Why Doesn’t God Answer Prayers?

[john doe]

Hey, I'm all about faith and showing it, and practicing it. But to say that the earth is only 6,000 years old or that it only took 6 days to create is not taking the facts and merging them with common sense or knowledge of how things work. There needs to be some reconciliation between what the scriptures say and what the actual physical evidences are. Sorry, but I just don't believe that Peleg killed all the dinosaurs 5,000 years ago or even that the continents were separated that short of a time ago. The evidence just doesn't support those assertions. There's a disconnect somewhere, and beating up on people who are seeking to reconcile these things is not helpful.

[Gatorman]

I have not been beating anyone up, at least it was not my intent. Instead, I have stated that you are correct, our understanding of the evidence does suggest so. I have agreed that evolution and the time science suggest for the earth are possible. But, I won't go so far as to call them facts, as, I do not have Heavenly Father's understanding or knowledge. So, I recognize that Heavenly Father is perfectly capable of making it appear to have taken so long, if he desired or if it served his purpose. Does that mean that I ignore science today? No. It means I acknowledge that Heavenly Father did it, regardless of the 'how'.

Hey, I'm all about faith and showing it, and practicing it. But to say that the earth is only 6,000 years old or that it only took 6 days to create is not taking the facts and merging them with common sense or knowledge of how things work. There needs to be some reconciliation between what the scriptures say and what the actual physical evidences are. Sorry, but I just don't believe that Peleg killed all the dinosaurs 5,000 years ago or even that the continents were separated that short of a time ago. The evidence just doesn't support those assertions. There's a disconnect somewhere, and beating up on people who are seeking to reconcile these things is not helpful.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Hey, I'm all about faith and showing it, and practicing it. But to say that the earth is only 6,000 years old or that it only took 6 days to create is not taking the facts and merging them with common sense or knowledge of how things work. There needs to be some reconciliation between what the scriptures say and what the actual physical evidences are. Sorry, but I just don't believe that Peleg killed all the dinosaurs 5,000 years ago or even that the continents were separated that short of a time ago. The evidence just doesn't support those assertions. There's a disconnect somewhere, and beating up on people who are seeking to reconcile these things is not helpful.

Whoa, slow down, pardner, I don't think anyone has suggested what you say in this paragraph. Since I am one who has been the focus of scorn from the scientific elitists within the board, let me clarify something...

- I have never said the Earth itself is only 6,000 years old

- I have never said the Earth was created in 6 literal days

- I have never said Peleg killed all the dinosaurs

- I do, at present, believe the continents were separated at the time of Peleg, because the scriptures hint at the idea.

- I do, at present, believe in a worldwide flood as recorded in Genesis, and spoken of by Jesus Himself.

So before people go off half-cocked assigning me beliefs and ridiculing my "common sense", perhaps they should get to know what I actually believe.

[john doe]

Whoa, slow down, pardner, I don't think anyone has suggested what you say in this paragraph. Since I am one who has been the focus of scorn from the scientific elitists within the board, let me clarify something...

- I have never said the Earth itself is only 6,000 years old

- I have never said the Earth was created in 6 literal days

- I have never said Peleg killed all the dinosaurs

- I do, at present, believe the continents were separated at the time of Peleg, because the scriptures hint at the idea.

- I do, at present, believe in a worldwide flood as recorded in Genesis, and spoken of by Jesus Himself.

So before people go off half-cocked assigning me beliefs and ridiculing my "common sense", perhaps they should get to know what I actually believe.

And I never assigned any of those beliefs to you. But there have been similar beliefs stated on this site by various people who choose to believe the Bible implicitly as a historical book. And I think this is part of where the disconnect comes in.

Let's talk a little about the LDS reaction when people come here claiming the Book of Mormon is false because it doesn't match the archeological evidence dug up so far. What do we say? Well, some of us point out that the BoM is not a historical record, but rather a religious record. So why do we hold the Bible to a different standard?

My belief is that the Bible is more of a religious record and less of a historical record. It's when people take the Bible as literal that we run into factual archeological problems. But when you look at the Bible stories as religious texts, and take the lessons learned from them in a religious sense, they do have value. Noah is a great story of how we should trust in God, and be obedient. There are many stories of men who communed with God and used their faith to perform many great works. There are lots of things to be gained when you look at the Bible as a religious document, but when you run it through the truth machine, it sure appears that some stories may have been embellished or even made up to make a point to the intended readers. What has happened, however, is that people have taken it as a history of the land, and I don't believe it was intended to be such. The Bible is a record of things related to God and a testament of Jesus Christ, not a history of the world.

[Guest Believer_1829]

I think the question for many of us, where does disbelieving end? Do you eventually just count the whole thing as nice fables with a good moral? Or do you start believing the moral isn't even that good, based on OT accounts of Yahweh's interaction with Israel and the other ancient societies. Where does the doubting end?

[Wingnut]

Since I am one who has been the focus of scorn from the scientific elitists within the board, let me clarify something...

Oh, woe is you! If you quit being so pitiful and whiny, maybe people would respect you a little more.

[bmy-]

Whoa, slow down, pardner, I don't think anyone has suggested what you say in this paragraph. Since I am one who has been the focus of scorn from the scientific elitists within the board, let me clarify something...

- I have never said the Earth itself is only 6,000 years old

- I have never said the Earth was created in 6 literal days

- I have never said Peleg killed all the dinosaurs

- I do, at present, believe the continents were separated at the time of Peleg, because the scriptures hint at the idea.

- I do, at present, believe in a worldwide flood as recorded in Genesis, and spoken of by Jesus Himself.

So before people go off half-cocked assigning me beliefs and ridiculing my "common sense", perhaps they should get to know what I actually believe.

You can't see my posts.. but others can. This is a farce, plain and simple. First.. you posted this.. with an excerpt from the website attached below.

There is also research by those who do believe, that lend credibility to the story of a worldwide flood...

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

"Let's not kid ourselves. What this is all about is whether or not the Old Testament book of Genesis (along with the rest of the Old Testament, and the New Testament) is an accurate account of what happened around 4600 years ago with regard to a worldwide flood, and about 6000 years ago, with regard to Creation itself."

Then you posted a quote from Howard W. Hunter implying that you believe in a literal interpretation of the flood, and the Adam/Eve story in Genesis. If you believe in both of those.. is it a far stretch to say that you also believe in the YEC Creation story?

"The Old Testament unfolds the story of the creation of the earth and mankind by God. Should we now disregard this account and modernize the creation according to the theories of the modernists? Can we say there was no Garden of Eden or an Adam and Eve? Because modernists now declare the story of the flood is unreasonable and impossible, should we disbelieve the account of Noah and the flood as related in the Old Testament?"

Then you posted this.. you do not mention the 'style' of Creation you admit to believing in.. but once again seem to have a literal interpretation of Genesis. That type of interpretation also points towards the belief that the world is ~6,000 years old.

You are right I am a bit defensive, as I have been called uneducated and less intelligent for daring to believe in the stories of the OT about Creation and the Flood, when at the beginning (of posting in general, not this particular thread) I was merely expressing my belief.

So to sum it up.. there's plenty of indications that you interpret Genesis literally. Since you have denied believing in the 6,000 year old earth side of Genesis.. well.. other people can probably understand why i'm confused.

Edited August 13, 2009 by bmy-

[Guest Believer_1829]

You can't see my posts.. but others can. This is a farce, plain and simple. First.. you posted this.. with an excerpt from the website attached below.

Then you posted a quote from Howard W. Hunter implying that you believe in a literal interpretation of the flood, and the Adam/Eve story in Genesis. If you believe in both of those.. is it a far stretch to say that you also believe in the YEC Creation story?

Then you posted this.. you do not mention the 'style' of Creation you admit to believing in.. but once again seem to have a literal interpretation of Genesis. That type of interpretation also points towards the belief that the world is ~6,000 years old.

So to sum it up.. there's plenty of indications that you interpret Genesis literally. Since you have denied believing in the 6,000 year old earth side of Genesis.. well.. other people can probably understand why i'm confused.

I said I believe in the Flood story. THAT was the purpose of the link I provided, NOT his argument for the age of the Earth.

My current belief is the Earth was created in 6 thousand years periods, so that would put the Earth at approx. 12,000 years old. I believe that man's presence, starting in the Garden, began 6,000 years ago.

You have assumed things concerning my belief system based on your preconceived notions of those that take the Bible literally. Perhaps you should have taken the time to figure out what a believe before you laid into me?

Edited August 13, 2009 by john doe
No more flames please.

[john doe]

I think the question for many of us, where does disbelieving end? Do you eventually just count the whole thing as nice fables with a good moral? Or do you start believing the moral isn't even that good, based on OT accounts of Yahweh's interaction with Israel and the other ancient societies. Where does the doubting end?

I said nothing about 'nice fables'. As for where my doubting ends, it's where my faith starts. Did you know that most bible scholars, including many LDS, don't believe the story of Job literally happened the way it is portrayed? Does that decrease the value of the lessons it teaches us? I don't think so. What matters is my relationships to God and Jesus Christ. If the morals of the stories and the people contained in the Bible help me develop those relationships, then they still contain valuable infromation.

[Guest Believer_1829]

I will excuse myself from all future debates about Evolution/Creation and historicity of scripture and stick to doctrinal discussions. I am sorry I ever got involved.

[glow_inthe_dark_girl]

this kind of discussions are always pointless...

[Kawazu]

Group discussions are usually pointless.

[Mahone]

Group discussions are usually pointless.

That also applies to the vast majority of business meetings, but now that's getting off topic

[glow_inthe_dark_girl]

Group discussions are usually pointless.

may be I should have said doubly pointless.. but I dont agree with you there are some

good discussions that have a lot of importance it depends on the theme the group discusses and the persons that are involved.

and in this case some people are just debating wether the bible is literal, if god doesnt answer prayers. etc. so what's the point here?

when a discussion is not pointless there's a purpose for it, and i wonder what the purpose is here? try to prove who is more analytical?

who is right? there's no way to prove it ..

Oh plus I'm getting kind of tired to read that this questions formulated by the OP are just intended to get people to think , as if people couldn't

think by themselves or needed a little push to realise how things actually are.. it's beyond obvious that the OP is not asking because he or she

wants an answer for himself, that is clear, but I think the questions are to create debate between the users, and due to the fact that some

people gets offended by the questions the OP enjoys it.

Edited August 13, 2009 by glow_inthe_dark_girl

[Kenny]

Here another nice example of prayer for those that find it hard to commnicate with their God:

Every night Fred would get down on his knees and say a simple prayer, 'hello Jesus its Fred, Amen'

This went on day after day, week after week, year after year, one simple sincere little prayer.

Then in his old age Fred became ill and was unable to prayer that night the first time in 70 years.

Then Fred felt his matress move and suspecting someone had sat down beheld a personage and the Being smiled at him and said.

Hello Fred it is Jesus.

[Kawazu]

...there are some good discussions that have a lot of importance...

There are some good discussions that have a lot of importance but group discussions are usually pointless.

In order for a group discussion to be fruitful, participants must be amenable to altering their opinions on the subject of inquiry. Generally, for a productive discussion, it is preferable that members of a group have undecided beliefs on the topic, or lean only slightly in one direction or the other. Such a case would indicate a willingness to change positions when evidence is presented by people with opposing views.

However, most of the time, passionate folks club their opponents, verbally.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Kawazu

[glow_inthe_dark_girl]

In order for a group discussion to be fruitful, participants must be amenable to altering their opinions on the subject of inquiry. Generally, for a productive discussion, it is preferable that members of a group have undecided beliefs on the topic, or lean only slightly in one direction or the other. Such a case would indicate a willingness to change positions when evidence is presented by people with opposing views. However, most of the time, passionate folks club their opponents, verbally.

and how this definition is different of what i said in the begining, this discussion is pointless since none of the members here is willing to change their point of view

[Kawazu]

and how this definition is different of what i said in the begining, this discussion is pointless since none of the members here is willing to change their point of view

Welcome to the Internet. What else can one expect? The first seven pages of the discussion were meaningful. The rest has been entertainment value.

"Duty Calls"

Edited August 13, 2009 by Kawazu

[glow_inthe_dark_girl]

Welcome to the Internet. What else can one expect? The first seven pages of the discussion were meaningful. The rest has been entertainment value.

haha.. exactly :)

[Misshalfway]

The rest has been entertainment value.

So....when is curtain call?

[beefche]

may be I should have said doubly pointless.. but I dont agree with you there are some

good discussions that have a lot of importance it depends on the theme the group discusses and the persons that are involved.

and in this case some people are just debating wether the bible is literal, if god doesnt answer prayers. etc. so what's the point here?

when a discussion is not pointless there's a purpose for it, and i wonder what the purpose is here? try to prove who is more analytical?

who is right? there's no way to prove it ..

Oh plus I'm getting kind of tired to read that this questions formulated by the OP are just intended to get people to think , as if people couldn't

think by themselves or needed a little push to realise how things actually are.. it's beyond obvious that the OP is not asking because he or she

wants an answer for himself, that is clear, but I think the questions are to create debate between the users, and due to the fact that some

people gets offended by the questions the OP enjoys it.

Ummm, what's the point of a forum? To discuss things?

[glow_inthe_dark_girl]

Ummm, what's the point of a forum? To discuss things?

I had been expecting this... the thing is where is the line that divides the good questions or discussion topics and the bad topics . I can almost asure u that if this question had been asked by an anti-mormon the thread would had been closed earlier.

and I say it again I don't see the point of asking this type of questions... and to say it's intended to make people think. as if people were only waiting for this question to make them think ..

[Guest Believer_1829]

I can almost asure u that if this question had been asked by an anti-mormon the thread would had been closed earlier.

AMEN !!!

Finally, someone else gets it.

[beefche]

I had been expecting this... the thing is where is the line that divides the good questions or discussion topics and the bad topics . I can almost asure u that if this question had been asked by an anti-mormon the thread would had been closed earlier.

and I say it again I don't see the point of asking this type of questions... and to say it's intended to make people think. as if people were only waiting for this question to make them think ..

If you have an issue with something the moderators do or don't do, bring it up with the mods in private.

If you don't see the point in asking these questions, then simply don't read the thread. I don't read all threads because some of them just don't interest me.

I think it's pretty ironic that you say you don't understand the point of these questions, but yet you are commenting in the thread.

[glow_inthe_dark_girl]

If you have an issue with something the moderators do or don't do, bring it up with the mods in private.

If you don't see the point in asking these questions, then simply don't read the thread. I don't read all threads because some of them just don't interest me.

I think it's pretty ironic that you say you don't understand the point of these questions, but yet you are commenting in the thread.

I am not having any issues with moderators, and if i have it i would in fact referred to it in private.

Wow, I dont know why are you that offended. I just say I dont see the point of the question , but i see the point of expressing myself about it . i dont see the irony, may be a little paradoxic.

and with all due respect I think the decision wether i read the thread or not is mine

I also think avoiding to read what we find disturbing or not according to our ideas doesn't make the avoided object disappear, only deprive us of knowing

what others might think, and I'm not saying because of you, i say it to explain why I choose to read this type of threads

Edited August 14, 2009 by glow_inthe_dark_girl