HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Horst Hogenkamp asks Why frequent communion?
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:40:41 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

horst@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de (Horst Hogenkamp) writes:

>Why do you want to have a frequent communion?

Jetzt gibt es hier ein Deutscher! St Thomas Aquinas says:
"Two considerations about the reception of the sacrament. The first
regards the sacrament itself, the virtue of which is salutary to man:
consequently, it is profitable to receive it daily, so as to gather its
fruits daily. Hence Ambrose says, 'if whenever Christ's blood is shed, it
is shed for the forgiveness of sins, I, who sin often, should receive it
often; I need a frequent remedy'.    The second regards the recipient, who
is required to approach this sacrament with great reverence and devotion.
Consequently, if someone finds he has these dispositions every day, he
does well to receive daily." 

"Augustine , after saying, 'receive daily that it may profit you daily',
adds, 'So live as to deserve to receive it daily'. (ST IIIa q80 a10)
----------------------
To be more specific though, the Nichol's book The Holy Eucharist says
there are often three fruits of the Mass spoken of:

* the special fruit: the celebrant and the lay faithful who cocelebrate 
the mass (i.e. ordinary people) receive a blessing from it (this of course
requires devotion or receptivity by the recipient). They are drawing close
to Christ in his death, so it should not be surprising to anyone that God
responds with grace and mercy.

* general or universal fruit: every Mass is also offered for the whole
Church (which potentially includes all mankind of course). That is why
Catholics believe only a priest can offer the Mass: the sacrament of Holy
Order makes him represent the church,  a living prayer that God is
happy to answer, that when the priest offers the Mass he does it for the
benefit of all the church. 

* immediate fruit: this is where the mass is used as a prayer for a
particular person or end, as freely applied by its celebrant. Again it is
no more magical than prayer.
--------------------
And finally, about the nature of this fruit, here's what a Gabriel Biel of
Thuebingen (Luther was keen on him before going mad) said: The Eucharist
"is a salutary and efficacious sign through which the salvation gained at
such great a cost should flow to the redeemed... Whatsoever Christ our
Saviour merited for men (liberation from evil, and bestowal of good,
whether on earth, on purgatory or in heaven) when he offered himself on
the Cross as a general redemption for us all, is applied to each in
particular through (the Mass)". 

And as far as personal details go, I don't take daily communion. But I
think that if I loved Jesus more, I'd also naturally want daily communion
more. Any Catholics out there have any testamony?

-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson)
Subject: Re: God and Science: Are they incompatible?
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:35:16 GMT

ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>The central question I have heard is that human genetic engineering involves
>experiments on humans, something worthy Nazis. In order to perfect
>the techniques, humans would be killed or mained. The question of a right
>to tamper with genes comes after whether its right to kill babies in
>grizly experiments. And if an experiment produces a dud, is it right to
>kill the freak? I think anyone civilized would say no to such an enterprise.

Anyone civilised would say no to butchering living organisms capable of
suffering, and more than likely capable of awareness, for food, especially
when one takes into account that the dead flesh from such organisms is
in no way essential in our diet.

Watch how you use the word 'civilised'.

(off my soapbox now)

Fraser.
======================================================================== \._,
Can death be sleep, when life is but a dream  | Fraser Wilson,           < /
And scenes of bliss pass as a phantom by?     | Melbourne University     _'
The transient pleasures as a vision seem      | fraser@cs.mu.OZ.AU      //
And yet we think the greatest pain's to die.  | Phone - (03) 344-7877  // NZ!
============================meat is murder===================================
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage)
Subject: Re: God & Science
Organization: Basket Weavers, Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:03:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.232136.315@ucc.su.OZ.AU> pope@physics.su.OZ.AU (The Nightstalker) writes:
	[..]
>Read some church history, and see how squeaky clean they were, NOT, at times.

[Translation for aussies not yet into hip waynes-world talk]
"Read some church history, and see how squeaky clean they weren't, at times."

gja - fighting rear-guard action against 'NOT'.
From: phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: God and Science: Are they incompatible?
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:17:51 +1100
Distribution: aus
Organization: Monash University - Melbourne. Australia.

In article <ricko.721985667@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, ricko@ee.uts.edu.au
(Rick Jelliffe) writes:
> pope@physics.su.OZ.AU (The Nightstalker) writes:
> 
>>The following article appeared in The Physics Society of Sydneys
>>journal "Jeremy", this year.
> 
>>God and Science: are they incompatible?
> 
>>... two points to make. One is that a view held by the church may not always
>>reflect the God which it represents, for does the Bible say that the earth is
>>flat or that it is at the centre of the universe.  Even the poorest scholar
>>can see that it does not, yet these are views that the church has held in
>>the past and persecuted physicists for rightly showing these views to be wrong.
> 
> The Galileo affair was not about the if the earth was flat. This is a general
> myth that is also held about Columbus (i.e. that he proved them wrong). 
> Which scientists are being talked of? 

But the "Galileo affair" was about showing that the earth may not be
the centre of the universe.  He observed rings (and moons?) around Saturn
which showed that not everything revolved around the earth.  This did not
sit well with the church authorities of the time.

As far as I know, no-one was persecuted for believing that the earth
was round, when the church may have said otherwise.  However, I know
little about this aspect.

>>Then there is the case more to do with genetics and so on, where the moral
>>issues become greater.  Does the scientist have the right to make decisions
>>over the genetic makeup of the human species, or is that purely the ground of
>>a God that created?  
> 
> The central question I have heard is that human genetic engineering involves
> experiments on humans, something worthy Nazis. In order to perfect
> the techniques, humans would be killed or mained. The question of a right
> to tamper with genes comes after whether its right to kill babies in
> grizly experiments. And if an experiment produces a dud, is it right to
> kill the freak? I think anyone civilized would say no to such an enterprise.

Although you bring up a valid point about the state of affairs with 
human genetic engineering at this present time, I think the author
was speculating on the moral right to do any genetic tampering
at all, even if it could be done without horrible accidents/side-effects.

There are many great benefits that could arise eg. eliminating genetic
diseases, improving immunity, repairing disorders etc.  Should we
neglect this area of research because God created mankind in a certain
pattern?  Or are we allowed to improve on it?  (Of course, what is
considered "improvement" can be subjective).

> -ricko

-- 
Don Lowe, Department of Physics, Monash University, 
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3168.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ins358d@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr Richard Lee)
Subject: Re: BarCodes and 666
Organization: Monash University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:46:30 GMT

G'day everyone,

There has been quite a fair bit of discussion about the number 666, and 
computer barcodes.  My question is "Why the number '666'?" (with reference
to the Bible).  Why not "111", "222", "333", etc?

What is so significant about this number "666"?

I'm just curious about other people's response to this.  Hope to hear from 
anyone.

Thanks,
Richard L (ins358d@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au)

Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson)
Subject: Re: God & Science
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:38:40 GMT

gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.232136.315@ucc.su.OZ.AU> pope@physics.su.OZ.AU (The Nightstalker) writes:
>	[..]
>>Read some church history, and see how squeaky clean they were, NOT, at times.

>[Translation for aussies not yet into hip waynes-world talk]
>"Read some church history, and see how squeaky clean they weren't, at times."

If you were to read some church history, you would find that they weren't
exactly squeaky clean, some of the time.

Fraser.
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: nigel@saturn.socs.uts.edu.au (Nigel Pearson)
Subject: Re: BarCodes and 666
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 03:33:18 GMT

>>What is so significant about this number "666"?

	1 Kings 1-11 describe the process of the wisest man in the world,
the Isrealite king Solomon, selling out to foreign women and Gods.

	1 Kings 10:14 - Solomon received 666 talents of gold a year.

	I think that at the time it was written, the 666 symbolism in
Revelation would have warned it's Scripture literate readers of turning
their backs on God's wisdom.

--
    Nigel Pearson, research dog's-body @ University of Technology, Sydney.
 
   AARNet: nigel@socs.uts.edu.au         Talk: (Sydney) 330 1799 or 330 1816
   Hardcopy: Nigel Pearson, SOCS, UTS, PO Box 123, BROADWAY, Australia, 2007
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: God and Science: Are they incompatible?
Date: 17 Nov 92 07:34:27 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

pope@physics.su.OZ.AU (The Nightstalker) writes:

>The following article appeared in The Physics Society of Sydneys
>journal "Jeremy", this year.

>God and Science: are they incompatible?

>... two points to make. One is that a view held by the church may not always
>reflect the God which it represents, for does the Bible say that the earth is
>flat or that it is at the centre of the universe.  Even the poorest scholar
>can see that it does not, yet these are views that the church has held in
>the past and persecuted physicists for rightly showing these views to be wrong.

The Galileo affair was not about the if the earth was flat. This is a general
myth that is also held about Columbus (i.e. that he proved them wrong). 
Which scientists are being talked of? 

>Then there is the case more to do with genetics and so on, where the moral
>issues become greater.  Does the scientist have the right to make decisions
>over the genetic makeup of the human species, or is that purely the ground of
>a God that created?  

The central question I have heard is that human genetic engineering involves
experiments on humans, something worthy Nazis. In order to perfect
the techniques, humans would be killed or mained. The question of a right
to tamper with genes comes after whether its right to kill babies in
grizly experiments. And if an experiment produces a dud, is it right to
kill the freak? I think anyone civilized would say no to such an enterprise.

-ricko
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: God and Science: Are they incompatible?
Date: 17 Nov 92 07:25:14 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

pope@physics.su.OZ.AU (The Nightstalker) writes:

>The following article appeared in The Physics Society of Sydneys
>journal "Jeremy", this year.

>God and Science: are they incompatible?

>The church has never been too kind to the scientific mind, 

Apart from of course making a scientific mind possible, through
St Thomas Aquinas' soft realism and so on.

>and any challenge
>to the authority of the church has generally led to the perpetrator being
>branded a heretic.  

A person who does challenge the legitimate authority of the church is
a heretic (though I certainly agree with St Martin of Tours and St Ambrose
that heretics should not be executed, let me hasten to add). The Galilleo
apology recently seems to me to be a case where the church did not have
legitimate authority to speak: it should stick to matters of faith and
morals.

-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: God and Science: Are they incompatible?
Date: 23 Nov 92 04:37:54 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

>Although you bring up a valid point about the state of affairs with 
>human genetic engineering at this present time, I think the author
>was speculating on the moral right to do any genetic tampering
>at all, even if it could be done without horrible accidents/side-effects.

>There are many great benefits that could arise eg. eliminating genetic
>diseases, improving immunity, repairing disorders etc.  Should we
>neglect this area of research because God created mankind in a certain
>pattern?  Or are we allowed to improve on it?  (Of course, what is
>considered "improvement" can be subjective).

Is anyone actually proposing a death-free technological development path?
Or is it just a smoke-screen, presumable unintentional, to avoid the
looking at the way it actually will be: experiments on living humans,
women used as guinea pigs, many deaths due to experiments, and the
development of diagnostic tests to allow early detection and killing of
babies considered potentially imperfect. And, most certainly, foetus
farming in third world countries for the rich and immoral. 

I hope this isn't too awful for readers: already hospitals use aborted
foetus tissue in hospitals for experiments (e.g. a friend and former
employee at Sydney Eye Hostpital mentioned this to me only yesterday). And
other disturbing practises exist: for example, in order to get brain
matter for experiments in treating Parkinson's disease, ordinary methods
of abortion are not good enough, because they either kill or mash the
foetus too much, so the brain tissue is exracted before the abortion
proper takes place (according to World Catholic Report magazine): and we
are horrified by the isolated Japanese vivisection experiments in WWII!
Having seen my Grandfather die with Parkinson's, I know what a horrible
thing it is, but such a cure should be forbidden fruit. 

-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: apeel@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Andrew Peel)
Subject: Re: God & Science
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:26:01 GMT

ripng@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (PAUL NG) writes:

>What I'm trying to say is this: Suppression of ideas subsequently proven 
>correct has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION AND CERTAINLY NOTHING TO 
>DO WITH CHRISTIANITY OR THE CHURCH.  The Church was just doing its job as an 
>important element of government.  It tried to carry out its function as a 
>"filter" as best as it could, just like modern scientists function today as 
>checks on their colleagues' competency, via peer review.

>It seems to me to be the height of arrogance on the part of non-historians 
>who don't know what they are talking about, to bash the Church and religion 
>generally for suppressing Galileo (among others); if the Church wasn't 
>there to do it somebody else would come along and do it - otherwise society 
>would be flooded with useless ideas.

>People should instead be thankful (partially) for the fact that some 
>institution was around for the better part of European history after 
>Christ, to manage the flow of information in that society.  It wasn't 
>perfect but at least it was there.  So stop bashing religion for Galileo; if 
>you (whoever you are - atheists included) were alive then, you'd press for a 
>public examination of Galileo's ideas too.  And if you were alive then, 
>you'd look at Galileo's ideas through mediaeval eyes.  So you'd probably 
>reject Galileo's theories like the Church did.  

Under today's secular regime anyone is free to propose, and canvas, any
opinion, hypothesis, even religion, that they wish. Likewise, the rest of
society is free to believe or ignore these. Scrutiny of scientific work
by one's peers, whilest riddled with imperfections, does not persecute
anyone for having a contrary view. It just prvents them from being
published in credible journals.

Back in the good old days, Galileo was threatened with torture, and several
others were executed for advocating the 'Copernican Heresy'. The ignorance
of the Inquisition can justify their mistaken beliefs, but not the excessive
persicution. 

>So to all the anti-Church and anti-religionists out there, put up and shut 
>up.

So you thinks its OK for people to be killed because they don't happen to agree
with contempory philosophy.

Andrew Peel
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Peel.					University of Melbourne,
apeel@cs.mu.OZ.AU				Computer Science Dept.
Ph. (03) 344-4045	Fax. 61 3 348-1184	Parkville, 3052.  Australia.
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: davidmh@is.su.edu.au (David Martin Hill)
Subject: Re: BarCodes and 666
Followup-To: aus.religion
Organization: University of Sydney
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:42:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.014630.7586@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,
ins358d@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr Richard Lee) wrote:
> 
> What is so significant about this number "666"?
> 

Good point, considering some manuscripts have "616"...

I remember in the height of the Reagan rule that there were some that were
convinced it was he because of his name. Ronald Wilson Reagan. All three
names with six characters, symbolising 666.

The point is, stick to what the Bible teaches (ie: what Jesus taught when
he was here) and you can't go wrong.

> Thanks,
> Richard L (ins358d@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au)

David M Hill
University of Sydney
davidmh@is.su.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: c9037395@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Helen Lee)
Subject: Re: BarCodes and 666
Organization: Uni of Newcastle, Australia
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:01:02 GMT

ins358d@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr Richard Lee) writes:

>There has been quite a fair bit of discussion about the number 666, and 
>computer barcodes.  My question is "Why the number '666'?" (with reference
>to the Bible).  Why not "111", "222", "333", etc?

>What is so significant about this number "666"?

The number is from Rev 13:18
"This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight,
let him calculate the number of the beast, for
it is man's number. His number is 666." (NIV)

Rev 13:11-18 for a fuller (but by no means complete) account.

Cheers,
Helen
--
My .sig by H. Lee. Brackets Miss, brackets. This .sig goes as follows and
begins now. All VAXes are thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle
and then thin again at the far end. That is my .sig, it is mine, and belongs
to me and I own it, and what it is too.            c9037395@cs.newcastle.edu.au
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: God & Science
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:03:16 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson) writes:

>gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage) writes:

>>In article <1992Nov17.232136.315@ucc.su.OZ.AU> pope@physics.su.OZ.AU (The Nightstalker) writes:
>>	[..]
>>>Read some church history, and see how squeaky clean they were, NOT, at times.

>>[Translation for aussies not yet into hip waynes-world talk]
>>"Read some church history, and see how squeaky clean they weren't, at times."

>If you were to read some church history, you would find that they weren't
>exactly squeaky clean, some of the time.


#define 	SQUEAKY	clean
struct		history 
{
	void only_known_by_God;
} c_hist;
literate	you;

you=(read(c_hist)!=SQUEAKY); /* BUG: only some of the time. Look for saint.*/



-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: pope@physics.su.OZ.AU (The Nightstalker)
Subject: Re: God & Science
Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:21:36 GMT

In article <ripng.1.722008660@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au> ripng@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (PAUL NG) writes:
>What I'm trying to say is this: Suppression of ideas subsequently proven 
>correct has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION AND CERTAINLY NOTHING TO 
>DO WITH CHRISTIANITY OR THE CHURCH.  The Church was just doing its job as an 
>important element of government.  It tried to carry out its function as a 
>"filter" as best as it could, just like modern scientists function today as 
>checks on their colleagues' competency, via peer review.
>
>
>So to all the anti-Church and anti-religionists out there, put up and shut 
>up.

I am not anti church, being a member of one, but I doubt that all the time
the church suppresed something was purely out of pious faith in God.  Read
some church history, and see how squeaky clean they were, NOT, at times.

Your last comment was perhaps a little hot tempered.

Oh, and as much as I am fond of Andrew Prentice, the Voyager findings don't
entirely prove his modern Laplacian theory, which still needs work.

Chill out!


--

Mick Pope,                                          I      "On Christ the
Sir Frank Packer Dept of Theoretical Physics,   ----+----   solid rock I
School of Physics, University of Sydney,            I       stand, all other
Sydney, Australia, 2006.  (02) 692 3241             I       ground is sinking
                                                    I       sand." - C. Wesley
                                                    I 

And the comment for today is:  

          
"I'm going to sleep.  Wake me if if there is anything else we can
             screw up tonight" -James T. Kirk, Star Trek VI
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: john@physiol.su.OZ.AU (John Mackin)
Subject: Re: God & Science
Organization: Department of Physiology, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 12:05:09 GMT

In article <ripng.1.722008660@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au>,
	ripng@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (PAUL NG) writes:

> What I'm trying to say is this: Suppression of ideas subsequently proven 
> correct has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION AND CERTAINLY NOTHING TO 
> DO WITH CHRISTIANITY OR THE CHURCH.  The Church was just doing its job as an 
> important element of government.  It tried to carry out its function as a 
> "filter" as best as it could, just like modern scientists function today as 
> checks on their colleagues' competency, via peer review.

Oh, wow, wow.  This is just an _incredibly_ brilliant simile.  I
_love_ it!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about this one:

	From: The Journal of <insert discipline here>

	Dear Doctor Frumplenitz:

	We're sorry, but the panel who reviewed your paper `Some
	Notes on Applied Queegles' have decided that your statistical
	analysis was not sound.

	Accordingly, you are to be burnt at the stake at dawn, on
	Friday, June 2, in Stockholm.  Please present yourself
	promptly for this appointment.

	Yours very sincerely.

Look, Paul, it may have escaped you that the peer review process doesn't
involve any killing.  Or indeed any suppression -- the author is always
free to publish elsewhere.

Sigh.

-- 
John Mackin <john@civil.su.oz.au>
Knox's box is a 286.                 Fox in Socks does hacks and tricks
Knox's box is hard to fix.           To fix poor Knox's box for kicks.
Newsgroups: aus.parallel