Why does God answer some prayers and not others?

[locationforna]

Just this really.

If you are a Christian, please can you tell me why God answers some peoples prayers and not others?

For example, one woman could be praying her baby survives. Baby dies. Another woman with the exact same situation of an unwell baby - Baby lives. Both prayed, they prayed a lot

Why is it you say 'God is good' and 'God does answer, this is a miracle' and 'we are praying for you'

Do you really think that if the first person prayed hard enough, her baby would've survived? Or if not, and it's just chance, why pray?

I believe in God by the way. I have been studying for a while and seem to lean towards Judaism but notice a lot of 'God is good, he answered my prayers. It's a miracle'

Why some prayers and not others? Why do people think He's helped you get a job offer you really wanted but not answered a woman across the road's prayer not to be raped?

There is suffering throughout the Bible. Jesus himself suffered according to the Bible. That's not what I mean - I mean specially, why some prayers can be answered and not others that are equally in need?

Why on god’s good earth would anyone want to risk god’s wrath to “lie under affirmative in Court”?! You can’t say “there isn’t a God which punishes you” because you don’t know for absolute certainty.

Read the world since 2020 - something is up.

And this comes back to my point about corona (which means crown). ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ The word corona means crown; the crown symbolises the sovereignty of justice.

Again you’ve not read my post - a God couldn’t punish me for anything I do in my life as I don’t believe he exists.

I disagree, I think that’s a leap that’s far from justified. But if that really is the case, how is it that those who do believe in god (and in fact those that don’t too) still can and do have very different views on what is good and bad? As in an earlier post I made, I think religion was just the means and the vehicle society came up with to further that idea as part of its development. If it wasn’t god, heaven and hell, right & wrong, then it would have been the bogeyman, Lord Frith and the Black Rabbit of Inlé, or something else to achieve the same effect.

Basically, god was there to fill in the gaps of knowledge that the science of the time couldn’t, and to act as a police/judicial system until society was mature and developed enough to invent our own. Both of which were necessary for our development. If anything, you could argue (well, I certainly could) that the appearance of religion into society was Darwinian- it was a purely natural measure we evolved to enable our society to evolve.

The reason we still continue with religion today is part indoctrination passed on from previous generations, and part fear and refusal from us to accept that human beings are mortal and thoroughly unimportant, and that this is it. I don’t see many cats praying to god, or woodlice attending mass (though they’re probably there, eating their way through the pews, but it’s purely incidental).

Yes because science helps people which is one of the reasons why I believe in science over faith

@Maximinimalist

I'll happy discuss any argument or debate with decent evidence. The one you and others have presented is the least viable by a country mile. Hence why you resorted to an ad hominem.

Some people continue with religion today - an decreasing number. The rest of us don’t have fear of being indoctrinated and are more scientific thinkers. The church is a mess - not sorted out or punished the sex offenders or put in place same sex marriage. Antiquated for present times.

I have just read Through a glass darkly by Alister McGrath. I liked it (for context I’m a Christian). I don’t think he gives proof of God/no god (he doesn’t claim to), but I guess he gives some other perspectives to frame the question and his own personal journey.

one of his arguments (not originally, but acknowledged to be based on the work of others), is that there are many ways of looking at something - you can draw many maps - all of which are true/valid/useful, but in different ways. For example a physical map of countries tells you where the mountains are - which will affect your journey time. A political map of the area is no less true - and will tell you different information - and I guess can also affect your journey time (eg where passport control/borders are). Different tools are required to work with these different maps. Science is only one ‘map’ of the world - and indeed perhaps it should better be classed as one group of maps (since it is not a monolith and there are multiple methods of investigation, observation and reasoning within science - eg quantum theory vs evolutionary biology).

it’s interesting to play with these ideas. Science can give you some mechanisms of how things work. But can it tell you what happened - eg in a criminal case? Well maybe it can inform things - genomic sequencing, chemical analysis of organic matter. But it can’t tell you for definite what happened.

I agree. As an atheist, the conduct of the various churches and religious leaders of all faiths, both past and present, would only be even more of a disincentive to changing my opinion on organised religion.

@Inspecto

My argument was based on God being "good", not God being "nice", with all the overtones of weakness and passivity that "niceness" has. Goodness and niceness are very different, and to confound the terms is disingenuous. I can quite readily grasp that, conceptually at least, God can be both 'good' but not necessarily 'nice'.

For example, to prevent a child from being abused and tortured for months and then killed, is fundamentally a 'good' thing to do, not simply a 'nice' thing to do in the way that giving the child sweets or a new bike would be.

I have read your post. And I don’t think you understand that just because you don’t believe does not mean god does not in fact exist or has no power to punish wrongdoing. Yours is a belief and opinion, not a fact.

If you’re suggesting that all people need to do to escape the risk of god’s punishment is simply not believe in him, then I’m telling you that’s not how it works. The argument is that if you’re on god’s territories then you’re liable to his jurisdiction.

It’s not a preference or optional, it’s like the law. You can start saying “I don’t believe in that law so it doesn’t apply to me”…. The law applies to everyone, no one is above the law (except maybe the monarch in this country’s law, but that’s again to do with the crown and the crown representing god’s sovereignty).

*can’t

I, 100% cannot be punished by a God which I do not believe in - this is a fact.

Moreover, even if god does exist and can punish as you say, it’s the threat of punishment from god that would drive good behaviour. But as Parker231 doesn’t believe in god, then no threat to them exists. You’re saying that they (and I) can’t opt out of gods punishment. I say we haven’t opted in.

Let me help illustrate using a bible story.

Pharaoh did not believe in God, so he was unmoved by Moses’ arguments to let his enslaved people go free.

Pharaoh probably said something like you to Moses, “I, 100% cannot be punished by a God which I do not believe in - this is a fact.”

But Pharaoh not believing in God did not protect Pharaoh from the 10 plagues of Egypt.

Pharaoh must have been really arrogant and stubbornly obstinate in the face of painful evidence for it to take God to send 10 plagues for Pharaoh to get it.

I must be perfect then as your God hasn’t punished me for anything! I’ll carry on living my life as an unbeliever!

In the context of justice, for example, the court is one of God’s territories. It is a summons, not an option.

Do you remember opting in to anything at birth? No. It happens by default to you and for you. When in Rome do as the Romans do - and be grateful for the protection Rome offers.

You’re incorrect. This is why affirmations are valid in Court - it’s a non religious oath so keeps religion out of the legal system.

Everything that people believe is to help themselves - god is irrelevant IMO. People believe in god so they can pass responsibility onto him, they believe in prayer because they want to feel they are 'doing/achieving/changing' something when there's really nothing much they can do or change about a situation.

It's all a way of either feeling in control or giving someone else control so they don't have to be responsible IMO.

Great if you’ve been unpunished. It suggests you might be obediently following God’s laws without knowing it. 😂

But would you even recognise a punishment from God? I suspect not.

Pharaoh was oblivious to his punishments from God until the 10th plague. But once the 10th plague happened it couldn’t be undone (the 10th plague was the Passover - God sent the angel of death).

As I don’t know what God’s laws are - no idea whether I have followed any of them.

Of course I wouldn’t recognise any punishment from your God - can’t be punished by something which doesn’t exist!

@Maximinimalist has tried to enlighten you that “You do realise that the UK legal system is based heavily on the Old Testament. Where do you think the ideas of morality and right and wrong originated?”

You have most likely obeyed God’s laws in ignorance. I’m surprised that you would be happy not knowing where the laws you hold dearly come from. I thought you said you were a critical thinker?

I see God’s laws as patents. As the creator, God still holds those patents, even if they’ve been influenced and adopted by human law makers. But the buck stops with God.

You are not the authority to know whether or not god exists for absolute certainty. You believe god doesn’t exist, but you don’t know either way for certainty. Knowing you don’t know is ok - it’s a wise, humble and honest position.

“Science doesn’t have the processes to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science studies and attempts to explain only the natural world while God, in most religions, is supernatural.”

And you seem to have a lot of deluded energy. How rude, telling someone to calm down, when they are effectively able to argue against your points.

Rude? What is your concept of rude?

You sound angry and throwing terms like rude, word salad, narcissistic seems to be the way for those who can’t or refuse to just have a calm discussion.

Telling women to calm down is misogyny 101

Whilst we don't know all posters are women, an above average number are, and responding to women by telling them to calm down is just drawing on years of misogynistic insults to women with opinions

Again, you are calling someone “angry” when they stand up to you and your clear rudeness - and yes you are rude. Hardly conducive to having a calm discussion.