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?

@Inspecto

Serious question. Does this aversion to God stem from issues with authority?

I have a problem with authoritarianism, which is a foundation of traditional theistic teaching. The ultra-authoritarian notion that God requires absolute obedience and worship otherwise we face eternal damnation is at odds with my basic conception of good and right, and seems to be an echo of monarchical and feudal societies that were ubiquitous until the industrial age.

I recognise that certain Christian and other theistic theologies are more subtle in their portrayal of God's authority, but nonetheless, its authoritarian strand is one of the reasons I have a major problem with the Church.

In Christian theology, that's exactly what Jesus did.... Jesus being both the incarnation of God in Man.

@Inspecto
Serious question. Does this aversion to God stem from issues with authority?

I don’t have any problems with authority in my own life. A god which doesn’t exist can’t have any authority over me - very logical to me so not something I think about.

@Letitrainletitrainletitrain I did not actually say that. I had to think about where you even got that idea from - and now I can see how you got it from something in the article that was linked. But that was not what I meant because it’s a very common phrase all children can use (it’s even the title of some books, but I won’t repeat in fear it’ll get censored/deleted).

@Parker231 and @Tuilpmouse

I do have a response, but I’m not going to say.

I don’t think censoring innocuous comments is useful in a debate. So I’m out.

Actually, I do need to quickly respond to this one before I leave the thread.

You should look into who the authority in your own life answer to. For example, almost every authority in this country come under the head of state, which is the monarch and the crown (which have ‘by the grace of God’ and ‘defender of the faith’ in their titles).

@Inspecto - I don’t live in the Uk - we don’t have a monarchy. However my views on a non existent God and any authority over me still stands regardless.

Countries without monarchies still have heads of state swearing oaths and allegiances before God. It’s quite common.

Example: “The Declaration of Independence contains a theological teaching because the ultimate source of our rights and duties is God. There are four references to God in the Declaration:
The "laws of nature and of nature's God" entitle the United States to independence.
Men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
Congress appeals "to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions."
The signers, "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence," pledge to each other their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.”

founding.com/natures-god/

Anyway, I need to leave this thread.

I’m not in the US but they have separation of church and state so that people have the freedom to pursue their own faith instead of having it dictated to them. It also allows for people to choose not to have a religion or religious faith if that is their personal preference.

At the same time just because the figure head answers or is influenced by god, does not mean others follow the faiths and also just because you rebel against God does not automatically mean you rebel against authority just because they believe in god and you do not. Some times the two are not always connected,

It's almost like you don't believe in god,.but answer to e.g. The Prime minister or the monarch, but then because they believe in god and you don't therefore if you don't accept god, you also don't accept authority because the ruling member's e.g. Prime minister or the monarchy follow the faith etc

You can still obey your e.g. Prime minister or monarchy, and yet still don't follow religion.

You compared posters who don't believe in God to children who exhibit certain behaviour and then linked that to an article about how children who exhibit that behaviour have developmental issues. If that wasn't the point you were trying to make then perhaps you shouldn't have linked to that article.

Regardless Mumsnet, the authority on this website, deemed it a personal attack which was why it was deleted, because you didn't follow their rules or their authority. Do you always have a problem with authority?

It seems to be like the poor LDS girl is the one with the lack of understanding.

Absolutely but then one can then decide who they believe the intelligent designer is and what he wants.

The inescapable scientific fact is that something or someone that exists outside of time, space and matter must have created time, space and matter.

I think it is the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Some would say it is a Big Bang. How such precise order came out of a big bang beggars belief. If one considers the the complexity of the eye or even the degree that the earth is tilted on its axis and the significance of that, then the work of something or someone bigger than us is indisputable. Stephen Hawkins acknowledged that simple fact. All scientists recognise this simple fact. Something outside of time, space and matter must exist.

… and some scientists say it’s the Higgs Boson that was the particle that started it all. Except no one can say how a particle that is matter created matter.

I don’t know if ants are aware of the existence of humans - we are hundreds of times bigger than them - I suppose if I were an ant, I’d regard humans as part of the landscape/scenery/weather - but able to quickly change.

If I have an ant in a box, do I have authority over her? I can move her, put her in the garden. I could influence (though perhaps not finely control) her behaviour with pheromones maybe (though perhaps could do more with other animals). The ant may or may not believe I exist - or could consider me to be a non-living thing.

This. Religion is a survival strategy from long ago when mankind didn't have the knowledge to explain natural disasters etc.

All scientists recognise this simple fact. Something outside of time, space and matter must exist.

I don't agree with this

Then tell us what you know. How was time, space and matter created?

“The inescapable scientific fact is that something or someone that exists outside of time, space and matter must have created time, space and matter”.

How can it be “the inescapable scientific fact” when nothing as such, has been proven to exist?. And why do people only quote Stephen Hawkins as way of trying to prove a gods existence? As amazing as a scientist that he was, there are a million more amazing scientists who would disagree with your hypothesis, which actually what your belief, in your god, is.

if you claim “god” did all of this, than it’s on you to prove it. You talk about scientists this and facts that - please send links to these facts, statistics, essays, research and the scientists that put all of this information together.

It wasn't 'created', it has always existed.

The notion that it was 'created' is a construct of those who inherently believe there must be a creationist element to the origin of the universe. This is neither necessary, nor is it required, so to insist upon an answer to the question is in itself disingenuous because the question posits a false premise.

Neither do I, because it's nonsense.

We know how the universe was created - not some imaginary God but science.

If God is real It is beyond our comprehension or It wouldn’t be God.
I don’t believe in a mostly benign entity ‘living’ somewhere beyond the universe. I do believe that if humankind is the greatest there is in the galaxies it is a pretty poor showing for millennia of evolutions. I suppose to simplify it “God” gave us a planet and free will to make of it what we will. We are doing a pretty rotten job really given the inequalities between groups of people.

They aren't really comparable. What we have here is an assertion that a being exists with absolutely no evidence either way. It isn't arrogant to say "Show me the evidence. Until you do, I don't believe in this being". Suppose I told you that we were created and controlled by a flock of flying spotted pink dinosaurs, it wouldn't be arrogant for you to ask me to produce proof before you accepted what I say.

The onus always has to be on those who assert that a god exists, because notoriously you cannot prove a negative. The fact that that no objective evidence of a deity has been produced over several hundred years rather tends to suggest that there is no deity.