HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: psm@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Phil Malin)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:38:17 GMT

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

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

>>But in a finite amount of time since the beginning of creation man sinned
>>(I assume), then things started dying off.  Thus the earth only needed to be
>>infinitely big if things existed for an eternity before man sinned, which we
>>know (or believe) from what the bible tells us.

>Ah, so God required man to sin just to keep his little world going?
>What happened to free will?

Not necessarily.  If the world got crowded then they could stop multiplying.
I'm saying that this IS the solution but that it could be one.

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

>>The bible states, Gen 1:29;

>>'..."I will give every green plant for food"...'

>I know, I'm a vegetarian.  My point is that with nothing dying, you would
>run out of green plants.

Why, couldn't the plants grow again?, etc...

>BTW, whatever happened in Gen 9, Gen 1 tells you to eat only plants.
>How do you feel about that?

What do you mean?  Is it when God says that we can eat everything or that
we cannot eat meat which still has the lifeblood in it?

>Fraser.

Phil Malin
psm@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au

Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Subject: Re: AIDS and the common cup
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:26:35 GMT

greyham@research.canon.oz.au (Graham Stoney) writes:

>Do you know if there's any biblical basis for this strange metamorphism?.
>As far as I can see, Christ told us to "do this in rememberance" of him; the
>bread and wine are symbolic of his body and blood suffering for us - but he
>didn't appear to say that they actually _were_ his body and blood, or that we
>could expect them to become so as if by magic through some ceremony.

>Is there anything I've missed?

Yes. Our doing it is a rememberance of him, and the bread and wine are
certainly symbolic of him. But they are not only symbolic.

Jesus said very clearly "This is my body... this is
my blood...". He didn't say "this is like my body" or "this is symbolically
my body", he said "this is". That the literal interpretation of his words 
is also reasonable (defineable within a rigourous logical system) is
the doctrine of transubstantiation, which explains it from within an
Aristotelean/ Thomistic system of substance and accidents. 

So the biblical basis is on daring to to the plain sense of the words.
In the same way as "I am the resurrection and the life" was not meant 
symbolically, but vitally and literally.	

-ricko
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 
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:18:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.032728.17625@cc.uow.edu.au> u9264442@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew William Easton) writes:
>
>I agree - especially seeing as a global flood should be visible in the
>geological record, in the same way as a local flood should. I am not saying
>that the flood didn't occur (I believe it did), just making the point that
>it should be possible to see, even if nobody has noticed it yet. The same
>applies to extinct life forms, which is what the creation/evolution argument
>is about.

I don't know if these may be possible evidences of the flood:  The ICE AGE.
According to some geologists, a major global event could have led to the
ice age, as this can only occur if some major disturbance broke upon the
earth.  If one read carefully the account in Genesis, it did not merely
said that it rained.  It seems that the skies prior to the flood was a
canopy of moisture or something.  Also, it also describes the underground
springs of water existing then bursting out or something like that.  So,
it sounds like a pretty major catastrophic event.  If such an event
occurred, it cannot be natural, but only through the power and wrath of
the creator against sinful humankind.  Also, such a catastrophy would
throw much of our scientific time scale off balance I think.  Furthermore,
it seems that some mammoths described to be found in Siberia were well
preserved and apparently stopped short of doing some normal day to day
activities like chewing vegetation.  Lush remains of ancient vegetation
seem to have been found also in Siberia.  Seems like these did not even
have time to undergo substantial decay.

This theory that I read quite a while ago suggests that prior to the
flood, a thick canopy of H20 in the skies would have kept much of the earth
habitable and warm, which explains findings of tropical looking vegetation
in strange places.

Anyway, if anyone has more info on these things, it may be worthwhile to
share it.

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
==========================================================================
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 07:32:05 GMT

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

>>About eating meat after being told not to in Gen 29.

>The only thing I can think of at the moment is now that death had entered
>the world there exists a predator-prey relationship between all the animals,
>including us.  Back then death was nonexistent so it wouldn't make sense
>to kill something - the concept of death wasn't even known.  If it was and
>Adam and Eve knew about it I don't think they would have succumbed to
>temptation so easily (assuming they linked it to disobeying God that is).

Hmmm, the only thing is that God only lets people eat meat after the
flood, which is at least two or three thousand years after the Fall.
My reading of the pertinent verses leads me to believe that God was
saying "Well, since you're so evil, I guess you can eat meat."

Fraser.
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: pieloor@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Jason Pieloor)
Subject: Re: AIDS and the common cup
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:58:45 GMT

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

>pieloor@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Jason Pieloor) writes:

>>boutland@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (John Boutland) writes:

>>>Has anyone given any thought to the possible risk of becoming
>>>HIV+ from the shared communion cup ? 

>>I remember one paper declaring
>>that a scientist had said that to catch aids from kissing, 15 gallons of saliva
>>would have to be shared.  Phew! (Yuckie)

>Presumably that means to be 100% sure of getting HIV. On first read it
>sounds like the scientist thinks it's a toxin, and that less than a certain
>amount is safe. Whereas you'd think that less exposure means less risk
>to  some extent since its a virus.

>If 15 gallons means 100% certainty, and if it`s directly proportional, doesn't
>that make 1 ml have about .0014% chance? (15gall=100%,1pint=600ml=.83%,
>100ml=.14, 1ml=.0014) (Does 1ml sound about right for saliva?)

>being infected is up to 7%, about 4 people per year? Please correct me if my 
>rough math or stats or figures are wrong, but if they're vaguely correct then
>it might be prudent for HIV+ people to take communion last, or arrange with
>the priest to use a separate vessel or something. 

>Of course, if the wine is hostile to the virus, the chances would be lessened,
>etc. etc. Some scientific facts would be helpful though, this is really just
>speculation.

>-ricko
From: jonb@aix00.csd.unsw.OZ.AU (Jon Biddell)
Subject: Re: Emotional Manipulation - How should a Christian respond ??
Keywords: women, emotion
Organization: University of New South Wales
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:51:16 GMT

In article <9224412.17387@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage) writes:
>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.

Thank you for your comments...  I spoke with them this morning (the Lord know
how I get involved in these, for I dont !!!), and she is in a pretty bad state emotionally and is physically exhausted.

It transpires that this "boyfriend" (they were engaged, as I discovered, but he has been married before - before he accepted the Lord - she broke it off
as a temporary measure - not sure what she meant by that.....) has a bit of
a bad temper at times (he says that she is stubborn, etc), and on two occasions has struck her (not hard, I believe, and no physical damage was done). 

I have known this guy for some years and he is grieving that he has allowed his temper to control his actions in this manner, truly repentant. But he needs help, and more help than I can give.

I find myself in a most uncomfortable position - as an outsider I know them both quite well, and I can see his stubbornness and her unsubmissiveness. They
do make a good couple when things are good, but when things are bad it appears to be a nightmare.

What to do ???  Should I just opt out and tell them that they should fix it themselves ??  After all, I'm not qualifies as a councellor, although I think I qualify as a  friend. I hear that the Anglican councelling service has a weekend
course that couples can do to learn to communicate better - I might suggest that to them.

Meanwhile, your prayers for them and their situation (as well as wisdom on my part) would be greatly appreciated.

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




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 
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:30:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.002654.1694@bain3.bain.oz.au> bill@bain3.bain.oz.au (Bill Richardson) writes:
>would have taken *1 billion times as long* to occur. Unlikely I think.
Evolution
>does occur - there is no question about that - as evidenced by those moths
>during the industrial revolution. It needs help on the big jobs though.

Before I start, just to state explicitly that this is not a flame against
you, Bill - just some thoughts that I would like to chip in for this thread:

As I understood it, what happens to those moths is called "micro-evolution",
which definitely is scientific and is real.  What is not proven is "macro-
evolution", i.e. the changing of one species to another.  Take the flu
virus, for e.g., it is always changing to a different strain - but a flu
virus, as yet, seems to be always a flu virus...  If human beings came by
macro-evolution, I will have to imagine that there must also exist hundreds
of intermediate ancestral species that are 10%, 20%, 30%, ... 90%,. human.
Just because monkeys like to imitate people does not mean that they are
our ancestors!  How about God, in His wonderful goodness and humour, decided
to make some animals to have the capacity to enjoy human company and vice-
versa? :-)  Yes, and why not say that monkeys and apes evolved from humans?
After all, why not grow more hair instead of wearing clothes?  Isn't that
more advantageous in terms of protection against the weather in many parts
of the world? :-)  I reckon that will make a great theory ;-)  After all,
it seems like mankind outnumber apes - so, there is indeed more chances of
having human beings evolving to apes today.  (Anyone care to
look into this possibility?) :)

- The lighter side of evolution -

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
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson)
Subject: Re: Becoming Catholic
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 05:33:35 GMT

sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Selbyn Liew) writes:

>Give me life over religion, anyday.
>I guess many out there feel the same?

I guess so.  The difference is probably that you would treat the two
as fairly inseperable, almost equivalent maybe.  Thus making "life
over religion" like saying "water over H2O".  Fair enough.

Fraser.
From: u9264442@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew William Easton)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Date: 24 Aug 92 02:01:46 GMT
Organization: University Of Wollongong

Hate to waste bandwidth, but having just completed evolution in Biology, I
noticed that the order of appearance of things is EXACTLY THE SAME AS THAT
STATED IN GENISIS CHAPTER 1 (ie. solar system, earth, water, land, plants,
animals, people). After 16 years of discounting evolution off hand (for no
better reason than that the bible couldn't be wrong), I have finally started to
wonder. It is stated in Proverbs (i can't remember the exact reference) that 
"a day is as 10,000 years, and 10,000 years is as a day". Is it, then, not
possible that the Lord took 60,000 years to create everything, instead of the 
144 hours that we are led to believe?

I have asked most of my christian friends and church leaders about this, and
the best answer that I have recieved is that it is also stated in the bible
that it is not supposed to be a scientific book (ie it answers "why?", not 
"how?"). Can anybody present even a shred of SCIENTIFIC evidence (ie not from
the bible, or some jerk's theory) against evolution? Can anybody explain why
the Lord would not use evolution to create everything? If not, then I'm afraid
that science has sucked me in, because I will have to believe that the Lord
used an evolutionary process to create what we see today.

The Bearded One..... 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| u9264442@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au | "I've had enough of Irish Americans who... |
| 				| talk about the resistance, the revolution  |
| You've all seen a disclaimer  | back home, and the glory of the revolution,|
| before. Mine's the same.      | and the glory of dyin' for the revolution. |
|				| _FUCK_ THE REVOLUTION!!!"  	- Bono       |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. I plan to use this in an essay next year, so if you relay it in any way,
  just make sure that my name stays on it. Plagiarism is not taken lightly
  here at Wollongong, and this will be the basis of the entire essay.
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: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 00:45:31 GMT

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

>The Creation Science Foundation were the lot who I saw on Friday and Sunday.
>They say that Evolution is just as much a religion as Christianity so that
>it is not a case of religion vs science, but religion vs religion.

This seems to be a common claim made by creationists, and it is utterly
false.  The evidence for evolution is not just good or compelling.  It is
overwhelming.  And it's not just a bunch of old bones either.

As an aside, this does not in any way preclude God.  The theory of evolution
says nothing about how the rate of beneficial mutation.  It is certainly
possible that nothing would ever have happened to the primaeval soup without
divine intervention.  I don't believe that, but who knows?

>  What I'm saying is that
>Charles Darwin started off with an anti-Christian bias and it shows in
>what he ended up with.  I notice parallels with biblical scholarship in this.

Even if this is true, you can't claim that everyone since then who has
agreed with Darwin also had an anti-Christian bias.  Furthermore, Darwin
simply formulated natural selection more precisely, the ideas had been
floating around for ages before him.

[ exchange deleted ]

I'm sorry, but this is a tired old argument.  It comes down to "You know
very little about the Universe, so you can't say that there isn't a God"
The final statement, "Evolution is a fact" is quite true, it's as much
a fact as many other things we take for granted.  I've heard the cry "Oh,
but it's just a theory!"  Don't be taken in.  A theory in the scientific
sense is as good a fact as you can get: theories such as Relativity and the
Kinetic Theory of Gases are other such facts.

It is true that in the future evolution may turn out to be completely wrong.
But only if a lot of things which we take for granted also turn out to be
wrong.  Finding the general idea of evolution incorrect is like waking up in
the morning to a green sky.

That's enough for now.

Fraser.
From: collins@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Stewart Collins)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: AIDS and the common cup
Date: 19 Aug 92 08:01:14 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

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

>Jesus said very clearly "This is my body... this is
>my blood...". He didn't say "this is like my body" or "this is symbolically
>my body", he said "this is". That the literal interpretation of his words 
>is also reasonable (defineable within a rigourous logical system) is
>the doctrine of transubstantiation, which explains it from within an
>Aristotelean/ Thomistic system of substance and accidents. 
>
>So the biblical basis is on daring to to the plain sense of the words.
>In the same way as "I am the resurrection and the life" was not meant 
>symbolically, but vitally and literally.	
>
>-ricko

In the same way, when Jesus says "You are the salt of the earth", and 
"You are the light of the world" in the Sermon on the Mount, does He 
mean this literally?  The simplest interpretation would lead to the
conclusion that He was speaking symbolically, however you could 
doubtless develop a doctrine that all Christians turn into salt, or
some such.

- Stewart Collins
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ccla@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Lee Askew)
Subject: David Evans Seminar/Prayer Night 
Organization: James Cook University
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 13:19:22 GMT

I havent been following this group very long, but I fell compelled to
write about a David Evans Night that I have just attended.

It was to say the least excellent.
This guy REALLY knows the power of GOD, I have never seen anything else
like it in my life, the feeling of the spirit was immense to say the
least.

And the most amazing this is (well I think so), is that he's got it all
togeather at such a young age, I (having never seen a picture of
him) I thought that would have been alot older since all I ever heard
about the guy was excellence. and his band are so young, and are
doing so much for GOD, that it made me feel tiny.

The guy is awsome. What more can you say!!

Lee. 
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson)
Subject: Re: Becoming Catholic
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 11:05:52 GMT

sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Selbyn Liew) writes:

>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.

Many people from widely differing religions have the same sense of
being right, or of belonging.  As for me, I'd call it a group instinct,
we all like to feel that we have a place.

>Why do people not seem to be as hostile to all the other religions as they
>are to Christianity?

Because in Australia at least, Christianity is the most visible religion.
Don't worry though, any religion, in fact, any belief at all is good
stuff for the chopping block of insensitivity.  That's why I'm posting :-)

>Why do people swear with the name of the LORD when they are agitated?

Habit.  It's not swearing with the name of the LORD, it's just something
ones parents said, and they got it from their parents, etc etc.

>Why may also these same people instinctively call
>to "God" when they are in real trouble and may even make some hopeful
>prayer?

I don't :-)

>If there is nothing in it, why does it prick the consciences and make one
>feel uneasy?

Oh, it doesn't.  My conscience is clear, only it's fun arguing about it.

>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?

I don't think it's anything to do with being tough.  I went to Sunday
school when I was a chap, and I went to a church in Sydney recently
to watch my Own True Love sing in the choir.  I've seen it, I've looked
hard at it, I was impressed by the power of the occasion but I don't
believe it and it's not for me.

>If Christians are fools, why do
>they rather have people think they are fools than give up their faith?

Because they don't believe that they are fools.  And, by the way, I'm
not claiming that Christians in general are.  I mean, I just saw Clive
Robertson on _Face the Press_ a few minutes ago, he was talking to
God the other day I believe, and he is certainly no fool.

>If it is all a lie and a delusion, why are sensible people all over then
>world still embracing it?

Why are sensible people all over the world embracing lots of other
religions?

>Is there anyone out there who wants to live a  
>lie?

No, but you don't believe that it is a lie.

>Thoughts for the day :-)

Thoughts for the evening.  I must be tired, the number of mistypings
is up to about 0.95/word.  :-(

Fraser.
From: u9264442@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew William Easton)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Creation & Evolution - the great side issue.
Date: 26 Aug 92 02:16:34 GMT
Organization: University Of Wollongong

The important point that Callum misses here is that he assumes that
evolution is contrary to creation. I've stated it elsewhere, and I'll state it
again. It is not.

Now I've said my piece, have a .sig

The Bearded One..... 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| u9264442@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au | "I've had enough of Irish Americans who... |
| 				| talk about the resistance, the revolution  |
| You've all seen a disclaimer  | back home, and the glory of the revolution,|
| before. Mine's the same.      | and the glory of dyin' for the revolution. |
|				| _FUCK_ THE REVOLUTION!!!"  	- Bono       |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: aus.religion