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?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Tcg in post #288]

Yes, Jesus was clearly speaking metaphorically about mountains being physically moved. And we must take the full context of Jesus teachings into account. Jesus does speak about trusting in God and asking for wisdom. The Greek word here (oligopistos) is used 5 times. In each one there is a contrast between faith in God and this "little faith".

Dont worry about tomorrow, but trust God to provide what you need (Matt 6:30/Luke 12:28), dont fear a storm but trust that Jesus can still it if he wants (Matt 8:26), dont look at the wind and waves, but trust what Jesus tells you to do (Matt 14:31), dont trust in the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadduccees, but trust in the one who multiplied the fishes and loaves (Matt 16:8-12), and our passage, where Jesus is able to send the demon out, while the disciples had "little faith". All of these are about trusting God and looking to Jesus teachings and wisdom over others, including ones own thoughts at times.

Trust a god who'd flood the planet.

And a carpenter who can't remove a nail.

Might as well trust politicians too.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #288]

Yes, Jesus was clearly speaking metaphorically about mountains being physically moved. And we must take the full context of Jesus teachings into account. Jesus does speak about trusting in God and asking for wisdom. The Greek word here (oligopistos) is used 5 times. In each one there is a contrast between faith in God and this "little faith".

Dont worry about tomorrow, but trust God to provide what you need (Matt 6:30/Luke 12:28), dont fear a storm but trust that Jesus can still it if he wants (Matt 8:26), dont look at the wind and waves, but trust what Jesus tells you to do (Matt 14:31), dont trust in the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadduccees, but trust in the one who multiplied the fishes and loaves (Matt 16:8-12), and our passage, where Jesus is able to send the demon out, while the disciples had "little faith". All of these are about trusting God and looking to Jesus teachings and wisdom over others, including ones own thoughts at times.

Trust a god who'd flood the planet.

And a carpenter who can't remove a nail.

Might as well trust politicians too.

Not only that, but everyone has to trust their own thoughts over other's before they can decide to trust other's thoughts over their own. Remember that old game Twister? It's like that but for the brain and with fewer smelly socks.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Tcg in post #288]

Yes, Jesus was clearly speaking metaphorically about mountains being physically moved. And we must take the full context of Jesus teachings into account. Jesus does speak about trusting in God and asking for wisdom. The Greek word here (oligopistos) is used 5 times. In each one there is a contrast between faith in God and this "little faith".

Dont worry about tomorrow, but trust God to provide what you need (Matt 6:30/Luke 12:28), dont fear a storm but trust that Jesus can still it if he wants (Matt 8:26), dont look at the wind and waves, but trust what Jesus tells you to do (Matt 14:31), dont trust in the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadduccees, but trust in the one who multiplied the fishes and loaves (Matt 16:8-12), and our passage, where Jesus is able to send the demon out, while the disciples had "little faith". All of these are about trusting God and looking to Jesus teachings and wisdom over others, including ones own thoughts at times.

I suppose that we are forced to see the promise made as metaphorical. Simply because we all know it won't happen. Yet the promise is made in Mark and Matthew in connection with the cursing of the fig -tree. (1) and would be taken as a guarantee were it not that it doesn't work in that way, and so must be seen as metaphorical in respect of doing mundane things like people recovering from Illness, scoring trys and finding car -keys. But if it worked, limbs could grow back, tornadoes and Tsunamis be averted and food appear when there is famine. It does not happen and we all know it doesn't happen and so prayer working is merely self - delusion. And many Christian apologists know this as I have seen many an appeal to it having value because it gives people confidence or makes them feel hopeful.

Well, that's another debate, but the one on whether it works in any meaningful way is surely done and dusted; it does not.

(1) which is doctrinally and evidentially very interesting, especially read in connection with the healing of the boy afflicted with a demon (following the transfiguration). The discrepancies are telling. Matthew and Mark both have the fig -tree withering (though on different days) but Luke doesn't have it at all. Thus the implication is not that Luke left it out, but that it wasn't originally there and Mark and Matthew added it in. Thus one might say that this guarantee made by Jesus (which Christians know is worthless, because they have to say it is 'metaphorical') is a promise or guarantee that he never actually made, but even if the Christians are aware of that (Bible critics aren't so far as I know), I can't see them opening that particular can of worms.

But the afflicted boy is also interesting as Matthew says that faith as much as a mustard seed will enable this demon to be cast out. So none of the 9 disciples had that much Faith? That doesn't seem possible. But Mark has Jesus say that they couldn't do it because only fasting and prayer would work - that is, Jesus needed to fast and pray beforehand to build up a battery of power before it would work. Tricky one. But it is revealing that Luke has none of that. Or he does have Jesus sigh over the faithless generation and does the healing that the disciples couldn't do. The implication being that you need Faith in Jesus (not just God) to get such healings done.

The thing is that evidently Luke is (as is often the case with Luke) what was the original story. Matthew and Mark have common additional material with Matthew also having (17.20) the mountain -moving guarantee he repeats in connection with the fig -tree. This is not what we get in Mark, though he expands the passage considerably (Yes, Mark also edits an original gospel) and this (apart from suggesting that this is not eyewitness discrepancy but individual invention) tells us something about how the gospel - writers did their work, not to mention what agenda they had.

[The Tanager]

I suppose that we are forced to see the promise made as metaphorical. Simply because we all know it won't happen. Yet the promise is made in Mark and Matthew in connection with the cursing of the fig -tree. (1) and would be taken as a guarantee were it not that it doesn't work in that way, and so must be seen as metaphorical in respect of doing mundane things like people recovering from Illness, scoring trys and finding car -keys. But if it worked, limbs could grow back, tornadoes and Tsunamis be averted and food appear when there is famine. It does not happen and we all know it doesn't happen and so prayer working is merely self - delusion. And many Christian apologists know this as I have seen many an appeal to it having value because it gives people confidence or makes them feel hopeful.

Well, that's another debate, but the one on whether it works in any meaningful way is surely done and dusted; it does not.

The guarantee given, contextually, is that what is good in that specific situation can happen if we seek Gods wisdom and help in trust, rather than in our own wisdom and power. What is good, in Christianity, isnt decided by what we think will make us happy or more comfortable. Those come at times, but arent the main thing.

The discrepancies are telling. Matthew and Mark both have the fig -tree withering (though on different days) but Luke doesn't have it at all. Thus the implication is not that Luke left it out, but that it wasn't originally there and Mark and Matthew added it in. Thus one might say that this guarantee made by Jesus (which Christians know is worthless, because they have to say it is 'metaphorical') is a promise or guarantee that he never actually made, but even if the Christians are aware of that (Bible critics aren't so far as I know), I can't see them opening that particular can of worms.

That is not the implication. The writers were free to use different stories, leave some out, bring in unique ones in their telling of the Jesus story. Biblical scholars are well aware of such differences.

But the afflicted boy is also interesting as Matthew says that faith as much as a mustard seed will enable this demon to be cast out. So none of the 9 disciples had that much Faith? That doesn't seem possible. But Mark has Jesus say that they couldn't do it because only fasting and prayer would work - that is, Jesus needed to fast and pray beforehand to build up a battery of power before it would work. Tricky one. But it is revealing that Luke has none of that. Or he does have Jesus sigh over the faithless generation and does the healing that the disciples couldn't do. The implication being that you need Faith in Jesus (not just God) to get such healings done.

In Matthew the comparison is between (1) having oligopistos ("little-faith") and (2) having a little bit of pistos ("faith") in God. The first is a contrasting noun to faith, not an amount of faith. Its not that the disciples werent trusting enough in God, but that they were trusting in something else. Ones amount of "faith" isnt what is important, but who their trust is in, so even a little faith in God is all your need.

The inclusion of "fasting" in Mark 9:29 and the whole of Matthew 17:21 is a textual issue. Generally speaking, the earliest and best manuscripts leave the part about fasting out. It makes more sense that fasting was added to the text later on as it was an emphasis later on in some areas, then that it was taken out.

Luke simply doesnt address the question about why the disciples couldnt do it, which is perfectly fine to do. In no way does this imply that Jesus is needed in addition to God.

The thing is that evidently Luke is (as is often the case with Luke) what was the original story. Matthew and Mark have common additional material with Matthew also having (17.20) the mountain -moving guarantee he repeats in connection with the fig -tree. This is not what we get in Mark, though he expands the passage considerably (Yes, Mark also edits an original gospel) and this (apart from suggesting that this is not eyewitness discrepancy but individual invention) tells us something about how the gospel - writers did their work, not to mention what agenda they had.

Of course each writer had an agenda. Having an agenda tells us nothing about whether a book is full of truth or not, though. Most scholars think Marks gospel was first since Matthew and Luke share a lot of common material with Mark, while also sharing content with each other not in Mark, and having their own unique content as well.

[JoeyKnothead]

The guarantee given, contextually, is that what is good in that specific situation can happen if we seek Gods wisdom and help in trust, rather than in our own wisdom and power. What is good, in Christianity, isnt decided by what we think will make us happy or more comfortable. Those come at times, but arent the main thing.

I've seen Christians who stood outside in the cold to give away coats to folks. No preaching either, just asking to go to their church. As one who hates being cold, that right there's a pain all it's own.

As relates to the OP then, maybe us humans're called to do us some prayer answering too.

[The Tanager]

I've seen Christians who stood outside in the cold to give away coats to folks. No preaching either, just asking to go to their church. As one who hates being cold, that right there's a pain all it's own.

As relates to the OP then, maybe us humans're called to do us some prayer answering too.

I think what many Christians (and others) miss is that, according to Christianity, God chooses to work through people a lot. I think there are good reasons for that. Many Christians, however, view it as all God and we just have to pray. That's what I was trying to get at about prayer being about us seeing what we need to do to help a situation, rather than praying being our part in total. I think someone said it earlier in this thread, and I agree in large part, that if you won't share what you've got, then saying "I'll pray for you" is quite empty and, I think, not God-honoring not to mention not honoring the other person.

[Clownboat]

I think what many Christians (and others) miss is that, according to Christianity, God chooses to work through people a lot.

Or, humans are just doing what humans would do and some see that through the lens of their favorite god concept. Either of us could be correct.

What I can't graps is:
Since Allah is not a real god, Muslims are just viewing the actions of humans through an Islamic lens.
Hindu's through a Hindu lens and on and on only to arrive at:
The Christian God is real and it is not humans being humans, it is the Christian God working through these people.

This thinking is inconsistant, yet necessary in order to maintain said belief. Special pleading at its best, yet it is a core mechanism.
What's worse is when it is claimed that their god is false and these others are just being fooled by a devil of their own religion. Is this not the height of arrogence?

So, are humans just being human, or is a god behind this kind of nonsense?

[The Tanager]

I think what many Christians (and others) miss is that, according to Christianity, God chooses to work through people a lot.

Or, humans are just doing what humans would do and some see that through the lens of their favorite god concept. Either of us could be correct.

Yes, either of us could be correct.

What I can't graps is:
Since Allah is not a real god, Muslims are just viewing the actions of humans through an Islamic lens.
Hindu's through a Hindu lens and on and on only to arrive at:
The Christian God is real and it is not humans being humans, it is the Christian God working through these people.

This thinking is inconsistant, yet necessary in order to maintain said belief. Special pleading at its best, yet it is a core mechanism.
What's worse is when it is claimed that their god is false and these others are just being fooled by a devil of their own religion. Is this not the height of arrogence?

So, are humans just being human, or is a god behind this kind of nonsense?

Saying one theistic view is correct and other, contradictory, theistic views are incorrect isn't special pleading. Not all theistic views rise or fall as one. But perhaps you mean something else that I'm missing. Sorry if I've misunderstood you there.

As to the last point, if I understood you correctly, I think we would both agree that God isn't responsible for the differing views of humans.

[TRANSPONDER]

I suppose that we are forced to see the promise made as metaphorical. Simply because we all know it won't happen. Yet the promise is made in Mark and Matthew in connection with the cursing of the fig -tree. (1) and would be taken as a guarantee were it not that it doesn't work in that way, and so must be seen as metaphorical in respect of doing mundane things like people recovering from Illness, scoring trys and finding car -keys. But if it worked, limbs could grow back, tornadoes and Tsunamis be averted and food appear when there is famine. It does not happen and we all know it doesn't happen and so prayer working is merely self - delusion. And many Christian apologists know this as I have seen many an appeal to it having value because it gives people confidence or makes them feel hopeful.

Well, that's another debate, but the one on whether it works in any meaningful way is surely done and dusted; it does not.

The guarantee given, contextually, is that what is good in that specific situation can happen if we seek Gods wisdom and help in trust, rather than in our own wisdom and power. What is good, in Christianity, isnt decided by what we think will make us happy or more comfortable. Those come at times, but arent the main thing.

Contextually, it is what it says. Adding a context of how prayer actually works (it doesn) is not the context of the Biblical guarantee and assurance. Effectively, you are playing the 'God knows best' card as a small print escape clause for why the Biblical promise is not panning out

The discrepancies are telling. Matthew and Mark both have the fig -tree withering (though on different days) but Luke doesn't have it at all. Thus the implication is not that Luke left it out, but that it wasn't originally there and Mark and Matthew added it in. Thus one might say that this guarantee made by Jesus (which Christians know is worthless, because they have to say it is 'metaphorical') is a promise or guarantee that he never actually made, but even if the Christians are aware of that (Bible critics aren't so far as I know), I can't see them opening that particular can of worms.

That is not the implication. The writers were free to use different stories, leave some out, bring in unique ones in their telling of the Jesus story. Biblical scholars are well aware of such differences.

But the afflicted boy is also interesting as Matthew says that faith as much as a mustard seed will enable this demon to be cast out. So none of the 9 disciples had that much Faith? That doesn't seem possible. But Mark has Jesus say that they couldn't do it because only fasting and prayer would work - that is, Jesus needed to fast and pray beforehand to build up a battery of power before it would work. Tricky one. But it is revealing that Luke has none of that. Or he does have Jesus sigh over the faithless generation and does the healing that the disciples couldn't do. The implication being that you need Faith in Jesus (not just God) to get such healings done.

In Matthew the comparison is between (1) having oligopistos ("little-faith") and (2) having a little bit of pistos ("faith") in God. The first is a contrasting noun to faith, not an amount of faith. Its not that the disciples werent trusting enough in God, but that they were trusting in something else. Ones amount of "faith" isnt what is important, but who their trust is in, so even a little faith in God is all your need.

The inclusion of "fasting" in Mark 9:29 and the whole of Matthew 17:21 is a textual issue. Generally speaking, the earliest and best manuscripts leave the part about fasting out. It makes more sense that fasting was added to the text later on as it was an emphasis later on in some areas, then that it was taken out.

Luke simply doesnt address the question about why the disciples couldnt do it, which is perfectly fine to do. In no way does this imply that Jesus is needed in addition to God.

The thing is that evidently Luke is (as is often the case with Luke) what was the original story. Matthew and Mark have common additional material with Matthew also having (17.20) the mountain -moving guarantee he repeats in connection with the fig -tree. This is not what we get in Mark, though he expands the passage considerably (Yes, Mark also edits an original gospel) and this (apart from suggesting that this is not eyewitness discrepancy but individual invention) tells us something about how the gospel - writers did their work, not to mention what agenda they had.

Of course each writer had an agenda. Having an agenda tells us nothing about whether a book is full of truth or not, though. Most scholars think Marks gospel was first since Matthew and Luke share a lot of common material with Mark, while also sharing content with each other not in Mark, and having their own unique content as well.

I think it is the implication (given that there are many such examples) that Luke having no fig tree is because it was added by Mark and Matthew, not left out by Luke. I welcome the information that 'Fasting' was added later on to Mark by some editor (1). But that doesn't alter the fact that Matthew says that the disciples didn't have enough faith and Mark says it was because only prayer works.

Luke refers to the disciples not being able to cast the demon out and Jesus referring to a faithless generation. which is also what we get in Matthew and Mark. This is by all reason the original text common to all three. The discrepancy between Mark and Matthew makes it very clear that they added their own discrepant elements to the story. Their own agenda (beside being obviously the motive) is irrelevant to the blindingly obvious evidence that these are individual additions by Matthew and Mark, and are contradictory.

The loquacious addition by Mark is one of those indications that Mark is NOT the original but was itself edited by the 'Mark' author using whatever the original synoptic gospel looked like. Obviously lacking the singular and contradictory editorial additions.

The implication is that those additions are not to be trusted, even if the original story is true.

(1) Now I check, 'fasting' is mentioned in my Bible as being an addition.

[Clownboat]

I think what many Christians (and others) miss is that, according to Christianity, God chooses to work through people a lot.

Or, humans are just doing what humans would do and some see that through the lens of their favorite god concept. Either of us could be correct.

Yes, either of us could be correct.

What I can't graps is:
Since Allah is not a real god, Muslims are just viewing the actions of humans through an Islamic lens.
Hindu's through a Hindu lens and on and on only to arrive at:
The Christian God is real and it is not humans being humans, it is the Christian God working through these people.

This thinking is inconsistant, yet necessary in order to maintain said belief. Special pleading at its best, yet it is a core mechanism.
What's worse is when it is claimed that their god is false and these others are just being fooled by a devil of their own religion. Is this not the height of arrogence?

So, are humans just being human, or is a god behind this kind of nonsense?

Saying one theistic view is correct and other, contradictory, theistic views are incorrect isn't special pleading.

Correct. This is:
Copy/paste
"Since Allah is not a real god, Muslims are just viewing the actions of humans through an Islamic lens.
Hindu's through a Hindu lens and on and on only to arrive at:
The Christian God is real and it is not humans being humans, it is the Christian God working through these people."

This thinking is inconsistant. Please see the noted conclusion arrive at. Not the one you invented about saying one view is correct and the other incorrect.
It's the mechanism on how a conclusion is arrived at that is inconsistant, not the claim.

We both acknowledged that we do not know if humans are just doing what humans would do and some see that through the lens of their favorite god concept. Therefore there is no need to challenge a god claim in this instance. The mechanism used to justify the claim has been analyzed and is faulty.