HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:43:09 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

	What is the problem with you Christian dudes? It's fairly clear that
abortion is O.K. The child doesn't feel anything and is not aware of his
impending demise (and therefore doesn't suffer phsycologically). In fact the
same argument can be applied to justify "post-natal abortion", since a child of
say less than 1 year of age can not understand that he is about to die
(provided the surgeon acts tactfully), and can be put to death in a painless
way.
	I would like to point out that this is a vast improvement over the
crude method used by your best friend and mine, Jehovah (e.g at the sacking of
Jericho, as well as on many other occasions).

					Kevin Davey.
					Monash Uni.
From: mlt@gdwb.oz.au (Mee Teng)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion
Date: 2 Oct 92 06:30:59 GMT

>kevin@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au wrote:
>> 	What is the problem with you Christian dudes? It's fairly clear that
>> abortion is O.K. The child doesn't feel anything and is not aware of his

Have you watched the film 'Silent cry ' ?  You could actually see
a 3 months old foetus 'cried' in great agony when the head was
crushed using forceps . You could see the mouth, the facial
expression etc. That's why called 'silent cry'. The doctor who
performed it decided to call it quit after that ! It is just 
disgusting !!
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Changing nature of God
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:07:56 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

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

>Could people please tell me how you as Christians reconcile the
>change in the apparent nature of God from the Old Testament to
>the New Testament with the idea of a perfect, eternal God?
>(i.e. he appears to be an active, vengeful God in the Old
>Testament but (through Jesus) changes to a loving but more
>passive God).

>It is something that I have never understood myself so any
>new information would be much appreciated.

Can I raise a few little points:

1/ the difference is not as great as it seems. In the OT,
God is presented in many ways, which together build up some
picture of him by act and by analogy: sexual lover (Song of
Songs), a refuge from heat, a shepherd and a provider of streams 
(psalms), a cuckolded husbanded (hosea (?)), Wisdom (interestingly
a female personificaion often)(various). 

And in the New Testament, Jesus drives oout money lenmders from the
Temple with a whip, curses a fig tree, and prophesies destruction
equal to the best of the OT prophets. Which are not passive nor nice.

Just as any news is normally violent, or else is of no interest, so
much of the history of Israel is violant, and if you just look
at those bits you will onlyy see a part of God as he is 
portrayed. But the God who destroys Sodom & Gommorrah also
bargains for its salvation, and sends angels to save the just.

So I think the widely believed difference  in the portrayal of God
is not nearly as great as is sometimes held. 

However: 
2/ There is a fundamental difference between God as knowable by the
Old Testament alone, and God as revealed in the Old Testament informed by 
the New Testament. In retrospect, after Christ, many things that 
are just bald and difficult facts in the Old Testament, acquire a 
balance and meaning when seen in the light of the New. So IMHO
its a mistake to view the OT intrinsically just in its own light:
its the New Testament that gives it sense and relevance.

Since Christianity is monotheistic, I think its futile to
argue that the Old Testament God is different to the NT one in anything
other than appearance, or to claim that somehow Christians do.
I think it is futile also because of the nature of language and reporting:
any act of God knowable by man is finite, and anything knowable by man
is communicable only by finite language. We can validly abstract and
know God's infinite properties from these, but different reports
of different acts must reveal different (though not antagonistic) 
properties of God. So you shouldn't expect the OT and the NT to 
mirror each other, in the same way as you wouldn't expect the different
Gospels to mirror each other.

-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: mgray1@metz.une.edu.au (Matthew GRAY)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re:Changing nature of God
Date: 29 Sep 92 09:12:07 GMT


	From the OT to the NT we see a changing face of God from
"rough and tough" to "soft and gentle". This isn't a change in 
what God is, but a change in what we see of God.
But we can ask why do we have to see to appearances? Or why do 
they have to be in that order?
	Lets look at the 2nd one first.
What if Jesus Christ appeared in the OT, and the Laws and the 
prophets, and the anger and wrath of God appeared in the NT.
Lets say, Jesus rocked up in Noah's day. A world of hate and
unlawfulness, where anything goes, order is dead(it never existed!)
Jesus romps up and says "Love your neighbour","love those who
dispisefully use you",  "All of the Law is summed up in this: love
God and love your nieghbour as yourself". People would have looked
at him and said "who are you? what have you got to do with anything?
what's law? what's love? that's a nice jacket", bop on the head, dead
Messiah. Sent to a people who didn't even know they should've been
expecting him. Noah goes on his way, the world is destroyed. After
Dthe flood things go down hill again, and this time there's no law
to set them right. Two thousand years down the track, the law comes
along, but people aren't too ready to hear it. After all, they've had 
it easy for so long, why should they make it hard for themselves.
God gets REAL mad this time, and kills everybody for good. The end.
	"But why does God have to show the rough side and the 
nice side?"
That's easy. If He didn't, we wouldn't know they _was_ a nice 
side and a rough side. Without the dramatic contrast, us thick
creatures wouldn't respect God the way we should ("God won't 
mind. He's nice most of the time anyway"), or love Him
unreservedly as we must (" I don't dare! Just as you think
you're doin' OK, WHAM, He hits you for six!").
	God is our LORD _and_ SAVIOUR. A God of Law _and_ Love.

		with love, in Jesus Christ and the Hope of Israel,
					Matthew Gray
					mgray1@metz.une.oz.au

D
the flood things happen they way we know them. But without discipline
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: dsolly@ecr.mu.oz.au (David_James SOLLY)
Subject: Uniting Church
Keywords: abortion , NSW
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:05:43 GMT

The Synod of the Uniting Church of New South Wales has , according to
the melbourne AGE , affirmed abortion as a woman`s right - giving no
restrictions as to what stage the pregnancy was at , basically an open
season ...
I ask myself if the people who made this decision , which is so clearly
anti-biblical (ie THOU SHALL NOT KILL ) , so anti Christ ( what ever you
do to the least of my brothers that you do unto me ) were acting on 
motivations other than biblical ones . If the Feminists want to salve
their consciences by getting a church to say that it is okay to kill
unborn childern then they should found their own and not try to operate
under the aegis of the Christian Churches which on this issue they are not
in communion with .

Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Subject: Re: Uniting Church
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 06:54:11 GMT

David_James SOLLY (dsolly@ecr.mu.oz.au) wrote:
> I ask myself if the people who made this decision , which is so clearly
> anti-biblical (ie THOU SHALL NOT KILL ) , so anti Christ ( what ever you
> do to the least of my brothers that you do unto me ) were acting on 
> motivations other than biblical ones . If the Feminists want to salve
> their consciences by getting a church to say that it is okay to kill
> unborn childern then they should found their own and not try to operate
> under the aegis of the Christian Churches which on this issue they are not
> in communion with .

While I agree with the sentiments of your posting, and am myself particularly
disappointed with the decision since I am from a Uniting Church background,
the issue is always so clear because "thou shalt not kill" is actually
"thou shalt not murder" (otherwise God was commanding the Israelites to
disobey one of the commandments) and, of course, the question of whether
a foetus is a person yet.  That is why they keep debating it (and just about
everything else).  What amazed me was in an interview on the Today
show this morning a spokesman from the UC admitted that they did consider that
the foetus had rights as an unborn child, they just weren't as important as
the mother's right.  That seems an extraordinary postion to take.  How do we
decide who has greater rights?  Their position would have at least seemed
more consistent if they'd just said that an unborn baby isn't a person and
has no rights until it's born (however wrong that may be).  Does anyone's
rights include the right to kill?  If A has greater rights than B, can A
go and kill B?

I'm not sure that feminists have much to do with it - it seemed to me like
an attempt to gain public acceptance by appearing up-to-date.  Speaking of
which, how many people saw the article in the Good Weekend magazine about the
megachurches.  It looked like the Sydney Entertainment centre.  Very sad.

regards,
    Callum
-- 
Callum Gibson                           callum@bain3.bain.oz.au
Eyeball Temporary Analyst/Programmer    BH : +61 2 258 1620
Fixed Income Division                   Fax: +61 2 258 1128
Bain & CO, Sydney, Australia.           AH : :-)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Subject: Re: Changing nature of God
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:46:37 GMT

C. G. Albone (chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU) wrote:
> > Sin is not part of God's plan, God has
> 
> If this is the case, explain why there is sin, and keep in mind that God is
> all knowing and all powerful, and i guess not particularly prone to mistakes.

Sin exists because of choice and free-will.  Yes, if there was no sin then
there would be no free will but what fun would that be?  You'd be back to the
old robot situation again.  I guess the reason I believe in free-will is
because I believe in sin.  That's not a problem for James, of course.  But
I assume you believe that sin exists and that we have a choice in what we do
(follow God or not).  Are you asking me how God could have done it another
way?  Well, I fall a bit short of all-knowing I'm afraid, but I know that
if God made us so we couldn't sin then we would have no choice in whether
we followed him or not.  It stands to reason doesn't it?  Sin means disobeying
God - take away sin and you _must_ obey God.  God created us so that we
could follow Him, but not so we'd _have_ to follow Him.  You may say if we
knew no different then it wouldn't matter to us.  That may be so in a way,
but from God's perspective He may as well not created us at all if that was
the case.  It would only be like me making a tape recording saying how great
I am and then playing it back to myself over and over.  There is much more
sense in getting others to tell me how great I am by showing them how great
I am and giving them a choice to decide for themselves.

> >the answers for whatever situation arises according to the choices that we
> >make.  He happens to know what those choices will be but His purpose doesn't
> >rest upon those particular choices.
> God has always known what choises I or you will make? From the beginning of
> time?

Yes.  You said He was all-knowing didn't you?

regards,
    Callum
-- 
Callum Gibson                           callum@bain3.bain.oz.au
Eyeball Temporary Analyst/Programmer    BH : +61 2 258 1620
Fixed Income Division                   Fax: +61 2 258 1128
Bain & CO, Sydney, Australia.           AH : :-)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: gjessup@leven.appcomp.utas.edu.au (Geoff Jessup)
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 06:37:57 GMT

OK Kev, as has already been pointed out, you obviously don't mind being killed
painlessly and without your for-knowledge.
Look at it another way, would you be happy if somehow I could go back in time
and rub your life out by killing you instantly and painlessly while you were a
baby of less than one year?
Don't be deceived, your life is very precious, as is the life of every
individual in this world, including unborn babies from the moment of
conception! 
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: c9037395@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Helen Lee)
Subject: Re: Changing nature of God
Organization: Uni of Newcastle, Australia
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:47:12 GMT

May I suggest that you read the Chris's post first, as I have heavily edited
it.


chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (C. G. Albone) writes:

>In article <1992Sep29.232418.20449@bain3.bain.oz.au> callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson) writes:

>Can a poor human being ask what does one mean by 'just' when referring to God?
Well, I couldn't say for sure for everyone else, but my personal
understanding/use of the word 'just' in this context is similar to that of
the commom notion. (ie. punishment/reward according to one's actions/
intentions/etc. *though not necesarily immediate*)


>Lets have a quick look at what this 'just' God has done in its time, or more

>humans would sin (whatever sin is...). More than that, the christian world-view
Sin is the transgression of the Law.
Sin is lawlessness (1John 3:4)

It is often useful to make notes (mental ones at least) of all relevant (&
perhaps even apparently irrelevant) assumptions that one makes while forming
an arguement. And then remember that, strictly speaking, any errors in any
relevant assumptions/bases/starting-points/(that 'p' word I forgot in the
exam 2 yrs ago) renders the conclusions of the arguement logically without
worth. Further, one must also be careful not to 'skip steps' when forming
'and therefore ...' type (sub)conclusions in one's arguement. These errors
can occur simply through uncited assumptions or from mixing up concepts just
because they share the same English word; or are often associated together;
or plain bad logic. Any (logically) invalid steps render the whole arguement
invalid.

Now:
* God's plan is to make human beings his sons/daughters.
* This is in spite - and not 'helped by' - man's tendency to sin.
* Yes, God knew we were going to sin. That's why he made the plan of salvation
through JC.
* God did/does/will reward/punish according to one's actions/thoughts/etc.
* God is more than just; he is merciful. & JC will return in due time to show
us plainly both these characteristics.
* Until then he will allow us to sin to teach us how bad sin is.

Also: * responsibility & blame are 2 different concepts.
      * God & man have many similarities, but also many diffrences; be careful
of your assumptions.

>judge a tree by its fruit" in the bible, and when one looks at the fruit of the
>god of the christians, at least i am inclined to scratch my head when dealing
>with questions of justice. 

No one can blame you for this, Chris. It is indeed a difficult set of concepts
to understand; even the intellectual Athenians couldn't grasp it.

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
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: greyham@research.canon.oz.au (Graham Stoney)
Subject: Re: Uniting Church
Keywords: abortion , NSW
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:22:03 GMT

dsolly@ecr.mu.oz.au (David_James SOLLY) writes:
>The Synod of the Uniting Church of New South Wales has , according to
>the melbourne AGE , affirmed abortion as a woman`s right - giving no
>restrictions as to what stage the pregnancy was at , basically an open
>season ...

My impression from talking to a number of people who attended NSW Synod is that
this is _NOT_ correct. Given the question along the lines of "is abortion OK:
Yes or No" they decided that they couldn't decide on an answer to cover all
situations (ie: "We don't know"). I haven't read or heard any of the news
reports, but if the NSW Synod's "We don't know" has been interpreted as "Yes",
then I think it's been misinterpreted.

regards,
Graham
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ollis@redbck.stl.dec.com (Stephen Ollis)
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion
Reply-To: ollis@redbck.stl.dec.com (Stephen Ollis)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:01:35 GMT


	What is the problem with you Christian dudes? It's fairly clear that
>abortion is O.K. The child doesn't feel anything and is not aware of his
>impending demise (and therefore doesn't suffer phsycologically). In fact the
>same argument can be applied to justify "post-natal abortion", since a child
>of
>say less than 1 year of age can not understand that he is about to die
>(provided the surgeon acts tactfully), and can be put to death in a painless
>way.
>

So, where do you draw the line Kevin? Murder has been legalised for the unborn,
(which it is) and has been endorsed by the Uniting church (totally gutless move
if you ask me.. the Catholic church had more resolve and morals!)  So you
want post-natal abortion, as long as it doesn't hurt you and allows you to live
a `better' life. You move abortion from being only within the womb, to outside 
the womb within certain age `parameters'.. who is going to set these 
parameters? Is murder within age `parameters' any less murder? What is there to
stop the age limit being raised? `Oh Billy, my 5 year old, is limiting the 
lifestyle I lead. Let's have him aborted...' It's just a small mental leap from
this viewpoint to euthanasia... 'Oh I don't want to have look after my sick 60
year old father.. let's have him put to sleep'...

Where does it end? When will we learn? When will we change? When will we turn? 

--
DIGITAL Telephone Support, Sydney AUSTRALIA   *   Ph: +61 2 5615675 (BH)
Email: ollis@redbck.enet.dec.com            *  *      +61 2 6268533 (AH)
ICBM: 33 43'S 150 52' 15"E                    +       +61 2 5615488 (FAX)
                                             *
   Terra Australis Espirito Santo - The Great Southland of the Holy Spirit
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (C. G. Albone)
Subject: Re: Xianity & 'Xianity' (was: Changing nature of God)
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 08:08:33 GMT

In article <ricko.718172092@ee.uts.EDU.AU> ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>Could you not use "Xianity" please. It is offensive. 
>
I am sure that the Marxists, certain Muslims and Jews, as well as Satanists
and a wide section of the athiest spectrum are inclined to agree with you.
Christianity is not without its offensive elements. But then when you are 
trying to give a plan that is to be all things for all people, I am sure that
being offensive to someone, somehow is just part of the territory.
>-ricko

---
Chris.
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: c9037395@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Helen Lee)
Subject: Responsibility & blame (was: Changing nature of God)
Organization: Uni of Newcastle, Australia
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 05:48:17 GMT

>>Also: * responsibility & blame are 2 different concepts.
>This is true, but the way things work normally, is that we blame a person
>who is responsible for a particular act or situation. 

Yes, & that is exactly why I made the point I did.
There are at least 2 usages of the word 'responsible':
1) Who's responsible? --> Who's to blame?
2) Who's responsible? --> Who's in charge?

When we normally think of bad things happening (the famine in Somoa, say),
we may think (1) about God. ie. God could have stopped this; God's to blame.
Yes, God has the power to stop it, but he chooses not to AT THIS TIME.
If God allows us to sin at this time, to let us see how bad sin really is,
then wouldn't it just defeat the purpose if God were to intervene at times
of war/famine/etc. to SAVE US FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS?
	Instead, God will wait patiently until the RIGHT TIME for JC to
return to earth & set things straight.

Yes, God is in charge.
No, he is not to blame.

(Sorry about the preachy bit! :))
IMHO, as always.
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
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: davidmh@is.su.edu.au (David Martin Hill)
Subject: Re: Uniting Church
Followup-To: aus.religion
Organization: University of Sydney
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:03:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.001334.21218@cs.su.oz.au>, jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au
(James Uther) wrote:

> If you make abortion illegal, all you do is send it underground and kill the
> mothers as well. The problem is much deeper, and making the only realistic
> solution some of these women have illegal is not going to solve anything.
> Yes, abortion is sometimes abused. But legislating against it just to stop a 
> few, while the same legislation kills and maims may others is simply not on.

Does this mean that heroin and cocaine should be made legal as well? After
all, even though there is law prohibiting it's use, people still use,
abuse, and are abused by these drugs.

What I am saying is that laws don't change people, Christ does! The
realisation that no matter who you are, what you have done, and where you
are going the future, Jesus Christ son of the most high God loved you
enough to die for you, is the only thing in my experience that can save
people from the decisions that ruin their (and other people's) lives.

I am not anti-every abortion. Obviously where a mother's life is threatened
there is a case for it. But like everything in life, I believe that this is
not a cut and dry black and white decision. Every person considering this
course of action should do so through prayer and Bible study.

Even if a woman falls pregnant after being raped, I can understand that she
would want an abortion in this case, but what about the child? I guess this
is where the whole argument comes back to, does the foetus have rights?

> I applaude the uniting church in this decision. This, combined with its
> support of women ministers, gay congregations, well thought out social action,
> and other areas, confirm its position as the most caring and relevant church
> in Australia today. And i'm sure Jesus agrees with me.

Hmm, I wonder. What does it mean in the scriptures where it says "be in the
world but not of the world"?


Yours in Christ

David M Hill
davidmh@is.su.edu.au