Prayer and power

[slingblade]

And then there's the problem where there are two mutually conflicting prayers, like if the two opponants in a game both earnestly pray for victory. Does God pick the one with more talent?

Exactly. And what about war?

Someone stop me....I feel a Godwin coming on.....

Anyway, I just have to agree with Roger:

[W]henever there can be no doubt whether God answers a prayer or not, he never does. When one can confuse a normal event with an answered prayer, there's tons of examples of 'answered prayers'.

 

[Meffy]

Oh, and, in terms of returns, 1 favour = ∞ asks.

I posit without evidence a correspondence between these and the well-known attaboy/aw<rule8> equivalency.

 

[Bri]

Ok, WHY?

Why is it that God never heals that which otherwise is impossible to heal?

Before I answer, keep in mind that because you cannot answer "why" doesn't mean that it isn't possible that God heals only certain afflictions and not others. That said, I can think of a number of reasons that would likely be acceptable to Christians. Perhaps God wants there to be serious and definite consequences to purposely chopping off someone's arm. If that person could pray to grow it back, that would negate the consequences.

This is a very important question. One that no one is making any attempt to answer. How can cures of otherwise curable diseases be attributed to God if God is unwilling to cure otherwise incurable maladies.

It is also possible that medicine only heals those afflictions that God wants healed. In other words, perhaps God works through natural means to achieve his goals. Perhaps God doesn't want us to know for certain that he exists (perhaps in order to ensure our ability to make free choices).

Inquiring minds would like to know. Sadly there is no answer. Now you can claim that God chooses not to heal these people.

I'm not actually claiming anything here, other than that there are possible explanations.

Ok, why does the Bible say And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. --Matthew 21:22

A better question is why does nobody except atheists interpret these passages in the way you're interpreting them? I cannot find a single reference on the Internet of a Christian who believes that God grants everything that is prayed for.

That is a single sentence. It's pretty straightforward. No ambiguities.

1.) This is God's meaning in which case he lied.
2.) This isn't God's meaning. In which case the Bible can't be relied on.

I agree that to me the passage seems pretty straightforward (particularly taken out of the context of the rest of the Bible). You'd probably have to ask a Christian why they interpret the passage as they interpret it, but it is clear that few if any Christians interpret it the way you did.

-Bri

 

[slingblade]

A better question is why does nobody except atheists interpret these passages in the way you're interpreting them? I cannot find a single reference on the Internet of a Christian who believes that God grants everything that is prayed for.

I was a Christian for over 30 years. I interpreted them the same way, then.

 

[slingblade]

Matthew 18: When he was going back to the city in the morning, [Jesus] was hungry.
19: Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went over to it, but found nothing on it except leaves. And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again." And immediately the fig tree withered.
20: When the disciples saw this, they were amazed and said, "How was it that the fig tree withered immediately?"
21: Jesus said to them in reply, "Amen, I say to you, if you have faith and do not waver, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' it will be done.
22: Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive."

So, there's the context. (I know that particular bit is a favorite story of many on these boards.)

And that, along with numerous other supporting verses, is what has always led me to believe that God promised to not just answer prayers, but grant them. All. Imagine my disappointment.

 

[Bri]

Yes, it's a false dilemma. As I posted later, please don't be distracted by the soundbite quality of the question. The point is not about amputees per se, it's that whenever there can be no doubt whether God answers a prayer or not, he never does. When one can confuse a normal event with an answered prayer, there's tons of examples of 'answered prayers'.

Unfortunately, that's in-line with the notion that God doesn't want us to know for certain that he exists, God works in mysterious ways, etc.

The claim is not that we can prove, beyond all doubt, that no prayers are answered. The claim is that we can specify a large number of scenerios where we can reasonably show no prayers are answered.

Well, sure, if there are a lot of people who are praying to have their amputated arm restored, or to grow an extra leg, or when one person prays for someone else's prayer to not be fulfilled, then it is trivial to show that there are a lot of cases where prayers are not answered. But I doubt you will find any Christian who believes otherwise.

You can move the goal posts by just making up some reason for why a prayer is not answered in that instance, but that's not parsimonious, because the reasons are going to vary based on the scenerio. I.e., in scenerio A God doesn't answer because MRI machines are used, but in scenerio B it's because something else (he just doesn't want to regrow limbs). It's arbitrary, and just so.

There are other reasons such as God not wanting us to know for certain that he exists that can cover nearly any of these cases without resorting to specific reasons for each scenario such as the ones you provided.

So, occam's razor suggests the simpler answer - no prayers are being answered at all.

Occam's razor suggests that God doesn't exist at all.

Also, there is less of a false dilemma in my statement than you might think. I stated "either God really hate amputees, or people are mistaken about God is answering prayers to cure cancer, etc." Just replace "hate" with "chooses not to heal", and I have covered your case. Why would God choose not to heal an amputee? It makes no sense. Unless no prayers are being answered at all.

Again, there are many reasons that one could come up with that God might choose not to heal an amputee (or grow a third leg on a person or any number of other things that one might pray for), but might choose to heal someone with cancer.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

How else should I interpret it?

I don't know (I'm not a Christian) but I'm quite certain that few if any Christians interpret it the way you have.

At that point, I would think most parents (at least) would pause and say to themselves, "A reasonable, loving, sane God couldn't possibly have said that. A reasonable, loving, sane parent would never say it, so why would a god?"

I agree, which is why I'd be willing to bet that it's not generally interpreted the way you're interpreting it.

That never, so far as we can know, has God ever restored an amputated limb (or even a limb that was unformed or malformed at birth) as a result of prayer, is obviously indicative that there is a BIG problem somewhere.

Or indicative of the fact that God, if he exists, obviously doesn't grant everything that's prayed for.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

A better question is why does nobody except atheists interpret these passages in the way you're interpreting them? I cannot find a single reference on the Internet of a Christian who believes that God grants everything that is prayed for.

I was a Christian for over 30 years. I interpreted them the same way, then.

Are you saying that you honestly believed that God grants everything that is prayed for? So there is nothing that you prayed for that didn't come true (or did you never pray as a Christian)? Somehow I doubt that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and change "nobody" to "almost nobody."

ETA: Even fundies tend to qualify "God grants all prayers" by saying that only those prayers that are "worthy" are granted (or perhaps those who are "worthy" have all their prayers granted). Even the context that you provided include the phrase "if you have faith and do not waver" which certainly seems to provide an "out" for prayers that aren't granted (the person obviously didn't have faith or wavered).

-Bri

 

[slingblade]

Are you saying that you honestly believed that God grants everything that is prayed for? So there is nothing that you prayed for that didn't come true (or did you never pray as a Christian)? Somehow I doubt that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and change "nobody" to "almost nobody."

-Bri

It's fine with me if you doubt it; it's anecdote. Not evidence, and not provable.

All I can tell you is that from earliest childhood, I was taught that God answers all prayers, if we have enough faith. "Enough," however, was never defined, so if your prayer wasn't granted or answered, it was your fault. You lacked faith. Even as a firm believer, I always thought that was mighty convenient.

Think about it: in order to have "enough" faith in the granting of prayer, you can never, ever doubt that God does grant all prayer. If you do that, even one time, you obviously don't have "enough" faith.

For God, it's obviously a win-win.

 

[Bri]

All I can tell you is that from earliest childhood, I was taught that God answers all prayers, if we have enough faith.

There's the key qualifier I was looking for.

"Enough," however, was never defined, so if your prayer wasn't granted or answered, it was your fault. You lacked faith. Even as a firm believer, I always thought that was mighty convenient.

Think about it: in order to have "enough" faith in the granting of prayer, you can never, ever doubt that God does grant all prayer. If you do that, even one time, you obviously don't have "enough" faith.

For God, it's obviously a win-win.

I agree.

-Bri

 

[slingblade]

There's the key qualifier I was looking for.

Yes, but it's always been there: I bolded the word "believing" in Matt 21:22 for that purpose.

I agree.

Cool.

 

[BlackCat]

I note the Catholic's version of God is inferior to Carl Sagan's version of the creators of the universe in Contact (book version).

In the book, the aliens have discovered that, buried billions or trillions of digits into transcendental numbers like pi are encodings of messages that statistically shouldn't be there, even allowing for the absurdely large number of digits. Hence they must have been placed there not just by the creator of the universe, but the far deeper creator who reated logic itself.

Wasn't that great? I cried at the end of that book, which is unusual for me, because books rarely make me cry.

I like Sagan's god (gods?) better (than the Xian god), because he actually gave proof of his existence, without anyone having to ask. Kind've like a bonus for becoming technologically advanced.

BlackCat

 

[Bri]

Yes, but it's always been there: I bolded the word "believing" in Matt 21:22 for that purpose.

You can see where I thought you were indicating otherwise:

God not granting all prayers would seem only to be a problem for anyone interpreting those Bible passages that were posted as meaning that God grants all prayers. [...]

How else should I interpret it?

-Bri

 

[slingblade]

You can see where I thought you were indicating otherwise

Yes, true. Mea culpa.

 

[empeake]

You have faith, basically, that Christians are out of their minds. I don't share that faith. Why not just say that.

...and you actually believe that Christians ignore this fact, and just keep on praying, pretending that unfilled petitions...what, never happened?

...and if your stance is that we're just all completely daft...

...Tell me that you think Christians are complete morons when it comes to prayer...if you think that, if you don't mind.

Nice straw man. Now, please do me a favor and stop putting words in my mouth.

Christians just don't make sense when it comes to the topic of prayer...

Your words, not mine. And yet you claim to embody the true understanding of what goes on in every Christian's head.

My point is that Christians understand, better than you do apparently, that God's will ought to be done, and not our will. *This distinction, which I don't think anybody here is willing to accept, is what enables prayer, and is what makes prayer something that will continue to happen*.

Let me see if I understand what you're trying to say here: People pray so God's will be done.

Yes, they expect the results that God will provide.

They do not expect the results that they want, unless, what they want is in line with what God wants.

Yes, I did understand correctly.

1. If God did answer prayer, the mind absolutely boggles...

Unless, as you said, the answer is God's will, and in line with what you wanted.

2. Given the above, it seems reasonable for God to *detach* himself from the whole prayer situation, dontcha think?

But people don't detach God from the prayer situation. You said people pray so God's will be done. In this case, God can't detach himself.

3. ...Prayer is different from, say, a superstition like the Ghost Dance. Various Indian groups performed the Ghost Dance because they believed in would exert power and control over God... ...*BUT CHRISTIANS DO NOT HAVE THIS EXPECTATION IN PRAYER*... ...But it is not result orientated!...

You said people pray so God's will be done. What happens if they don't pray? If praying makes a difference in the end result, then people that pray are trying to influence God's will.

Tell me that you think Christians are complete morons when it comes to prayer...if you think that, if you don't mind.

I don't think that, and I do mind. I accept Christians (and Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, etc.) as individuals with their own set of beliefs. I respect them and their faiths. What I can't respect is someone like you that has to resort to personal aggression to support his position.

...Then I can have one less person to respond to.

...so I can weed you out of the group of people in this thread.

Nice evasion manoeuver. Now, please go and talk with the millions of Pat Robertson's and Benny Hinn's followers, the thousands of people that at this moment are in hospitals praying for cures, and ask them why, as you said at the end of your original post, they are constantly "putting God to the test" by "expecting their prayers to work". Are you going to chastise them for being "bad" Christians that don't understand the "true" meaning of prayer the way you do?

 

[Freethinker]

Perhaps God wants there to be serious and definite consequences to purposely chopping off someone's arm. If that person could pray to grow it back, that would negate the consequences.

Good enough! Then give us one example where someone who had a limb accidentally cut off had it restored. Nothing?

When you have to go to such great lengths and make so many dubious and outright laughable qualifications to explain something, it just makes it sound more ridiculous. Kind of like the dead parrot sketch.

 

[elliotfc]

I do not believe that most Christians feel this way about prayer. Listen to a survivor of a scary situation and if he is a Christian, it is likely he will say that he was saved because he prayed. The clear statement is that if he had not prayed, he would not have been saved.

I can't remember if I've already replied to this post...but I don't think I have.

Christians don't expect every petition to be granted. Really. Really really really. Those that are granted, they are happy to credit to God answering a prayer. We believe that all good comes from God, and we do credit all of our successes to God.

What you think is a clear inferential statement I would reject, because it limits God's power. God is omnipotent (or at least that's what y'all keep telling me ad naseum). God can do something if we pray, if we don't pray, if we sort of pray, if we think about praying, if we might be praying or might be doing something else, etc.

I'd say that the Christian is witnessing to God's power when he credits prayer for a happy result. A polite thing to do, a tip of the cap.

BTW, Christians also credit God for happy results when they *didn't pray* for that result.

And indeed, what is the point of prayer if it is nothing more than to give God credit? If it's all God's doing, then He knows it. Do you really think God requires praise in order to do what he does?

Christians call it witnessing.

No, I believe that people pray to God with at least some expectations, even if that expectation is only that He will guide them.

Yes, we do expect that God will always *answer* our prayer. That could come as guidance, fortitude, etc.

And a lot of times, they have much greater expectations. My father-in-law who is receiving hospice care in our home, recieves two or three cards a day called "Prayergrams" from a Baptist church where his niece worships. These cards are specifically labeled "Intercessory Prayer". Now I ask you, what could an intercessory prayer be other than a request/hope/wish for God to intercede?

An intercessory prayer is an intercessory prayer. Of course it's asking for God's intercession. There's nothing wrong in asking.

Sure, they will take "no" as an answer, as the saying goes, but it is quite clear that they are asking.

I agree.

I think, Elliot, that you are probably one of the only people who prays to God with absolutely no expectations of evidence that your prayer was heard.

By evidence you mean result? Of course, I have faith that my prayer is heard. No, I don't need an expected or assumed result to validate that faith.

-Elliot

 

[Bri]

Good enough! Then give us one example where someone who had a limb accidentally cut off had it restored. Nothing?

I was asked what possible reason there might be, so I was attempting to oblige. The truth is that if God exists, we might not be able to know the reason even if there is one.

Therefore, I don't really wish to discuss whether my off-the-cuff reason was good enough. That said, by your reasoning one ought to be able to grow additional limbs by praying for it, so one could have three or more arms, for example. So even if one were to have a limb severed by another person on purpose, one should still be able to pray for an additional one (or two, or three) afterwards, which might defeat the reason I gave (or not).

Or perhaps it is any number of other reasons one might come up with. How about the possibility that God doesn't want us to know for certain that he exists?

When you have to go to such great lengths and make so many dubious and outright laughable qualifications to explain something, it just makes it sound more ridiculous. Kind of like the dead parrot sketch.

There's no need for a Christian to make any qualification other than "God works in mysterious ways." No explanation necessary at all.

-Bri

 

[elliotfc]

Nice straw man. Now, please do me a favor and stop putting words in my mouth.

I qualified each and everyone of them, and asked you if they applied to you. Thanks for your response.

I'm glad you don't think Christians are out of their minds btw.

Your words, not mine. And yet you claim to embody the true understanding of what goes on in every Christian's head.

Not every Christian. I think most Christians understand quite well that God will not answer every prayer in the way that we would have him answer each of our prayers. Do you think I'm wrong on this? Do you think that most Christians expect God to answer each of our prayers in the way that we would have them answer them?

Let me see if I understand what you're trying to say here: People pray so God's will be done.

People ask for things, specific things, in prayer, with the understanding that if God wills it to be done, it will be done. That's what I'm trying to say, yes.

But people don't detach God from the prayer situation. You said people pray so God's will be done. In this case, God can't detach himself.

If I'm following you...no, God will listen to all of our prayers. I may not be following you.

You said people pray so God's will be done. What happens if they don't pray?

We believe that people who pray are open to God's grace in a way that people who don't pray are not.

If praying makes a difference in the end result, then people that pray are trying to influence God's will.

Praying makes a difference in ourselves. I think the results are independent of that...sort of. Or, they could be indirectly dependent.

Sure, some people pray with the intent to get God to see their way of thinking, to make God's will submit to their own. But of course they understand, even in doing so, that God's will is indiependent of our own. If they really believed that God's will was contingent on our own...but I've already gone through that point.

I don't think that, and I do mind. I accept Christians (and Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, etc.) as individuals with their own set of beliefs. I respect them and their faiths. What I can't respect is someone like you that has to resort to personal aggression to support his position.

No problem, this point is not relevant to me, but I'm OK with the fact that it matters to you. Thanks I guess.

Nice evasion manoeuver. Now, please go and talk with the millions of Pat Robertson's and Benny Hinn's followers, the thousands of people that at this moment are in hospitals praying for cures, and ask them why, as you said at the end of your original post, they are constantly "putting God to the test" by "expecting their prayers to work".

They are putting God to the test because they want something specific from God. I think that's the right answer, and I don't feel like going out of my way to verify that. Maybe I'll check out a Benny Hinn forum and ask.

Are you going to chastise them for being "bad" Christians that don't understand the "true" meaning of prayer the way you do?

No, I wouldn't call them bad Christians.

As far as chastising them...maybe. Maybe I would. I'm not sure, it would depend on the specific situation, how well I knew them, and all that.

As for the true meaning of prayer, I think they already know the true meaning of prayer, but pray for a specific result in spite of that. Pain and concern for a loved one can often override something that you'd have in place, securely, absent of the precarious situation. If I get diagnosed with brain cancer tomorrow, let's go ahead and assume that I would do something similar (even though I don't think I'd go see Benny Hinn). I don't think it would make me a bad Christian, but I'd have no problem with being chastised, as I'd see that as a good way to keep myself level-headed, me not being the center of the universe and all that.

Edited to add: there's nothing wrong with asking God to do something for you. There's nothing wrong with praying for a loved one to be healed. Jesus made a specific request in the garden when he prayed to God. It would be wrong to think that we could be exempt from death and suffering simply because we prayed for God to take it way.

-Elliot

 

[Freethinker]

There's no need for a Christian to make any qualification other than "God works in mysterious ways." No explanation necessary at all.

-Bri

The reason there's no need for any other qualification is because that is the mother of all cop-outs. Translated it usually means "This crap doesn't make the least bit of sense to me either, and I can't find the least bit of logic to refute your criticisms, so I'm just going to stop thinking about it."