Analysis of Thomas Porter’s The Green Magicians

Analysis of Thomas Porter’s The Green Magicians

Thomas Allen

    This article analyzes Thomas Porter’s The Green Magicians (Omni Publications, 1968). His words and my paraphrases or summaries of his words are in italicized. My commentary is in roman letters. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses.
    Mr. Porter states, “A  bank’s basic function is to transfer credit (wealth) from one account to another. Banking is a bookkeeping business” (p. 3.). When a person deposits money in a checking or savings account, he is lending to the bank receiving the deposit. Banks use these deposits as reserves or as the basis for their loans.  Although most loans are in the form of entries in checking accounts, some are in the form of cash. Although most people deposit checks that they receive in banking accounts, some convert their checks to cash. This cash comes from deposits, which serve as the bank’s reserves. (Mr. Porter acknowledges using deposits as reserves [p. 2.].)
    Mr. Porter claims that “a bank does not loan money, but instead accepts the customer’s wealth in the form of property and agrees to transfer that wealth from the customer’s account to others as ordered by the customer’s checks” (p. 3.). Contrary to his assertion, a bank does not accept the customer’s wealth in the form of property. The customer’s property is used as collateral for the loan (Mr. Porter notes this purpose on page 2.) The customer retains ownership and use of the property during the term of the loan. However, the bank may place restrictions, such as, the customer may not sell the property during the term of the loan without the bank’s consent. What the bank does when lending is to convert the borrower’s credit, usually in the form of a promissory note, into the bank’s credit, usually in the form of a checking account entry. Bank notes (federal reserve notes) are another form of credit in which the borrower’s credit is converted.
    Moreover, not all loans are collateralized. Credit cards are a good example. When a buyer charges a purchase with a bank credit card, he has borrowed money from the bank to pay the seller He provides no collateral for the loan. (Mr. Porter expresses great concern about bank credit cards supplanting all currencies. [p. 28.].)
     Also, contrary to Mr. Porter’s claim (p. 2), banks do not claim the borrower’s property as an asset. They list loans as assets. Borrowers list loans as liabilities. (When a person deposits money in a savings account, he lists the deposit as an asset although it is a loan to the bank. The bank lists the deposit as a liability.)
    The primary reason that people convert their credit, their promissory notes, into bank credit, checkbook money and bank notes, is that buying goods and services with bank credit is easier than buying them with personal credit. (One can buy with personal credit without involving banks — even large purchases. I bought my land with a promissory note to the owners; I did not use a bank loan.)
    Mr. Porter states that banks do not normally lend cash money; they lend credit money (p. 2). What he fails to explain is that all money, including cash money, is credit money. Since 1933, all money in the United States has been credit money.
    Mr. Porter remarks, “Checks are the commonest form of money (p. 3).” When he wrote his book, he was correct about checks being the commonest form of money. Now electrons in computers, electronic money, is rivaling, if not surpassing, paper checks as the predominant form of money.
    He states “Bank credit must be ‘borrowed’ to create it and is destroyed when paid back” (p. 4). He is correct. To prevent inflating the money supply, credit money needs to be removed from the economy and destroyed once its work is done.
    Mr. Porter notes, “Currency is no longer a tangible thing, but is an order to pay, like a check” (p. 5.). This is true. It was true for all three types of paper money in circulation in 1969, viz., silver certificates, U.S. notes, and federal reserve notes. Like checks, all three are forms of credit money. (At the time that he wrote this book, silver certificates were being withdrawn from circulation. A few years later, U.S. notes would be phased out.)
    Mr. Porter writes, “United States Notes, Silver Certificates and coins are paid into circulation. They are not borrowed into circulation” (p. 6). This is true. However, he fails to inform that U.S. notes are forced loans that pay no interest and promises to pay nothing. He errs when he writes that “U.S. notes have never been redeemable in anything” (p. 4.) Between 1879 and 1933, U.S. notes were redeemable in gold coin on demand. One-third to one-half of them were backed by gold.
    He claims that the value of U.S. notes had “been stabilized by being exchangeable for silver certificates whose value has been stabilized by their value in silver” (p. 4.). This claim is false. Silver certificates ceased being convertible in silver in 1964. At the time of his writing the value of silver in a silver dollar exceeded the value of a one-dollar silver certificate. As silver certificates, U.S. notes, and federal reserve notes had the same purchasing power, what fixed the value of one to the other two? It was not silver as Mr. Porter implies.
    The U.S. government may have spent U.S. notes into circulation, it did not spend gold certificates into circulation as Mr. Porter claims (p. 4). The owners of gold deposited their gold with the U.S. Treasury Department for gold certificates. If no one deposited gold in exchange for gold certificates, there would be no gold certificates in circulation.
    Mr. Porter correctly notes that federal reserve notes are orders to pay like checks. Also, he notes that they are a private bank note (p. 5.) Unlike most fiat money reformers, he at least mentions that federal reserve notes are obligations of the U.S. government. However, he implies that this obligation only existed under the gold standard and that this was the cause of Roosevelt’s great gold thief of 1933 (p. 5). (He does not use “thief.”) As the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve Bank held nearly all the monetary gold, Roosevelt did not have to steal privately held gold. If the gold coins in circulation were approximately equally distributed, each person would have held $2 to $ 3 in gold — well below the $100 limit. (I discuss this in detail in “Review of Daniel Carr’s ‘FDR’s 1933 Gold Confiscation was a Bailout of the Federal Reserve Bank.’”)  As nearly every country besides France had left the gold standard by the time that the United States did, few foreign claims for gold payment remained. The U.S. government and the federal reserve bank had plenty of gold to pay the few, if any, that remained. The purpose of abandoning the gold standard was to relieve the government and banks of the burden of paying in gold and of keeping their promise to redeem their notes and checks.
    Mr. Porter remarks that the U.S. government pays the federal reserve bank interest on U.S. bonds (p. 5.). He fails to mention that most of this interest is returned to the U.S. government.
    Mr. Porter lists three things that give currency value:
    “1.   Need of the currency to pay taxes.
    2.   Legal requirements to accept it in payment of debt.
    3.   Direct or indirect exchangeability for something of value such as gold or silver” (p. 6.).
    Number 3 ceased to exist long ago and was not even in effect when Mr. Porter wrote his book. However, number 3 is what originally gave today’s currency its value. The nonmonetary uses of gold and silver gave gold and silver money its initial value After gold and silver began to be used as money, the combination of their nonmonetary uses and monetary use fixed their value. Numbers 1 and 2 are what now gives currency its value albeit at a decaying rate. Also, the service that currency provides as a medium of exchange gives it some value. (One of the great monetary mysteries is why fiat money, which is a promise to pay nothing, has any value at all.)
    Mr. Porter correctly notes “that cash is only a slightly different form of credit money” (p. 6.).
    He claims, “The only thing backing the money in the U.S.A. is the property of those who ‘borrowed’ it into circulation” (p. 11.). What really backs money in the United States is the taxing power of the U.S. government — its military might to take people’s property. All checkbook money is built on a foundation of federal reserve notes and bank deposits at the federal reserve banks. Federal reserve notes into which these bank deposits are convertible on demand are backed by the U.S. government. Likewise, U.S. government securities that the Federal Reserve uses to cover its liability of bank deposits are backed by the U.S. government. The U.S. government stands behind the country’s monetary system. This governmental control and guarantee of the U.S. monetary system seems to be what Mr. Proter advocates although in a different form.
    He claims, “The  total debt of the nation must increase by the  amount of interest removed from circulation or it will be made up by foreclosure on property” (p. 11.). He focuses negatively on interest paid to bankers on loans. He ignores interest charged to banks for loans, i.e., interest paid on savings and checking accounts. Interest is also paid on personal nonbank loans, government securities, and other nonbank loans. Rent for a house or an apartment, car, equipment, or anything else is interest (See Usury by Calvin Elliot and “Questions for Anti-Usurers” by Thomas Allen.) If most of the interest that bank charge “is not legitimate profit but gained under false pretenses” (p. 10) is true, then most of the interest charged by nonbank lenders, landlords, equipment leasers, etc. must be profit gained under false pretense.
    The U.S. government does not have to increase its debt to “borrow” money into existence or resort to using noninterest loans, like U.S. notes, to provide money to pay interest. People do not buy with money. They buy with production, labor. Products and labor buy products and labor — Say’s law. (As stated in Wikipedia , Say’s law is as follows: “As each of us can only purchase the productions of others with his own productions — as the value we can buy is equal to the value we can produce, the more men can produce, the more they will purchase.”) Money merely serves as an intermediary to facilitate the exchange. Ultimately, borrowers pay interest with their production.
    Mr. Porter claims that “all interest is charged unjustly” (p. 13). If true, banks should not pay interest on deposits or certificates of deposit. Governments should not pay interest on their bonds. Corporations should not pay interest on their bonds or dividends (a form of interest) on their stock. Landlords should cease offering their property for rent. Without interest, our society would revert to the agrarian society of the Middle Ages or of ancient times.
    In Chapter V, Mr. Porter gives his solutions. When a person borrows from a bank, he should pay a fee adequate to cover the cost of the loan with a reasonable profit and to protect the lender from possible loss (p. 30.). What the difference between this fee and interest other than how it is computed, he does not explain. As any good anti-usurer knows, fees related to loans is just another name for interest.
    Borrowers should not be allowed to convert checkbook money resulting from loans into currency, precious metals, or anything other than credit. However, people who deposit precious metals or currency should receive precious metal or currency when demanded (pp. 30-31). Precious metal is no longer an issue — and it was not when Mr. Porter wrote as silver coins where no longer used. By currency, I assume that he means U.S. notes and federal reserve notes, i.e., paper money. Whether federal reserve notes are considered credit or currency may not matter, as he favors eliminating the federal reserve banks and by that their notes. He probably means U.S. notes. If bank notes are considered currency, why the restriction? Bank notes are functionally the same as checkbook money. Prohibiting banks from converting checkbook money created by lending to paper money, i.e., U.S. notes, removes an important limitation on the amount of loans that a bank can make.
    Mr. Proter wants to make checks legal tender (p. 31.) He states, “Coin, United States Notes, Credit and silver at a definite value per ounce, should all be made legal tender for all debts, public and private by Federal law” (p. 32.) A major cause of monetary problems comes from legal-tender laws. These laws should be repealed instead of extended. Real money, such as gold and silver, do not need the protection of legal-tender laws. Fraudulent money like U.S. notes and federal reserve notes do. Without declaring them legal tender, they may have difficulty circulating and would circulate at a discount to specie. Mr. Proter states, “What is needed is a Federal law chartering institutions to issue credit backed by property, without maintaining any reserves and without being required to pay their debts in anything other than credit” (p. 31.).
    Mr. Proter favors repealing then entire Federal Reserve Banking Act (p. 32.) This is the best proposal that he makes.
    He seems to favor returning to some kind of bastardized silver standard. He remarks, “Making all debts payable in either silver, credit or currency at a definite ratio and as the person paying chooses, will maintain and stabilize the value of all money the same as making it redeemable in silver would. Yet the government will not need to invest in the silver and the silver will not be withheld from the market or the use of the consumer” (p. 32.). Obviously, he has little understanding of the true silver standard. Under the true silver standard, the government does not invest in silver. It merely coins all silver presented to the mint for coinage. The coins minted are the property of the person presenting the silver. They are not the property of the government until it obtains them via taxes, fees, or fines. The only way that U.S. notes and bank credit can maintain the same value as silver is for them to be converted to silver on demand. That requires the U.S. government to maintain silver reserves for U.S. notes, and banks, for bank credit.
    He supports the Friedman concept (although he does not credit it to him) of free floating exchange rates for currencies. Currencies change value relative to each other instead of being a fixed weight of gold or silver or fixed in terms of another currency. Thus, neither gold or silver would be used in international exchange or for balance of payments (p. 32.). Essentially, this system is the one that the United States and most countries use today. Some countries do fix their currencies in terms of the U.S. dollar. This part of his proposal has been mostly implemented.
    Floating exchange rates make foreign trade more speculative. Exporters and importers need to account for variable and unknowable future-value changes between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies. Such changes were not a problem for countries on the gold standard because they did not occur. Countries defined their monetary unit as a specific weight of gold. Moreover, variable exchange rates leads to the U.S. government speculating in foreign exchange markets in an attempt to maintain stability — a task that it did not have to do under the gold standard.
    Mr. Protor claims that “the  Constitution empowers Congress to issue our money” (pp. 32-33.). He makes a mistake common to all fiat money reformers and federal judges and to most Congressmen. The Constitution does not empower Congress to issue money. It empowers Congress to coin money. That is, the U.S. government coins (not issues) all gold and silver presented to the mint for coinage. If no one presented any gold or silver for coinage, there would be no money other than perhaps some previously issued credit money, such as script. (As I have discussed this in detail in Reconstruction of America’s Monetary and Banking System: A Return to Constitutional Money and other articles, I will not do so here.)
        Mr. Protor states, “A dollar bill is a token of a definite amount of wealth. It represents a definite amount of work done. As long as it represents a definite amount of wealth or work done its value obviously will not change and inflation or deflation cannot occur (p. 33). The “dollar” as used in the Constitution has nothing to do with work. It is the weight of silver in the Spanish milled dollar. Congress found the average weight of silver in the Spanish milled dollar in circulation was 371.25 grains of silver when adjusted so that 15 grains of silver had the same value as 1 grain of gold. Mr. Proter does not define how much of what kind of work equals one dollar. He seems to follow the classical concept of wealth and value of Adam Smith and other classical economists. As Carl Menger proved, value is subjective and has nothing to do with work.
    If he is correct, we should have experienced no inflation over the past several decades. As we have had inflation, his definition of the dollar is flawed. Otherwise, wealth and work done in the U.S. has been declining over these decades.
    Mr. Proter goes on to remark that “inflation is caused by labor demanding more money without more production or work done” (p. 33.). Thus, according to him, whenever labor demands an increase in pay without an increase in production, the dollar loses value. He is not alone in this belief. However, the purchasing power of the money is independent of the income of workers. Its purchasing power depends on its quality. High quality money like gold and silver maintains purchasing power better than low quality money fiat paper money like U.S. notes.
    Mr. Protor claims that the economic problem in the United States is not over-production. The problem is under-consumption (p. 33-34). This is a commonly held belief by fiat money reformers.
    He notes, “Unemployment is caused by a shortage of money in circulation. Every time considerable money is put in circulation, unemployment drops sharply, until the money is in some manner removed from circulation as soon happens” (p. 34.). The decade of the 1970s proved him and others who held this belief wrong. During the 1970s, the money supply, unemployment, and prices soared. Unemployment usually does decline with a significant increase in money supply. It does so because when “considerable money is put in circulation,” the purchasing power of the monetary unit declines. Declining purchasing power lowers the cost of labor.
    His proposal of returning to a free enterprise economy (p. 34) is sound. However, his proposal to prohibit charging interest would devastate the economy (v.s.).
    Mr. Proter also supports the Liberty Amendment, which he quotes (pp. 35-36).  The Liberty Amendment is a great proposal, which would eliminate many problems that the country faces. It would eliminate all the so-call free trade agreements, which are actually managed trade agreements, like NAFTA. It would prohibit the U.S. government from engaging in any business or enterprise. Also, it prohibits subjecting the laws of the United States and the States to any foreign or domestic agreement.
    Like most fiat money reformers, Mr. Porter believes that only two approaches exist in providing the economy with the money it needs. One is having the government print and spend money into circulation — his preference. The other if for people to borrow money into circulation. That is, banks create checkbook money to lend to borrowers. This approach he adamantly opposes.
    He ignores the one monetary system that can provide the economy with all the money that it needs without governments or banks. That monetary system is the gold-coin standard accompanied by the real bills doctrine and ideally the silver-coin standard. It automatically inserts money into the economy when it is needed and where it is needed far more accurately and precisely than governments can. Moreover, it inserts the amount needed far more accurately and precisely than governments can. Furthermore, unlike governmentally issued fiat money, which remains in the economy indefinitely and leads to inflation, it removes money from the economy once it is no longer needed.

Copyright © 2013 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money. 

Why Elijah Defeated the Baal Priests

Why Elijah Defeated the Baal Priests

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: The following article has been significantly revised from the earlier version that appeared.  Revised January 13, 2018; revised May 5, 2018, by adding 35-37; revised March 18, 2019, by adding 38.]
    Why was Elijah able to defeat Baal’s priests in his duel with them (1 Kings, chapter 18)? The traditional explanation is that Jehovah or Yahweh or YHWH is the supreme God or that He is the only true God.[1] Naturally, Baal apologists object to Jehovah being the supreme god, much less being the true god.
    Jesus said in Matthew 7:7, “Ask and it shall be given you.” As many prayers go unanswered, prayer apologists have come up with excuses for unanswered prayers. Baal apologists can easily use these excuses to explain Elijah’s victory over Baal’s priests. Some of the favorite and most popular excuses of the prayer apologists for unanswered prayers follow.
    1. Doubt. God does not answer prayer because of doubt, i.e., the prayer has some doubt that God would answer the prayer. Thus, doubt is more powerful than God. How much doubt is necessary is not usually stated other than if the prayer has one iota of doubt, his prayer will not be answered. According to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they had some doubt that Baal would answer their prayers. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, is that all of them have doubt. Of the few who pray for war, apparently one of them has no doubt that God will deliver war. Therefore, we have war instead of peace. (In this article, peace means the absence of war; it does not mean the unmeasurable internal peace of God.)
    2. Lack of Faith. God does not answer prayer because of a lack of faith, i.e., the prayer does not have enough faith. Presumably, if the prayer is answered, the prayer has enough faith. If it is not answered, the prayer does not have enough faith. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not have enough faith that Baal would answer their prayers. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, is that none of them have enough faith. Of the few who pray for war, at least one of them has enough faith to ensure that God will deliver war.  Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    3. Serious and Earnest. God only answers prayers when the prayer begs seriously and earnestly. Otherwise, He ignores the prayer. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not beg seriously and earnestly enough. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude who pray for peace, none begs seriously or earnestly enough. Of the few who pray for war, at least one begs seriously and earnestly enough. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    4. Not God’s Will. God does not answer the prayers of His people unless He so desires, i.e., it is His will to answer them, or the prayer is consistent with His will. Presumably, His refusal to answer serves some higher and usually hidden purpose and is not whimsical. Moreover, as God’s will always prevails, presumably, His will is going to be executed even if no one ever prays. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because Baal’s will was that they lose. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the multitude who pray for peace, is that none are praying for God’s will. Of the few who pray for war, they are praying for God’s will, which means that God’s will is war. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    5. God Answers Those Who Seek His Will. If what the prayer is seeking with his prayer is God’s will, God answers the prayer. If the prayer’s prayer is contrary to God’s will, God does not answer the prayer or answers it negatively.  Again, as God’s will always prevails, presumably, His will is going to be executed even if no one ever prays. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were not seeking Baal’s will when they asked him to defeat Elijah. Therefore, Baal allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that people who pray for peace are not seeking God’s will. The few who pray for war apparently are seeking God’s will, which is war.
    6. Gives Things Asked for That He is Willing to Grant. The prayers must ask for things that they know that God is willing to grant. This excuse leads to much groping around in the dark, for who knows the mind of God. Thus, prayer is mostly a trial and error thing with the prayer searching for what God will grant. Even then, he does not know whether it is answered prayer or coincidence. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not ask for that which Baal was willing to grant when they asked him to defeat Elijah. Therefore, Baal allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, we have war instead of peace because those who pray for peace are not praying for that which God is willing to grant. The few who pray for war are praying for that which God is willing to grant, which is war.
    7. God Answers But the Answer Is “No.” God answers all prayers. Sometimes He grants the prayer what he asks for, and sometimes He does not. How this is to be distinguished from random events and coincidence is not adequately explained — especially when compared to nonprayed-for events. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because Baal answered his priests negatively. Therefore, Baal did answer their prayers, and his answer, contrary to their petition, was to allow Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that God answers the prayers for peace negatively. However, He answers the prayers of the few who pray for war in the positive and gives them and those who pray for peace war.
    8. The Answer Is Not What Was Expected. God answers all prayers. However, the answer is frequently not what the prayer wanted or expected. Again, how this is to be distinguished from random events and coincidence is not adequately explained. Baal did answer the prayers of his priests. However, the answer was not what they expected. They expected Baal to give them victory over Elijah. Baal decided to answer their prayers by giving Elijah victory over them. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because Baal answered his priests in a way that was not expected. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that God answers the prayers for peace with war, which is not what the prayers for peace wanted or expected.
    9. Has Something Better. God answers all prayers, but He often answers by giving the prayer something better than what he asks. Evidently, this is true even, and especially, when the prayer never perceives the thing received as better than what was requested. Apparently, the “something better” for Baal’s priests was defeat, humiliation, and death. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; Baal gave his priests something better than victory over Elijah: defeat, humiliation, and death. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that God is giving the prayers for peace something better than peace and that is war.
    10. Gives What Is Needed, Not What Is Wanted. God answers prayers by giving the prayer what he needs instead of what he wants. A corollary of this excuse is that God does not answer prayers for wants; He only answers prayers for needs. What does God do when the request is for something that is both needed and wanted? Does He grant the request because it is needed? Does He withhold answering because it is wanted? Or does He only partially answer it? Obviously, Baal’s priests merely wanted victory over Elijah. What they really needed was defeat, humiliation, and death. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; Baal gave his priests what they needed (defeat, humiliation, and death) instead of what they wanted (victory). Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that prayers for peace merely want peace. What they really need is war. Presumably, those who pray for war merely want war, but what they really need is war, so God gives them war.
    11. Not Yet. God answers all prayers, but He often delays in answering, even when the prayer is time sensitive. Again, how this is to be distinguished from random events and coincidence is not adequately explained. Also, not explained is time running out without the prayer being answered. When was Baal going to answer the prayers of his priests? After Elijah defeated, humiliated, and killed them? According to the Baal apologists, Baal did answer the prayers of his priests. He just did not answer them in a timely manner. He delayed answering their prayers to some future date. Evidently, Baal plans to answer the prayers of his priests in the future when he has reincarnated or resurrected them and Elijah and has the duel between them reenacted. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because Baal decided to answer their prayers later. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that God will grant peace sometimes in the future — perhaps when no one is left to fight.
    12. Unconfessed Sin. God does not answer prayer because the prayer has unconfused sin, i.e., the prayer has not confessed all his sin. Therefore, God will not answer the prayer. If this excuse is true, then God seldom answers many prayers as many prayers have unconfessed sin. Many people cannot even remember all their unconfessed sins, so their prayers are never answered. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they had some unconfessed sin. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the multitude who pray for peace, all have unconfessed sin. Of the few who pray for war, apparently at least one does not have any unconfessed sin, so God answers his prayer for war.
    13. Dire Need. God only answers the prayers of people in dire need. When does a need become a dire need? What is a dire need? Cemeteries are full of people who thought that they had a dire need. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not have a dire need to win. Apparently, they had a dire need for defeat, humiliation, and death. Moreover, prayers for peace do not have a dire need for peace; however, prayers for war do have a dire need for war. Therefore, we have war.
    14. Not Praying the Correct Way. According to this excuse, one should pray as though God has already answered the prayer. If the prayer thanks God in advance for answering the prayer, God will grant the prayer’s request. That is, in order for God to give the prayer his request, the prayer must follow the correct formula for prayer. (This excuse sounds like Gnosticism in that a hidden formula for prayer exists. One only needs to be enlightened enough to find it.) Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not pray the correct way. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the few who pray for war at least one follows the correct formula. Of the multitude who pray for peace, none uses the correct formula. To the extent any formula for prayer is given in Matthew 7:7, it is simply to ask; then God will grant the request.
    15. Failing to Deal with the Spirit Behind the Problem. The prayer has one or more spirits causing the problem for which he is praying, and he has not dealt with these spirits. He must first rebuke, confess, acknowledge, and command these spirits to depart before his prayers are answered. (To the extent that this excuse has validity, the rebuking, confessing, acknowledging, and commanding the departure of these spirits is implied in most prayers even if they are not explicitly stated. Often the prayer may not even be aware of such spirits.) Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not first rebuke, confess, acknowledge, and command the departure of the spirit behind Elijah’s challenge although their prayers did imply, if not explicitly command, etc., such departure. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the few who pray for war at least one has rebuked, confessed, acknowledged, and commanded the departure of the spirit behind peace. Of the multitude who pray for peace, none has rebuked, confessed, acknowledged, and commanded the departure of the spirit behind war.
    16. Not Praying to the Right God. God will not answer one’s prayer if he prays to the wrong God. Presumably, the wrong God will not answer his prayers either, although the prayer prayed to him. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed to the wrong god. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, none of them is praying to the right God. All are praying to the wrong God. Apparently of the few who pray for war, at least one is praying to the right God.
    17. Asking God to Perform Magic, Miracles. One should never pray for a miracle because that is asking God to perform magic. God does not do magic because that is interfering with the natural course of events, and God does not interfere with the natural course of events. Therefore, one should only pray for unmeasurable intangibles like courage and wisdom. One should never pray for measurable tangibles like curing someone of a disease or world peace. Apparently, people who use this excuse do not believe Jesus when he said, “Ask and it shall be given you” (Matt. 7:7). An unanswerable prayer for a measurable tangible shows that Jesus lied. A prayer for an unmeasurable intangible cannot be shown whether it is answered or not. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed for a miracle, i.e., they asked Baal to perform magic. However, Jehovah interfered with the natural course of events and performed an act of magic by lighting Elijah’s water-soaked wood (1 Kings 18:32-38). Therefore, proponents of this excuse must reject Jehovah as the true God because He performed magic. Baal apologists would add that since the true God does not do magic since Baal did no magic, and since Jehovah did do magic, Baal must be the true God. Moreover, God refuses to answer prayers for peace because to do so requires magic, a miracle. War is the natural course of events.
    18. Lack of Fervor. According to this excuse, God only answers the prayers of those who pray fervently. How much fervor does it take before a prayer is fervently prayed? Apparently, the fervor displayed by Baal’s priests was not enough. For anyone to display more fervor as the Bible describes them doing (1 King 18:28-29) is hard to imagine. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not pray fervently enough. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, none of them prays fervently enough. However, out of the few who pray for war, at least one prays fervently enough.
    19. Praying for the Wrong Thing. God does not answer the prayers of people who do not pray for the right thing, i.e., they pray for the wrong thing. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not pray for the right thing. He did not answer the prayers of his priest because they prayed for victory over Elijah; they prayed for the wrong thing. Presumably, they should have prayed for Elijah to win; then Baal would have answered their prayers because they would have prayed for the right thing. Likewise, the multitude who pray for peace prays for the wrong thing: peace. However, the warmongers pray for the right thing: war. Therefore, God answers the prayers of the warmongers and ignores the prayers of the peace lovers.
    20. Asking for Things Not Good for the Prayer. If a person prays for something that is not good for him, God will not answer the prayer. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed for something that was not good for them. He did not answer the prayers of his priest because they prayed for victory over Elijah, which was not good for them. Presumably, defeat was good for them. Likewise, God does not answer the prayers of those who pray for peace because peace is not good for them. Therefore, war must be good for them.
    21. Sinner. God does not answer the prayers of sinners. If true, then God would never answer any prayers as everyone is a sinner. Possibly, the only exception is a prayer for salvation and that is iffy. So why did Jesus bother promising that people would receive whatever they asked? Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were sinners. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that every one of the multitudes who pray for peace is a sinner. At least one prayer for war is not a sinner. Therefore, God answers the prayers of the nonsinning warmonger.
    22. Not a Christian. God only answers the prayers of Christians. This excuse is a good test for someone to use to decide if he is really a Christian. If God answers all his prayers, he is a real Christian. If God fails to answer at least one of his prayers, he is not a real Christian; he is a pseudo-Christian. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were not real Christians. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Because Elijah was not a Christian either, Jehovah could not have answered his prayer. Moreover, of the multitude who pray for peace, not one of them is a Christian. Of the few who pray for war, at least one is a Christian. Therefore, God answers the prayers of the warmongering Christian.
    23. The Prayer Must Be Prepared to Receive What Is Being Asked For. God only answers the prayers of those who are prepared to receive that for which they pray. He does not answer the prayers of those who are not prepared. How one becomes prepared is anyone’s guess. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were not prepared to receive victory. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none are prepared to receive peace; none can handle peace. Of the few who pray for war, at least one is prepared to receive war; this one can handle war. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    24. Must Adhere Only to Christ.  Before God answers a person’s prayer, that person must adhere only to Christ. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not adhere only to Christ. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Although evidence is given that Elijah adhered to Jehovah, no specifically stated evidence is given that Elijah adhered only to Christ. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none adhere only to Christ. Presumably, of the few who pray for war, at least one adheres to only Christ. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    25. Prepared to Live God’s Will. Before God answers a person’s prayer, the prayer must be prepared to live God’s will. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were not prepared to live Baal’s, will. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus of the multitude who pray for peace, none are prepared to live God’s will. Of the few who pray for war, at least one is prepared to live God’s will. If correct, then living for war appears to be God’s will.
    26. Praying for God’s Will to Be Done. Only when a person prays that God’s will to be done, does God answer the prayer. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not pray that Baal’s will be done. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none is praying that God’s will to be done. Of the few who pray for war, they are praying that God’s will to be done. Therefore, as we have war instead of peace, then God’s will must be war. However, according to Matthew 7:7, God’s will seems to be simply to ask so that He can give whatever is asked for.
    27. Must Know God. God only answers the prayers of those who know Him. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they did not know Baal. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none knows God. Of the few who pray for war, at least one knows God Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    28. Must Keep the Commandments of God. God only answers the prayers of those who keep His commandments. This excuse is the ultimate excuse because we are all sinners, and no sinner can keep the commandments of God. To break one commandment is to break all commandments. Based on this excuse, God never answers anyone’s prayer, which makes Jesus’ promise in Matthew 7:7 a hoax. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not keep Baal’s commandments. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none keep God’s commandments. Of the few who pray for war, at least one keeps God’s commandments. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    29. Must Have Accepted Jesus as Savior. According to this excuse, God only answers the prayers of those who have accepted Jesus as their savior. This excuse is a good test for one’s salvation. If the prayer has one unanswered prayer, then he is not saved. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they had not accepted Jesus as their savior. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, no specific evidence is given that Elijah had accepted Jesus as his savior, so accepting Jesus as his savior had nothing to do with his victory. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none has accepted Jesus as his savior. Of the few who pray for war, at least one has accepted Jesus as his savior.
    30. Must Pray in the Name of Christ Jesus. According to this excuse, a person must pray in the name of Christ Jesus before God will answer that prayer. However, Matthew 7:7 does not require asking in the name of Christ Jesus. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they had not prayed in the name of Christ Jesus. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, no evidence is given that Elijah prayed in the name of Christ Jesus, so his prayer had nothing to do with his victory. Thus, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the multitude who pray for peace, none pray in the name of Christ Jesus. Of the few who pray for war, at least one has prayed in the name of Christ Jesus.
    31. Asking with Incorrect Motive. God does not answer prayers when the prayer is praying with incorrect motives. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priest did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed with an incorrect motive. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none ask with the correct motive. Of the few who pray for war, at least one asks with the correct motive. Therefore, as we have war instead of peace. Apparently, a desire for war is the correct motive, while a desire for peace is an incorrect motive.
    32. Asking from a Selfish Heart. God does not answer the prayers of a prayer who prays from a selfish heart. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed from a selfish heart. Selfishly, they want to defeat Elijah. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, all pray from a selfish heart. Of the few who pray for war, at least one does not pray from a selfish heart. Apparently, praying for peace is selfish, while praying for war is altruistic. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    33. Pray Continuously. One must pray continuously for God to answer a prayer. Although the record shows that Baal’s priests prayed continuously, apparently, they did not pray continuously enough — much more continuously than Elijah prayed. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they did not continuously pray. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, all failed to pray continuously. Of the few who pray for war, at least one prays continuously. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    34. Seeking to Receive the Blessing More Ardently than Desiring to Commune with God. God does not answer the prayers of prayers who desire the object of the prayer more than they desire to commune with God. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they desire victory over Elijah more than they desired to commune with Baal. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, all pray desire peace more than they desire to Commune with God. Of the few who pray for war, at least one desires to commune with God more than he desires war. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    35. Sowing and Reaping: One Reaps What He Sows. God answers prayers using the principle of what one sows is what one reaps. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they had been sowing defeat, so he let them reap defeat by letting Elijah defeat them. Thus, all of the multitudes of those who pray for peace have been sowing war; therefore, God lets them reap war. Likewise, the few who pray for war have been sowing war; therefore, God lets them reap war.
    36. Lack of Humility. God does not answer the prayers of those who lack humility.  Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they lacked humility. (Based on his actions, Elijah displayed much more arrogance than humility.) Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers; consequently, he let Elijah win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none prayed with humility. Of the few who pray for war, at least one prays with humility. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    37. Lack of Trust. God does not answer the prayers of those who lack sufficient trust in him. Presumably, if the prayer is answered, the prayer trusts God, even if the prayer is an atheist who prays sarcastically. If it is not answered, the prayer does not trust God. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not trust Baal. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, none of them trust that God will deliver peace. Of the few who pray for war, at least one of them has enough trust that God will deliver war.  Therefore, we have war instead of peace. (Promises kept build trust; promises broken destroy trust.)
    38. Pleasing in God’s Sight. The prayer must ask for things that God finds pleasing. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because prayed for something that was not pleasing to Baal: namely, victory over Elijah. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that the multitude of people praying for peace are praying for something that is not pleasing in God’s sight: peace. The few who pray for war are praying for something that is pleasing in God’s sight: war.  Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    As shown above, the traditional explanation of Elijah’s victory over Baal’s priests may not be correct if the prayer apologists are correct. Prayer apologists need to find a better excuse for unanswered prayer. They need to find an excuse that the Baal apologists cannot possibly use to explain Elijah’s victory.
    Now let us examine Jesus’ promise in Matthew 7:7. According to this verse, God’s will it to ask so that He can give. All one has to do is merely ask in order to receive that for which one asks. If this verse means what it says, conditions necessary have prayers answered, i.e., the excuses, given above are irrelevant. Taking as Jesus spoke it, this verse contradicts the above excuses offered by the prayer apologists.  If one or more of the above conditions, excuses, must be met before a prayer is answered, then Matthew 7:7 is deceptive. In essence, by providing excuses for unanswered prayer, prayer apologists do not believe what Jesus said in Matthew 7:7; they are calling him a liar.
     When the prayers for peace are considered, one must wonder why we have more war than peace. Is it because God gives more weight to the few who pray for war than He gives to the multitude who pray for peace? Is it because, as some critics claim, Jehovah is a god of war who relishes in war? Parts of the Old Testament seem to suggest such. Is it because one or more of the above excuses are correct and, therefore, God refuses to answer prayers for peace?
    As for war, a typical retort is that sin is the cause of war. True. Yet this argument also rests on making sin more powerful than prayer. Sin is more powerful than God Himself. It is so powerful that it prevents God from keeping the promise that His Son made in Matthew 7:7.
    To mask unanswered prayer, many pray for intangibles that cannot be measured, such as comfort or guidance. An exception is the prosperity preacher. His prayers or at least those of his followers can be measured. As many of these prayers are not answered, the prosperity preacher qualifies prayer and praying away as meaninglessness. The favorite excuses of the prosperity preacher for unanswered prayer are doubt and lack of faith. Thus, he does not really believe what Jesus said in Matthew 7:7. If his followers do not become wealthy, the followers doubted or lacked sufficient faith.
    In essence, by providing excuses for unanswered prayer, prayer apologists are claiming that the Bible is written as a good shyster lawyer writes contracts and laws. Grandiose promises are simply and concisely stated upfront. Then the promise is qualified as meaningless with the fine print.
    Apparently, Jesus’ promise in Matthew 7:7 does not really mean what is so plainly stated. So, what does it really mean? Is the Bible written as a shyster lawyer writes a contract or law? Are the atheists right? Is it all coincidence? Was the little boy right when he said that faith was believing in what one knew was not true? Is it all caprice?

Endnote
1. If He is the only god, then the first of the commandments (“You shall have not other gods before me:”) is meaningless.

Copyright © 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

 More articles on religion.