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]

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.

You seem to be putting forth a lot of effort to get the Bible to say what you want it to say.

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?

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.

That's not at all what I said. 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.

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.

What were we talking about? No question was asked about whether God killed as many children as the Bible says He did. If you want to come up with the numbers and ask my opinion on that, go ahead. Until then, hold me to what you've asked me about. What was that? You claiming the Bible speaks of genocide, of killing off an entire race.

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.

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.

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.

...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?

It's evil to put a stop to people who are choosing to do evil? You think it is evil for you to try to protect the child from the abuser?

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.

Care to support those claims? Let's reason about these things, not just share the conclusions we have come to.

To the Hebrews heart covered both feelings and thoughts.

They were wrong, and so was their God.

Why do you think so? Let's reason about these things, not just share the conclusions we have come to.

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?

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.

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?

No, we restrict them acting on their will. Take those restrictions away and the will produces its fruit, which will sometimes be evil. It's better to reform their will. That's what Christianity says is God's goal.

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.

Yes, the passage means what it says. We have different interpretations of what it says, though. I've supported mine. You aren't supporting yours or addressing my given reasonings.

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.

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.

Prohibiting people from doing evil does make them a robot. In a situation, they must only make the good choice. That's control. Now, I didn't ask if you preferred other people to be robots or have free will. Would you prefer to be a robot or a being with free will?

If God simply gave what people ask for there would be chaos and people would see God as a power source to manipulate for one's own ends.

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?

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.

So, why do I have a dim view of people, but you don't? We agree evil does come as a result of the choices people make.

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.

Yes. And, therefore, what?

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.

So, in context, we were talking about the fanatical, harmful, irrational parts of religion. If you think that all of religion is such, then make an actual case for that claim.

[brunumb]

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?

How on earth am I losing the ability to love if I simply have the desire to abuse, rape or murder people blocked? That makes no sense to me. If you don't have those desires, how can you tell if they have been removed by God or just never naturally arise? How does that impact the rest of who you are? The reality is that you can't tell and it does not affect the rest of who you are at all. You are still free to fall in love, which, by the way, does not involve choice. God doesn't seem to understand that bit.

[brunumb]

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./quote]
The problems arise when they don't choose otherwise. If the thought to act on evil desires does not surface, then the reason why does not really matter. It is the outcome that counts. There are things that you and I have not considered acting out right at this very moment. Do we miss them? Do we even know what they are? Of course not. Society prefers that people not act out their evil desires and has laws to control their behaviour. Some can't overcome their desires and have their freedoms limited by locking them up. Unfortunately, that happens after the evil is committed and other people have to suffer first.

[brunumb]

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.

When the outcome of the actions that people take involve obvious harm, can it be God's will? In the example of the Inquisition mentioned earlier, the people involved believed they were doing God's will. We look back and see the horror of it all and conclude that it couldn't have been. The issue is, what criteria do we apply to determine if some action is in accordance with God's will before we take that action? Post hoc rationalisations don't really cut it.

[brunumb]

It's evil to put a stop to people who are choosing to do evil? You think it is evil for you to try to protect the child from the abuser?

Do you think it is preferable to kill them rather than limit their will to do evil to some degree? Is it even possible that an entire population of people (and their livestock, but not young virgin girls) could be engaged in doing evil?

[brunumb]

Do you not value those things? Do you like it when someone (tries to) control(s) your actions?

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.

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. You can't act on a thought if you don't have the will to act on that thought in the first place. In the case of evil, I would willingly give that up for the sake of the outcomes, but here is no way I would hand over control of myself and my freedoms to any religious organisation.

[The Tanager]

How on earth am I losing the ability to love if I simply have the desire to abuse, rape or murder people blocked? That makes no sense to me. If you don't have those desires, how can you tell if they have been removed by God or just never naturally arise? How does that impact the rest of who you are? The reality is that you can't tell and it does not affect the rest of who you are at all.

Are you saying that a good God would take away those three, but still allow other things you call evil?

You are still free to fall in love, which, by the way, does not involve choice. God doesn't seem to understand that bit.

When I speak of love, I'm not speaking of a physical attraction or of experiencing good feelings. I am physically attracted to my beautiful wife. I experience many good feelings when I'm around her. But I also love her. I prefer her. I desire her good.

The problems arise when they don't choose otherwise. If the thought to act on evil desires does not surface, then the reason why does not really matter. It is the outcome that counts. There are things that you and I have not considered acting out right at this very moment. Do we miss them? Do we even know what they are? Of course not. Society prefers that people not act out their evil desires and has laws to control their behaviour. Some can't overcome their desires and have their freedoms limited by locking them up. Unfortunately, that happens after the evil is committed and other people have to suffer first.

Yes, the outcome counts. I prefer that possibility, because of the possibility for love that comes along with it rather than having perfect programming without the possibility of love.

When the outcome of the actions that people take involve obvious harm, can it be God's will? In the example of the Inquisition mentioned earlier, the people involved believed they were doing God's will. We look back and see the horror of it all and conclude that it couldn't have been. The issue is, what criteria do we apply to determine if some action is in accordance with God's will before we take that action? Post hoc rationalisations don't really cut it.

People during that time could see the horror. They blinded themselves to that. Some because they believed that any action done in God's name was good. I don't think that thought is in line with Jesus' teachings, the Bible as a whole, or rational outside of those considerations.

Do you think it is preferable to kill them rather than limit their will to do evil to some degree? Is it even possible that an entire population of people (and their livestock, but not young virgin girls) could be engaged in doing evil?

I do not think limiting people's freedom is preferable for the reasons I've already given. As to an entire population doing evil, I didn't say they were. I've talked about hyperbole in many of the statements. The innocent do suffer from the judgment on the wider population. I think that is unavoidable. This part of the innocents' lives may be cut short, but death is not the end.

[brunumb]

Yes, the outcome counts. I prefer that possibility, because of the possibility for love that comes along with it rather than having perfect programming without the possibility of love.

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

[brunumb]

People during that time could see the horror. They blinded themselves to that. Some because they believed that any action done in God's name was good. I don't think that thought is in line with Jesus' teachings, the Bible as a whole, or rational outside of those considerations.

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.

[brunumb]

As to an entire population doing evil, I didn't say they were. I've talked about hyperbole in many of the statements. The innocent do suffer from the judgment on the wider population. I think that is unavoidable.

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.