An atheist asks Christians about prayer

There's a YouTube channel called, The Atheist Voice, hosted by a guy named, Hemant Mehta. He calls himself, “The Friendly Atheist” and he really is kind of friendly. I say, “kind of” because he still uses a lot of the same, frustrating arguments that other atheists use – like creationists don't believe evolution because they don't understand it – but he's much less snarky and condescending than the truly obnoxious atheists like Dawkins and Nye.

I knew that friendly atheists exist but they're sometimes hard to find. According to a recent Gallup poll, only 17% of Americans claim to not believe in God. Many of them are just your average Joe who may be a neighbor or coworker but they aren't militant about their atheism. It's those atheists who are very vocal about it, like those who start a blog or host a convention discussing atheism, who we hear from so they are the ones who seem to represent the entire group.

Mehta has one video titled, 78 Questions for Christians. Kudos to him for not calling it, “78 Questions Christians can't answer” or something like that. I've always been annoyed by titles like that – not just because they're incredibly presumptuous but I have yet to see such an article that lives up to its title. Of course, even though Mehta didn't say these questions have no answers, he clearly seems to think they are difficult to answer. His motive appears to be to make Christians uncomfortable which might lead them to question their beliefs. It's a common tactic.

It's not unusual for someone, especially a lay person, to not understand everything about a subject. If someone isn't able to calculate the acceleration rate of a falling object, for example, that's not evidence against gravity! Likewise, if a Christian isn't sure how to answer some criticism, it's not evidence against Christianity. Also, some of these types of questions are pointless or are poorly premised. Think about the old, gag question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” To say either yes or no condemns the person who answers. The correct response is to point out that the premise of the question is flawed: “Your question assumes that I used to beat my wife.” When engaging with a critic, don't get trapped by their logical fallacies.

Obviously, I can't answer all 78 of Mehta's questions in a single post. Neither will I write a 78 post long series addressing them. However, he did ask several questions that seem to center around prayer. It will be those questions I intend to respond to here. I've numbered the questions according to how Mehta numbered them in the video but I've rearranged them in my answer.

10) Whose prayers does God answer?

11) And if it's ultimately God's will what happens, why even bother praying?

We can see from the questions that Mehta has a very rudimentary understanding of what prayer is. For example, what does it mean for God to “answer” a prayer? Judging by Mehta's list of questions about prayer, Mehta certainly believes “prayer” means “asking God for things” and “answered prayer” means “God gives you what you ask.” I could paraphrase the two questions above as:

Who gets what he asks?

If nobody gets what he asks, why even bother praying?

It sounds a little shallow when I phrase it like that, doesn't it? That's because it is shallow. Mehta has cast God as a year 'round Santa Claus and, every day, we get to tell Him what we want in our stockings. Just think about this: what kind of relationship would you have with your child if he only ever talked to you when he wanted something? And if you didn't do everything he asks, he would stop talking to you? If my children were like that, I'd be both very hurt and very angry. Yet this is apparently how Mehta thinks our relationship with God should be. I've written before about how people have a false idea of who God is, and then claim He must not exist because they can't find a god who acts like they imagined.

Jesus gave His disciples a model of prayer, often called the Lord's Prayer. He said, “Pray like this....” If you examine the prayer, you'll see that it includes things like acknowledging God as our Father, praising Him, desiring His will to be done, and asking Him to forgive our sins and keep us away from temptations. Of course, we do also ask Him to help meet our needs – our “daily bread” - but Mehta seems to think that's all prayer is.

Have you ever heard the child's prayer of grace? “God is great, God is good. Thank you, Lord, for this food.” What a wonderful prayer! Praise – thanksgiving – adoration – all presented in a few simple words. If all Christians prayed like this – praising God, seeking His will, asking for forgiveness and seeking His guidance – then revival would break out in America.

James 4:3 says, “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.” I know I'm not a model Christian and I can't say my prayer life is where it should be. But if I spent all my prayer time telling God what I want Him to do for me, I would feel more spoiled than edified. Unfortunately, too many Christians spend their prayer time focusing more on themselves than God.

8) If your son or daughter were dying – and I hope that never happens – would you just pray for them or would you take them to a doctor?

9) And if you say you'd do both, which one do you think has more of an impact?

Unfortunately, my son and daughter are dying. My step sons are dying, too. My wife is dying. My siblings are dying. My wife's family is dying. I'm dying. Everyone reading my blog is dying. Romans 5:12 says, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” It's not a question of if you're dying – it's only a question of when. And, yes, prayer is THE most important thing I can do for my children, my spouse, my family, and my readers – especially if death is imminent. It's my prayer that they will all seek Christ, ask for His forgiveness, accept Him as their Lord, and be saved.

If my child were sick or hurt, yes, I'd take him to the doctor. I would pray that God would help him recover, that He would give the doctors and nurses wisdom, that He would give my son comfort, and give me peace. Above all this, though, I pray that my son comes to Christ. Let's face it, doctors can't stave off death forever. One day death will claim everyone I love and, at that time, all the doctors in the world are useless. But if my prayers have been answered, then they will have had an infinitely greater impact.

12) If you have cancer right now, what's going to help you more: drugs or prayer?

13) Let's say you have an amputated limb. Would prayer ever bring it back?

There's a video on YouTube by a group called, Why Won't God Heal Amputees? It's a list of 10 questions every Christian must answer and the first question is, why won't God heal amputees? I'll maybe write a detailed response to each of the 10 questions sometime but, for now, let me talk about the first question. Certainly, Jesus is able to heal us. Luke 22:50-51 tells us that Jesus healed the ear of Malchus after Peter had cut it off with a sword so I know that Jesus is able to heal even a severed limb. It's just that I don't expect Him to miraculously heal people today like He did during His ministry.

Jesus overtly said that He did miracles to demonstrate His authority. In Mark 2:1-12, Jesus healed a paralyzed man to prove He had the authority to forgive sins. In John 11, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead to show Martha that He is the resurrection and the life. When Jesus appointed His disciples, He gave them the ability to perform miracles including healing the sick and raising the dead (Matthew 10:7-8). This was to show their authority to preach in God's name. But now we have the Scriptures to evidence His authority and the need for miracles has passed.

Jesus has promised us an eternity where there is no more pain or sorrow or death but paradise is not on this earth nor in these bodies. This is a cursed world where there is sickness and disease. Does Mehta think we should be able to pray and no one should ever die or even get sick? I guess he does. Like I said, he has a very rudimentary understanding of prayer.

16) If you had an exam coming up, what do you think would help you more: prayer or studying for the test?

Heck, why even bother with school – or even a job? I could just stay home and pray that God mails me a paycheck! Really, Mehta? God never commanded us to do nothing. In fact, He condemns laziness. Matthew 5:16 says, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” We should strive to be the hardest workers, the best students, the friendliest neighbors, etc. And, yes, we should seek God's help while doing this. There's an old saying that says we should work like it depends on us and pray like it depends on Him!

18) What matters to God more: the quantity of prayers or the quality of prayers?

19) If it's the quantity that matters, how come the most popular team doesn't always win the Super Bowl?

20) And if it's the quality that matters, how come people we really love, people who are close to us, how come they die no matter what we say to God?

21) Is it possible that your prayers have no supernatural effect and only serve to make you feel better?

22) And if that were true, would you ever admit it?

1 Thessalonians 5:17 says, “pray without ceasing.” If you were to walk through the mall with your spouse or drive down the road with your child, wouldn't you talk to them? Well, we're never truly alone because God is always with us so I try to talk to God just like that – like He's sitting there next to me. I tell Him I love Him. I thank Him for all He does for me. I tell Him about things I struggle with and ask for His guidance.

I believe that, as we draw closer to God, His will becomes our will. It's just like the prayer, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done....” When that happens, we tend to worry less about how things affect us. When things are going well, some Christians will say, “God is blessing me.” When things aren't going well, some Christians will say, “God is testing me.” I think if we prayed like we should, more Christians would start to realize, “It's not even about me.”

Lord, help my team win the Super Bowl. Don't let anyone in my family get sick or die. That's how a 5-year-old prays.

O Lord, I come to You with praise. You alone are good. You alone are worthy to be worshiped. Let me know Your will and give me the strength to be obedient. Forgive my sins and let me rest in Your mercies. Let me trust in You for everything I need and let my thanksgiving never end! Amen! These are the kinds of prayers that get answered!

What does it mean to be born of water?

 John 3:1-5, There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

There are some people who think a person must be baptized in order to be saved. John 3:5 is a verse sometimes used to support this idea. The fundamental flaw in that argument, though, is the unproven assumption that “born of water” means “baptized.” I don't believe it does.

In all of Scripture, the term “born of water” occurs exactly once. Besides this verse, there is no other passage we can examine that might shed more light on the meaning of this term. Consequently, we only have the context of this verse to help us understand what Jesus meant by His statement to Nicodemus. Though this may not be an exhaustive list, there are at least 4 possible meanings to this term:

It could mean baptism

We should consider the possibility that it does mean water baptism. The words “baptize” or “baptism” occur approximately 85 times in Scripture. Yet even though baptism is frequently mentioned, nowhere is it called, being “born of water” or even associated with that term. The word "baptism" isn't used anywhere in this passage.  Also, nowhere else is the word “born” used in the same context with the word “baptize” or "baptism."  That is, there is no passage that says something like “born through baptism.” If someone wants to associate “born of water” with baptism, the burden should be upon him to do so. To simply say the term means baptism based solely on this context isn't sufficient.

Furthermore, to interpret this verse to mean, “one must be baptized and born of the Spirit” is antithetical to the rest of Scripture which says we are saved by grace through faith and not by any outward acts such as good deeds or circumcision (Ephesians 2:8, Romans 4:9-12, et al).

It could mean a washing by the Word

As has already been said, we are saved by grace through faith. Romans 10:17 says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” In other words, we can only believe by hearing the word. Then, by believing, we receive grace and are saved. There are a few passages that support the idea there is a “washing by the word.”

Ephesians 5:25-26, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.”

John 15:3, “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.”

John 13:5-10, “After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.”

This last verse is particularly interesting.  If a saved person is considered “washed,” “cleansed,” or “bathed,” then Jesus' words to Peter become clear: we never have to be “bathed” again. If we sin – that is, get our feet dirty – we only need to be restored by the washing of our feet. We do not need to become saved again.

I think “born of water” could fit with the idea of being washed by the Word but I cannot dogmatically insist they are the same thing.

An alternative translation of the Greek conjunction

In the clause, “be born of water and the Spirit,” the word translated as “and” is the Greek conjunction kai (Strong's word 2532, καί). According to Strong's, kai can mean, “and, even, also, namely.” This means an alternative translation of the subject verse could be, “Except a man be born of water, even of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” In this sense, being born of water would essentially be the same as being born of the Spirit.

When Jesus spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, He told her He could give her “living water.” In John 4:13-14 we read, “Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” In this light, the living water would be the Holy Spirit, indwelling the believer and giving him eternal life.

Born of water could be a euphemism for physical birth

Even today, we refer to the amniotic fluid as “water.” When a woman's “water breaks,” we know the birth is imminent. In this passage, we cannot lose sight of the fact that Jesus is explaining our spiritual rebirth by comparing it to our physical birth. When Jesus is talking with Nicodemus, He said (v. 3), “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” To say, “born again” implies there was already a first birth. We know with certainty that Nicodemus understood this to mean the physical birth because of his response in v. 4, “Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?”

In v. 5-6, Jesus expands upon the rebirth. Read both verses together, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” To me, I believe His meaning is clear but let me paraphrase it this way: “A person must be born physically AND spiritually because that which is born of the flesh is only flesh but that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

Later in the chapter, Nicodemus is still struggling to understand the concept of a second birth. In v. 12, Jesus tells him, “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” So we see, yet again, Jesus is explaining a heavenly concept by comparing it to something earthly. Jesus did this often in His ministry. Consider the number of times Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is like...” Then He would go on to use an analogy like farming or shepherding to make His point. Jesus was certainly doing that here.

“Born of water” meaning physical birth also comports well with 1 Peter 1:23, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” Our first birth, then, would be of corruptible seed, that is of the flesh. Our second birth, our spiritual birth, would be of incorruptible seed.

There may be other meanings of the term “born of water” that I hadn't considered. I'm happy to hear them but any other possible meaning must be supported by Scripture. Of these four, I believe a reference to physical birth is the most likely meaning. I also believe a reference to baptism to be the least likely meaning.

Can God forgive really really really really really really bad people?

To the cat, “cat and mouse” is just a game. Cats will stalk mice, catch them, torture them, release them, catch them again, torture them more, and eventually kill them. You know it's a game to them because even after the rodent dies, the cats don't necessarily eat them immediately. Often they'll walk around with the carcasses in their mouths like it's some kind of toy. Still other times they will leave it as a “gift” for their owners. Many cat owners abhor this behavior. Sometimes, they leave their cats' bowls full of food thinking cats won't hunt if they're not hungry. I've heard though that well-fed cats only prolong the torture because, again, it's a game to the cats.

Are cats evil when they do this? I ask because I'm still a little fuzzy about how atheists define right and wrong.

Critics often criticize Christianity by attacking the justice/mercy of God. I came across an article online, written by The Friendly Atheist, where he made this very argument. Consider this quote from the article:

To the Almighty, nothing is unforgivable. Let that sink in. Nothing. You can be a genocidal maniac who eats crushed-up infants on toast during snack time… and still go to heaven if you eventually repent. [italics and ellipsis in original]

To drive this point home, the author relates the horrific career of Liberian-born Joshua Milton Blahyi. Blahyi's vile history supposedly began at age 11.  You can read the gruesome acts attributed to Blahyi in the article where One source cited describes Blahyi as, “the most evil man in the world.” Blahyi later claimed to be a born-again Christian, forgiven of his many sins, and bound for an eternity in glory with the Father.

Critics often point to the forgiving nature of God and question its “fairness.” Could even people like Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot, after their lifetimes of sin, have been forgiven by God if they had just confessed and accepted Jesus on their deathbeds? Even many Christians struggle with this concept and will hem and haw when asked to defend it. Indeed, that is why skeptics like the Friendly Atheist continue repeating the criticism. I see many flaws with this argument.

The first problem with this criticism is that, at its core, it commits the fallacy of an argument from incredulity. This is where a speaker essentially claims something seems too outrageous to be true. It's hardly a rebuttal when you think about it. Even if it seems unfair of God to forgive really bad sinners, it doesn't make it untrue. Romans 10:13 says, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” There's no qualifier in that verse limiting salvation to “only those who haven't been that bad.”  It says, whoever.

Next, atheists have a problem claiming any moral high ground because, ultimately, they have no objective standard of morality. If they are correct and the universe is all there is, then everything that happens is nothing more than matter acting on matter. One person murdering another is no different than a cat torturing a mouse or an apple falling from a tree. It's just the way things are and the universe doesn't care. Actually, if one particular cat were able to torture thousands of mice, it would probably be considered a superior cat from an evolutionary perspective. Likewise, one human who is able to personally murder thousands of others could arguably be described as the “more fit” human if the goal is the survival of the fittest.

Think carefully about atheism. If there is no ultimate Lawgiver, then “morality” is merely the product of whatever people think is preferable. You may think Blahyi’s acts were horrible but he didn't think so at the time. Without appealing to anything beyond human opinion, what makes your view right and Blahyi's wrong? By that same token, critics try to say that God's standard of justice is perverse. On what grounds can they say their opinion is correct and God's wrong? Evil can only exist if God exists. Their argument, then, really has no teeth. They rely solely on the fact that it sounds awful that God could forgive someone like Hitler.

I understand that we struggle sometimes to understand God. It's a symptom of our sin nature. God is infinite and perfect; we are finite and corrupt. His ways are not our ways so we should never presume to judge God according to how we think it ought to be done. It's laughable, really, that the clay should think it can instruct the potter. To understand God, we need to look into His word.

In Matthew 20:1-16, Jesus tells the parable of the workers in the vineyard. I always encourage people to read the Bible themselves but, for the sake of brevity, I'll give you a thumbnail: A land owner goes into the marketplace early in the morning and hires people to work in his vineyard. He agrees to pay them a penny (the standard wage for a day's work). Throughout the day, he returns to the market and hires more workers. He even hires some 1 hour before quitting time. At the end of the day, as the workers are leaving, the land owner gives all of them a penny. Those who were hired first felt slighted that the people who worked only 1 hour got the same pay as they, who had worked all day.

Christians who have trouble understanding how God can mercy on especially evil people are, in fact, demonstrating the same attitudes as the workers hired early. They are, in a sense, saying, “God, I've worked much harder at being good than that person. How can you give him the same reward as me?”

The owner of the vineyard gave an interesting reply to the complainers. He said, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?” The Bible says that God will have mercy on whoever He chooses to have mercy (Romans 9:15). If God has made salvation available to anyone on the condition that the person believes in His Son, then who are we to attach strings? Should we say, “God, I know that person accepted Christ but let me tell you how bad he's been....”? If so, we are placing our sense of justice above God's. If you really think some people can be forgiven but not others, then you are endorsing a type of salvation by works. You're essentially saying, “This person has been good enough to deserve Christ's forgiveness but this other person hasn't.”

At the bottom line, no one deserves God's mercy. Indeed, if it is deserved, then it's not “mercy,” is it? We all have broken God's commandments and we all are deserving of hell. The Father has made salvation available through the Son. Jesus is the Lamb of God, the one who takes away the sin of the world. Please do not mock God by saying some sin is more than His blood can cover!

God forgives sins. It doesn't matter if you don't think He should; it doesn't matter if you don't understand why. He still does. People should rejoice when they read articles like those written by the Friendly Atheist. It shows that even your sins can be forgiven. No matter how great. No matter how many. Accept Jesus now and though your sins be like scarlet, they'll be made whiter than snow. Now that's good news! Praise God!!

Genesis 38: What happened in Timnah didn’t stay in Timnah!

Genesis 38:24-26, And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more. 

I know it’s been a while, but does anyone remember the commercials that said,  “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.” It's a simple concept, really. The idea they're selling is that you can come to a wild town where you don't know anyone, indulge yourself in whatever you desire, and then return home like nothing happened. No one will know what you've done. At least, that's what they want you to think.

I imagine that's exactly how Judah felt in Genesis 38 when he visited Timnah. He was going there to have his sheep sheared (literally, that's not a euphemism). He might have been thinking the same things the Las Vegas commercials are promoting. He's alone in a strange town and probably thinks he can indulge himself with anonymity.

On the road leading to Timnah, Judah encounters a veiled woman. The Bible doesn't say why, but for some reason Judah believes she's a prostitute. The Bible does says she was veiled. Perhaps that was a practice among prostitutes so that they can engage in their trade while remaining anonymous. If so, isn't it curious that Judah would be aware of such a practice? I wonder if he's done this before. Anyway, Judah propositions the woman and agrees to give her a kid (a baby goat) in exchange for sex. The woman agrees but Judah wasn't traveling with a goat. Instead, he leaves some personal items with her as a sort of deposit until he can send the kid later.

Here's where it gets interesting. What Judah did not realize is that the veiled woman was his own daughter-in-law, Tamar, the widow of his late son, Er. Tamar had been waiting on the road leading to Timnah so that she could confront Judah about marrying his youngest son, Shelah. The Bible doesn't say why she agreed to Judah's advances; perhaps it was so that she could later blackmail him into letting her marry his youngest son but Tamar became pregnant as a result of her time with Judah.

Judah went on his merry way believing the elicit encounter was over and done. After all, what happens in Timnar, stays in Timnar, right? Well, some time after returning home, he found out that Tamar was pregnant. He became furious because he knew she was betrothed to his son and demanded that she be punished. Realization set it, though, when she produced the personal items that he had given her as a pledge. In modern vernacular, we might say he was “busted.” Tamar went on to deliver twins – Pharez and Zarah.

It's not hard to imagine the horror Judah felt when he learned that his supposedly discreet fling would have such public and lasting consequences. But I think not even Judah was fully aware just how enduring his shame would be. Not only are we reading about his exploits centuries later, but he and the product of his affair are immortalized in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:3, “And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;”  How sad it must be to be mentioned in the Bible not because of your devout faith, but for your complete lack of morals. What might have been a badge of honor is diminished to a source of eternal embarrassment.  

I wonder sometimes if we might act differently if we knew our dirty secrets would all be revealed. Perhaps we’d be a little more circumspect.  The idea that whenever you're in a strange place anything you do will be kept secret is a lie. Perhaps our misdeeds will not be published in the Bible but we should never suppose that they will never be known. We are warned in Numbers 32:23, “and be sure your sin will find you out.”

Saul: the asked for king

Is it blasphemous to believe that God has a sense of humor? Sometimes I think God, in His sovereignty, has a funny way of reminding us how wrong we can be.

When God delivered His people out of Egypt, He established an unusual form of government. They did not have an earthly king; instead, God was their ruler. He gave them the Law through Moses and appointed judges whose job it was to interpret the Law. This lasted from the time of Moses until Samuel.

Now when Samuel was old, his sons had turned away from God (1 Samuel 8:3). Since there were no other judges, the people came to Samuel and asked him to give them a king like other nations (1 Samuel 8:5). It grieved God that they rejected Him as their ruler and He gave some stern warnings about what it would be like having an earthly king:

 (1 Samuel 8:11-18)  “… This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.” [God ended with this most dire of warnings:] “And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”

The people persisted and God appointed Saul as their king. Sure enough, everything God had warned them about came true.

So where is the humor? The name Saul (שָׁאוּל , Shaul: Saul, Strong’s Word 7586) is a Hebrew word meaning, “asked for” or “asked of Yah.”  In the Bible, names are important.  Consider the name Samuel, for example.  When his mother, Hannah, was barren, her deepest desire was for a child. Her fervent prayers ascended to God, and in His mercy, she conceived a son. Her choice of name for this miraculous child was not arbitrary but a testament to her experience: Samuel. The Hebrew "Shama El" translates to "God listens." Every time she called his name, Hannah was reminded, and indeed reminded others, that the divine ear had bent towards her plea. 

Now we see something similar with Saul.  Every time we read about the failings of Saul, every time his name is mentioned in the Bible, every time those rebellious souls complained to God about what Saul was doing, God was reminding them that he was the king they had asked for! “And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”

A lot of people call Jesus, "Lord" but won't let Him be Lord of their lives (Luke 6:46). We sometimes think we know what’s best for us so we live our lives however we want – not how God wants. When things don’t turn out like we planned, people sometimes try to blame God. I think God, in His own loving but stern way, reminds them, “Don’t blame me - this is what you asked for.”