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?

[brunumb]

In Exodus 4, God tells Moses that he will speak to Pharaoh and set Israel free from slavery. Moses reluctantly agrees to play a leadership role, but does not want to do the speaking. After trying to encourage Moses that he can do it, does God end up forcing Moses against his will? No, God says Aaron can do it instead.

And whenever the pharaoh was about to capitulate, God violated his free will by hardening his heart so this travesty could continue to the ultimate shedding of innocent blood.

[nobspeople]

In Exodus 4, God tells Moses that he will speak to Pharaoh and set Israel free from slavery. Moses reluctantly agrees to play a leadership role, but does not want to do the speaking. After trying to encourage Moses that he can do it, does God end up forcing Moses against his will? No, God says Aaron can do it instead.

And whenever the pharaoh was about to capitulate, God violated his free will by hardening his heart so this travesty could continue to the ultimate shedding of innocent blood.

Absolutely.
And then people are expected to side with a murderous god?
No. No thanks.

[The Tanager]

How is that going? I do hope that God has succeeded in waking you up to your full potential in bringing wholeness to the world (whatever that may mean).

We are all a process.

Yo 'pologists sher knows yer stuf! Ah jist hope ya can learn me Kriss-channity beferr ah gits maself dammed fer bein' stoopid.

As though you dont think Ive got things wrong.

I'm just wondering how you discriminate hyperbole from what is literal. Do you have a formula to do so?

It definitely has nothing to do with whether one likes the outcome. You look at the context of the passage, context of writings around that time period, reason, etc.

My point is that if you can pick and choose to say some Bible stories are hyperbole if you don't want to take them literally, then I can do the same! I say all the Bible stories involving God are mere hyperbole. It's an exaggeration to say God ever did anything.

But picking and choosing because of context and other reasons (which I shared) is different from picking and choosing because you want a certain conclusion, which you have done here.

Obviously it's overstating things a bit to say a dead man was resurrected and left his tomb. It seems more likely to me that a flood washed Jesus' body from his tomb, and his followers exaggerated the story a wee bit.

What support do you have that makes it more likely a flood washed Jesus body away?

Maybe we see good in different ways. For me it's good to keep babies alive while you think it's good to kill them in some situations.

Again, this is assuming you can show the language isnt hyperbole, which you arent even trying to do.

Im trying to think things through logically, because I could be wrong. Im absolutely open to the idea of you changing my mind on this. I, too, have a feeling that keeping babies alive is a very good thing. But that feeling could gloss over a more complex situation. I think it irrational to rule out, without any deeper thought, any situation where God allowing the death of an innocent baby might be more merciful than keeping them alive. What if God knew telling the Israelites to leave these babies alive would mean slowly starving to death or some other painful death or a life of suffering at the hands of those Israelites, perhaps even breeding a hatred for God from these people because they read Gods character from His professed followers rather than from Him?

With all the troubles in the world, an evil God seems more probable than a good God.

But whence all the good? With a mix of good and evil, why isnt it more probable that a good God allows human free will, accounting for both good and evil?

Not really; I'm just saying that we need knowledge to make moral choices, and we very often lack that knowledge. We cannot "will" to do what is right if we don't know what is right.

Do you have any specific examples so that I can better understand your point?

People with cognitive limitations belie your claim that we have free will because such people may have no will at all. You seem to have missed this fact.

What cognitive limitations are you talking about, where they have no will at all?

You tell me. If you don't know what's best for excrement, then you don't have free will.

The good end of excrement, I would say, is to fertilize the ground and bring life to other things. So, yes, I will the good for excrement. What do you want to happen to excrement?

It's just a preference. You seem to think that freedom is the best thing we could have, but it's merely your own preference. Since wanting freedom over other things is just a preference, your free will argument has no objective basis to it. All I need to do is say that safety is more important than freedom, and the free will argument collapses.

I dont think its just preferences. Do you not do anything that is unsafe?

Who was complaining about "all or nothing approaches"? I'm not saying it would be best to take away all freedom from people but only the freedom to do harm.

This isnt an all-or-nothing choice, I dont think there is any logical difference here. In situations, if there is a best choice, then all less good choices will have some kind of harm, even if it is just missing out on a greater benefit.

..he condemned the entire human race to hardship because our first parents ate some fruit he told them not to. You can't get much pettier than that.

Why do you think that this is an additional punishment God adds on and not a natural consequence of the action?

Because the myth clearly has God forcing Eve and Adam out of Eden. Obviously eating fruit cannot cause earthquakes or plagues, so God must have had his cruel little hand in these troubles all along.

What reason does Genesis give for God forcing them out of Eden? Genesis 3:22 says "And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." God seems to be setting a limit to the evil humans are capable of, now that they are choosing what is "good/evil" for themselves, rather than relying on Gods wisdom. How is that petty?

As to the natural evils, I wasnt saying that human sin caused that. But, as I said earlier, I dont think those are evils in themselves.

If God created people to be untrustworthy at times, then it seems really stupid to punish them if they are untrustworthy.

God didnt create them to be untrustworthy; He created them with the ability to choose to be untrustworthy. Why is it stupid to have consequences for their freely chosen stupidity? How will they ever change their stupid behavior, if they only receive benefits from their mistakes?

In any case, the fable of Adam and Eve is a Jewish ripoff of older, Babylonian myths. If we understand this fact, then it should be easy enough to understand why prayers fail: A pagan God reshaped for Jewish purposes cannot grant prayer requests.

First, do you have support for this claim of borrowing? Second, even if it is borrowed, how does that make it untrue that this God eventually chose the Israelites to work some of His purposes through? Third, even if it didnt literally happen, how does this disprove Gods existence?

[The Tanager]

And whenever the pharaoh was about to capitulate, God violated his free will by hardening his heart so this travesty could continue to the ultimate shedding of innocent blood.

Why do you think hardening Pharaohs heart means God overriding Pharaohs heart rather than leaving Pharaoh to his own heart as many others believe?

[nobspeople]

And whenever the pharaoh was about to capitulate, God violated his free will by hardening his heart so this travesty could continue to the ultimate shedding of innocent blood.

Why do you think hardening Pharaohs heart means God overriding Pharaohs heart rather than leaving Pharaoh to his own heart as many others believe?

How many others believe after hardening his heart, Pharaoh was left to his own heart? Who are these people? Christians?
What logical reason would these people believe this? Why would it be written God hardened his heart, only for him to go ahead and make his own decision? Surely if it was written this way it was to show what God did, otherwise it wouldn't have mentioned it? In other words, why even write it that way anyway?
It doesn't make sense to me, an outside observer, to see it written that God did something for it to have no effect on the situation at all as it's written
Now I know I don't have 'the spirit' and don't 'understand fully' blah blah blah (I've heard all that before) but, people who 'don't have the spirit' and thus, can't "fully and truly understand" read the bible all the time. Does this mean they can't understand it without 'the spirit'?
If so, that seems to fly in the face of the idea of bringing people to the Lord if they need something special to fully understand it.

[brunumb]

I think it irrational to rule out, without any deeper thought, any situation where God allowing the death of an innocent baby might be more merciful than keeping them alive. What if God knew telling the Israelites to leave these babies alive would mean slowly starving to death or some other painful death or a life of suffering at the hands of those Israelites, perhaps even breeding a hatred for God from these people because they read Gods character from His professed followers rather than from Him?

What do you think God had in mind when he ordered the killing of all the men, women, boys and livestock, but not the young female virgins?

[brunumb]

Genesis 3:22 says "And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

Why did God have a tree with those magical fruit in the garden in the first place? If it is alright for the gods* to know good and evil, why not those made in his image? Then, just in case they ate some that would let them live forever, he threw them out. Many moons later people get the chance to live forever, no fruit required, just faith.

* The lord God is speaking this to someone and uses the word 'us'. So, is there more than one god involved? Wasn't monotheism a later invention?

[brunumb]

And whenever the pharaoh was about to capitulate, God violated his free will by hardening his heart so this travesty could continue to the ultimate shedding of innocent blood.

Why do you think hardening Pharaohs heart means God overriding Pharaohs heart rather than leaving Pharaoh to his own heart as many others believe?

Because the Bible specifically says that God will intervene in that way. Also, leaving the pharaoh (a title, not his name) to his own heart does not require God to do anything. God hardening his heart becomes a redundancy.

[The Tanager]

How many others believe after hardening his heart, Pharaoh was left to his own heart? Who are these people? Christians?
What logical reason would these people believe this? Why would it be written God hardened his heart, only for him to go ahead and make his own decision? Surely if it was written this way it was to show what God did, otherwise it wouldn't have mentioned it? In other words, why even write it that way anyway?
It doesn't make sense to me, an outside observer, to see it written that God did something for it to have no effect on the situation at all as it's written
Now I know I don't have 'the spirit' and don't 'understand fully' blah blah blah (I've heard all that before) but, people who 'don't have the spirit' and thus, can't "fully and truly understand" read the bible all the time. Does this mean they can't understand it without 'the spirit'?
If so, that seems to fly in the face of the idea of bringing people to the Lord if they need something special to fully understand it.

All languages have their own way of using certain words and phrases that might appear odd on the surface. When we say someone got so mad at someone that they bit his head off, we don't mean it in the straightforward sense. The Hebrew language has it's unique idioms, colloquialisms, word usages, metonymys, etc.

In Exodus, the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is described in three different ways. At times the author says God will or does harden Pharaoh's heart (see Exod. 4:21, 7:3, 9:12, among others). At times the author says Pharaoh hardens his own heart (see 8:15, 8:32, 9:34). At times it says Pharaoh's heart is hardened but doesn't specify by whom (see 7:13, 7:14, 7:22, 8:19, 9:7, 9:35, among others). The author is referring to the same thing in three different ways. And regarding Pharaoh's heart during the 7th plague, we are first told he hardened it and then the ambiguous sense is used during the 7th plague actions. Thus, it is more likely the ambiguous sense refers to Pharaoh doing it not God. For Pharaoh to harden his heart and God to also harden his heart, one seems to be doing it while the other is allowing it to be done. Either way, Pharaoh has free will. Either he hardens his own and God allows it or Pharaoh doesn't care and gives God permission to harden it. From the context the first option fits much better, regardless.

Other scriptures say God does something when, from the context, it is clear they don't think God directly did it. For instance, look at Jeremiah 4. That passage starts out with God asking people to repent or He will have to put a stop to their evil by sending another nation to conquer them. And then in verse 10 Jeremiah says that God has deceived these people by saying that they will have peace when war is reaching them. From the context it is clear that God didn't deceive them, but wanted them to repent so that He wouldn't have to bring war upon them to stop their evil. Instead God allowed them to be deceived by giving them over to their own desires. Why not think that's what is being presented regarding Pharaoh?

Even if one thinks the picture is unclear here, one should interpret unclear passages in light of other clearer passages. If one does this, then I think the support is overwhelmingly in favor of God granting free will rather than controlling people's decisions.

Also, leaving the pharaoh (a title, not his name) to his own heart does not require God to do anything. God hardening his heart becomes a redundancy.

It requires God to choose not to override his free will when He has the power to do so. It requires God continuing to give Pharaoh more opportunities to repent.

[The Tanager]

What do you think God had in mind when he ordered the killing of all the men, women, boys and livestock, but not the young female virgins?

What passage(s) are you specifically referring to?

Why did God have a tree with those magical fruit in the garden in the first place?

I'm not sure the story is meant to be taken literally like that (which is different than saying the whole thing is not historical). Either way, one must have a choice to exercise their free will. Would they trust God's view of what is good or would they decide to choose what is good for themselves?

If it is alright for the gods* to know good and evil, why not those made in his image?

I think this refers to how the people are now choosing for themselves what option is 'good'. That's bad because we are not omniscient and are going to get it wrong.

Then, just in case they ate some that would let them live forever, he threw them out. Many moons later people get the chance to live forever, no fruit required, just faith.

Those that come back into relationship with God, knowing that they sometimes mess it up when they choose what they think is best and trusting in God's knowledge instead, get to live forever. Good will be chosen forever. Those that think they can choose what is best, if allowed to live forever, will continually bring some evil into the world. And Revelation 22 does speak of people having access to the fruit of the tree of life again.

* The lord God is speaking this to someone and uses the word 'us'. So, is there more than one god involved? Wasn't monotheism a later invention?

Some speculate this speaks to the Trinity. I think all we could assume from the text is that God is speaking to the other elohim which is a word encompassing all the spirit beings, what we call angels as well as God, the elohim of elohims.