HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gar@cltr.uq.oz.au (Greg Restall)
Subject: Re: Scepticism: a mandatory reply
Organization: Centre for Language Teaching and Research, Uni of Queensland, AUSTRALIA.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 21:25:38 GMT

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

*And there is a difference between adopting speculative doubt and
*real doubt as a method, don't you think?

Yes.  Speculative doubt is a fruitful method 
for seeking the truth.  I don't even think that
real doubt counts as a method.  Whether I really
doubt something or not seems to be out of the
scope of my conscious control; like whether or
not I believe something.  However, I can speculate
at will.  

*-ricko

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"
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: CHRIST WAS JUST A MAN !!!!
Keywords: CHRIST
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:17:39 GMT

Various stuff by ricko commenting on Jon Biddell's original article
deleted 
he then writes:

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

>Ian Wilson is a practicisng Catholic, who was flayed by the 
>church when the tv series on which this was based came out. 

>>If he teaches that Jesus is not God, he is not a practising Catholic.
>>It is the church's job, for his and our soul's sake, to point this out.
>>It is not for individuals to define for themselves what Catholicism is,
>>the church has that task. (Of course, it is for individuals to believe,
>>fathom and personally follow Jesus).

Wilson does not teach that Jesus was not God. He merely presented the evidence 
of a century of NT scholaship to the general population. As for your comment 
that it is not for individuals to define what Catholicism is, I find that
bizarre. The church is the people, not the bishops and pope etcetera. 
At least that is what I was taught at the Catholic school I went to. 
Moreover, many people who consider themselves as Catholics, disagree strongly
over many of the Church's teachings, notably Birth Control. I don't think
it is up you to say who is a Catholic and who is not, particularly as church
dogma can change.

>What AN Wilson is claiming
>is scarcely radical. I doubt that most new testament scholars would raise
>an eyebrow about it. After all, they have been saying the same things for
>over one hundred years. 

>>People have been disbelieving ever since it happened. If many people 
>>wouldn't believe it then, when the evidence was fresh, why should
>>we be surprised now, when all eye-witnesses are dead?

It is not about disbelieving in God. It is about attempting to discover
what the NT actually says, free of fairy stories.              

Mark C.
From: kerr@redgum.ucnv.edu.au (r.kerr)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:40:16 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: UCNV, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia

In article <1992Aug27.122205.12788@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
>In article <9223810.12060@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson) writes:

>> ...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?
 
> You are right, evo doesn't preclude God *BUT* it undermines His word, which
>in the eyes of the unbeliever, is as good as excluding God.

*AHEM* You mean it appears to _you_ to undermine the word of God.  As an
'unbeliever' I didn't necessarily assume that to be the case.  If
anything, I felt that creationists were undermining the word of God.
Basically, I'm saying that your last statement is an assumption and that
it is wrong.

_Some_ people may see it as a reason for excluding God.  Some people
will find a reason for excluding God under any circumstances.  A
missplaced nervousness about God's ability to take care of his word
shouldn't lead you to reject a well tested scientific theory in favour
of a pretty dubious a priori position.

Regards,  Richard  (kerr@redgum.ucnv.oz.au)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Subject: Re: Transubstantiation (continued)
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:44:18 GMT

In <ripng.2.716052520@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au> ripng@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (PAUL NG) writes:

> John Browne's comment on its Aristotelian background is true since it was 
That's Brownie, but there you go...
>St Thomashimself who worked out a synthesis between the two. The Church has 
>always believed in the Real Presence long before it coined this term to 
>describe what happens. See St Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, 
>Cyrilof Jerusalem for just some examples of the belief of the Church in its
>earliest days.

When you say the Church, you mean the Roman Catholic Church, I
presume.  The real presence doctrine wasn't universal in the early days
(I can't remember any references - I'll have to dig out my Church
History notes if anyone wants them).

[ Quote from 1 Corinthians 11:26-30 ]
>	As Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman said on this verse, "Plain and simple 
>reason seems to tell us that the presence of Christ's body is necessary for 
>an offense [to be] committed against it...... an offender against the 
>Blessed Eucharist cannot be described as guilty of Christ's Body and Blood, 
>if these be not present in the Sacrament". So, can I say that if I don't 
>believe then there is no offense? These words indicate otherwise.

There is the other principal interpretation of what Paul is saying.  If
you look at 1 Corinthians, Paul uses the body metaphor for the church
as a whole.  Hence the reference to "recognising the body of the Lord"
could well be a reference to the church.  This makes sense in the
context: the problem was people who treated the communion meal as an
opportunity to indulge themselves without regard for the others there.
In other words, they were not recognising that they were all part of
the one body, and so they were not acting in love towards one another.
--
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)
Subject: Re: AIDS and the common cup
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:12:58 GMT

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

>Rick Jelliffe (ricko@ee.uts.edu.au) wrote:
>> Jesus said (John 6:56) "My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink".

>> 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?

If you don't know what Catholics mean by transsubstantiation, why are
you arguing against it? 

-ricko
From: kerr@redgum.ucnv.edu.au (r.kerr)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Creation & Evolution - the great side issue.
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:06:43 GMT
Organization: UCNV, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia

In article <1992Aug28.030413.20596@cc.uow.edu.au> u9264442@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew William Easton) writes:
>Why is death needed for evolution? I'm going to be flamed to death for asking
>that, because evolution takes a _very_ long time, but does it directly rely on
>death in any way?

Darwin summarised natural selection in the famous phrase "Survival of
the fittest."

For him, those organisms most suited to their environment survived
longest and had the most (environmetally suitable number of) children,
while less suited animals (usually) died earlier (usually) leaving fewer
children.

Having parents around to compete with, and breed with, their
children would actually work _against_ the accumulation of benificial
mutations.

Unless we are going to hypothesise some extraordinarily complicated way
of miraculously segregating generations and still allowing each
generation to compete for the same habitat (which doesn't exist today
and left no evidence behind it), we have no choice but to believe that
parents died to make way for their children.

Regards, Richard.  (kerr@redgum.ucnv.oz.au) <-- Note new address
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: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:39:05 GMT



I was just answering the question, Your Honour.


PS If I have to evolve, God, could I have wings and gills?


-- 
**\ 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: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Subject: Re: CHRIST WAS JUST A MAN !!!!
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 09:20:15 GMT
Keywords: CHRIST


>Jon Biddell writes:

>>Novelist A.N. Wilson will bublish next month his controversial biography of 
>>Jesus of Nazareth.
>>Wilson has concluded that Jesus was not born of a virgin, was not raised 
>>from the dead and had no plans to launch an organised religion called 
>>Christianity.
>>"Jesus would have hated Christianity," said Wilson, 

There are no end of possible theories based on the words of the bible.
Or to explain what happened then (ie revived, married, went to France, went
to Dead Sea, went to India, etc), though with varying degrees of credibility.

But Jesus did more than just speak. He also founded the church, promising the
Holy Spirit that would lead into all truth. 

I can understand people who think that Jesus was not divine, and 
as an actual historical figure is lost in the mist of history.
I can understand (& agree with) people who think Jesus was divine, and 
was able to let himself & his message be presented faithfully since 
(through the bible & the church).

But I can't understand people who think he was divine, yet impotent to 
communicate even to his disciples, let alone guide their redactors. 
That seems a rather less than omnipotent, rather pathetic..

So, if you're attempting to find Jesus as God in the Scriptures, 
isn't it inconsistant to also assert the bible & church are wrong?

If Jesus was God, and wished us to discover him through modern biblical
scholarship techniques, why did he not teach them, rather than sending
the Holy Spirit? 


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

>Ian Wilson is a practicisng Catholic, who was flayed by the 
>church when the tv series on which this was based came out. 

If he teaches that Jesus is not God, he is not a practising Catholic.
It is the church's job, for his and our soul's sake, to point this out.
It is not for individuals to define for themselves what Catholicism is,
the church has that task. (Of course, it is for individuals to believe,
fathom and personally follow Jesus).

>What AN Wilson is claiming
>is scarcely radical. I doubt that most new testament scholars would raise
>an eyebrow about it. After all, they have been saying the same things for
>over one hundred years. 

People have been disbelieving ever since it happened. If many people 
wouldn't believe it then, when the evidence was fresh, why should
we be surprised now, when all eye-witnesses are dead?


Some one else writes (sorry didn't cut name):
> One must remember that the churches are not about religion, but are
>institutions of power. As such, they will seek to protect themselves
>by denying my (his) conclusions.  

Or alternatively, they try to protect us from deniers of what Jesus has
successfully established. Why is something that is an institution, and
therefore analysable in power terms, thereby barred from being about religion?
Its like saying that a mother, who has some concrete political role in a
family, can therefore be nothing to do with love.
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Subject: Re: Transubstantiation
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:13:15 GMT

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

>A friend mentioned to me yesterday that he read in the Catholic Canon Law
>(does that sound right?) that anyone who doesn't believe that the bread and
>wine _actually_ change physically is cursed (or some equivalent word).  That
>doesn't seem to fit in with this dual property stuff.  It seems to be talking
>about changing altogether.  

If it changed physically, it wouldn't be transsubstantiation, it would be
trans-something-else, and transsubstantiation would never have been 
invented as a doctrine to explain that it doesn't change physically.

Despite this, I am glad we both agree that Jesus died to save sinners. 
That is the essense of communion. I wouldn't want any discussion to cloud that:
especially on these newsgroups where breviety and directness can easily
be misread as curtness, bickering  and impoliteness by the casual reader.

-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Subject: Re: Scepticism: a mandatory reply
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:54:24 GMT

gar@cltr.uq.oz.au (Greg Restall) writes:

> Speculative doubt is a fruitful method 
>for seeking the truth.  I don't even think that
>real doubt counts as a method.  Whether I really
>doubt something or not seems to be out of the
>scope of my conscious control; like whether or
>not I believe something.  However, I can speculate
>at will.  

Yes, but all the time people talk of "realities" (as in "we all 
create our own" or "that might be true in your"), and in 
conversation attempt to claim real doubt about external reality
as a defense against even minimal definiteness.

So in popular thought, speculative doubt has been translated to
real doubt. I don't know enough philosphy to comment on whether
any real philosophers actually propose real doubt.

And I have actually met someone who seriously proposed real doubt as
a lifestyle: a leading Quaker. Of course, having claimed it, you can't get much
further, so its not very fruitful apart from anything else I think.
And he went further than Descartes' speculation, and wouldn't even 
commit himself to his own existance.

-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Selbyn Liew)
Subject: Re: Creation & Evolution - the great side issue.
Organization: Electrical and Electronic - University of Melbourne 
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 10:51:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.050422.22278@cltr.uq.OZ.AU> gar@cltr.uq.oz.au (Greg Restall) writes:

Just to add an interesting point about the Genesis account into this
quite reasonable discussion:

>God said to Adam and Eve that the day they ate of the 
>fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they
>would surely die.  Now Genesis tells us that they lived
>a great number of years since that time.  So I must conclude
>that the death that is talked about in this passage is not
>physical death, but something else.  This, at least, *must*
>be figurative in the book.  Otherwise it is simply mistaken.
>Adam and Eve died that day, in the same way that all humanity
>is dead in sin.  The Genesis account is correct.  However, 
>Adam and Eve did not *physically* die on the day they ate.
>So I can't agree with you that physical death is what is 
>in view in this passage.  

Literally, the Hebrew phrase for Gen 2:17, is something like:
"for in the day that you eat of it, *dying you shall die*"
Thus, it could be refering to both being "dead in trespasses
and sins" (Eph 2:1) and that eventually, physical death will
follow.  Therefore, with regard to physical death, all are
"dying" while in this life.  With regard to spiritual death,
those redeemed by the blood of Christ escapes and eventually
culminates in a resurrection of glory when Christ returns,
eventhough these will die physically as well.  Those who
reject salvation do not escape spiritual death, and hence
will only be resurrected to condemnation on the day of
judgment. (Rev 20)

"Be saved from this perversed generation."  (Acts 2:40)

Selbyn Liew

"FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN
SON, THAT WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH BUT HAVE
ETERNAL LIFE."  (John 3:16)
==========================================================================
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: ripng@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (PAUL NG)
Subject: Transubstantiation
Keywords: Correction!!!
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:21:15 GMT

Dear John, Rick, and anybody else who may be interested in the subject, it 
has been confirmed in no uncertain terms that I am human after all, ie. I 
made a mistake regarding transubstantiation.  
	I'm not so sure I understand the current controversy about 
Aristotelian principles, to me it seems to be quite sensible to believe 
that a thing can be on the surface one thing and have behind it, so to 
speak, quite another thing - I can immediately think of the prima facie 
case and the substantive case, or the dichotomy between form and substance, 
in law, for example.  Anyhow, Simon at the Uni of Tasmania has pointed 
out that there is an error in that part where I thought that if one doesn't 
believe, eg. if one is an atheist, Christ doesn't exist at all in the 
bread.  This implies that a non-Catholic can take the bread 
and treat it like a perfectly normal meal.
	I was given some (obviously persuasive) detailed reasoning and  
quotes from the Bible and Catholic writings that boil down to the 
conclusion that Jesus' presence is objectively determined.  Ie. non-
believers who eat the bread will still be eating Jesus, in the sense 
of the transubstantiation doctrine, and they will have to take the 
consequences, whatever they are.
	That is, belief or otherwise in Catholicism, does not affect (
according to Catholic belief) the presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. 
He's there regardless of who is taking the bread or attending Mass.  
	"Apologetically" yours, Paul.

Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Subject: Re: CHRIST WAS JUST A MAN !!!!
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:04:58 GMT
Keywords: CHRIST

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

>The book presnts what is essentially mainstream New Testament scholarship.

>A few of the conclusions are
>5) The two epistles of Peter could not have been written by the apostle Peter
>and whoever wrote the letters to Timothy and Titus was not the person who
>wrote the letters to the Romans, Galatians and Corinthians (indisputably
>St Paul)

Did you see the interesting article in comp.religion.christian
about the discovery of fragments of (I?) Timothy from the first
century. According to the article, it turns mainstream
New Testament scholarship on its head.

I don't want to argue about the value of such speculative
scholarship, it is not my area at all. But its not substantial
enough to surplant following Christ according to sacred tradition.

-ricko
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: AIDS and the common cup
Date: 8 Sep 92 00:09:13 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Rick Jelliffe (ricko@ee.uts.edu.au) wrote:
> If you don't know what Catholics mean by transsubstantiation, why are
> you arguing against it? 

Gee, great explanation.  :-/  It appears (from the other thread) that you
are saying that things have two properties.  However, as John Brownie says,
if you don't hold to this Aristotlian(?) view then this doesn't make a lot
of sense.  How many Catholics really understand it?  I bet most of them
think that when you say bread turns to Christ's body etc, that it really
does change.  Is the "accidents" supposed to be some sort of spiritual level
of existence of things or what?  It's a foreign concept to anyone except those
who read Aristotle, I'm afraid.

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: markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: CHRIST WAS JUST A MAN !!!!
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 07:21:02 GMT

Okay I will take a hundred lines: DO not quote things from memeory

I write:
> out that all of Jesus teachings can be traced to , often in the exact words,
> teachings by other prominent Jewish figures such as Hillel. (Hillel was
> once asked to summarise the Torah while standing on one leg. He said" Do nothing to others which is hateful to you.......and if your neighbour has no shirt
> then give him yours. That is the whole Torah,the rest is commentary. Go and

Then Callum writes:
>>Something interesting we found in our Sermon on the Mount bible studies was
>>that (as you mention above) the Torah says basically "Don't do anything to
>>others that you wouldn't like" - it's a negative statement.  However, when
>>Jesus summarises God's law he says, "Do to others as you'd have them do to you"
>>which is a positive, active statement.  Jesus was for positive active love,
>>not negative rule following.

Then I replied:

>>>This is a point which is often made. I have seen in many books Hillel 
>>>quoted as saying " Do nothing to others that is hateful to you". Fullstop.
>>>But he goes on to say, and "neighbour has no shirt then give him yours".
>>>That is the whole Torah in Hillels view. This is just what Jesus was saying
>>>put in another form, and not a very different form at that. The first part is
>>>indeed a negative statement, the second is a positive statement. So you
>>>see how a lot of christian writing has misrepresented Judaism. Hillel and
>>>Jesus say the same thing, but by selective quotations we have this idea 
>>>presented that Judaism in the first century was all about negative rule
>>>following, while Jesus was all about positive love. To some one like Hillel,
>>>Judaism was all about positive love too.

I have mixed up two quotations here. Sorry about that. Hillel said: "Do 
nothing unto others that is hateful unto you. That is the whole Torah.
The rest is commetary. Go and learn". The part about giving your shirt 
to your neighbour is another quotation I think from Hillel, but I acn't 
find the source, so I will give another example. Tobit 4:15 reads :
Do to no one what you would not want done to yourself, and is followed by
Give your bread to those who are hungry and your clothes to those who are
naked. And every christian should recognise " Love thy neighbour as thyself
as being from Leviticus 19:18.

A Jewish friend of mine tells me that there has been quite a bit of rabbinical
speculation on why Hillel's famous quotation is in the negative.  Apparently 
there is some kind of agrrement on why he spoke in the negative in this 
instant. I'll find out if anybody is interested. My original point remains
that Judaism was and is as much a religion about positive love rather than
just following laws as is christianity.

Mark C.







Newsgroups: aus.religion