HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lhccjeh@lure.latrobe.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: God, man & sin (was: Changing nature of God)
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:52:53 GMT
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University

In article <c9037395.718181294@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au>, 
	c9037395@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Helen Lee) writes:
> Hi, this is just an experiment, but I thought it might make the arguement
> clearer. It is meant to be in a dynamic style; input is welcome, premises &
> conclusions can be changed/revised. So let's see how far we can get before pure
> subjectivity comes into play.
???????
> 	As you can see, premises are headed numerically, conclusions,
> alphabetically. I've chosen the following format for clarity & ease of
> revision. Remember: premises are assumptions; while I welcome your input,
> do please try not to be *too* silly. :)
> 
> 1. Existances
> 1.1 God exists
	deleted> 1.2 Satan exists
        deleted> 1.3 Man exists
> 1.4 Free will exists
(we won't define Free Will here)
> 
> 2. God creates man (His Son?)
> 2.1 God's plan is to 'reproduce himself' - to make us his sons/daughters
        deleted> 2.2 The only way to make/build character is through time, experience &
               >     personal choice
        deleted> 2.3 At this time, God is allowing us to learn how bad sin really is &
        deleted>     just how far we can get without him
> 
> 3. Man (I guess this means us) the creation
> 3.1 Man is made/born perfect 
        deleted -->(tho not complete) ie. neither good nor evil
		Either its perfect or its not.
> 3.2 Man has free will
> 3.3 God does not 'make choices for a man' in that God does not infringe on
>     this free will
> 
> 4. Man & sin
> 4.1 Man's tendency to sin (let's call this 'human nature') is acquired & not
>     inherited
        deleted> 4.2 Satan 'broadcasts' bad/evil/wrongful attitudes
        deleted> 4.3 Human nature is acquired from a v young age through these broadcasts
> 
> 5. God & justice & mercy
> 5.1 God will (realistically) offer salvation to each and every person at
>     some time
        deleted> 5.2 God has/does/will reward/punish accordingly
        deleted> 5.3 God forgives upon repentance
> 
> A. God is just
> B. God is merciful
> 

I have only removed what I feel to be errors. I haven't sought to add anything.


In Christ

James
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
James Hale     			Lincoln School of Health Sciences
Computing Unit			La Trobe University,Bundoora, AUSTRALIA
                                
James.Hale@Latrobe.Edu.Au
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The grace of God rests gently on forgiving eyes,
and everything they look on speaks of Him to the beholder.
He can see no evil, nothing in the world to fear,
and no one who is different from himself."
						Text, P 418
_____________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (C. G. Albone)
Subject: Re: Changing nature of God
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:46:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.225545.4281@bain3.bain.oz.au> callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson) writes:
>C. G. Albone (chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU) wrote:
>[ because God knew sin was going to happen it must have been part of His plan ]
>
>That was basically your argument wasn't it?
It is one part of my argument yes, the whole of it no. I my argument can still
stand if we do not claim that God planned sin, but still knew it was going to
be there... And it would seem that if this is the case, then Humankind is going
to be punished because God couldnt make a system where there was no sin. If this
is the case, then it would still seem to me that humankind is being punished
unfairly.

>  Well, in spite of God knowing
>what will happen, He may still prefer other things to happen.  We have a
>choice to sin or not to sin (or at least Adam and Eve did) and God's purposes
>will be worked out no matter what.

Here you step on very dangerous ground. You claim that we have/had a choise
as to whether to sin or not. It would seem that you imply that we 'freely'
chose to sin. Well, if this is the case, then I am interested in why you believe
that there is such a thing as freewill. It is a normal assumption that choise
implies freedom, but this isnt necessarily the case.

> 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.

>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?

> I'm speaking of purpose in the ultimate
>sense here rather than desires.  For example, God desires that all people
>turn to him, but obviously that won't happen "no matter what" because of free
>will.  His purpose is to establish a kingdom for those who do turn to Him.
>

---
Chris.

Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au (James Uther)
Subject: Re: Uniting Church
Reply-To: jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au (James Uther)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:32:34 GMT

In article <davidmh-290992150027@jenni.ucc.su.oz.au>, davidmh@is.su.edu.au (David Martin Hill) writes:
|> 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.

Possibly. I think legislating against the symptom is attacking the wrong end of
the stick. Abuse is rare. Most harmful use of drugs is to hide from depression
and other psychosocial ills. There is a passage in the OT (i forget where) which
states "let the poor drink to forget their woe". All illegation does is
increase the social cost to those who will do it anyway.

As for that dig about being "in the world but not of it", It seems to me that
legislating against symptoms is very much the worlds way of doing things, but
I never notice Jesus do it in the gospels.
	james
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:58:56 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

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

>	What is the problem with you Christian dudes? It's fairly clear that
>abortion is O.K. 

If its so clear, why does it get discussed? Why do US presidude
elections almost get decided on this issue? Its a fairly intractable 
problem: the pro-life side tends thinks that abortion is murder, and any 
discussion must procede from there; the pro-choice tends to think that
the question is essentially one of self-determination/control, and
any discussion must procede from there. Hence, no inital meeting
ground to start a discussion. 

>The child doesn't feel anything and is not aware of his
>impending demise (and therefore doesn't suffer phsycologically). 

Is this so? The older ones in the abortable range in many
countries can feel light & sound; I would be surprised if they felt
nothing when being minced up and vacuumed out. It's only this year
that medical science has popularly admitted that baby boys feel
intense pain at circumcision. 

-ricko
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 06:20:32 GMT





Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Xianity & 'Xianity' (was: Changing nature of God)
Date: 6 Oct 92 08:38:39 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

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

>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.

Goodness. How alarming: I thought only the less athy would agree with me.

-ricko
From: mgray1@metz.une.edu.au (Matthew GRAY)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re:Changing nature of God
Date: 29 Sep 92 08:30:01 GMT


	When we look at God as He is presented in the OT and then
the NT, we see two fairly different pictures. One hard, one "soft"
(perhaps "gentle" is better). 
But look at ourselves. Are we _only_ hard? Are we _only_ gentle?
We are both. We have different characteristics for different times.
If we are amongst friends who love us and care for us, do we get
angry or upset with them, do we rebuke them and push them away?
Or if we are amongst people who are trying to hurt or kill us, and 
who will not listen to us when we speak our concern for them,
should we then shower blessing upon them and pour out our 
hearts to them, expecting love in return?
	We are made in God's image, which suggests that He is like
us (a little bit,anyway). He therefore shares many of our 
attributes, being caring, feeling hurt and angry, loving
and being loved, knowing righteousness, and feeling 
repentance.
	What we see is all of God, the "nice" and the "nasty".
When people look at God, they shouldn't see a God of _just_
love, or _only_ anger. They should see the God of everything,
"The first and the last, the beginning and the end". "...the LORD,
He is THE God, the LORD He IS THE GOD." (Rev. for 1st one, Ezekial/
Isaiah? for 2nd one)
We must realise that God is complete. He is not lop-sided or
inadequate in any area.
	We should rejoice in a God who should hate us and be
angry at us, and who can destroy us utterly at any time,
but instead CHOOSES to love us, and save us from 
destruction. Awesome.
	"...a God of truth, and without iniquity, just and 
right is He" ( hymn. Bible?)         
		all my love (by choice), in Jesus Christ,
		and the Hope of Israel,
					Matthew Gray
					mgray1@metz.une.oz.au

Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: gar@cltr.uq.oz.au (Greg Restall)
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion
Organization: Centre for Language Teaching and Research, Uni of Queensland, AUSTRALIA.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:51:48 GMT

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

*	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). 

The `problem' is due to the fact that people can be harmed
without being conscious of that harm.  Many of us take this
to be a Bad Thing.  

*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.

For many of us, this acts quite nicely as a reductio ad absurdum
of your view.  

*					Kevin Davey.
*					Monash Uni.

Greg 

(the one you met at the AAL conference)


--
------------------+------------------------------------------------
Greg Restall      | Philosophy Department, University of Queensland
gar@cltr.uq.oz.au | Queensland, 4072  Australia.
------------------+------------------------------------------------
Redemption rips through the surface of time in the cry of a tiny babe.
        - Bruce Cockburn, from the album "Nothing but a Burning Light"
From: lhccjeh@lure.latrobe.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Re:Changing nature of God
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:40:55 GMT
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University

In article <2075@grivel.une.edu.au>, 
	mgray1@metz.une.edu.au (Matthew GRAY) writes:

> 	We are made in God's image, which suggests that He is like
> us (a little bit,anyway). He therefore shares many of our 
> attributes, being caring, feeling hurt and angry, loving
> and being loved, knowing righteousness, and feeling 
> repentance.
Might I suggest that you have it back to front.
Yes we are made in His image, but surely that implies that we share His
attributes, not the He shares ours! He is our Creator, not our created.

I forget who said it, but it goes something like this...
	God created man in His image and ever since man has been
	creating God in his!"

In Christ,

James
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
James Hale     			Lincoln School of Health Sciences
Computing Unit			La Trobe University,Bundoora, AUSTRALIA
                                
James.Hale@Latrobe.Edu.Au
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The grace of God rests gently on forgiving eyes,
and everything they look on speaks of Him to the beholder.
He can see no evil, nothing in the world to fear,
and no one who is different from himself."
						Text, P 418
_____________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: austin@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Timothy James AUSTIN)
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 05:34:04 GMT

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

>	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.

This seems to be a very dubious way of determining ethics.  You might as well
say that it is okay to kill anyone as long as they are not aware that it is
about to happen and that it is done painlessly.

Imagine that you were having an operation and under a full anaesthetic.
The doctor decides that they don't like you and puts an end to your life.  
It is done painlessly and being still unconsious you don't know about it.
According to your determination of when it is okay to end someone's life
there is no problem with this.  You don't suffer any pain, physically or
phsycologically, and you are completely unaware that you are about to die.

>	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.

Tim Austin.
Melbourne Uni.
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (C. G. Albone)
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:07:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.184309.90248@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> kevin@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>	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).

One has to admit that God sending an angel to kill all the first born in Egypt
is a little wrough. But then christians can claim that it was God and that God
can do whatever God wants.

Having said that I am not sure that it is clearly ok to abort. If it were as
clear and unproblematic as you suggest, then this debate would not keep recurring

Let me ask you this, would it be ok for me to steal into your room while you
are sleeping, and ever so gently slice your throat so that you do not wake nor
feel anything as you die? Well, your argument would seem to suggest that it 
would be ok, though I think you may be inclined to disagree.
>
>					Kevin Davey.
>					Monash Uni.
---
Chris.
whereever i happen to be.
From: c9037395@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Helen Lee)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Xianity & 'Xianity' (was: Changing nature of God)
Date: 4 Oct 92 06:44:52 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Uni of Newcastle, Australia

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

>Could you not use "Xianity" please. It is offensive. 


My apologies. I will try not to use this again. (Pity tho, it was such a
good way of writing it 'shorthand'... like Xmas.)

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: ripng@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (PAUL NG)
Subject: Re:Uniting Church (ie. Abortion)
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:02:50 GMT


Chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (C. G. Albone) wrote:
Subject: Re: Uniting Church
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:58:43 GMT

>>Science tells me it is a completely formed human being. 
>Here I would beg to differ. Science will tell you nothing of the sort. It 
willtell you that the foetus in its later stages may have all the physical 
bits andpieces that an adult human has. It will not tell you that it is 
completely formed as this is simply not the case.. Why do you think we have 
childhood? Because the child still has to develop, physically as much as 
anything else.  More importantly, the congative sciences will tell you that 
the foetus is not completely formed because it hasnt had enough experiences. 
It will not be able to perceive as you and I can. I am saying that its 
visual systems will not have the training to be able to see the world as we 
do. It will not know how to control itself, and indeed early children have a 
hard enough time working out which way is up. More than this, what is a part 
of a human being is their personality, their memories, their experiences, 
and you are not born with these.It may be the case that you are born with 
dispositions to act and feel and think in certain ways, but these 
dispositions do not constitute the whole of the personality. If personality 
is a part of a completely formed human being, asscience will say it is, then 
a foetus that lacks this is not a completelyformed human being. 

I find the above rather disturbing.  It implies that children are not humans 
until their personalities are "fully developed".  In fact, it implies that 
nobody is a human until his/her personality is "fully developed".  But there 
are problems defining what exactly IS fully developed.  People change all 
the time.  When a person gets married s/he grows.  When s/he becomes a 
parent there is also a development of the personality.  Outlook changes with 
age, right through to death.  "Experiences" do not stop at, say, 7 or 8 
years of age.  Why draw the line at birth or early childhood?	I haven't 
actually seen any scientific literature on this point; and I don't expect to 
see any, because the question "is this a fully-formed human being?" is one 
to be determined by religionists and philosophers, lawyers, and other "
social scientists" using social attitudes as their navigation aids; it's not 
a "scientific" question in the _strict_ sense of that term, unlike, say, F=
MA.  IF there was enough support for it, the term "human being" could 
be restricted to, say, all male Caucasians above the age of 45 in 
Victoria.  Killing a 39-year old Aborigine would not be murder.  It 
might be cruelty to animals, but it wouldn't be murder.  _Science_ would be 
irrelevant.  Ridiculous, but I think it illustrates the point.      

+++ Paul. +++
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Uniting Church
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:55:43 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

James Uther (jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au) wrote:
> I really don't think the law knows what it's job is. However, it has decided
> that abortion is a moral issue for the woman concerned. The law, you will notice,
> has not legislated against sex before marrige.

However, I don't think the (any) church can make laws for the rest of secular
society either.  But what it can do is make laws for itself.  Just like in
the bible, the Law was for the Israelites, God's chosen people that he had
delivered and saved from bondage in Egypt.  It wasn't for the Egyptians, nor
the Canaanites etc.  When we become Christians God's Law is written in our
hearts and we are given the Spirit to help us discern God's will.  It is a
nonsense for a church to try and secularise its standing.  What does it gain
them?  Acceptance in the world which is exactly what we are warned against.
No church has the right to impose their law or rules on secular society,
though they should try and bend society towards being more Godly, however
as you say this is attacking the symptom not the cause.  As someone else
said, the problem is that they are not saved.  Likewise, once you become a
Christian you are no longer part of a western democracy, you are in the
kingdom of God (which is a theocracy) and you'd better abide by its rules
over and above the law of our society.  How can a church come along and debate
the Law of kingdom of God?  With this in mind, sex before marriage and
abortion are no more or less moral issues than is murder.  They are all against
God's Law as revealed in the Bible.  Does it affect the actions of Christians
(wrt to those specific matters) what the secular law is for those things?

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 : :-)