A Reasonable Answer To A Troublesome Question?

The following is my reply to an answer to a question that I had asked the local Church of Christ preacher concerning the Bible doctrine of an eternal hell. He had enlisted the help of an older preacher in answering this question and he published this answer in his weekly publication. Quotes from this preacher's article are in bold black letters--by the way, the local preacher never did respond to my reply:

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne 

A Reasonable Answer To A Troublesome Question, is an article written by Maurice Barnett published in the May 9, 2004, edition of Faith Builder. It was Barnett's attempt at answering this question that you presented to him (a question I had asked you): "Why would a God of love create a race of beings, knowing that He would have to sentence the vast majority of them to suffer forever in hell?" The question you presented to him is troublesome, but more important it is devastating to the truth of fundamentalist Christianity if it can't be answered satisfactorily. And Barnett has no satisfactory answer. He meanders around with a lot of irrelevant thoughts, but never even comes close to a satisfactory answer.

What Would An Omni God Have Done?

How could a omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent 
God who has no needs, Acts 17:24-25 [thus there was 
no need that hell even exist] create a humanity with 
free will and the ability to sin--knowing the horrific  
outcome Mt 7:13-14, when he could have created this 
humanity, like him, with free will and the inability to sin?
Thus in truly loving fashion, preventing billions of humans 
from suffering ETERNAL, unimaginable agony in hell-and 
the Bible actually teaches that he doesn't want anyone 
to go to hell 2 Peter 3:9! So there is no reason he couldn't 
and wouldn't have accomplished this--IF this alleged god 
of the Bible has all of these omni characteristics the Bible 
writers claim that he has.

From the Errancy  Discussion list, April 17, 1998:

Some Things To Consider

I left the Church of Christ and Christianity in 2006. The following is a letter I wrote to a member of the congregation that I was a member of shortly after I left--I never received a reply:

by Kenneth Hawthorne

I have some things I would like for you to consider based on our talk at Panera Bread in Sept. Plus some thoughts and questions on the eternal hell taught in the Bible. I have had most of this letter ready for some time, but have just now decided to send it. I have presented some of this information about an eternal hell to you before--with no reply. You have asked me, "Kenneth, how could you?" (i.e., leave Christianity). Well, contained in this letter are some of the reasons how I could and why I did. You obviously think I made a bad decision to leave Christianity; then I would appreciate it if you would tell me why you disagree with the information in this letter. I will be more than happy to listen to what you have to say. 

The Evolution Of God

From *The Skeptical Review*, 2000 / Nov.-Dec. Issue:

By Farrell Till 

Biblical writers seemed unable to make up their minds about the nature of their god. In one passage, he is given a trait that contradicts the nature attributed to him in another. To some writers God was omnipresent, i. e., simultaneously present everywhere

Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast (Psalm 139:7-8).

To others, his presence was limited, and so he had to go from place to place as the need arose. When the descendants of the flood survivors were building a tower to heaven, "Yahweh came down to see the city and the tower" (Gen. 11:5), whereas an omnipresent entity would have had no need to "come down," since he would have already been present at the construction site. Prior to this, Adam and Eve, having broken Yahweh's command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, heard Yahweh "walking in the garden in the cool of the day" and "hid themselves from the presence of Yahweh God among the trees of the garden" (Gen. 3:8). Hiding from an omnipresent deity would have been impossible, so, unlike the psalmist quoted above, the writer of this story must have seen Yahweh as a god whose presence was limited to a specific location at any given time. When Yahweh exiled Cain for killing his brother Abel, for example, the Genesis writer said that "Cain went out from the presence of Yahweh" (4:16), but if Cain went out from the presence of Yahweh, then Yahweh could hardly have been an omnipresent entity. Other biblical passages restricted Yahweh's presence in the same way, whereas others agreed with the psalmist who thought that God was omnipresent. The prophet Amos declared that no one could escape from Yahweh's wrath. Though they dug into Sheol, his hand would take them; though they climbed into heaven, he would bring them down; though they hid themselves on the top of Carmel, he would find them; though they hid in the bottom of the sea, he would command the serpent to bite them (Amos 9:2-3). There was just no place for Yahweh's enemies to flee from his presence, yet other writers presented him as a deity restricted in space. The Israelites, for example, thought that God sat enthroned on the mercy seat that was on the ark of the covenant (Ps. 80:1; 99:1; Ex. 25:22; Num. 7:89; 1 Sam. 4:4).

An Omni God And His Eternal Hell (2)

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne

The Bible presents its god, Yahweh, as having amazing supernatural characteristics:

1) Omniscient- It is claimed that this god knows all, past, present and future. One very interesting bit of knowledge that this god is claimed to have is found in Mt 7:13-14. This verse teaches that man's ultimate destination is either heaven or hell. And that this god knew before creating the first human, that if he went ahead with this plan to create man found in the Bible, that this version of man would be so flawed that most would wind up in hell.

The Omniscient Yahweh Changes His Mind?

From the Errancy Discussion list, 12-24-98:

Exodus 32:7-14

>BROTHER MICHAEL
Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear; only 

in the rarest of instances is one justified in disobeying 

God or one of His prophets. These three instances are, I 

believe, the only such instances in the OT. Let's look 

briefly at them.

>     

>A. Exodus 32:7-14: Although Moses resisted God, and God 

changed His mind, it is still possible that if Moses had 

stepped aside and allowed God to destroy that disobedient 

generation of Israelites, and start over again with just 

Moses and his immediate family, things ultimately might 

have turned out better all around, although there is no 

way of knowing for sure. So I cannot say for certain that 

Moses did the right thing in resisting God. After the same 

manner, God gave Israel a king when they rejected Him as 

being their only King, and wanted a king just like the 

nations round about.

>

>DAVIS
Hold it, Michael! I may not be as learned and erudite as 

other posters, but I can tell when something's rotten. Why 

am I expected to believe that an omniscient, prescient, and 

omnipotent being like YHWH can be argued out of His intention 

by a former shepherd? Admittedly, YHWH was a bit out of sorts 

that day, acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum, but 

still, to lose an argument with a mere human?  What kind of 

god are you selling here?  This is a god who changes his mind?  

To use biblical language a god who can "repent"?


TILL
The incident that Michael referred to here is just one of many 

that could be cited to show the absurdity of believing that the 

Bible is the inspired work of an omniscient, omnipotent deity.  

I cited this example in my series of postings about a year ago 

that were intended to show the logistic impossibilities in some 

of the wilderness-wandering stories.  Few inerrantist attempts 

were made to resolve the many problems that I identified in those 

postings.  If Fitzpatrick keeps spamming us with cut-and-paste 

jobs, I'm going to forward those postings to him and ask him

to resolve the problems identified in them.

Farrell Till

Was The Amalekite Massacre A Moral Atrocity?

It's just hard for me to believe that the average Christian sitting in a pew on Sunday morning knows anything about the following little story in the Old Testament. At least I hope not. How could they know about such and still believe their god, Yahweh, is a God of love--and actually continue to worship such an animal? From *The Skeptical Review*, 1994 / January-February:

by Farrell Till

The story of the Israelite massacre of the Amalekite nation is recorded in 1 Samuel 15 . The facts of the case, as claimed in this chapter, are these: Yahweh sent the prophet Samuel to command Saul, the first king of Israel, to "go and smite Amalek" and to " utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not" (v:3 ); the command explicitly stated that Saul was to kill "both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (same verse). According to the story, Saul took "two hundred thousand footmen and ten thousand men of Judah" (v:4 ) against the Amalekites and "utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword" (v:7 ), except for Agag their king, whom he kept alive to take back as a prisoner. This act of mercy, of course, was a clear violation of Yahweh's instructions, which were to kill everyone and spare no one. In addition to this act of disobedience, Saul also kept alive "the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them" (v:9 ).

Biblical Anachronisms

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / May-June:

by Farrell Till

Anachronisms occur in written documents when they make references to anything (persons, places, events, etc.) that did not belong to the era in which the documents were set. If a history of the Civil War made references to aerial bombardments and said that Thomas Jefferson was the president at this time, these would be anachronisms, because airplanes didn't exist then and Jefferson was president 50 years earlier. Anyone seeing such references in a history book would immediately realize that the writer was poorly informed about some aspects of this war. Certainly, no one would consider the author to be an infallible writer.

God Was Refreshed?

From the Errancy II Discussion list, Sept., 2003:

DOUG
Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
"It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: 
for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on 
the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

It is difficult enough to explain why an allegedly omnipotent being 
would need to rest, or what it would mean for such a being to rest, 
but that god was "refreshed" makes it absurd. To refresh means 
to replenish one's power.

If god is omnipotent, this makes no sense. To refresh would mean 
that god would be more powerful after replenishing his power than 
he was before replenishing his power. Which would imply that god 
was sometimes more powerful than he is at other times, but if god 
is omnipotent, this is logically impossible.

How About An Unequivocal Miracle?

As someone astutely noticed, "God does not work in mysterious ways – 

he works in  ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.” 

Anonymous. If there is a God and he has an important message for 

me--he knows how to get my attention. From the Errancy Discussion 

list, 8-31-97:

MICHAEL FACKERELL

Nothing has impressed me too much so far. Its true though that I'm out of >my depth on some issues. I don't speak Hebrew for example, although two >different people (one of whom I know to be a Jewess) claimed they heard me >quoting Scripture in Hebrew when I was praying in tongues in different >situations. (See Mark 16:17). 

BEN

Now, I could see how psychologically someone could convince themselves they saw a miracle, or even had a "personal experience" with God, but to actually believe that oneself has spoken in tongues is beyond my comprehension. Either you have really tricked yourself or you are lying to us. I don't know which. But certainly you have not spoken in tounges. That would mean for God to intervene in the laws of nature for the sole purpose of making his presence known. If he is going to do this, why wouldn't he do something that works? In an earlier post today, I talked about this. He really needs some help when it comes to making his presence known. If he's going to let you talk in tounges, why doesn't he let you talk so loud that everyone on earth hears you? I'll tell you the answer. The only possible theist answer. God is unpredictable. Unpredictability is the earmark of unjustness. So it looks like we are dealing with an unjust God. And what greater injustice is there than to tell someone they will receive eternal paradise, then to send them to hell for the fun of it. If he really gets all this glee out of burning nonbelievers, then what makes you think he will keep his promise to you? Personally, I don't agree with any of this scenario; however, it does make more sense than your just God.

TILL

If Michael doesn't know Hebrew and yet spoke in that language, there could be no explanation for this except that God intervened and caused it to happen. If so, why did God intervene just to cause a miracle that would have been known by only the two Jews who were able to recognize that he was speaking Hebrew? If God is going to perform a miracle, why not making it something that would be unequivocal to the world? Suppose that God spoke from "heaven" with a booming voice that was heard by every person on earth in his/her own language and that he said that he was going to settle once and for all the question of his existence. He could, say, inform us that he was going to suspend tragedy for an entire year and that during this time, there would be no illnesses of any kind and no deaths. Those who were ill at the time would be immediately cured no matter what their infirmities were. Those with cancer, heart problems, diabetes, etc., etc., etc. would experience immediate cures. Those who were afflicted with any kind of physical or mental abnormalities would be healed. Those who had missing or crippled limbs, for example, would have them restored. Those who were deaf would hear; those who were blind would see. This would happen all over the world, and for an entire year nobody would die, and there would be no traffic accidents, earthquakes, volcanic explosions, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., etc., etc. Hunger would disappear, and poverty would be suspended. Now if God would do something like this, there would be no unbelievers left. He could even say during his initial announcement that he was going to do this to prove not just his existence but that the Bible was his inspired word and Christianity the only true religion. Instead of something like this, however, we get from God only paltry signs like an occasion tongue-speaker, whose story is completely unverifiable. As a miracle-worker, God could take a few tips from me. He could use a good publicity agent. Preachers have proven that they aren't up to the task.

Farrell Till

God's Eternal Purpose?

The local Church of Christ preacher had the following outline in his weekly bulletin:

God had [and continues to have] an eternal purpose (Ephesians 3:11):

      1. His very nature is purposeful (Isaiah 46:8-11; Jeremiah 4:28; 
          Ephesians  1:11)          
      2. His eternal purpose is to give eternal life (John 10:10,27,28; 
          Titus 1:1,2).

      3. This is not mere eternal existence, but eternal existence with 
          Him (Matthew 25:31-46).

 In The Beginning there was unlimited power  
      1. Defining power: “capacity to produce a desired result".
       2. Various kinds of power; physical, mental, political, legal, moral. 
          Type of power used depends on result desired.

      3. The power of God: all the power necessary to accomplish His 
          eternal purpose.

So, let me see if I've got this right. God (Yahweh) is a purposeful God. And his eternal purpose (def. The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists; something set up as an object or end to be attained), is to give eternal life to man.  And he had all the power necessary to accomplish this eternal purpose--this desired result--in fact this desired result was the purpose of man's creation.

Then why is it that only a FEW (Mt 7:13-14) will attain what this God had all the power necessary to accomplish?

Kenneth W Hawthorne 

Wanting To Believe In Miracles

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne
A letter I sent to a Church of Christ preacher about 7 years ago:

Christians make the claim that God came to earth in the flesh of a man, Jesus Christ. That he was born of a virgin, performed various miracles while on earth, died and about three days later came back to life never to die again, then forty days later ascended into heaven, and that all or much of this was miraculously foretold by God-inspired prophets in the Old Testament. These are all ontologically positive and distant claims that go against all conventional, community experiences. These Christian claims, therefore, bear an extremely high asymmetrical burden of proof. That means that before someone should believe these claims are actually true, the evidence presented would have to be so profound and so unequivocal that one would be forced to believe these claims instead of believing what he knows happens all the time--and go with something that, as far as his experiences, has never happened.

Unfortunately, what I've seen as evidence for these Christian claims is not even close to being sufficient for the type of claims made. The four Gospels are nothing but hearsay, written by biased, anonymous writers. Certain church "fathers" made a fanciful connection to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John being the authors--but no one really knows who wrote these book. These church fathers amount to no more than what you would consider denominational preachers today--yet you believe them on this essential matter--and would, today, be very skeptical of anything they had to say on the subject of religion. But even if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the actual authors they were biased and what they wrote amounts to no more than religious propaganda. None of the  disinterested, contemporary scientists or writers of the time Jesus is said to have lived record anything about Jesus, much less his miracles. Josephus does not qualify because it is obvious that his work has been tampered with concerning his mention of Jesus and is therefore flawed and unreliable. Alexander Campbell had this to say:

Yahweh's Character Shines Through Again

The marvelous, loving god of the Bible shines

through again. I wonder how many Christians are
aware of this part of Yahweh's character. From
the Errancy II discussion list, 7/21/07:

Augat

Someone explain to me how this command from

Yahweh was objectively moral:

"But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity where not found in the young woman, then you shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." Deuteronomy 22:20 As a Registered Nurse, we learned in our maternity classes that a large percentage of women do not bleed or have "the tokens" of losing their virginity during their first intercourse. So, was this command from Yahweh moral or not moral, considering the number of innocent virgins that were stoned on their wedding night.

TILL

A political problem in Illinois has been the refusal of some pharmacists to fill prescriptions for drugs like Plan B (also known as the morning-after pill), which they think could possibly result in the termination of a pregnancy in its initial stages. The refusal is illegal, but some pharmacists continue to do it. Women who are raped in this area know not to go to the Catholic hospital in Peoria, because the staff will refuse to administer anything that might interfere with a pregnancy.

I wonder if any of these health officials, who no doubt base their morality on their objective Bible source, ever stop to think about the biblical command to stone those who committed adultery. If they won't administer Plan B to a woman who was raped and taken to the hospital an hour or so later because they are afraid that they might terminate a pregnancy, then surely the practice of stoning women accused of adultery in biblical times resulted at least sometimes in the killing of the "persons" who had been conceived a short while ago in their wombs.

Farrell Till

A Few Questions

These are some questions that I asked a Church-of-Christ preacher after reading an article that he wrote. I don't recall ever getting an answer from him:

Mr -----,

Here are a few questions that I have concerning information in one of your blog posts:

1. Why did God create us in the New Testament scenario, if he knew all would sin, and knew that the many vs the few would eternally perish (Mt. 7:13-14)?  2 Peter 3:9 says that it is not God's will that ANY perish. Did God not have the ability to achieve his will that none perish?

2. If God is omniscient and could see what would happen if he created Satan, why would he go ahead and create Satan knowing that in his attempt to be victorious over Satan, billions of humans would have to eternally perish?

3. Why would God, who doesn't need man (Acts 17:25), nevertheless, go ahead and create man to get some things that he only wanted (victory over Satan, whom he didn't have to create; fear and obedience from man; companionship from man, etc.), but didn't need, knowing that to get these things that he didn't need, billions of sentient humans would have to eternally perish?

4. You said that Jesus [dying] on the cross, ...sealed the greatest victory possible. But how could this be considered "the greatest  victory possible" when Satan deceives the whole world (Rev 12:9), disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14), and blinds the minds of the unbelieving ( 2 Cor 4:4), resulting in Jesus losing the majority of souls to Satan (Mt 7:13-14)?

5. You said that man is a "tool" by which God gets glory. But God doesn't need anything from man, thus he doesn't need glory. Why would God put his beloved(?), flawed humans under the influence of such a powerful being for evil as Satan (whom he didn't have to create) to get something that wasn't necessary--knowing that to get this glory that he doesn't need, billions of sentient humans would have to eternally perish?

Well, I've got a lot more questions I could ask. But I'll stop for now. You've got a lot on your plate with these five.

Ken Hawthorne

When?

"...when does one's religious beliefs reach a point that they deserve scorn and contempt rather than 'respect'?" Clearly such a time is when Christians defend their god's command in Numbers 31:17-18, to kill all of the Midianite male little  ones, and kill all of the nonvirgin women, "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." To any Christians reading this, how can you possibly defend this order from your god?

From the Yahoo group, Alt.Bible.Errancy, 8-3-99:

Berne
Helpu, a woman taken as a war prize to be a wife is in reality a concubine. She is forced to marry that man against her will. I am sure that more than one would have preferred death rather than live like that. You are being real offensive in trying to defend that situation and call it just. I  would not want you to live next door to me, if you call things like that just.

TILL
Helpu is in my e-mail filter, so I didn't see the posting in which he apparently tried to defend the Israelite rape of the Midianite virgin girls. I have to agree with what Berne said about the offensiveness of someone who would even try to defend the killing and rape of children, and when I read this, I had to wonder what Holman thinks about this familiar biblicist tactic of arguing that if God did it or commanded it, then it had to have been right no matter how morally offensive it may be when just ordinary humans do the same thing. In this case, Helpu is defending the murder and rape of children. Do you understand what I am saying? Helpu is defending the murder and rape of children.

Number 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I find attempts to defend such as this repugnant and see no reason why those who would defend such should not receive the scorn and ridicule of all rational people. Would this be a case, Holman, where one would be justified in calling Helpu ignorant? If not, what if he were defending the murder and rape of children in Kosovo? In other words, just when does one's religious beliefs reach a point that they deserve scorn and contempt rather than "respect"?

I say that Helpu is ignorant for defending such as this and see no reason why I should apologize for saying so.

Farrell Till

Biblical Inerrancy And Common Sense

I Samuel tells the story of Yahweh ordering the 
massacre of a whole  nation of people, including 
children--even infants, for something their ancestors 
did approximately 400 years earlier. I have to 
wonder how many Christians even know this story 
is in the Bible. But, alas,  I know how Christians 
reason in other situations found  in the Bible that 
are just as incriminating for their god. They manufacture 
how-it-could-have-been excuses for their god which in 
their deluded minds gets him off the hook. The problem 
is these are nothing but baseless hypotheses--i .e.,  
theories that have nothing to back them up to establish 
them as true. Sad. The following is from the the II Errancy 
discussion list, December, 1999:

CHAD
Did they follow in the ways of their ancestors?

POPE CHARLES
No, god states it was because of their ancestors actions long ago.
See I Samuel 15:2-6. Not because they were bad. But because
of what their ancestors did centuries earlier.

Tim
Chad has been informed of this three times (me, you, Farrell).
I wonder how long he will cling to this explanation, which is not
supported by the Bible.

TILL
This massacre, if it happened, was purely and simply an act 
motivated by a 400-year-old grudge.

2 Thus says Yahweh of hosts, 'I will punish the Amalekites for

what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up 
out of Egypt.
3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that
they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, 
child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

4 So Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in

Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers, and ten thousand 
soldiers of Judah.

5 Saul came to the city of the Amalekites and lay in wait in

the valley.

6 Saul said to the Kenites, "Go! Leave! Withdraw from

 among the Amalekites, or I will destroy you with them; 
for you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when 
they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites withdrew from 
the Amalekites.

The reason--and the only reason--that Yahweh gave for 

ordering the destruction of the Amalekites was "what they 
did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of 
Egypt." The reason--and the only reason--that Saul gave 
for allowing the Kenites safe passage out of Amalekite 
territory was that "you showed kindness to all the people 
of Israel when they came up out of Egypt."

All of this inerrantist nonsense about how "wicked" the 
Amalekites were is just a desperation attempt to rationalize 
an atrocity that would shock the moral sensibilities of the 
world community if an army should do something like this 
today. There is nothing--NOTHING--in the Bible that suggests 
that the Amalekites of that time were any more "wicked"
than any other contemporary nation, but even if there were 
such an indication in the Bible, this would not justify the 
order to include even children and infants in the massacre.

If the US army should raid an Indian reservation today for 
the express purpose of avenging an attack that the ancestors 
of these people had made centuries ago, even Bible inerrantists 
would be morally outraged, yet they read the story of the 
Amalekite massacre and lean over backwards to try to
find some way to justify it.

That is what belief in biblical inerrancy will do to a person's 
common sense.

Farrell Till

More Problems With Hell

Good comments from "Celsus" on Amazon.com  from 2009. The discussion is concerning the question, "Do most Christians believe that the majority of humans go to Hell?":

Why the doctrine of hell is illogical and morally corrupt:

1) It is based on the premise that the guilty can be pardoned by the death of an innocent - a notion embraced by many of the most barbaric religions of old.

2) It punishes without the possibility of reforming those being punished. It serves no purpose, other than to inflict torment.

3) It punishes intelligent enquiry (doubt) above all other offences.

4) It allows murderers, rapists, pedophiles and sadists into heaven, while excluding those of saintly character who happen to be unbelievers, potentially resulting in a heaven populated with criminals, and a hell populated with philanthropists.

5) Recent studies have shown that, on average, 97% of people never change from the religion into which they are born and raised. Most are conditioned from birth to distrust all other faiths and to hold fast to their own. Supposing the Bible is true, this means that a person born in Iran is almost guaranteed a place in hell. He will resist Christianity in the same way that a Christian would resist Islam. Heaven or Hell then becomes a lottery, largely dependent on ones place of birth. Is it conceivable that a wise and loving God could have devised a plan whereby the majority of humanity, due largely to factors beyond their control, must suffer forever?

Bible God Wants Everyone Saved?

The "inerrant" Bible is contradictory on the very important matter of whether its god wants everyone saved or not. Farrell Till responds to a Christian in the May-June, 2002,  mailbag section of *The Skeptical Review* concerning this confusing biblical issue:

Editor’s note: Oh, boy, just what I need-another Christian praying for the salvation of my soul. In the Spring 1995 issue of TSR, Judith Hayes exposed the absurdity of the belief in the efficacy of prayer, so I have sent a reprinted copy of this issue to Mr. England for his consideration. Somewhere else in the back issues of TSR is a logical argument that I presented to show the folly of the notion that praying for the salvation of another person will bring the desired results. The argument is simple enough that I'm going to present it here rather than search through the archives to find the article.

Showing that prayer for the salvation of others is illogical, all one needs to do is look at what the New Testament teaches about prayer and then apply common sense to it. First John 5:14-15 says, "And this is the boldness we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have obtained the requests made of him." If Mr. England is praying for the salvation of my soul--as hundreds before him have told me they are doing--the only reason I won’t be saved would have to be that my salvation either is not the will of God or else Mr. England doesn’t believe in what he is praying for, because Jesus promised elsewhere in the New Testament that whatever one prays for believing it will happen he will receive it: "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, 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. Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive" (Matt. 21: 21-22). I’m not trying to be facetious about Mr. England’s incarceration, but I have to wonder why, if he really believes what Jesus said here, he doesn’t pray for the prison doors to swing open (as they sometimes did in biblical times) so that he can walk out a free man. Perhaps he doesn’t believe that it would happen if he did pray for this, so in that case the fault would lie in his lack of faith. If he isn’t willing to accept that conclusion, then about the only alternative left to him is to accept that what the Bible teaches about prayer isn’t necessarily true.