lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (04/07/84)
[Having expended most of my fury on the East Coast, I shall be brief] > [parsec!graham] > Just what is the secret of praying "in Jesus' name"? Is it just uttering > the name "Jesus" after each prayer? No, for the name "Jesus" was a very > common name in Palestine. With so many men named "Jesus", there could be > no magic in that particular name. Then what did Jesus mean when he said > to pray "in his name"? > To truly pray "in his name" means to pray with the same kind of under- > standing about God and man that he had. [Explanation of Aramaic BESHEMI] I disagree. The simpler explanation is not just some magic syllable, but asking in the authority of the Person Himself - the Lord Jesus Christ. Whatever technique and understanding you might have, it merits a big "Who are you?" unless the one asking identifies himself with the One in a position to ask. Likewise, the taxman does not have any power to ask for your hard-earned cash, but when he comes in the name of the IRS... (yes, I know you still don't want to pay him - would you rather pay *my* tax bill?) > [cosivax!dep] > I, however, have yet to find any evidence which requires the existence > of a god (stories in the Bible, for example, could have 'grown in the > telling,' turning explainable events into 'miracles.'). Raising the dead and healing the blind can hardly 'grow in the telling.' Either they happened or they didn't. Also, several skeptics thought the same thing, and ended up writing _Who Moved the Stone_ (Frank Morison), _Evidence that Demands a Verdict_ (Josh McDowell), and _Ben Hur_ (Lew Wallace, who was working with noted infidel Bob Ingersoll on "the book that would forever destroy the myth of Christianity" when he realized the evidence was stacked the *other* way). For the super-serious student, I recommend Wilbur Smith's _Therefore Stand_. It is *not* easy reading (500+ pages, more than 20% of it being notes), but is perhaps the most extensive apologetic ever written. > I think Thomas Aquinas said the definitive word on this > subject a few hundred years ago: > "You cannot arrive at faith by reason." - Lise Manchester > [pyuxn!rlr] > Yes, and with this ["You cannot arrive at faith by reason"] in mind there > is no reason to have faith in things that cannot be justified by reason > and logic. Logic demands axioms. What axioms do you provide to conclude that I shouldn't nuke Piscataway? -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA