HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Subject: Transubstantiation (Was Re: AIDS and the common cup)
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 06:24:05 GMT

In <1992Aug31.000002.17698@bain3.bain.oz.au> callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson) writes:

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

>> No one claims the bread and wine undergo any physical change. That is
>> grotesque indeed. Since no-one proposes that, it can be ignored. 
>> The body of Jesus stands under the appearance of the bread and wine.

>Pardon?  What exactly are you saying?  That the bread _becomes_ flesh but
>still looks like bread?  Likewise the wine turns to blood but still looks
>and tastes like wine?  Que?

The transubsantiation idea comes from Aristotelian philosophy.
Everything has 'accidents' and 'substance'.  The accidents are what you
perceive with your senses, while the substance is what it really is.
In transubstantiation, the accidents remain those of bread and wine,
while the substance is changed to that of Christ.

Anyone care to correct anything there?  I am a Zwinglian, so this is
all from memory of Church History II five years ago...
--
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
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Subject: Re: Translating the Bible
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 07:34:21 GMT

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

>In <ricko.714543225@ee.uts.EDU.AU> ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:

>>A very interesting book about cross-cultural mission work is "Peace
>>Child", by Don Richards (from memory).

>A great book - it's Don Richardson, BTW.

His "Lords of the Earth" is amazing too.

>As to the idea of publishing the gospel being a necessary precursor for
>Jesus to return, I have never seen that in any of our materials (but
>there is a rather large amount that I haven't read - we do put out a
>lot!)

I didn't mean any disrepect to Wycliff people. Many field workers live
very heroic lives attempting to make the Gospel more available.

-ricko
From: gar@cltr.uq.oz.au (Greg Restall)
Subject: Re: CHRIST WAS JUST A MAN !!!!
Keywords: CHRIST
Organization: Centre for Language Teaching and Research, Uni of Queensland, AUSTRALIA.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:37:17 GMT

markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU () writes:

*I am sure Greg Restall will happily provide some other texts from the 
*opposite perspective. 

The perspective being the positive one on the topic of
whether or not Jesus was divine.  There are some gnarly
issues here.  And I think they're some of the most 
important ones you'll ever come across.  So, I'll gladly
provide references to texts from this perspective.  Give
me a few days to look things up, and get together a 
few potted reviews.

Best wishes,

Greg

--
------------------+------------------------------------------------
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: cbrasted@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Charles Brasted)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Date: 3 Sep 92 06:57:14 GMT

bill@bain3.bain.oz.au (Bill Richardson) writes:


>Reply to Charles & Mark

>I only know what I quote ... the information is from a book called 'The 
>Fingerprint Of God' by Hugh Ross. I quote from page 128

Fair enough.

[ discussion deleted ]


>...safely to the conclusion that much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth
>of a percent of all stars will have a planet capable of sustaining advanced
>life. Considering that the universe contains only about a trillion galaxies,
>each averaging a hundred billion stars, we can see that not even one planet
>could be expected, by natural processes alone . ......


I think you are missing the point of what I said.  A very low probability of
an event occurring does not imply that there is some "mysticism" about it, if
it does occur.  Yes, you are right the chances are very small for life to 
exist at any time, let alone now.  But consider this: 50 years ago the world 
was in a certain "state" (politically, socially etc etc).  At that time, the 
probability of the world to be in the "state" it is in now would be very small,
comparable to the probability of life evolving in the first place.  But do we
attribute the state of the world to a divine wave of the hand?  Of course not.
There is nothing holistically remarkable about a particular event occuring at
any time, because if it did not, another event would occur, and the alternative
futures could not be appreciated.

>Creator or chance?
It is quite academic to the real world, really.............

>.. William Lane Craig: Suppose a dozen sharpshooters are sent to execute a
>prisoner  by firing squad, and the prisoner survives. The prisoner could
>conclude, since he is alive, that all the sharpshooters missed by some
>extremely unlikely chance. He may wish to attribute his survival to an
>incredible bit of good luck, but he would be far more rational to conclude that
>the guns were loaded with blanks or that the sharpshooters all deliberately
>missed.


You could consider the above in the following way: over the years millions of 
people have been executed by shooting.  Within each shooting there is a very 
small probability that each shooter will miss.  If one does not, the person 
will die, and will not be able to count "his turn" as an event.  When a person
survives, he is unable to appreciate his turn was the one in which everyone 
missed, and that before him millions of others had perished.  Naively he assumes
there is some sort of signifigance about his survival rather than a mathematical
improbability. 

Besides, what one person assumes has little to do with the above discussion.
 



Cheers

Charles
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Basket Weavers, Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:41:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.021227.5875@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU> markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU () writes:
>
>All the gory details presented for your entertainment.

	[...deleted, since most of us saw them the first time
	    they were posted for informational rather than
	    entertainment value...]

>In a word Callum, this is utter crap. From start to finish. Bilge. Garbage.
>Intellectual Excreta.

Uh-oh. A True Disbeliever has arrived :-)

>Now that I have cooled down, I realise that this is
>not a reasoned response so here is one.
	[..]
>What is the evidence for evolution? It is essentially all around you,

Amusingly, the Apostle Paul used a very similar appeal to support the
existence of God in Romans 1:20 ("Ever since God created the world, his
invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have
been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made...",GNB)

Strikes me that you're only reiterating a well used argument "my explanation
of how the world around you is true, because you can see the world around
you as evidence".

	[...more stuff deleted....I'm only making random comments after
	    reading it all..]

>Unless God were a malicious being, he would never design the 
>thumb that way, because it works very badly.

Not a convincing argument. Christians are very used to having to
explain why God has allowed or created things which we would consider
bad, on more important issues than some poor animals "thumb".

	[..]
>Now we come to mud slinging.

Oh, goody.

>The creationists are notoriously dishonest.
	[..]
>They are guilty of outright lies
	[..]
>and distortions , (financial irregularities as well
>but I don't want to touch that one),

But you thought you'd just mention it in passing, right?

>and some of the vilest abuse of people it has ever been my displeasure 
>to hear. They also have a tendency to threaten legal action if you 
>question their behaviour. 

Just between you and I, if someone started making sweeping generalisations
that I was dishonest, a lier, and a vile abuser of people, I'd be looking
for retribution too.

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm unimpressed with both camps on this issue,
and your tone of righteous/moral indignation does nothing to convince me
that evolutionists are any better. People in glass houses, and all that....

Sure you're not a member of the Church of Latter Day Evolutionists? :-)

yours in getting out the wrong side of bed,
gja
From: osborn@socs.uts.edu.au (Tom Osborn)
Subject: Re: AIDS and the common cup
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Distribution: aus
Date: 24 Aug 92 09:58:16 GMT

Well, what about herpes?
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Subject: Creation & Evolution - the great side issue.
Summary: It really does matter.
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 04:13:45 GMT


This is not a posting about the correctness of Evolution or Creation per se.
Maybe we'll leave that for another time (it comes up every now and then).
This posting is more intended to address Christians who think that Evolution
vs Creation is another one of those irrelevant side issues that draws the
focus from the real issue, namely salvation in Christ.  Well, I would have
put myself in that category until Friday night when I saw a film that
explained why it is an important issue.  I'll try and provide some of the
main points below though it will obviously be hard to summarise all the
points in a 3/4 hour film.

Creation gives Christianity a reason for being like it is.  ie, God created
man, man rebelled and sin entered the world, thus Jesus came and paid the
price for sin.  Genesis is quoted by Jesus many times and also throughout
the NT.  As the name suggests, Genesis is the origin of many of the things
we call part of Christian doctrine.  By attacking Genesis and the creation,
you attack the things upon which our faith is based.  The churches used to
have overwhelming responses when the gospel was preached but now they are
empty.  That's because now people have a different basis - evolution.  With
evolution you don't need God to create the world, thus you don't need to
obey his rules since he isn't the creator, thus man makes his own rules.
You end up with a society like we have today.  However, if God is creator,
He makes the rules.  Notice when Paul wrote to a Greek church he told them
the unknown God was the creator of all things.  He didn't preach the gospel
message straight off because it would not have made sense to them.  He started
at the beginning, Genesis.  Without this foundation, the explanation of
the way God created things and how sin came about, the message of Jesus
coming to save us makes no sense.  ("...foolishness to the Gentiles...")

I've been very jumbled but the point I'm making is that if we shouldn't let
people attack the basis of Christianity.  Creation vs Evolution isn't
merely a side issue because Evolution leads to the thought process I've
described above.  You can't tell people that Jesus came to save them if
they have no concept of what they came to be saved from.

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: iant@cc.uow.edu.au (Ian Tait)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:42:29 GMT
Organization: University Of Wollongong



>b) The book I read a few months back says 
>	- The earth is approximately 18 billion years old - no question.
>	- If evolution was solely responsible for life as it is on earth, it
>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.

Throw the book away, the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life in its simplest
form commenced about 3 billion years ago.

Yes, evolution can happen quite rapidly and the Peppered moths of England
are only a minor example. Think of all the different varieties on food 
crops our agronomists are developing, think of the hundreds of different
breeds of cattle, dogs and other domesticated animals all descended
from some wild variety. This is only evolution in a form we call artificial
selection.  Maybe our farmers are playing god.

Ian Tait - University of Wollongong- Dept. of Biology.x
            iant@uow.edu.au
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 04:20:36 GMT

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?

>>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.

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

Fraser.
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: AIDS and the common cup
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:17:27 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Rick Jelliffe (ricko@ee.uts.edu.au) wrote:
> greyham@research.canon.oz.au (Graham Stoney) writes:
> >Is there anything I've missed?
> 
> 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

Seems that it would be pretty strange to say "This is my body" and mean it
literally when you were still using it.  Jesus called Peter a rock.  "I am
a rock, I am an island" as the song goes.  Saying something is something
else is a common figure of speech.  The thing that I dislike most about
transubstantiation is that it is doctrinally unnecessary.  Christianity is
a No-frills religion.  That's exactly what Jesus told the Pharisees.  He said
forget about your religious works, love God and let that love guide your
actions.  It seems to me as I read the bible that God's message to us is
how we can be saved and how we can love God, thus anything else is superfluous.
Galations explains clearly that salvation is a gift from God (through the
death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ) and not derived from any of
man's acts, and we are instructed to love God and love our neighbour with
guidance from the Holy Spirit.  That's bare bones Christianity for 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: bill@bain3.bain.oz.au (Bill Richardson)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 05:41:32 GMT



Don

your emphasis is noted. As I emphasised, I posted a small section of that book,
and to get the full picture of what he is saying, you have to read the book. 
I cannot add any further to that.
As to the relevance of my last paragraph, I can only say that it is a statement
of the unlikelyhood of our planet as it stands being the result of coincidence.
You could argue till the cows come home that the probability of evolution
bringing us to where we are today is a finite number - all I am saying is that
from what I have gleaned, it is *exceptionally* unlikely.
My feeling is that God is reliable. I have personal evidence that this is so.
If he says then that he created the world in seven days, hey who am I to argue?
And if I'm not going to argue with him, why would I argue with you? However I'm
always willing to learn. The ability to make art has been cited as evidence of
a soul, and this evidence has only been around for tens of thousands of years.
Is a soul a possible product of evolution? 
This is not intended as a flame, just a reflection of my strongly held beliefs.


Regards

-- 
**\ Bill Richardson                      Mail: bill@bain3.bain.oz.au       //\\
**/ A/P DBBGS, Bain & Co Sydney, Aust.   Ph: +61 2 258 1512 (fax 258-1000)   //
**\  When I awoke the dire wolf six hundred pounds of sin...                ||
**/        Billions of blue blistering barnacles@#$*&!                      **
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: bill@bain3.bain.oz.au (Bill Richardson)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:47:33 GMT

markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU wrote:
> 
> It is often said that we can tell the hand of the creator by the fact that
> everything is so superbly suiterd to its environment. WE can in fact tell
> the work of evolution by the fact that things often do not suit their 
> environment. An obvious example is the size of the human brain in relation 
> to the size of the vagina. The vagina of course serves as the human birth
> canal, and the reason wht child birth is so difficult is because the size
> the skull of an average baby, not to mention the size of the baby itself, is
>  too great for birth to be comfortable.
 
Pain and suffering are intrinsic to the survival of man. The discomfort of 
childbirth adds immediate value to the relationship. This is an exceptional
design characteristic I believe. Since when were great acheivements 
comfortable anyway? I will however be interested in your opinion on the day
that females develop zippers.
 
> Callum , if you believe that Creation is essential to christianity, then 
> christianity is in serious trouble. I hope you will do some independent 
> research and rconsider your opinion.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it is mathematically 'impossible' for life
to have evolved in the time span allotted (ie < 1 chance in one billion). 
Additionally, the conditions for life to continue are each as mathematically
'impossible'. eg Hubbles constant. Your research should have told you this.
Many branches of science, but specifically physicists are now excepting many 
of these 'coincidences' as supportive of creationism, if only for the reason 
that the overwhelming sense of order when *viewing the universe as the
						      ~~~~~~~~
eternally viable entity that it appears to be* indicates a being bigger than
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the universe in charge. I believe you are looking at the small picture. 
  
> Yours in Scepticism,
> Mark C.
> .

Where Catholicism has a pope, Scepticism has a rope.


Regards 




-- 
**\ Bill Richardson                      Mail: bill@bain3.bain.oz.au       //\\
**/ A/P DBBGS, Bain & Co Sydney, Aust.   Ph: +61 2 258 1512 (fax 258-1000)   //
**\       Looking for the secret, searching for the sound                   ||
**/       But I can only here the preacher and the baying of his hound.     **
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: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:19:03 GMT

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 ? Is this a possibility,
>especially for the priest/minister who consumes the remains after
>everyone else. or do we trust that our notions of transubstantiation,
>or transignification or whatever will save us from this ? Perhaps
>someone with relevant technical knowledge could advise. I read a
>minor article on the subject in a Christian journal of some kind
>which didn't really face the issue but assumed that in such a holy
>context, nothing untoward could happen. Personally, I'm not so sure.
>John Boutland.

>-- 
>John Boutland, Lecturer, Faculty of Computing & Information Technology,
>Monash University, P.O. Box 197, CAULFIELD EAST, Victoria, Australia.
>Phone (61) (3) 573 2122
>Email John.Boutland@monash.edu.au

Hi John,
	Well this isn't my area at all (so I could be wrong) but this concern
was raised quite a few years ago when it was discovered that the AIDS virus
(not identified at the time) was transmitted in certain bodily fluids, of which
saliva was one.  Scientists then reported that the density of surviving AIDS
virus's in saliva was so low that the risk of tranmission from kissing, sharing
cups, breathing, spitting etc, was negligible.  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)
	I know that this isn't current figures, and I am sure that current
research would certainly be more accurate, but the basic thrust appears to
indicate that sharing from the communion cup is perfectly safe.  And, if anyone
is worried about the few hundred millionths of a percent chance of transmission,
well I'm sure that God could diddle a few micro probabilities! 8-) 8-)
	Hope this helps, and I hope you get a more informed answer too.

Yours in love,
	Jason

-----------------------------University-of-Tasmania----------------------------
Jason Pieloor                              email: Jason.Pieloor@eee.utas.edu.au
Department of Electrical and               phone: (002) 202925
Electronic Engineering                     fax:   (002) 202136

[All views and opinions expressed in this document are mine and do not reflect
 in any way the attitudes, position, or opinions of this University]

Newsgroups: aus.religion