HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jon.Biddell@unsw.edu.au (Jon Biddell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: CHRIST WAS JUST A MAN !!!!
Summary: The Word according to A.N. Wilson
Keywords: CHRIST
Date: 30 Aug 92 21:47:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: unsw.Jon.Biddell.205.715211263
Organization: University of NSW


Now that I have your attention, here is an article that appeared in the "
Extra" column of the Sydney Sun-Herald on Sunday August 31.

------------------

The word according to A.N. Wilson.

Novelist A.N. Wilson will bublish next month his controversial biography of 
Jesus of Nazareth.

Wilson has concluded that Jesus was not born of a virgin, was not raised 
from the dead and had no plans to launch an organised religion called 
Christianity.

"Jesus would have hated Christianity," said Wilson, who is the biographer of 
Anglican theologian, the late C.S. Lewis.

"He wasn't a Christian. But for St. Paul we would never have heard of Jesus"

The idea of the Trinity, for example, would be laughable to Jesus, who was a 
monotheistic Jew."

"The idea that he wanted us to worship him would have horrified him."

Wilson's work is likely to cause the same ructions as Sydney University 
theologian Barbara Thering's book JESUS THE MAN, which rendered a new 
meaning to the Gospels and Christ's life.

But the Right Reverend John Taylor, the Bishop of St. Albans, is awaiting 
the Wilson revelations with devotional calm.

"These books don't disturb the Church", he explained. "They come and go, 
make their authors a few thousand pounds and disappear into history - unlike 
the New Testament."

----------------------------------------------

I love John Taylor's response !!...  

Anyone care to comment ???

In Christ.....................Jon


 __^__                                                              __^__
( ___ )------------------------------------------------------------( ___ )
 | / | Jon Biddell              Email: Jon.Biddell@unsw.EDU.AU      | \ |
 | / | PC Consultant            Snail: P.O. Box 1 KENSINGTON  2033  | \ |
 | / | University of NSW        Voice    : +61-2-697-2929           | \ |
 | / | Sydney, NSW, Oz          Fax      : +61-2-662-2057           | \ |
 | / | DoD #: 577               VoiceMail: +61-2-962 0080           | \ |
 | / |--------------------------------------------------------------| \ |
 | / | Quote of the week...                                         | \ |
 |___|           Quote deleted do to lack of creativity !!!         |___|
(_____)------------------------------------------------------------(_____)
   ^                                                                  ^
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Selbyn Liew)
Subject: Re: Becoming Catholic
Organization: Electrical and Electronic - University of Melbourne 
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:32:57 GMT

In article <9221913.8963@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson) writes:
>s925889@numbat.cs.rmit.OZ.AU (Steve Sonneman) writes:
>
>>Popularity has nothing to do with whether a religion is valid.
>>Popularity does
>>not make untruth true or truth untrue. 
>
>What I mean is, if no one practices a certain religion, then the religion
>is effectively dead.  It doesn't matter whether it is the True Way or not.
>Perhaps Greek mythology is all true, and if it is then the religion of
>worshipping such figures is certainly correct, but it does not exist.

For the sake of interest, there is an interesting statement made by a
noted Pharisee named Gamaliel in the Book of Acts:

"And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if
this plan or if this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is
of God, you cannot overthrow it - lest you even by found to fight against
God."  (Acts 5:38-39)

Since there are so many religions, I guess we have to decide which might
be of God ;-)  So far there has only been one that, if received correctly,
proves its own claims with real experiences:  the forgiveness of sin, the
power to overcome sin and its habits, miracles (of healing and otherwise), 
life, joy and peace, a personal and caring God above all.

All you out there who have tasted these things, let us all back this up
and show those who do not know.  Yes, let's testify if we have these
things.  After all, there is life in it, not just a religion.

Why do people not seem to be as hostile to all the other religions as they
are to Christianity?  Why do people swear with the name of the LORD when
they are agitated?  Why may also these same people instinctively call
to "God" when they are in real trouble and may even make some hopeful
prayer?

If there is nothing in it, why does it prick the consciences and make one
feel uneasy?  If it is foolishness and emptiness, why are some people
scared or reluctant to check out local churches or local campus Christian
meetings if they think they are so tough?  If Christians are fools, why do
they rather have people think they are fools than give up their faith?
If it is all a lie and a delusion, why are sensible people all over then
world still embracing it?  Is there anyone out there who wants to live a  
lie?

Thoughts for the day :-)

Cheers,
sliew
==========================================================================
Dept. of EE Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3052, Australia
EMAIL: sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au    PH: +61-3-3447976   FAX: +61-3-3446678
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage)
Subject: Re: Emotional Manipulation - How should a Christian respond ??
Keywords: women, emotion
Organization: Basket Weavers, Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:15:28 GMT

In article <Jon.Biddell.188.715054368@unsw.edu.au> Jon.Biddell@unsw.edu.au (Jon Biddell) writes:
	[..imaginary male with stressful girlfriend..]

>He came to me for advice the other day, and I must say I am at a loss for an 
>appropriate Christian response.  Anyone care to comment ???

Since when has being Christian meant being a doormat?

They are not married, and so the relationship has no biblical directives
to unfailing commitment associated with it. "Going out" is a recent
phenomena, and I presume they are not even engaged, so there is no reason
why this bloke should allow himself to be manipulated from within
the relationship. Sounds like the girl needs some healing time (whether
you'd see this as spiritual or more basic human couselling is for you
to decide), but while the bloke stays with her she'll avoid facing facts.

I'm not aware that God wants us to chose marriage partners out of
sympathy or weak-willedness on our part. Step outside the relationship,
but make sure her support group of friends stay.

gja
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Selbyn Liew)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Electrical and Electronic - University of Melbourne 
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:38:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.025845.15619@cc.uow.edu.au> u9264442@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew William Easton) writes:
>
>The Lord can do what he likes. I used to find it hard to believe that the Lord
>changed the refractive index of water (to make rainbows) after the flood. If
>you can accept that, you should be able to accept the addition of a soul to
>man.
>
Interesting point.  Actually, it was explicitly stated somewhere in
Genesis that prior to the flood, the earth's atmosphere was different
and rain was something unheard of.  It could be that rainbows are non-
existent prior to the flood because of this different scheme of things.
That is why in Heb 11, it is said that Noah set about to build a ship
out of believing God.  It certainly takes faith then because floods
to him, were unheard of.

Regards,
Selbyn Liew
==========================================================================
Dept. of EE Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3052, Australia
EMAIL: sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au    PH: +61-3-3447976   FAX: +61-3-3446678
==========================================================================
From: fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson)
Subject: Re: Hell & Causation.
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 05:31:37 GMT

gar@cltr.uq.oz.au (Greg Restall) writes:

>OK.  That's a definition.  I don't particularly like it,
>I use the word `relevant' to mean something more like 
>"ought to change the way I live" instead of "does change
>the way I live".  

I assume you mean "ought" in terms of I ought to do X <=> my
[after]life will be objectively better if I do X.  Well, there you
go.  All I can say is that I was using relevant in the "does change"
sense.

>*The only link between Hell and Earth is belief, so if you cut
>*belief then there is no link.  QED.

>The argument is valid but not sound.  Plausible second connection
>between Hell and Earth (granting Hell's existence).  God knows
>about Hell, and because of it, God acts with regard to us in
>particular ways that he wouldn't otherwise.  (Namely, he tells
>us about it.)  Hence, there is a connection.  It is one we may
>not acknowledge, but that alone isn't enough to ensure that 
>it's not there.  (I may not believe in America, but the things
>people tell me about it still effects me despite this.  And 
>they wouldn't be telling me about America if it didn't exist,
>so this is a causal connection between America and me.)

I guess it comes down once again to the question of whether you
believe what God tells us, and whether you believe he is there
telling us in the first place.  I'm not sure that you can make
the analogy between Hell and America stick:  people will tell
you about their God/Religion even if they happen to be wrong.
In terms of your analogy, in fact people *would* tell me about
America.  Perhaps they were brought up to believe that this
country exists, even though they themselves have never seen it.

In the end, things which don't exist can affect us.  The ether
through which light was supposed (in the sense of suppozed) to
propagate inspired several experiments to determine Earth's
absolute velocity.  From my POV, the causal link you suggest
between Hell and Earth is no different.

Fraser.
From: lhccjeh@lure.latrobe.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Creation-Evolution-What's the point?
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:07:21 GMT
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University

All this chatter about creation vs evolution is certainly using up bandwidth.
I for one though can't really see what the problem is.
There seems to be    camps, each with a particular basis of belief that
precludes acceptance of any arguments from another camp [or basis of belief].
We have those that believe solely in evolution- No God needed.
We have those that believe in God, and that He created the world, but that
the events in Genesis are simply a "poetical" way of describing things.
These two camps can at least co-exist as far as evolution and creationism
are concerned.
The we have those who believe that the events depicted in the Bible accounts
are the literal truth. This camp will never be able to fit in with
an evolutionary argument.
Of course, there is also the camp that doesn't believe God created the world
at all :-) and for this camp all the arguments are just exercises in 
words.
Which camp is right (if any?) simply cannot be proven as to do so would
require a change in the basis of belief of the other camp(s) that didn't
hold to that belief.
Now I guess some of you out there just like to have a natter, and are not
really ;-) trying to convince or convert anyone. Maybe some of you are.
Whatever, don't you think it could be more fruitful to discuss themes that
do not rely so strongly on the fundamentals so to speak?
That way we may get to hear views that we are able to consider (and discard,
if appropriate) without thinking that our very basis of belief is under
attack. You see the truth doesn't need defence. So if your belief, is the 
truth, don't worry yourself about defending it. It is safe.

Just some thoughts...

In Christ,


James
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
James Hale     			Lincoln School of Health Sciences
Computing Unit			La Trobe University,Bundoora, AUSTRALIA
                                
James.Hale@Latrobe.Edu.Au
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The grace of God rests gently on forgiving eyes,
and everything they look on speaks of Him to the beholder.
He can see no evil, nothing in the world to fear,
and no one who is different from himself."
						Text, P 418
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: iant@cc.uow.edu.au (Ian Tait)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:29:55 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: University Of Wollongong

Phil, I'm not in the habit of flaming anyone but hardest thing I find
to swallow is your logic.......

>First of all I must state that I find evolution a bit hard to swallow.  God
>created man differently to the other animals - man has a soul.  It seems strange
>that God would evolve humans from another species and then place a soul into
>it.

You know the mind of God? - If s/he wants to evolve humans from another
species why shouldn't s/he include a soul

>Also, there is evidence about prehistoric animals before man was evolved.
>Some of these were obviously carnivores - therefore they killed.  But God
>created the world perfect, without death.  i.e. nothing died.

If nothing died then nothing was born either or we would have had wall to 
wall living things. Your speculation defies logic and the observed evidence.
You cannot have fossils of LIVING organisms!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Now comes my theory...

>If God created the world perfect there would be no death.  Everything would
>be perfect.  But if man sinned, suddenly imperfection would enter and permeate
>all of creation.  To me this is like a discontinuity on the time line of man.
>That is why I don't trust the theories modern day scientists have to offer
>about the origins of man.  How can they predict back to a time when a
>discontinuity blocks their path?  They can't.  Their predictions will be
>false.  It's difficult to explain without a graph.  Consider;

1. You don't predict back, you predict forward.
2. Your argument is based on an assumption ("if man sinned...imperfection
would enter...") which is then used as a fact to prove your conclusion 
("a discontinuity blocks their path")
3. It is impossible to explain even with a graph

>	   world.  From that point until now science can predict (I assume)
>	   quite accurately what happened.  If they try to predict further
>	   back they will be entering into a region which science can't possibly
>	   know about.  I will even go so far as to say that modern physics
>	   wouldn't even describe that time.  The world was in a totally alien
>	   state to what it is now.

Science is quite comfortable with describing and interpreting the past and it 
will place limits of confidence on those descriptions based on the amount
of data available. Science is even arrogant enough to commence its description
of the universe right from the first few millionths of a second after time 
itself commenced.
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Subject: no thrills from  no frills 
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:13:41 GMT

callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson) writes:

>... Christianity is a No-frills religion. 

I disagree: it is incredibly rich and ever unfolding. A puritan style of 
religion does suit some people, but it is more bleak than God demands:
he enjoys religious acts done by his church.

> That's exactly what Jesus told the Pharisees.  He said
>forget about your religious works, love God and let that love guide your
>actions.  

Did he? He was baptised, and that was a religious act: he wanted his
disciples to baptize too. He instituted religious acts too: communion
for one. He was against hypocrisy and attempts to pridefully earn salvation
outside of an integrated good and faithful life.

>Galations explains clearly that salvation is a gift from God (through the
>death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ) and not derived from any of
>man's acts, and we are instructed to love God and love our neighbour with
>guidance from the Holy Spirit.  That's bare bones Christianity for you.

You seem to think that Catholic religious acts are a hinderance to 
following Jesus: on the contrary, I have found the ones I am required to
do (baptism, confirmation, confession, communion, fasting) wonderfully useful.
I am not required to follow any other Catholic customs (crossing myself,
praying with the Rosary, kissing the feet of statues, lighting candles, 
decorating my home with Italian kitsch) by the church. 

-ricko
From: cbrasted@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Charles Brasted)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Date: 27 Aug 92 06:33:15 GMT

bill@bain3.bain.oz.au (Bill Richardson) writes:

I am generally not inclined to voice my opinion on what essentially is
non-argument - the topic is not, but the way in which it is being discussed is
rather rhetorical and non-rigorous.  But I really do have to comment on the
following.  


>As I mentioned in a previous post, it is mathematically 'impossible' for life
>to have evolved in the time span allotted (ie < 1 chance in one billion). 
>Additionally, the conditions for life to continue are each as mathematically
>'impossible'. eg Hubbles constant. 

Completely wrong, I'm afraid.  The probability for life to evolve IS very
small, however this is hardly an argument for accepting creation as correct. 
If you repeat an experiment a large enough number of times, events with very 
small probabilities will subsequently have a higher chance of occurring.  Now,
since we humans could not have appreciated these previous "trys", since the
conditions prevalent could not produce humans to do the observing we are now
placed in a position where we can only appreciate what we HAVE observed.  This
narrow view leads to (in all areas) incorrect views.  Simply, it is not
unusual that the universe is the way it is because if it was different we
would not be here to observe it.  If this concept is difficult to grasp read a
book about it.  The principle is called the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE.   

BY the way, I think you are either confused about what Hubbles constant
actually is, or you did not read what you were typing.  The way you wrote what
you wrote made no sense at all.


>Your research should have told you this.
>Many branches of science, but specifically physicists are now excepting many
 							       ^^^^^^^^^	 
>of these 'coincidences' as supportive of creationism, if only for the reason 
>that the overwhelming sense of order when *viewing the universe as the
>						      ~~~~~~~~
>eternally viable entity that it appears to be* indicates a being bigger than
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>the universe in charge.  
>  

I would be curious to know a few of the names of these "many" physicists who
are accepting creation because the universe looks ordered.  These "cosmic
coincidences" can be generally explained using tested laws of physics.  Unless
of course you have grounds to dispute experimental results, I think your
arguments are slightly spurious.  How can you possibly, on one hand, say that
the overall structure of the universe is scientific evidence for creation, and
then on the other hand ignore realms of damning scientific evidence for popular
creationsim.  I urge you to read some literature on objective thinking.


> I believe you are looking at the small picture.

What sort of a statement is that?  Although it does seem to fit into the theme
of the rest of your post, although it seems slightly malicious rather than
constructive.

Cheers

Charles
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:18:47 GMT

psm@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Phil Malin) writes:

>I'm afraid that to me this does not make sense.  The bible states that
>God _created_ the living creatures blessing them and saying "be fruitful
>and increase in number..."

This highlights a problem with taking the bible too literally.  Was the
Earth infinitely big back then?  Because if God wanted the animals to
multiply, and yet didn't want any of them to die, it would have needed 
to be.  To stop filling up you see.

Oh, and where was all the food going to come from?

Fraser.
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 06:04:29 GMT

 
 
Bill Richardson writes:
>As I mentioned in a previous post, it is mathematically 'impossible' for life
>to have evolved in the time span allotted (ie < 1 chance in one billion). 
>Additionally, the conditions for life to continue are each as mathematically
>'impossible'. eg Hubbles constant. Your research should have told you this.
>Many branches of science, but specifically physicists are now excepting many 
>of these 'coincidences' as supportive of creationism, if only for the reason 
>that the overwhelming sense of order when *viewing the universe as the
						      ~~~~~~~~
>eternally viable entity that it appears to be* indicates a being bigger than
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>the universe in charge. I believe you are looking at the small picture. 

Now I have a PhD in mathematics, so I would be curious to know how it is
mathematically impossible for life to have evolved in the alloted time span.
I believe, and I do not mean this as a flame, that you have no idea what you
are talking about. Hubbles constant is involved in estimating the age of
the universe. What does it have to do with the continuation of life. Basically
it measurers the rate of expansion of the universe. 
As far as your claim that many branches of science are now supporting
creationism, you are mistaken. What has happened is that some physicists,
notably Paul Davies believe that the order in the universe indicates that 
there is an underlying design to the universe. This has nothing to do with
creation vs. evolution. Creationism, the claim that the world was created
exactly as the literal interpretation of Genesis would have us believe,
has no scientific support whatsoever. Zilch. That is what my research leads
me to.  
> Yours in Scepticism,
> Mark C.
> .

>Where Catholicism has a pope, Scepticism has a rope.

Scepticism is a powerful aid in sorting sense from nonsense. (I can almost
feel a response from Greg coming).

Mark C.