also find it reprehensible that God almost invariably requires humans to do his dirty work for him.

Plenty of times God doesn't have them do His "dirty" work. He makes them use smaller numbers, causes confusion, brings natural disasters to bear, etc. But, yes, God gives humans a role in setting things right in the world. You may want to be controlled, but many don't. I don't like being controlled. I like having a say in my life.

Why do you think death is an evil, especially for the innocent?

[Menotu]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #1]

I was told once all prayers are answered. It's either, yes, no or wait.
Which I find convenient as most everything of the Christian faith.
Seems most, if not all, of things asked of 'Christianity' can be summed up with this thinking.

[brunumb]

You can't choose something if you don't have the freedom to choose. You can do good without a free will, but you can't love them by doing so.

How do you know that you even have completely free will now? There is no way of telling. If someone offers up a suggestion and your response is "Why didn't I think of that?", that's a pertinent question. Did some external agent prevent you? You have not really explained how you lose all free will if only certain actions are prevented by you not considering to act on evil thoughts because of an external agent that is in a way acting as your conscience.

[brunumb]

Plenty of times God doesn't have them do His "dirty" work. He makes them use smaller numbers, causes confusion, brings natural disasters to bear, etc. But, yes, God gives humans a role in setting things right in the world.

Ordering people to carry out wholesale slaughter is not quite as benign an activity as suggested by the phrase setting things right in the world. When you remove the killings brought about by natural disasters, you are left with humans acting as alleged intermediaries carrying out the will of God. It's almost as if there is no God involved at all, just people trying to justify their barbaric actions.

[brunumb]

And yes, it will be our interpretation, our opinion, but so what?

It means that no one is in any position to claim that they are doing God's will.

[brunumb]

You may want to be controlled, but many don't. I don't like being controlled. I like having a say in my life.

If that is the case, I'm interested in hearing your response to what I said in an earlier post:

I find it interesting that many members of different religious sects, particularly extremist sects, are more than willing to give up their freedoms and allow themselves to be controlled by the hierarchy. Being told what you can read, or watch, or who you can interact with, or when you have to perform certain activities and rituals, or what choices you are allowed to make, is not freedom. It is a means of control and yet many people willingly accept that control. They effectively become the robots that you fear people will become if they have any form of limitation placed on their alleged free will.

[brunumb]

Why do you think death is an evil, especially for the innocent?

I do not think death is an evil. It is part of the cycle of life which is natural and unavoidable. What is evil is killing the innocent and denying them the experiences that a full and rewarding life has to offer. Even killing the guilty should not be considered as the right thing to do.

[unknown soldier]

Why not just accept barbaric Bible passages for what they are?

This kind of response is a cop out. Rather than explain why one interprets a passage in a certain way, one simply says "that's what it says" as though their interpretation is the default. No, everyone needs to back up their interpretation.

I can explain it. I just take a passage for what it says regardless of whether it conforms to my predispositions or not. If I'm told that I will receive all I ask for in prayer, then I understand it as telling me I will receive all I ask for in prayer! Yes, it's obviously wrong to claim we will receive all we ask for in prayer, but I can live with a Bible that makes false promises. I have no need to try long and hard to make a false Biblical promise out to be not a false promise. That's an apologist's job to explain away Biblical errors.

I'm putting effort into understanding it, yes. That's a good thing. It's a book written thousands of years ago in a different language, from a different culture. Why should I be content with putting little effort into it, if I want to understand it?

Are you truly trying to understand the Bible, though? It's no secret that many Christians believe the Bible is inerrant and insist it cannot be wrong. Do you interpret the Bible that way? If not, have you found any errors in the Bible?

I said we should seek their good and leave any bad consequences of their choices up to God. That's not the belief behind the 9/11 attacks at all.

The 9/11 attackers were theists who believed that God wanted infidels dead. Do you agree that God is justified in killing infidels and that he can order people to do the killing?

No question was asked about whether God killed as many children as the Bible says He did.

I was responding to your saying that the Biblical accounts of God killing people appear to you to be "hyperbolic." If those accounts exaggerate the killing, then fewer children may have been killed by God's army than was explicitly stated.

The Bible clearly does not speak of that because in the very same book that uses phrases that make one initially think that genocide is being described, we have continued mention of those people after the phrases. We must put more effort than looking at an isolated verse, especially if we don't know the metaphors, hyperboles, etc. that these ancient cultures used. When the author says all were wiped out and then that same author talks about that same people group still living around the area, then it is clear that the previous statements were meant as hyperbolic.

Yes. I am aware of those "resilient" evil people God wanted dead yet who kept coming back. It's important to understand that I don't think those stories are actual history. They are probably myths made up by the Biblical writers to make Jehovah out to be a God of war. Those stories with the infidels who kept coming back are simply inconsistent works of fiction in which the authors didn't get their stories straight.

Where does the Bible say that the people the Israelites attacked were given centuries to repent?

Gen 15:16 says that the sins of the Amorites have not reached their full measure. Joshua's time was about 400-500 years after Abraham's time.

You dug up a story in Genesis that's supposed to explain what supposedly happened in Joshua? Genesis 15:16 doesn't look at all relevant to me.

Didn't God know whether or not they would repent?

Knowing what someone will do (or does), if given the chance to choose, and giving them the chance to choose are different things.

You didn't answer my question, so I will answer it for you; according to the story as you understand it, God didn't know that they would repent. The Bible God is not omniscient. His omniscience was made up by theologians much later.

It's evil to put a stop to people who are choosing to do evil?

No. It's evil to kill anybody if it isn't necessary especially if you're a God who supposedly can find nonviolent solutions to social problems.

You think it is evil for you to try to protect the child from the abuser?

Of course not, but to kill the abuser when it isn't necessary to do so is evil. In fact, if you or I do so we will be guilty of murder. A perfect God would never need to kill anybody. God's creators made up a God who has human faults like violence and vengeance.

Let's reason about these things, not just share the conclusions we have come to.

You want me to reason with you that we don't think with our hearts or that none of us made choices "in Genesis"?

We can be forced to do good always or we can get to the point where we freely choose to do good. You are talking about giving up our will to do evil in a way that gives up our will completely and all actions are forced. Christianity speaks about giving up our will to do evil in the second way, freely doing so. That's what I want.

You dodged two of my questions: Do you want the will to murder and rape? You think you'll be harmed if that will is taken away from you? Please answer these questions.

Anyway, as far as force is concerned, we use force on people all the time to either protect them from harm or to prevent them from harming others. As a civilized society we know that it's obviously very foolish to grant people "free will." Of course, we do allow people to do what is harmless, and any moral person will not be harmed in any way by being disallowed to do evil.

Frankly, the Christian dogma of free will is a really stupid belief that is easily disproved.

You actually hear a voice say "no" to some of your prayers?

Why do you think I said that? I said we don't need to hear a "No" for that "No" to be the answer to our prayers.

In that case you call a failed prayer a "no" to your prayer. That's as silly as to think an object you can't lift is telling you: "You can't lift me!"

Prohibiting people from doing evil does make them a robot.

Then we're all "robots." I want to be forced to refrain from murder. Do you want to be allowed to murder?

Would you prefer to be a robot or a being with free will?

I'm not sure if I've ever been in either situation, but if by "robot" you mean that I cannot do evil, then I would love to be a robot! I have no desire to do evil anyway. I wouldn't miss it. I do not want the free will to murder, rape, or rob.

You, evidently, feel differently. Why would you want to be able to rape, for example?

So, why do I have a dim view of people, but you don't?

Generally, I think people are good most of the time. Of course, I recognize the exceptions. You seem to feel that people need a God to keep them in line. I don't.

...when you believe you are doing God's will you can't be sure it is his will! You may be acting contrary to his will not realizing it.

Yes. And, therefore, what?

Therefore you Christians have created a very tricky God who can damn you no matter how good you think you are.

[The Tanager]

What do you mean by 'love'? A physical attraction? Emotion? Choosing good for someone? Something else? I mean it in choosing good for someone. You can't choose something if you don't have the freedom to choose. You can do good without a free will, but you can't love them by doing so.

How do you know that you even have completely free will now? There is no way of telling. If someone offers up a suggestion and your response is "Why didn't I think of that?", that's a pertinent question. Did some external agent prevent you? You have not really explained how you lose all free will if only certain actions are prevented by you not considering to act on evil thoughts because of an external agent that is in a way acting as your conscience.

What do you mean "lose all free will"? If I am forced to choose X (X being the good option), then I have no freedom to choose X or Y.

Ordering people to carry out wholesale slaughter is not quite as benign an activity as suggested by the phrase setting things right in the world.

Is allowing people to continue to harm others "setting things right"? That's the alternative. The people hadn't listened to more peaceful attempts to change their ways.

When you remove the killings brought about by natural disasters, you are left with humans acting as alleged intermediaries carrying out the will of God. It's almost as if there is no God involved at all, just people trying to justify their barbaric actions.

How did you get from "alleged intermediaries" to the conclusion that they are not intermediaries at all?

And yes, it will be our interpretation, our opinion, but so what?

It means that no one is in any position to claim that they are doing God's will.

I agree we need humility in our claims, but you seem to have an idea that we shouldn't claim anything unless we are 100% certain it is true. I don't agree with that.

If that is the case, I'm interested in hearing your response to what I said in an earlier post:

I find it interesting that many members of different religious sects, particularly extremist sects, are more than willing to give up their freedoms and allow themselves to be controlled by the hierarchy. Being told what you can read, or watch, or who you can interact with, or when you have to perform certain activities and rituals, or what choices you are allowed to make, is not freedom. It is a means of control and yet many people willingly accept that control. They effectively become the robots that you fear people will become if they have any form of limitation placed on their alleged free will.

I believe many people do this with religion, many do it with politics, many do it with non-religious worldviews. I don't think they should.

I do not think death is an evil. It is part of the cycle of life which is natural and unavoidable. What is evil is killing the innocent and denying them the experiences that a full and rewarding life has to offer. Even killing the guilty should not be considered as the right thing to do.

But this assumes that this life is all there is, doesn't it? Christianity teaches that this life is not all there is. So, to analyze Christian responses, one needs to take all of this into account. If that is true, then is it evil for the innocent to die?

As to killing the guilty, I agree it isn't the first option. But do you not think it could get to a point where one must kill to stop the atrocity from continuing?

[The Tanager]

Why not just accept barbaric Bible passages for what they are?

This kind of response is a cop out. Rather than explain why one interprets a passage in a certain way, one simply says "that's what it says" as though their interpretation is the default. No, everyone needs to back up their interpretation.

I can explain it. I just take a passage for what it says regardless of whether it conforms to my predispositions or not. If I'm told that I will receive all I ask for in prayer, then I understand it as telling me I will receive all I ask for in prayer! Yes, it's obviously wrong to claim we will receive all we ask for in prayer, but I can live with a Bible that makes false promises. I have no need to try long and hard to make a false Biblical promise out to be not a false promise. That's an apologist's job to explain away Biblical errors.

You didn't explain anything there, you just repeated the same cop out with more words. You aren't taking that passage for what it says. You are taking one part of that passage out of its context and then applying another context to it and giving us that as an interpretation of the original passage.

Are you truly trying to understand the Bible, though? It's no secret that many Christians believe the Bible is inerrant and insist it cannot be wrong. Do you interpret the Bible that way? If not, have you found any errors in the Bible?

In some healings Mark has one person being healed while Matthew will have two. I do think those probably are talking about the same healing and that in one of them the number healed is wrong; it was either one or two.

The 9/11 attackers were theists who believed that God wanted infidels dead. Do you agree that God is justified in killing infidels and that he can order people to do the killing?

God is justified in killing anyone, not just infidels. God used the Israelites as part of His judgment on the Canaanites (and others). God also used other nations as part of His judgment on the Israelites in the Hebrew scriptures.

I was responding to your saying that the Biblical accounts of God killing people appear to you to be "hyperbolic." If those accounts exaggerate the killing, then fewer children may have been killed by God's army than was explicitly stated.

Yes, if numbers are mentioned, then this may have been hyperbolic.

Yes. I am aware of those "resilient" evil people God wanted dead yet who kept coming back. It's important to understand that I don't think those stories are actual history. They are probably myths made up by the Biblical writers to make Jehovah out to be a God of war. Those stories with the infidels who kept coming back are simply inconsistent works of fiction in which the authors didn't get their stories straight.

If one were making a myth to show the power of their war god, then they wouldn't have those "resilient" evil people sticking around. That makes no sense. It's the same author saying all were killed and then showing that not all were killed.

You dug up a story in Genesis that's supposed to explain what supposedly happened in Joshua? Genesis 15:16 doesn't look at all relevant to me.

These books aren't unconnected. They were viewed as a cohesive story line. Joshua is one of the two spies who had faith in God that they would gain the promised land. Moses isn't allowed to enter the promised land and Joshua is given the leadership and task of going into the land. Then the story of Joshua tells of the Israelites doing this.

You didn't answer my question, so I will answer it for you; according to the story as you understand it, God didn't know that they would repent. The Bible God is not omniscient. His omniscience was made up by theologians much later.

Where does the story, as I understand it, say that?

No. It's evil to kill anybody if it isn't necessary especially if you're a God who supposedly can find nonviolent solutions to social problems.

What are those solutions God should have found?

Let's reason about these things, not just share the conclusions we have come to.

You want me to reason with you that we don't think with our hearts

Who said we think with our hearts? The word we were talking about is not a scientific claim about what organ is connected to our thoughts.

or that none of us made choices "in Genesis"?

Yes, reason with me about the purpose of human life and whether or not people choose to live in relationship with God or not. We can ignore Genesis to pursue this. What's wrong with reasoning about something?

We can be forced to do good always or we can get to the point where we freely choose to do good. You are talking about giving up our will to do evil in a way that gives up our will completely and all actions are forced. Christianity speaks about giving up our will to do evil in the second way, freely doing so. That's what I want.

You dodged two of my questions: Do you want the will to murder and rape? You think you'll be harmed if that will is taken away from you? Please answer these questions.

Sorry, I could have answered more directly. First, I don't have the will to murder and rape, so we have to expand our talk of sins beyond those. Above I said I want to give up my will to do evil in the second way. That assumes I want to give up the will to do evil. That could happen by control over my will being taken away from me or while I still have control over it. I want the evil wills gone through my free choice.

Why? Because if the evil wills are taken away in the other way, then I have no freedom at all, I have no love. That is the harm that would take place.

Anyway, as far as force is concerned, we use force on people all the time to either protect them from harm or to prevent them from harming others. As a civilized society we know that it's obviously very foolish to grant people "free will." Of course, we do allow people to do what is harmless, and any moral person will not be harmed in any way by being disallowed to do evil.

We try to control the choices of others through threats of punishment. We try to physically limit some choices of others. Why is that not an exercise of free will?

In that case you call a failed prayer a "no" to your prayer. That's as silly as to think an object you can't lift is telling you: "You can't lift me!"

I'm not making any sense of this. You said that people who prayed for healing and didn't get that healing "got no answers at all, actually (post 25)." I said they got an answer: "No." What does your comment above have to do with that?

Then we're all "robots." I want to be forced to refrain from murder. Do you want to be allowed to murder?

First, I have never wanted to murder anyone, so let's remember to keep the focus more broadly to fit what we've been talking about. I want to refrain from all evil by choice. So, in that sense, I want to be allowed the freedom to commit evil or not by my choice, yes.

Generally, I think people are good most of the time. Of course, I recognize the exceptions. You seem to feel that people need a God to keep them in line. I don't.

I think people can do a lot of good, but I think we do evils that we don't even realize because of how self-centered we can become in our thinking. I do think we need a relationship with God to be morally perfect.

...when you believe you are doing God's will you can't be sure it is his will! You may be acting contrary to his will not realizing it.

Yes. And, therefore, what?

Therefore you Christians have created a very tricky God who can damn you no matter how good you think you are.

Why do you think Christianity is about meeting some moral standard of goodness to be accepted by God? That couldn't be farther from the truth. The whole thing is about how we can't be good enough and that God isn't asking us to be so. God wants us in a love relationship. It's not be this good and you can be in God's presence; it's be in God's presence and you can start doing good things. God will start setting things right in us, so that we can be a part of setting things right in the world.