HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster)
Subject: Christianity is Dead!
Organization: The Tickle Palace - Moonyvale, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 09:57:43 GMT


     Christianity is Dead!  Long Live Rationality!!!

-- 
                                         +---------------------------------+
  +-----------------------------------+ /      Not a net.personality      /
 /   // Mr. Tickle Monster   // Amiga ++---------------------------------+
|  \X/   W. David Rohwer   \X/  3000  /  Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM  /
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Mary
Date: 16 Dec 92 07:53:15 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au writes:

>Now back to the thread - in the greek text we see that Mary was made pregnant
>by 'hagios pneumatos', ie the POWER of the holy spirit, which is reasonable,
>since the alternative, the PERSON of the holy spirit, would imply that
>fornication had occurred between Mary and the Holy Spirit. If that were so,
>and Jesus was born of fornication, then he could not be a perfect sacrifice. 
>That is anathema to Christians. 

Do you mean that the Holy Spirit did not become incarnate as a man
to cause the incarnation? I don't understand the point, but it 
sounds interesting.

-ricko
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: the Seven Sacraments: Reconciliation (was Eucharist Miracle)
Date: 11 Dec 92 02:34:02 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au writes:

>I'm not sure if those two versions are different.  To me, discerning the body
>& blood means looking at the sacrifice involved, and what my reaction to that
>has been in terms of my actions, ie, examining my conscience. 

Yes, I think there should be that connection. But I think perhaps Catholics
this of the initial discernment as being of the sacrifice of Christ
especially as it is really re-presented in the Body and Blood, as in 
John 6.

But, perhaps we have wandered a little bit: I was initially thinking about
what I had actually heard in preaching. Andrew L emailed me to point
out that the Anglican liturgy specifically quotes the Corinthian passage:
in my 10 months at St Barnabas on Broadway here I went at night normally,
which wasn't a communion service, if my memory serves me well. So if I
didn't actually hear preaching on conscience doesn't mean it wasn't there,
I should say in fairness: it could well have been reserved for the communion
services.

-ricko
From: bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: the Seven Sacraments: Reconciliation (was Eucharist Miracle)
Date: 11 Dec 92 11:29:42 CST
Distribution: aus
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation

In article <ricko.723879253@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>>In article <ricko.723367528@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>>> In about 10 years of experience with charismatics and pentecostals, I
>>> never once heard anyone say that it is useful to examine your conscience.

My intervening bit deleted...

> I have experience of communion from over 100 different
> speakers at the two biggest Pente churches in Sydney. And that passage is
> often more used for examining oneself to see if one discerns the body and
> blood of Christ in the comunion (i.e. and not take communion lightly)
> whenever I've heard it. 

I'm not sure if those two versions are different.  To me, discerning the body
& blood means looking at the sacrifice involved, and what my reaction to that
has been in terms of my actions, ie, examining my conscience. 

John Bennett                                   bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
From: bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Mary
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:05:15 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation

In article <ricko.724049031@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
> But I think the Incarnation is fundamentally a mystery: God
> just hasn't provided any information about its mechanism, so all we
> know is that it happened, and that Mary was the genuine mother, and 
> there was no earthly father.

Interesting sideline here.... I heard David Pawson speak of a study published
in "Expository Times" (anyone know of it ?) a few years back on the use of the
definite article in relation to the Holy Spirit in the Greek text. 

(The definite article is the word 'the', so in Greek we have 
       'hagios pneumatos -     holy spirit' 
and 'ho hagios pneumatos - THE holy spirit').

The author studied the occasions in the text where the definite article 'ho - 
the' was included, and when it wasn't.  There are *about* 90 occurrences in
the NT, and with 1 exception, he concluded that when the definite article is
included, the reference is to the PERSON of the holy spirit, and when the
definite article is not included the reference is to the POWER of the holy
spirit. 

Now back to the thread - in the greek text we see that Mary was made pregnant
by 'hagios pneumatos', ie the POWER of the holy spirit, which is reasonable,
since the alternative, the PERSON of the holy spirit, would imply that
fornication had occurred between Mary and the Holy Spirit. If that were so,
and Jesus was born of fornication, then he could not be a perfect sacrifice. 
That is anathema to Christians. 

BUT I have noted that the definite article is (apparently arbitrarily) left
out in connection with other nouns in the greek text.  Is there a Greek
scholar on the net who can further enlighten me on this ? 

Regards,

John Bennett                                   bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Sacramental as anything
Date: 18 Dec 92 05:33:06 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie) writes:

>ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:

>>If Catholics just before the Reformation had paid more atention to the
>>sacraments, and less attention to "sacramentals", the Reformers would have
>>had far fewer currupt practises to feel scandalized about, as far as I can see.

>Sorry, I don't understand your distinction.  Could you spell out what
>the difference is between a sacrament and a sacramental?

Sorry. Sacramentals are the other little practises of the 
church that you can do if you want. For example, praying using
Rosary beads (an amazing thing: especially the full German style rosary),
reading scripture maybe, crossing yourself, lighting candles
when you make a specific prayer request, blessed water, doing the stations of
the cross (meditating and praying using 14 depictions of various events 
follwing Jesus from his trial to his crucifiction; almost all Catholic 
churches have a set of these around the church, unless it is a recent
building and the faithful haven't bought a set yet), etc, etc. 
They are just pious acts that are potentially of benefit to you, and like
a bit from the outside as if they might be sacraments, but aren't
for one reason or other. 

They are all extrinsic to the Catholicism, though not bad in
themselves (in fact, *good* in themselve). There is no obligation
that a Catholic has to do any of these things 

-ricko
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Different angle on Communion
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:00:13 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au
Cc: andrewl@witzend.ausonics.oz.au  

Not this topic again!

I read a different angle recently, which may help answer the question
someone posted a few months ago on why actual communion is actually so prized
in Catholicism, given the doctrines of intent and spiritual communion
(i.e. that the heart receipt is the crux).

This article said that there were several kinds of offerings in Jesus' day:
holocuast (total destruction), and peace/communion offerings (a sacrifice,
and then the eating of the flesh) being two. Passover was of this communion
type. 

The idea is that the eating is the act that completes the sacrifice, in a
sense: it is intrinsically bound to it. So when we take Eucharist, we are
putting ourselves in with the disciples at the Last Supper, and take part in
that ritual where Jesus acts as priest, and then, the next day, as victim. 

As Jesus said, "Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his
blood...". That is the basis of the line often in the western Catholic (oops I
thought I vowed to use Universal) liturgy "Whoever eats this bread will live
forever". Its not a mechanical thing; it is the acceptance of the new
covenant using the sacrificial ritual Jesus adopted.

Hope that explains it a bit better,

-ricko
From: bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Interpretation of Scripture
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:42:36 CST
Distribution: aus
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation

In article <ricko.724041844@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
> 
> The comment you repint below about their methodology is my attempted
> explaination. 
> 
>>> For instance: should Christians tithe? This is a pressing issue in many
>>> Pentie churches. The Pente methodology is explicitly "well that's what God
>>> told me: trust me because you trust my spirituality". 

Sorry, I don't accept that explanation.  The methodology is along the lines : 
"It's in the Bible so do it".

> In both these cases, the church doctrine was overseen by a head pastor,
> who said God had led him to found this church. A pentecostal would
> beleive him, and trust him, because of his spirituality (signs, wonders,
> faith, grasp of scripture, etc) as far as that was discernable. 

In other words, "By their fruit you will recognise them"

> (As far as tithing, it is not something I am interested in, so please excuse
> me if I refrain from persuing that topic.)

Sure, but will God ? :-)

Regards,

John Bennett                                   bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Interpretation of Scripture
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:00:41 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au writes:

>In article <ricko.724041844@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>> 
>>>> For instance: should Christians tithe? This is a pressing issue in many
>>>> Pentie churches. The Pente methodology is explicitly "well that's what God
>>>> told me: trust me because you trust my spirituality". 

>Sorry, I don't accept that explanation.  The methodology is along the lines : 
>"It's in the Bible so do it".

Yes, that's present too. But it is not a methodology distinctive of
pentecostalism.

>> In both these cases, the church doctrine was overseen by a head pastor,
>> who said God had led him to found this church. A pentecostal would
>> beleive him, and trust him, because of his spirituality (signs, wonders,
>> faith, grasp of scripture, etc) as far as that was discernable. 

>In other words, "By their fruit you will recognise them"

Yes, that's what they justify themselves by. But to me it eventually
didn't work in their favour. I think that there is a contradiction in a
preacher being able to switch from "believe me because of the works I do"
to "the gifts of God are without repentence" as the situation demands.

I should say that I am not embittered towards pentecostalism, and found
most pastors to be men of love and integrity IMHO.

-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (C. G. Albone)
Subject: Re: Mary
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: aus
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:10:19 GMT

In article <528@aldetec.oz.au> mawson@aldetec.oz.au (Graeme Mawson) writes:
>As far as I see it, Mary didn't even provide Jesus with an X chromosome (sp?)

Unless something even more strange than God causing a virgin to become pregnant,
Mary could not help but give Jesus an X chromosome, It is the Y one that would
have been a little hard for her to obtain without help. Well, even the Koran
does say that God can do anything that God wants, so how hard would it be for
God to cause a virgin to become pregnant?

>or anything biological.  She was *not* his true mother in "every sense of the
>way we understand motherhood".  She was only the surrogate mother.  So, I see
>her as the surrogate mother of Jesus the man.  Jesus has no *true* mother, as
>He is the Creator of all things.

Well, I guess in the normal case, when we talk about biological motherhood,
we aren't normally dealing with cases of immaculate conception . But there is
a difference here between surrogates and Mary. The differnence is in terms of
the relationship with the child afterwards. Surrogate mothers normally turn
the child over to someone else for them to rear. This did not happen in the
case of Jesus, Mary raised Jesus herself. It is not really a case that she bore
someone else's child, but that she bore her own child: just in a strange 
fashion. So, Mary was the mother of Jesus, the Galilean Jew. Unless , of course
you are not willing to grant that a woman that has a child by artificial 
insemination (sp?) is not really the mother of her child too... In whichcase,
your notion of motherhood and what I at least understand the common notion of
motherhood to be are quite different.
>
>None of this takes away from the fact that Jesus and his earthly mother Mary
>must have had a very special relationship.  But then, so did Simon Peter and
>Jesus, and John and Jesus, and so do many Christians today ...

This last claim is interesting. Of course it is a matter of faith that there
still is a Jesus to have a relationship with.. Hmm... I am very tempted to ask
how you know that you do indeed have a relationship with Jesus...


---
Chris
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Interpretation of Scripture
Date: 11 Dec 92 02:44:04 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au writes:

>In article <ricko.723876671@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>> And I don't think its a straw man at all. The fastest growing denomination
>> is penetcostalism: it has a highly rational approach to authority and
>> sciptural interpretaion, but has no impersonal way of deciding between
>> competing claims.

>Care to explain what you mean by that last bit ?

The comment you repint below about their methodology is my attempted
explaination. 

>> For instance: should Christians tithe? This is a pressing issue in many
>> Pentie churches. The Pente methodology is explicitly "well that's what God
>> told me: trust me because you trust my spirituality". 

>Which Pentecostal churches have you been mixing with ???  That certainly isn't 
>the AOG approach, which is along the lines of - "Yes, you should tithe (with
>scriptural backup), but we can't/won't make you, that's between you and God, 
>but don't expect God to keep his part of the deal if you don't"

AOG (CLC Sydney & northern Beaches), CCC (Dee Why).

In both these cases, the church doctrine was overseen by a head pastor,
who said God had led him to found this church. A pentecostal would
beleive him, and trust him, because of his spirituality (signs, wonders,
faith, grasp of scripture, etc) as far as that was discernable. 

(As far as tithing, it is not something I am interested in, so please excuse
me if I refrain from persuing that topic.)


-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Subject: Re: Images, Mary, Saints
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:16:59 GMT

I'm back from holiday, and there are 53 messages in this group...
I'll be selective in what I try to respond to.

ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:

>And on a theological note, Jesus perfectly followed the Law, which
>includes honouring father (the Father)  and mother (Mary). But he was
>never involuntarily subject to sin, except on the cross when he became sin.
>God's holiness would be compomised by honour Mary if she was sinful: it
>would be validating sin. So God, through his foreknowledge and prevenient
>Grace, kept Mary from sin, which Mary explicitly agreed to and wanted
>(as so should we all). Where Eve made the wrong choice, Mary made the
>right one.

I don't follow the reasoning here.  Are you saying that an unborn baby
is subject to sin because it is borne by a sinful person?  If I grant
you that, I could see how you would get that Mary would be without sin
during the time of her pregnancy.  How does it follow that Mary would
be without sin for the rest of her life?  If it was necessary that Mary
be without sin in bringing up Jesus, would not also Joseph have to be
without sin?

As I see it, we have an assumption made (that Jesus was not associated
with sin through Mary), and the rest follows from this.  Since the
assumption is pretty strange to my mind, I don't go along with the
consequential argument.
--
John Brownie
School of Mathematics and Statistics   |    Wycliffe Bible Translators
University of Sydney NSW 2006          |    Graham Rd
Internet: jhb@maths.su.oz.au           |    Kangaroo Ground Vic 3097 AUSTRALIA
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Mary
Date: 11 Dec 92 04:43:51 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

mawson@aldetec.oz.au (Graeme Mawson) writes:

>Hi guys, I wish to disagree with Rick here, but I quote Grenville because I
>don't even agree with Rick as much as Grenville does.  Buy, did that confuse
>you or what??

I disagree with you more than I disagree with John Brownie, who I hardly even
disagree with mostly, but more often. I am disagreeable to Grenville though,
and confused to Austen. 

>As far as I see it, Mary didn't even provide Jesus with an X chromosome (sp?)
>or anything biological.  She was *not* his true mother in "every sense of the
>way we understand motherhood".  She was only the surrogate mother.  So, I see
>her as the surrogate mother of Jesus the man.  Jesus has no *true* mother, as
>He is the Creator of all things.

In Isaiah it says a virgin would *conceive*. As far as you see it, Isaiah
was wrong. But I think the Incarnation is fundamentally a mystery: God
just hasn't provided any information about its mechanism, so all we
know is that it happened, and that Mary was the genuine mother, and 
there was no earthly father.

Christians should emphasize the reality of the incarnation, and not
spiritualize it: God gave himself a belly-button.

-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ripng@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (PAUL NG)
Subject: Sacramentals
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 10:05:54 GMT


jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie) writes:
Subject: Re: What is a Sacrament?
Sorry, I don't understand your distinction.  Could you spell out what
the difference is between a sacrament and a sacramental?

***
Sacramentals = things used to aid in the performance of the sacraments. 

Greetings of the season,
Paul.


 

Newsgroups: aus.mail
From: janet@cs.uwa.oz.au (Janet Jackson)
Subject: Re: university of darwin address??? (urgent)
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, University of Western Australia.
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:42:24 GMT

Northern Territory University (I think that's the right name) is
   ntu.edu.au
One host is pandanus.ntu.edu.au, 138.80.128.18.  No idea which department
that is, or if it's the computer centre.

Janet Jackson
<janet@cs.uwa.edu.au>
Department of Computer Science
The University of Western Australia
Newsgroups: aus.mail
From: rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift)
Subject: Re: mail server for poor man's FTP
Organization: -=[ Curtin University of Technology ]=-  Perth  Australia
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 14:45:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.171105.4233@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, u5533129@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes:
> 
> Is there a mail server anywhere which will mail files to users who can't get
> them by FTP?
> 

Send mail to
FTPMAIL@cs.uow.edu.au

and put the line
help

in the message.

Rod
-- 
|            . . .   . . . . .          "It leaves us galloping up Diarrhoea|
|        +  +  +     +  +  +  +  +                  Drive without a saddle."|
|    *   *   *       *   *   *   *   *                                      |
|R    o    d         S    w    i    f    t        -- Kryten from "Red Dwarf"|
+-----------------------------------+---------+-----------------------------+
|  Curtin University of Technology  |  Perth  |  RSWIFTRW@cc.Curtin.edu.au  |
Newsgroups: aus.mail
From: brent@socs.uts.edu.au (Disco Inferno Curtis)
Subject: Re: From lines in mail header
Reply-To: brent@socs.uts.edu.au
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:18:58 GMT

(Andy Linton) writes:

 >RFC 822 is dated 1982 and RFC 1123 is dated 1123 - seems like plenty of time
 >to have got this correct.                   ^^^^


Eight hundred and sixty-nine years, to be precise.

Maybe his sysop died of old age.

No worries, Andy, it was a simple typo but it amused my small mind.

----------------------------------------------------------
"I'd like to be the kind of person   |   Brent Curtis
 who gets visited by Mozart four     |   School of CompSci
 hundred years after my death.       |   UTS
 That is serious celebrity."         |   New South Wales
Newsgroups: aus.mail