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]

You wouldn't do anything, ever, to the child abusing priests? To rapists? To murderers? If not, then why are you so against a god who would do/allow these kinds of things?

I'm curious. What does God himself actually do in those circumstances? It appears that he allows religious organisations to be havens for pedophiles and sexual predators.

I think the divine plan is to damn such people but generally long after they have harmed other people. I suppose that explains why religious organizations are, as you say, havens for pedophiles and sexual predators. The Christians in these groups turn a blind eye to immorality in their organizations allowing God to "get a round too-it" in his good time. If word got out now, then God's organizations would be besmirched, and their efforts to evangelize the "lost" would be jeopardized.

As an atheist I do things differently. I say protect vulnerable people right away and take control of those who would harm them. "An ounce of secular prevention is worth a ton of religious cure."

[The Tanager]

You didn't answer my question. How do you decide which acts or words in Bible passages are acts or words that God presumably disapproves of? We have for an example Psalm 3:7 which presents us with a person praying that God do terrible harm to that person's enemies. How do you know that God disapproves of what is being prayed? Note that the Psalmist says that God strikes the Psalmist's enemies and breaks their teeth! Is the Psalmist wrong about God doing so? How do you know?

Obviously, if there is a direct answer to that question in the text, you go with that. Other than that you look at the fuller context, including other books to see what is clearer elsewhere about God's character. If there appear contradictions in the fuller context, you take a deeper look. Praying for wisdom from God as well. The Psalmist is right that God will strike evil.

Whether we should ask God to harm our enemies is another issue. From the whole of scripture, I believe we should seek good for our enemies, realizing that sometimes that won't happen and they will have to experience suffering but we leave that up to God's wisdom and pray it doesn't come to that.

What's wrong with "all or nothing"? Sometimes we do have all or nothing. It happens. Citing exceptions to the norm is fine as long as you demonstrate that there are exceptions. You have not demonstrated that any Psalm is contrary to God's will. You appear to be arbitrarily denying that God would support any Psalm that doesn't fit modern ideas of goodness.

I didn't say everything is all or nothing. But many times an all-or-nothing approach is surface-y, too simplistic when dealing with complex issues. I've shared reasons why I think wishing good for our enemies over praying for their harm is God's heart. I shared contextual reasons. It's a stronger case than your position has been, in my opinion. You remain unconvinced. Okay.

Genocide is mass killing. Would you prefer a nicer term like "ethnic cleansing"?

No, I want you to offer support that actual genocide/ethnic cleansing is talked about in those passages. In the same books that talk about wiping them all out, we have continued references to those same people groups later. If one reads the accounts, those types of comments appear to me to be hyperbolic.

You should tell me. It's your religion and morality. I think that the point of the destruction was to make sure that the victims of the invading Israelites had no resources to recover to defend their homeland.

You should know what you are rejecting and making claims against. If you don't, then how do you know you are on topic with the critique? The Bible talks about the atrocities these people committed, God giving them hundreds of years to repent, but then eventually bringing judgment on them, using the Israelites as part of that judgment and in order to establish a people through whom God will bring His kingdom through.

I assumed that God giving somebody "a new heart" and "a clean heart" is his giving that person a new will. That doesn't sound free to me.

I think it's talking about us being in close relationship with God, being God reliant, rather than having a self-reliant heart. In Genesis we were made to live life in partnership with God, we choose not to, we harden our hearts to goodness and God is talking about restoring us to His desires.

By the way, the Bible writers didn't understand that we think with our brains and not with our hearts. To this day Christians echo that ignorance.

That distinction is a modern one. We can't read that understanding back on to these translated texts. To the Hebrews heart covered both feelings and thoughts.

I wouldn't harm such people. If I had all-mighty powers, then I would not allow child abuse, rape, or murder to begin with.

So, you would take away free will? And that's not harming a person?

I see nothing from the context here that tells us that verse 22 means anything other than what it clearly says. I took nothing out of context.

Context is more than four verses. Jesus cleansed the temple and religious leaders are questioning why he did this and is allowing people to call Him the Son of David. He then curses the fig tree, his disciples marvel, and Jesus talks about them having the ability to do greater things than that if they trust God. Those who are trusting God (not trying to manipulate God to get what they want) will receive what they ask for. Then Jesus' authority is challenged again and then Jesus tells three parables about doing the will of God versus going one's own way. So, verse 22 does not mean what you think it means.

No, they did get an answer: No.

Such an answer would contradict Matthew 21:22. But more to the point, I never heard "no" when my prayers failed. Do you actually hear such an answer when your prayers fail?

An answer to a prayer can certainly be "No." Matthew 21:22 does not address that issue directly, so it doesn't contradict it. And why would we need to hear "No" when that is the answer to one's request?

The answer to that question is no; it's never good when people continue to suffer.

There is definitely a better way, but we often choose not to take that route.

So you prefer a God of cancer and birth defects and earthquakes and ...

So you prefer to be a robot?

If we have free will, then why can't I will that the churches be taxed?

You can certainly will that. The power to get what you will is different than having a will that something be done.

Then why make a special exception for God? As a person, he should be blamed for his evil like the rest of us.

Sure, but you've yet to show He's guilty of evil.

LOL So God can't let us grow in love for each other without killing thousands of us in earthquakes?

I didn't say that. Life may only be possible with natural threats to our bodily existence. We can meet those factors with knowledge, love, etc. or we can ignore those who are harmed by them.

You seem to have a very dim view of people. I think people are sensible enough to make wise choices in what they want avoiding chaos. Besides, if chaos does result from our choices, then all we need to do is ask that the chaos end.

You don't believe in a God, so where does all the evil you have been talking about come from, if not from humans making unwise choices?

The Inquisition believed they did what God wanted. They referred to burning people as an act of faith in Christ. I think it's safe to say that if the inquisitors focused instead on what people wanted, then nobody would have died such horrible deaths.

Believing you are doing God's will and doing God's will are not necessarily the same thing. As to focusing on what people want, that doesn't always lead to good because people want a lot of wrong things.

Fanatical, harmful, and irrational religion tops my list of the universe's imperfections.

But those are humans making those choices, not God designing them that way.

If God exists, then there would be no stressful situations for anybody to worry about! They would have joy without any need for hardship.

Support for this claim?

And you're still not answering my question! 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? No doubt you'd take the business that gets you the TV with one order. Why, then, use a different standard to judge God's way of answering prayer forcing you to "persist"?

Because human character is not a TV.

[The Tanager]

I'm curious. What does God himself actually do in those circumstances? It appears that he allows religious organisations to be havens for pedophiles and sexual predators.

That's a great question. God does allow free will. And people, including religious organizations, do evil things with that freedom. But the alternative is to take free will away and I think that is a worse thing to do. Without free will, there is no love, we are just a computer program.

I think God will bring judgment upon those who do such actions if they don't seek forgiveness, repent, and turn to God, in both this life and in the eternal extension of life. He calls us to seek justice for the victims, to not just say God will set it right in the future. I think God will bring comfort to the victims, in this life and in the eternal extension of life. I think He suffers along with the victims and asks us to as well, seeking to put things right.

[brunumb]

I wouldn't harm such people. If I had all-mighty powers, then I would not allow child abuse, rape, or murder to begin with.

So, you would take away free will? And that's not harming a person?

I have no desire to abuse, rape or murder anyone. Why is that? Has my free will been abused? How can you tell that God is not intervening and preventing me from having those desires? If he is, am I losing anything? Would you prefer that someone is allowed to have those desires and proceed to act on them over God preventing those desires in the first place? I can't tell why I don't have those desires but if God is preventing them I don't feel like a robot or that I am losing my free will. To me it is far more preferable than having people with those desires who then go on to harm others by acting on them. Do you value people being allowed to have the desire to abuse, rape and murder people so highly?

[brunumb]

Without free will, there is no love, we are just a computer program.

I disagree, but I am interested in hearing why you think that would be the case.

[unknown soldier]

You didn't answer my question. How do you decide which acts or words in Bible passages are acts or words that God presumably disapproves of? We have for an example Psalm 3:7 which presents us with a person praying that God do terrible harm to that person's enemies. How do you know that God disapproves of what is being prayed? Note that the Psalmist says that God strikes the Psalmist's enemies and breaks their teeth! Is the Psalmist wrong about God doing so? How do you know?

Obviously, if there is a direct answer to that question in the text, you go with that. Other than that you look at the fuller context, including other books to see what is clearer elsewhere about God's character.

I do look at the context of a passage, and in most of the cases that apologists dispute, the context makes no difference to the meaning. In the case of Psalm 3:7, we see exactly that. The passage is violent and vengeful no matter how far you go.

If there appear contradictions in the fuller context, you take a deeper look. Praying for wisdom from God as well. The Psalmist is right that God will strike evil.

Why not just accept barbaric Bible passages for what they are? You seem to be putting forth a lot of effort to get the Bible to say what you want it to say.

Whether we should ask God to harm our enemies is another issue. From the whole of scripture, I believe we should seek good for our enemies, realizing that sometimes that won't happen and they will have to experience suffering but we leave that up to God's wisdom and pray it doesn't come to that.

So if you can't get some good from your enemies, then you kill them. The attack on 9/11 was based on the same religious belief.

In the same books that talk about wiping them all out, we have continued references to those same people groups later. If one reads the accounts, those types of comments appear to me to be hyperbolic.

Hyperbolic? So God didn't kill as many children as the Bible says he did.

The Bible talks about the atrocities these people committed, God giving them hundreds of years to repent...

Where does the Bible say that the people the Israelites attacked were given centuries to repent? Didn't God know whether or not they would repent?

...but then eventually bringing judgment on them, using the Israelites as part of that judgment and in order to establish a people through whom God will bring His kingdom through.

That doesn't make much sense. If those people were so evil, then wasn't it evil to kill all of them including their children?

In Genesis we were made to live life in partnership with God, we choose not to...

I never made that choice. Genesis is a myth.

To the Hebrews heart covered both feelings and thoughts.

They were wrong, and so was their God.

So, you would take away free will? And that's not harming a person?

Yes I would take away a person's will in some cases, and no taking away their will to do evil won't harm them. I would gladly give up my will to do evil. I don't want that will anyway. Do you want the will to murder and rape? You think you'll be harmed if that will is taken away from you? Besides, as a civilized society we take people's will away all the time if they choose to do evil. Why can't God figure that out?

Context is more than four verses. Jesus cleansed the temple and religious leaders are questioning why he did this and is allowing people to call Him the Son of David. He then curses the fig tree, his disciples marvel, and Jesus talks about them having the ability to do greater things than that if they trust God. Those who are trusting God (not trying to manipulate God to get what they want) will receive what they ask for. Then Jesus' authority is challenged again and then Jesus tells three parables about doing the will of God versus going one's own way. So, verse 22 does not mean what you think it means.

All you've accomplished here is to document the Bible's muddled, contradictory claims. Verse 22 means just what it says no matter how many passages you can find to contradict it.

An answer to a prayer can certainly be "No." Matthew 21:22 does not address that issue directly, so it doesn't contradict it. And why would we need to hear "No" when that is the answer to one's request?

You actually hear a voice say "no" to some of your prayers? That might be a good idea because a failed prayer is not the same as a "no answer." A failed prayer is just a failed prayer! It just fails many times to pray.

So you prefer to be a robot?

I sure do prefer harmless "robots" to inquisitors who will burn me at the stake! And you would too if you were facing that kind of death. Besides, prohibiting people from doing evil doesn't make them robots. It makes them civilized.

You don't believe in a God, so where does all the evil you have been talking about come from, if not from humans making unwise choices?

Evil often comes from people, but much evil is not our fault. I already cited examples of evil that people are not responsible for. If God exists, then that's his evil.

Believing you are doing God's will and doing God's will are not necessarily the same thing.

In that case 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.

As to focusing on what people want, that doesn't always lead to good because people want a lot of wrong things.

If people want to believe what they choose and live, then I think that's right. It sure would beat what the inquisition did to people.

Fanatical, harmful, and irrational religion tops my list of the universe's imperfections.

But those are humans making those choices, not God designing them that way.

That's right! People choose to create religions, and your religion is no different.

[brunumb]

Believing you are doing God's will and doing God's will are not necessarily the same thing.

That really opens up a can of worms. How are we to determine if and when someone is actually doing God's will? What criteria do we apply? It could all just come down to individual opinions and that certainly isn't very reliable as a measure of truth.

[JehovahsWitness]

Without free will, there is no love, we are just a computer program.

I disagree, but I am interested in hearing why you think that would be the case.

AELEXA DO YOU LOVE ME?

If free will is the ability to make moral decisions that govern one's actions, then a computer has no free will. If we can choose to love someone based on our admiration of their qualities and their moral excellence, then that is something a computer cannot do since it is not a free moral agent, it can only repoduce what it has been programmed to.

[brunumb]

Without free will, there is no love, we are just a computer program.

I disagree, but I am interested in hearing why you think that would be the case.

AELEXA DO YOU LOVE ME?

If free will is the ability to make moral decisions that govern one's actions, then a computer has no free will. If we can choose to love someone based on our admiration of their qualities and their moral excellence, then that is something a computer cannot do since it is not a free moral agent, it can only repoduce what it has been programmed to.

But we are not computers and we do not simply choose to love someone. You can't ask or demand to be loved. That aside, removing the will to act on evil things like abuse, rape or murder does not mean that our free will is entirely violated. It is a trade off for outcomes that outweigh what we have given up.

[The Tanager]

I have no desire to abuse, rape or murder anyone. Why is that? Has my free will been abused? How can you tell that God is not intervening and preventing me from having those desires? If he is, am I losing anything?

Yes. You are losing independence. You are losing the ability to love. To love is to prefer, choosing one over another. You are no longer a person. Do you not value those things? Do you like it when someone (tries to) control(s) your actions?

Would you prefer that someone is allowed to have those desires and proceed to act on them over God preventing those desires in the first place?

Yes, I prefer them to have freedom rather than being controlled. I don't prefer them to use that freedom to act on those desires, but to choose otherwise.

That really opens up a can of worms. How are we to determine if and when someone is actually doing God's will? What criteria do we apply? It could all just come down to individual opinions and that certainly isn't very reliable as a measure of truth.

We do our best with the tools and information available to us. We hear out the cases, use reason, etc. And we remain humble and open to changing our mind as new information comes in.