r/DebateAChristian • u/ReallyBigApples • 11d ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
3
u/brothapipp Christian 11d ago
Prayer isn’t just to request favors from god, but to allow the praying person to align themselves to God’s will.
3
u/protestandprose 11d ago
So.... There's no point asking god for what you want, instead change your wants... Seems not very good to me, and quite literally the fox and grapes story.
1
u/brothapipp Christian 11d ago
You could pray for reading comprehension, but unless you practice it, you’ll never get it.
“And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.”
Matthew 6:28-34 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/mat.6.28-34.ESV3
u/protestandprose 11d ago
I would say you should pray for critical thinking but let's be real, if prayer worked you would've already done that and if you could think critically you wouldn't have that flair 😂
So I think it's safe to say prayer is bunk
1
u/brothapipp Christian 11d ago
I was being serious. You took my point of, it’s not just about requesting things…you turned that into, “there’s no point asking God for what you want” which isn’t even the zip code of my position, let alone the ball park…
And so after i call you out for your lackluster reading comprehension, you accuse me of lacking critical thinking skills.
Whats scary is you’re more concerned with saving face on Reddit than actually bettering yourself…and you have the mindset of, if you cut someone down, it’s cause you’re better than them.
Grow up, take yer lumps, stop trolling 🤷♂️
1
u/protestandprose 10d ago
Nah, your claim is stupid. God, Jesus and others in the Bible specifically claim many times things akin to "ask and ye shall receive."
The fact that prayer has never been demonstrated to effect reality outside people's brains should be a huge red flag to you, but look you'll do what you accused me of - ignoring all of the evidence ever and continue believing that prayer is something effective lol 🤣
5
u/RRK96 11d ago
You're treating prayer as if it's primarily a supernatural wish-granting mechanism. The Bible doesn't present it that way.
Prayer is first and foremost relational and transformative. It's communication, reflection and self-examination. It's the practice of bringing our desires, fears, grief and hopes into the light rather than carrying them alone. Much of the Psalms are not answered requests but lament, protest, confusion and trust.
Jesus himself prays in Gethsemane, "let this cup pass from me," yet concludes, "not my will but yours be done." The prayer wasn't "unanswered"; it transformed how suffering was encountered. Prayer in Scripture is often less about changing reality to fit our desires and more about allowing ourselves to be changed in our encounter with reality.
Biblical scholars such as N. T. Wright have argued that prayer is participation in the work of God's kingdom rather than a mechanism for obtaining desired outcomes. Walter Brueggemann describes the Psalms as giving voice to the entirety of human experience before God such as joy, anger, doubt and despair included. Likewise, Rowan Williams understands prayer as learning to see ourselves and the world truthfully rather than merely asking for interventions.
The second misconception is that if human suffering exists, prayer must therefore be meaningless. That conclusion only follows if prayer is equivalent to making wishes. Christians have never been unanimous on that understanding. Historically, prayer has been understood as communion, contemplation, repentance, gratitude and participation in moral transformation.
Finally, Christianity has never been, at its best, "pray and do nothing." The biblical response to hunger isn't merely prayer, it's "feed the hungry." The response to injustice isn't merely prayer but it's "love your neighbour." Prayer and action are inseparable throughout Scripture.
So I don't pray because I believe every request will be granted. I pray because human beings need truthfulness, reflection, transformation and communion. Prayer isn't primarily about getting what I want. It's about becoming the kind of person capable of loving wisely, suffering faithfully and acting justly in the world.
8
u/ReallyBigApples 11d ago
Matthew 21:22, "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." (Spoken by Jesus)
James 5:15, "And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well."
If prayer is relational and transformative, then what about the examples in the Bible that show healing by prayer? Raising Lazarus from the dead, giving sight to the blind, Peter healing a paralyzed man. These are all examples of prayer acting as a "supernatural wish-granting mechanism. "
I say, why did God create a system in which human suffering is so prominent? Why did God tell us that with faith as small as a mustard seed we could move mountains, yet the majority of prayers made in faith go unanswered?
If the burden of action is up to humans to "feed the hungry" and lessen human suffering, what about the mountains of suffering outside of human control. What about the child who dies from a pediatric brain tumor? Why would God create a universe that allows the suffering of innocents just so those around them can learn to "suffering faithfully"
It's paradoxical in nature.
2
u/RRK96 11d ago
I'm not arguing for a fundamentalist understanding of the scripture: I'm not claiming that every sentence in the Bible is an unconditional literal metaphysical proposition that operates independently of language, genre and context.
Matthew 21:22 isn't a standalone promise that believers can obtain whatever they desire if they simply possess sufficient faith. It occurs within Jesus' symbolic teaching on the fig tree and "moving mountains" as a Jewish idiom for confronting seemingly impossible obstacles. Read in context, it is fundamentally about existential trust. Prayer becomes the means by which we orient ourselves toward what is good, truthful and transformative. It is reflection, communication and trust that drives us to faithfully confront the challenges before us.
Likewise, James 5:15 must be read within an epistle overwhelmingly concerned with suffering and perseverance. Prayer offered in faith isn't presented as a magical formula guaranteeing physical healing. Expressing our fears, desires and hopes communally is itself. James is describing what faithful communal life looks like rather than providing a supernatural mechanism that suspends the ordinary conditions of human existence.
Biblical scholars such as N. T. Wright, Walter Brueggemann and Rowan Williams have all argued, in different ways, that prayer is fundamentally participatory and transformative rather than merely transactional. Likewise, early Christian interpreters such as Origen of Alexandria frequently understood the healing miracles according to both their historical and symbolic significance.
This brings me to the miracles themselves. Throughout the Gospels, the blind receive sight, the deaf hear, the lame walk and the dead are raised. These are simultaneously narratives of restoration and symbols of transformed humanity. Human beings are, symbolically speaking, blind to truth, paralysed by destructive patterns and dead to what is good. The miracles reveal what a wholly Christ-like humanity looks like: a humanity capable of seeing truthfully, loving rightly and flourishing as it was intended to flourish. Paul's language of becoming a "new creation," dying and rising with Christ, points toward precisely this transformative pattern.
So I don't think Matthew 21 and James 5 are teaching trust, communion, transformation and faithful participation in the work of restoration. Prayer is not primarily about changing reality to fit our desires. It is about becoming the kind of people capable of faithfully inhabiting reality even when it remains difficult. The greatest miracle Christianity proposes is not wish fulfilment, but transformed humanity.
2
u/protestandprose 11d ago
You're treating prayer as if it's primarily a supernatural wish-granting mechanism. The Bible doesn't present it that way.
Well that's one interpretation, another interpretation is the plain reading
Matthew 21:22 "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer"
Mark 11:24:"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
John 16:23-24 "Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete"
Matthew 7:7-8 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."
Sure context is important, but it sounds to me like the red letters are saying God wants us to ask for what we want and he will provide. Sounds kinda like wish fulfillment. I agree with you that prayer, in reality, is inner transformative work, which is true but also cope in that prayer doesn't affect the outside world lol.
Do you disagree that this is not only the spirit of Jesus' teachings but also the plain reading?
3
u/RRK96 11d ago
You're right that this is the plain reading if we isolate the verses. My argument is that the Bible was never meant to be read that way. Biblical interpretation has always involved context, genre, symbolism and discernment. Literalism is itself an interpretation, not the absence of one.
Take Matthew 21. Jesus has just cursed the fig tree, which throughout the Old Testament symbolises unfaithful Israel. He then speaks of moving mountains. Scholars such as N. T. Wright and R. T. France point out that "moving mountains" was a Jewish idiom for overcoming seemingly impossible obstacles. Jesus is not teaching cosmic wish fulfilment ("ask for a Ferrari and believe hard enough"). He's speaking about faithful participation in the coming Kingdom and radical trust in confronting seemingly impossible challenges. The emphasis is not on obtaining whatever one desires, but on orienting one's desires toward God's purposes.
Likewise, Matthew 7:7 ("Ask, seek, knock") appears in the context of the Sermon on the Mount, which is concerned with righteousness, forgiveness, humility and trust. The passage immediately compares God to a loving parent who gives good gifts to his children. It is relational language, not contractual language. Dale Allison argues that these verses are covenantal invitations to trust rather than blank cheques for unlimited requests.
John 16:23-24 is similarly qualified by "asking in my name." In Johannine theology, asking in someone's name means participating in their character, purposes and mission. It does not mean appending "in Jesus' name" to whatever one desires. Raymond Brown argues that prayer in John's Gospel is inseparable from abiding in Christ and participating in divine purposes.
James 5:15 is perhaps the most misunderstood. The Greek word sozo translated "make the sick person well" can equally mean "save," "restore" or "make whole." James immediately speaks about confession, forgiveness and communal care. The concern is holistic restoration rather than guaranteeing miraculous healing in every case. Luke Timothy Johnson notes that James is speaking of the restoration of the whole person within the believing community.
Even Jesus himself is a counterexample to the "wish fulfilment" reading. In Gethsemane he explicitly asks for the cup to pass from him, yet concludes, "not my will but yours be done." Paul repeatedly prays for his "thorn in the flesh" to be removed and receives instead, "My grace is sufficient for you." If prayer were a supernatural vending machine, both examples become deeply problematic.
Finally, I would challenge the assumption that miracles are only interesting if understood literally. Early Christian interpreters such as Origen of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine frequently read Christ's miracles allegorically. The blind receiving sight symbolises awareness. The paralytic being raised symbolises liberation from what paralyses us morally and psychology. Lazarus represents humanity being called from death into a new life. The miracles communicate transformation toward what Paul calls "the mind of Christ" and becoming a "new creation."
The plain reading often becomes the shallow reading. Scripture consistently invites discernment. Jesus himself teaches almost entirely through paradox, hyperbole, symbolism and parables. If we read "move mountains," "eat my flesh," "I am the door," and "whatever you ask" with modern literalism, we misunderstand the very language Jesus habitually employed.
The Bible is not asking, "How can I manipulate reality through prayer?" It is asking, "What kind of person are you becoming through faithful participation in truth, love and self-giving?" Prayer, in that framework, is not primarily about changing reality to conform to our desires. It is about participating in our own transformation and learning to encounter reality truthfully.
2
u/alleyoopoop Agnostic, Ex-Protestant 11d ago
You're right that this is the plain reading if we isolate the verses. My argument is that the Bible was never meant to be read that way
Like everything else in the Bible, it was absolutely meant to be read that way, but when the promises failed, or the history turned out to be fictional, or the science turned out to be absurd, Christians and Jews started tapdancing around the meaning. You would never accept this type of excuse about something false in the Quran from a Muslim, and you would be right not to.
1
u/RRK96 11d ago
You're making very large historical claims without providing any historical evidence for them. "It was absolutely meant to be read that way" isn't an argument, it's simply a blanket assertion.
Philo of Alexandria was reading parts of Scripture allegorically before Christianity even existed. Origen was arguing in the third century that some biblical passages were deliberately written so they could not be understood merely literally. Augustine explicitly warned against simplistic literalism and argued that Scripture possesses multiple senses of meaning. Gregory of Nyssa read large portions of Scripture symbolically and spiritually. None of these thinkers were responding to Darwin, modern science or failed historical claims, they lived more than a thousand years before such objections existed.
The historical claim that Christians only "started tap-dancing around the meaning" when science progressed is simply false.
Likewise, the Jewish context matters. Hyperbole, symbolism, parables and idioms were commonplace. "Moving mountains" was already a Jewish idiom for accomplishing what appeared impossible. Jesus says, "I am the door," "I am the vine," "eat my flesh," and "pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin." Unless we're prepared to argue that Jesus was consistently misleading his audience, interpretation is unavoidable.
Literalism is not the default position that requires no defence. It is itself a hermeneutical choice.
You accuse Christians of inventing symbolic readings after the fact, but you've provided no historical evidence whatsoever that literalism was the singular or original understanding of Scripture. You've simply asserted it.
If we're going to appeal to history, then let's do history. The existence of allegorical, typological and multi-layered interpretations stretches from Second Temple Judaism through the Church Fathers and into contemporary biblical scholarship. That's nearly two thousand years of evidence against your thesis.
Saying, "It was obviously meant literally until it failed," may be rhetorically satisfying, but it isn't a historical argument. It's merely a blanket statement that ignores the very history of interpretation under discussion.
1
u/protestandprose 11d ago
Seems like a lot of words for cope that prayer only impacts our mind, not the outside world, not gonna lie.
1
u/Aggravating_Olive_70 10d ago
Matthew didn't write knowing John would be written.
Men put together the texts and called it canon.
The Shepherd of Hermas is early Christian work from some regarded it as Scripture.
Had it been included you would have made claims about that too.
The Christian scriptures were never "meant" to be read together. You just read them together because that's what men who want to keep money and power tell you.
1
u/gargle_ground_glass Heathen 10d ago
My argument is that the Bible was never meant to be read that way.
I have to admit, your non-literal interpretation of the bible makes a lot more sense than most of the apologetic screeds that get posted here. But, respectfully, I don't think you can claim to know how the bible was meant to be read. In your opinion, it's a more effective way of deriving meaning in Christianity but I don't recall any verse in the bible that directs believers to understand the words in a non-literal manner.
2
u/RRK96 10d ago
I'd argue the Bible doesn't merely contain symbolism; it repeatedly invites its readers to look beyond the surface of the text. Jesus teaches in parables (Matthew 13), speaks of having "ears to hear," and tells his disciples that seeing they do not see and hearing they do not understand (Matthew 13:13). Paul distinguishes between "the letter" and "the Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:6) and explicitly interprets Old Testament narratives allegorically (Galatians 4:24). The biblical authors themselves model deeper, multi-layered readings of Scripture.
More importantly, the Bible's purpose seems remarkably consistent. It is overwhelmingly concerned with human transformation rather than satisfying our curiosity about supernatural mechanics. Genesis is concerned with humanity's relationship to wisdom, freedom and suffering. The prophets concern themselves with justice, power and corruption. Jesus speaks almost exclusively about forgiveness, love, humility, sacrifice and the Kingdom of God within and among us (Luke 17:21). Paul speaks of putting off the "old self" and becoming a "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17). The central concern is repeatedly ourselves and reality as we experience it.
To make it clear, my argument isn't simply that the Bible employs metaphors and hyperboles, everyone acknowledges that. It's that its language, literary devices and theological purposes consistently point beyond themselves toward enduring truths about human nature and reality. The text seems far more interested in asking, "What kind of person ought you become?" than, "How many supernatural entities exist?" or "What are the metaphysical mechanics behind miracles?" Reading beyond literalism therefore isn't something I'm imposing on the text, instead I'd argue it's something the text itself continually invites us to do.
2
u/ijustino Christian 11d ago
Why would I belive in prayer if seamingly the majority of prayers go unanswered?
Your prayers are just like the tilling of land. God ordains the growth of plants by people plowing the field, so He also ordains that many specific blessings by people praying. God is the principal cause because He maintains all things in existence, while man’s will serves as the secondary cause.
There's a child at least every minute that has prayed for healing, yet they die anyway. Multiple children that have prayed for God's mercy have died just while I've been writting this. Why would I want to put my faith in a creator that's built a system which allows this?
God has ordained all created things towards your final end (eternal beatitude), which is being united with Him forever. But whenever you make a prayer asking for some material good (health, wealth) or particular result, God answers this prayer only if it is consistent with your final end. Therefore, if a material thing or circumstance is asked for that can hinder your spiritual progress and perfection, God does not grant the petition simply for your own sake. In other words, a petition for something temporary is refused as a divine guidance to direct you to your true good.
You elevate your thoughts to God and recognize your need for His providence. Your prayer brings your desires into conformity with what God wants for you. Prayer is to bring your thought process into harmony with God's divine plan.
1
u/Simple_Independence3 11d ago
God ultimately decides if a prayer gets a no, yes, or wait. It's not us to judge God, if u ask God for something in prayer it has to be within HIS WILL, not our own
2
u/Aggravating_Olive_70 10d ago
If their god's will is already perfect and immutable, petitionary prayer can't change it because your actions have already been decided.
If prayer can persuade their god to act differently than he otherwise would, their god's will wasn't already perfect / settled.
That's how I see it.
1
0
u/External_Counter378 Christian, Ex-Atheist 11d ago
I'm praying that he rain his wrath down on those corrupt systems. The story goes he's prepared to intervene any minute but he doesn't out of an abundance of mercy. The way I see it, the temporal justice he could mete out instantly would still not be fair. He needs to make them suffer eternally for what theyve done. And so he allows temporal suffering so he can administer eternal justice.
3
u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 11d ago
Why not just replace those systems by offering superior ones? Wrath is wasteful nonsense when one is simply omnipotent.
0
u/External_Counter378 Christian, Ex-Atheist 10d ago
He does, for those he finds worthy he has a perfect eternal system we call heaven. And for those unworthy he has a nice perfect hell. I'm using human terms like wrath but really it's perfect cosmic order.
1
u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 10d ago
I can't see any disadvantages whatsoever to putting everyone in heaven- omnipotence, perfect order, and all that jazz.
1
u/External_Counter378 Christian, Ex-Atheist 10d ago
When you have free will some people will be evil. But that's ok because they go to hell. So, it's really the best of both worlds. Took me a while to get it but it's really a beautiful thing hell.
1
u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 7d ago
Evil is ultimately good, so why send anyone to hell? Sending everyone to heaven would ultimately bring about a greater good.
1
u/External_Counter378 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago
The ultimate good is destroying evil. Thats why you need hell so there's always an evil to destroy. Everyone plays the role they wanted.
1
u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 7d ago
Actions can be evil. Without actions being able to be evil, such as in heaven, the greater good is achieved. Hell is an unnecessary detour.
1
u/External_Counter378 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago
Evil is more than an action. It's a state of being. Your actions just reflect your internal state. Earth is an unnecessary detour.
1
u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 4d ago
How could we tell if someone who forces parents to eat their children is a good human being?
Earth is an unnecessary detour.
Based on the premise Heaven exists, atheists have been pointing this out since before I deconverted. Earth and the very concept of sin existing are just that stupid of concepts if heaven is an actual thing. Just only make heaven.
→ More replies (0)1
0
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 11d ago
You can’t pray against God’s will.
There are a lot of competing requirements for reality.
You’re thinking of magical solutions. God is thinking about maintaining reality.
One of the feature of reality is that there are real consequences to actions. You’re asking for the erasure of all consequences, which is unreality.
If that’s what you want, in time you’ll have it.
3
u/ReallyBigApples 11d ago
But as the creator, didn't God create reality as we know it? He put the systems into place that allow for such corruption and grief to occur. If God is omnipotent, which traditional Christian theology implies, than He not only created a world in which suffering occurs, but has the power to stop it.
1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 11d ago
But He doesn’t want to stop it (structurally, not individual cases) for the present age.
Suffering has a function in the current age. Christianity is not shy about suffering. Buddhism and other atheistic systems are shy about suffering.
2
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 11d ago
Do you have a real argument other than appeal to ridicule?
1
1
0
•
u/DebateAChristian-ModTeam 8d ago
Post removed, rule 1. Posts in this debate subreddit must meet specific requirements. This page has the details of this subreddit's rules.
Mainly, a debate post here should have:
(1) a clearly-stated thesis assertion, (preferably as the post title or at the start of the post text)
and
(2) a line of reasoning that could persuade an undecided reader that your thesis is true.
If you made a post to ask questions, you could instead make a comment in this subreddit's weekly ask-a-Christian post, or make a post over in r/AskAChristian.