HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adamt@auzodt3.mel.cocam.oz.au (Adam Tiller)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Manufacturing Consent: film on Noam Chomsky
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:14:11 GMT
Organization: Co-Cam Computer Group, Oz

In article <1603@rand.mel.cocam.oz.au> adamt@auzodt3.mel.cocam.oz.au (Adam Tiller) writes:
>In article <1602@rand.mel.cocam.oz.au> adamt@auzodt3.mel.cocam.oz.au (Adam Tiller) writes:
>I found this article in the 'chomsky.views' newsgroup on Pegasus.

I have since noticed that all of that Z magazine issue was cross posted
from that newsgroup into 'misc.activism.progressive' which is also a 
bloody good newsgroup to keep a watch on.

I have had people ask how they get the 'chomsky.views' newsgroup.
Well if you're not reading this message from Pegasus or another APC node,
then, sorry, but you can't.

What is Pegasus?, you may ask.

Pegasus is the Australian representative of APC. 
APC is the Association for Progressive Communications.
And chomsky.views is an APC newsgroup.
There are organizations that are affiliated with APC in UK (GreenNet),
USA, (Peacenet & Econet), Canada (The Web), the Pacific (Pactok),
Germany, Scandanavia, Russia, Brazil, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, etc. 
They provide dial-up access to email & the net for people with PCs, Macs, etc.
All the nodes are in the "apc.org" domain.
(My account at Pegasus is adamt@peg.apc.org = adamt@peg.pegasus.oz.au)

As the name suggests, APC has "progressive" aims, supporting groups
who work on the environment, peace, social change, etc.
(Noam Chomsky is a fan of APC and APC is a fan of Noam Chomsky!)

APC affliates run all kinds of progressive projects around the world,
helping set up sister nodes in developing countries. 
For example, it was APC people who set up the comms & training for 
the NGO part of the Earth Summit in Rio.
Pegasus has got a few interesting networking projects, too.

All the APC nodes share all their newsgroups, and also carry all the 
usual USENET newsgroups. (Except the sex pictures).

But if you are on ACSnet or AARNET, then you don't have access to the APC
newsgroups unless you subscribe to Pegasus. ($90 + $20/month + 20c/min)
If you are on AARNET then you can telnet to Pegasus, but you still have to pay.

Pegasus have a new communications program called Messenger that runs on PCs.
It replaces Kermit or Telix or Procomm or Zmodem or whatever.
It automatically uploads and downloads your email and selected newsgroups, 
thereby greatly minimising your 'online' time. It also means that you get 
quite a nice mouse driven user interface.
I would highly recommend it to non-computer-literate people who want access 
to the net from their PC.

Email support@peg.pegasus.oz.au for more info.

-- 
   ,-_|\     Adam Tiller                  Phone:  +61 3 286 3603 (was 280 2322)
  /     \    Co-Cam Computer Group        Fax:    +61 3 416 2985
  \_,-._/    Abbotsford, Melbourne        Work:   adamt@mel.cocam.oz.au
       v     AUSTRALIA                    Play:   adamt@peg.apc.org
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Images, Mary, Saints
Date: 18 Dec 92 05:45:45 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

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

>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?  

Yes, original sin, the result of the Fall. Baptism eradicates it
(the baptism of Jesus I suppose, rather than John the B's Baptism of
repentence).

>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?

Jesus' father, whom he had to strictly honour, was his Father in Heaven.
His mother, whom he elected to have to honour (by becoming incarnate of her),
was Mary. 

>As I see it, we have an assumption made (that Jesus was not associated
>with sin through Mary), and the rest follows from this. 

Yes, that's the idea, as I understand it. Though I think its a bit
stronger than an assumption, I think it is demanded by God's holiness.
He was tempted in all things as a man, yet without sin: so it is likely that
he was tempted to dishonour his mother, but he didn't fall to any
temptation to honour something dishonourable.

As far as Mary not committing any sins, let's not forget that Adam and Eve
didn't until the fall: and how long (let us accept for argument that the
Genisis story is literal) before they fell? If it was one year, then
Mary's effort of resisting sinning (with God's grace) until she fell
asleep is amazing. If it was 100 years, then Mary's effort is in fact not
so amazing at all, especially given that God was strengthening her for her
mission through grace which he didn't provide for Adam & Eve. 

That Mary said yes to God's plan, for the first Christmas, should make
us want to love him without sinning, using her as a hero of how to
be transformed in Christ.

-ricko
From: mawson@aldetec.oz.au (Graeme Mawson)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Mary
Date: 11 Dec 92 01:49:40 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Aldetec Pty Ltd, Perth West Australia

Grenville Armitage writes:
> Rick Jelliffe writes:
> 	[...]
> >Jesus is God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Mary is the mother of God.
> >It seems a simple thing to me. If she is not the mother of God, then 
> >either you are saying Jesus is not God, or that Mary is not the mother
> >of Jesus.
> 
> In every sense of the way we understand motherhood, Mary was the
> mother of Jesus the man.

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??

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.

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 ...

Cheers,
Graeme Mawson.
-- 
Internet: mawson@aldetec.oz.au           "As for me and my house, we will 
Perth, Western Australia.                        serve the Lord."   <><
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage)
Subject: Re: Mary
Organization: Basket Weavers, Inc.
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 23:32:06 GMT

In article <ricko.723974999@ee.uts.EDU.AU> ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
	[...]
>Jesus is God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Mary is the mother of God.
>It seems a simple thing to me. If she is not the mother of God, then 
>either you are saying Jesus is not God, or that Mary is not the mother
>of Jesus.

I trust RC's believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully God?

Mary gave us the human Jesus.
God gave us Jesus, The Son.

There is little grounds for confusion about Marys role here.

In every sense of the way we understand motherhood, Mary was the
mother of Jesus the man.

In no sense is she the mother of God, who existed from the beginning of
time and had no such mother-child relationship with Mary.

gja
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: What is a Sacrament?
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:21:57 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

This was asked repeatedly recently. Here's what I understand to be the catholic
doctrine.

1/ the First Sacrament is Christ
2/ the Second Sacrament is the Church
3/ then comes the Seven Sacraments acknowledged by the church (baptism,
reconciliation, confirmation, communion, marriage, orders, annointing of the
sick).

To be precise: if a sign is something that leads us to the knowledge of
another thing, then "a sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to
give sanctifying grace", according to Fr Baker's excellent Fundamentals of
Catholicism. 

Catholics hold that the sacraments actually cause grace, while protestants
tend think they are means by which faith is stirred into action only
(i.e a pyschological and symbolical effect only).

"Once the church attained a clear notion of the nature of a sacrament, she
was able to look into her history and practise and there she found that
there are only seven official acts of the church that fulfilled that
definition. Of course the church had always administered the seven
sacraments, but there were also other acts of the Church related to the
sanctification of the faithful. A clear distinction between those instituted
by Christ and those instituted by the church was not made until this
definition was attained in the twelfth century. Thus, before the twelfth
century there was much speculation on how many "holy act" of the Church
there might be. One theologian went so far as to list eighteen of them,
including such things as reading Scripture, fasting, taking vows and going
on a pilgrimage."

I think at least this is a good example of theology in action: taking a
thousand years to work out a simple way to explain seemingly disparate elements.
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.

 -ricko
From: chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (C. G. Albone)
Subject: Re: Mary
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: aus
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:28:05 GMT

In article <ricko.724049031@ee.uts.EDU.AU> ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>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. 

Starting to sound like a soapie ;-)
>
>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.

I remember reading or hearings somewhere that the word "virgin" had a slightly
different meaning to how we used it. Something to do with the ritual state of
an unmarried woman, i think the story goes that a woman that hadn't been married
before and was yet to marry was termed a virgin. Of course this social 
designation and the actual state of the woman's virginity may not be the same.
And of course, it is possible to get pregnant while remainin virgin without 
there being a need to bring in the supernatural. Actually I would beg to differ
that "we all know that it happened". We know that a Jesus was born of a Mary. We
do not know that she was virgin in the physical sense when she conceived. You
may believe it to be the case, but I guess I would like to see how you can claim
to know it is the case. No doubt such a claim will have a biblical backing,
with the implied assumption that the bible is somehow guarrenteed to be correct.
Interestingly enough, the bible has been shown to be incorrect in some cases.
Historical events at that. If this is the case, then I guess it becomes 
difficult to claim that Mary _must have_ been virgin because the bible said so.
 
>
>Christians should emphasize the reality of the incarnation, and not
>spiritualize it: God gave himself a belly-button.

Christians should question themselves as to how they can talk about "reality"
as they do, and not avoid the nasty epiestemological questions that hide just
behind the claims for anyone that is interested to see. Jesus may have had a
belly button, thats not suprising, him being human and all.. but to claim that
God did, thats taking a major step in faith, and i guess I do not take 
epistemological credit

---
Chris.
>
>-ricko


Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ripng@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (PAUL NG)
Subject: Re : Mary
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:59:19 GMT

I've noticed a tendency in the recent postings on Mary to separate Jesus' 
human and divine natures and to claim that Mary is only the mother of 
Jesus the man and not Jesus the God.  That's not the logical way to 
proceed.  If you assume that there is only one God and Jesus & the Holy 
Spirit are different facets or parts or sides (whatever you 
wish to call it) of the one God, and if you assume that Jesus was indeed 
-also- a man, then you can't say that Mary was "only" the mother of Jesus 
the man.  
	There is only one Jesus.  Mary didn't give birth to twins.  Jesus is 
either man, or God, or both.  If you say he is both, then to follow that by 
claiming Mary was only the mother of one side of him is illogical.  That 
assumes that Jesus the Man is distinct and separate from Jesus the God.  And 
that's not possible, if you assumed to begin with, that they are merged in 
the one entity.
	Therefore, it is not incorrect to call Mary the mother of God.  She 
didn't create God, nobody is and nobody has ever claimed that (in the RCC 
anyhow).  We mean Mother of God in a different sense, and I suggest that 
there is nothing wrong with that sense.  
	 

Merry Christmas, people.
Paul.
From: bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Diabolism
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:34:35 CST
Distribution: aus
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation

In article <MALCOLMP.92Dec10171013@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU>, malcolmp@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU (malcolmp) writes:
> In article <1992Dec9.025537.15325@tplrd.tpl.oz.au> markb@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Mark
> Bower) writes:
> 
>    Any Diabolists on the net ?
> 
> What are they?
> 
>    ;-)
> 
> Hmmm, maybe I don't want to know..

HINT - 'diabolos' is greek for devil

Regards,

John Bennett                                   bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
From: bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Interpretation of Scripture
Date: 11 Dec 92 11:42:33 CST
Distribution: aus
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation

In article <ricko.723879822@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
> I assume you understand Luther to be a non-liberal! Lets compare his
> limits with that of the current Pope:

(Numbers inserted for clarity & reference)

>1 * Pope must be consistant with scripture, apostolic teaching, catholic
>  tradition, ecumenical councils, other popes

I would hope you agree that of those, the scriptures are the ultimate 
authority.  The others are either :
    - in agreement with scripture, therefore redundant
    - not in agreement with scripture, therefore out of order.

>2 * Luther only needs to be consistant with scriptures (and even these
>  giving them a hirearchy to support his theology), regardless of supporting
>  historical evidence

I agree that Luther only needs to be consistent with scriptures - I'm not sure 
what you mean by the rest of the statement.

>3  * Popes' statements made as a result of discerning the"sense of the
>  faithful", i.e. finding out what the Spirit is saying to the faithful at
>  the time (and throughout its history)
>4 * Luther just decides himself

That probably comes back to papal fallibility, I put him in the same league as 
Luther on that point.

>5 * Popes' statements checked before hand by small armies of theologians to
>  check for consistancy
>6 * Luther just decides himself, though in communication with other scholars

It doesn't take a small army to check something against the scriptures.

>7 * No political motive for fundamental catholic dogma

except for retaining control of Christianity

>8 * Luther sponsored by German Princes, who had political advantages in
>  establishing non-traditional religion

Political advantage masy have been a side-effect, but Luther's aim was 
correctness.  You do him an injustice.

Regards,

John Bennett                                   bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
From: bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Interpretation of Scripture
Date: 11 Dec 92 10:34:59 CST
Distribution: aus
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation

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 ?

> 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"

> Merry Christmas

Likewise to you.

John Bennett                                   bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Interpretation of Scripture
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:09:40 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation

In article <9234509.21339@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage) writes:
> More straw-men? How many mainstream non-RC denominations do _not_ work
> within the tradition that Jesus is God? 

Any group with that belief is not a main-stream denomination, it is a sect 
IMHO, and a lot of other HO's as well.  (My definition of a main-tream 
denomination would be one which accepts the Apostle's and Nicene creeds).

Regards,

John Bennett                                   bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Mary
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:40:28 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

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

>In article <ricko.724049031@ee.uts.EDU.AU> ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>>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. 

>Starting to sound like a soapie ;-)

Imagine what its like to live it :-)

-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Subject: Re: What is a Sacrament?
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:25:04 GMT

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

>1/ the First Sacrament is Christ
>2/ the Second Sacrament is the Church
>3/ then comes the Seven Sacraments acknowledged by the church (baptism,
>reconciliation, confirmation, communion, marriage, orders, annointing of the
>sick).

>To be precise: if a sign is something that leads us to the knowledge of
>another thing, then "a sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to
>give sanctifying grace", according to Fr Baker's excellent Fundamentals of
>Catholicism. 

Taking this definition, how many of the seven meet it?  Marriage would
appear to have been around since Genesis 2.  At a real stretch, you
could say that it was instituted by Christ, but that sounds pretty
dodgy to me.  Baptism was instituted by John the Baptist, and submitted
to by Jesus.  Jesus did command it (Matt 28).  Communion is certainly
instituted by Christ.

What about the others?  I can't see them being instituted by Christ -
is your answer that they are in the tradition of the Church?

>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?
--
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: Interpretation of Scripture
Date: 11 Dec 92 04:53:54 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

bruceb@ctpm.uq.oz.au (Bruce Blackshaw) writes:

>As a "strict" Bible believing protestant (at least I *think* I am :-)
>I agree Rick that protestants of my persuasion *do* follow a tradition -
>in my case the Wesleyan tradition which no doubt had its roots in John
>Wesley's Anglican background.  

Personal note: my grandmother remembered being lifted onto her
granfather's horse: he was a travelling Wesleyan preacher. Those
guys were really dedicated.

-ricko
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Oh no not another church father quote
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:52:11 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

This quote was in a book I was looking up the sacraments formula in.
I don't think John Brownie or I had it among all those other quotes in that
thread about the early church's attitude to communion. Since there was a
recent posting about whether the earlyt church actually resembled
Catholicism very much, or perhaps presbyterian instead.

St Ignatius of Antioch was a bishop who was fed to lions in about AD 107.
After being arrested he was taken to be executed along a long route through
much of modern north-west Turkey. He wrote seven letters that Polycarp (who
was taught by the Axalotl John) attached an introductory letter to. This
quote is from his letter to the Smyrnaens. 

What is interesting is that this letter is written perhaps within 15 years of
John's death, so it *is* talking about the early church. Even more interesting
to me is that Smyna (modern Izmyr) is just next door to Ephasus, where John
lived and finally died, according to sources. (It is interesting to me
because I visited both once.) So he is writing to a church which has
probably had quite an amount of direct Apostolic input in its recent history.

He says: "Nobody is supposed to do anything in the church without the
Bishop. Only that Eucharist is regarded as valid and legal that is
consummated under the Bishop or by one authorized under him. There, where
Jesus is, the Catholic Church is. It is not permitted to baptize without the
Bishop, or to hold the agape. But whatever he finds good, that is also
pleasing to God, so that everything that is done is certain and lawful...He
that honours the Bishop is honoured by God; he that does anything without
the Bishop, serves the devil." (Smyrn. 8, 1-2) 

Lots of interesting sides in that!

While we are on Bishops, someone asked something about evidence for
Apostles. Here's from a letter St Clement (third pope after Peter) wrote to
the Corinthians, in about 97 AD:

"Our Apostles through the Lord Jesus Christ knew that disputes would arise
about the episcopal office. For this reason, as they had received exact
knowledge in advance, they appointed the abovenamed (bishops), and
subsequently gave instructions that when these should fall asleep, other
tried men should take over their duties." (Corinthians 44, 1-2)  

-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion