HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: no thrills from  no frills
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:09:16 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU wrote:
> exclusive things). He kept all the Jewish rituals, and indeed said that he 
> had not come to end the law as some believed. Rather that the law would remain
> until the coming of the kingdom of God. What silly rules that the Pharisees
> made up did he not keep? 

That's right, he kept the Laws that were instituted by God not the 600 or so
incidental rules instituted by the Pharisees.  Recently my bible study group
did a study on the sermon on the mount from the book by John Stott called
Essential Living.  The focus of this book was to see the _intent_ of God's
laws behind the actual words.  However, the Pharisees made up a whole lot
more, such as various things you couldn't do on the Sabbath, etc, which did
not reflect the reason God gave them in the first place.  Jesus' sermon on
the mount, along with his defiance wrt some things particularly regarding
the Sabbath, were aimed at exposing this silliness.  People were always to
rely on God for their salvation, a lesson the Israelites never seemed to
learn.  For example, now we are looking at Isaiah, and in it (and parallel
passages in Kings and Chronicles) we see how Israel (more so than Judah)
relied on other nations and other gods to stop them being attacked by Assyria.
In the same way, they also turned to the Law to get them salvation, but the
Law wasn't given for salvation.  As some further matter of coincidence, I am
currently reading Exodus.  God gave the Law to the Israelites _after_ he had
saved them from Egypt, not before.  The extension of the Law by the Pharisees
was just a means by which they could get power.  It still happens in churches
today.

> who are happy to explain various practices. I have a feeling that you do not
> really understand what Judaism is about. When you speak of vain religous acts,
> you seem to overlook the factbtct that these are based upon the laws of Moses,
> which were supposed to have been given to him by god. Precisely why Jesus 

Well, you may have a feeling, but you do not know what acts I am talking about
after all.  Stott's book is only a few hundred pages long - it shouldn't take
you too long.  Not that it is primarily concerned with those extra laws but
it is still an interesting read.

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: pieloor@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Jason Pieloor)
Subject: Re: The hardening of Pharaoh's heart.
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 07:35:22 GMT

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


>I came across a good analogy in my morning reading yesterday.  Remember when
>the Israelites were in Egypt?  God called upon Moses to become the leader of
>Israel and to go to Pharaoh and ask for their release from slavery so they
>could go and serve God.  The story is in Exodus 5-11.  Even though God
>performed many signs Pharaoh refused to let them go because his heart was
>hardened.  There are three ways that this is described.  One says, "God
>hardened his heart", one says, "he (Pharaoh) hardened his heart", and the
>third simply says, "his heart was hardened".  Some have taken these verses to
>suggest that God inflicted the plagues upon the innocent Egyptians, and that
>they had no choice in the matter since it was God who hardened Pharaoh's heart.

[stuff deleted]

Hi Callum (and everyone else too),

	I liked your analogy, and I admit that these phrases have puzzled me
before, but reading them now I saw a different way of looking at it, somewhat
related to your analogy.  To me it seems to say something like the idea,
or thought, of God and God's power was annoying to Pharaoh, so when the power
of God was demonstrated, Pharaoh was not feeling very generous or merciful, and
so refused the request of Moses.  In other words "[The idea of Moses'] God
hardened his heart".  It would probably have been a bit of a blow to Pharaoh,
who was the man at the top (or so he thought) in the power pyramid of ancient
egypt, to have these upstarts come along and start demonstrating how powerless
he really was!

	I have sort of made this interpretation based on the english expression
of the words, and I'd be interested to see how the ancient Hebrew might be
interpretable.  (I also hope I haven't confused anyone ;-))

Just a quick thought,

	Jason


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Pieloor              Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
(Phantom)                                    University of Tasmania, Australia
"The man who never sleeps"                       Jason.Pieloor@eee.utas.edu.au

 "If you can't wake up with a smile, sleep with a coat hanger in your mouth"
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage)
Subject: Re: Creation & Evolution - the great side issue.
Organization: Basket Weavers, Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:44:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.021634.19620@cc.uow.edu.au> u9264442@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew William Easton) writes:
>The important point that Callum misses here is that he assumes that
>evolution is contrary to creation. I've stated it elsewhere, and I'll state it
>again. It is not.

I thought you started this thread by proposing that idea as an "I wonder
if......" ?  What has made you more adamant, or was it someone else?

gja
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: psm@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Phil Malin)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:39:49 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

Personally I don't think God would say that.  God is a God of good, and evil
is totally unacceptable to Him. To me this is like saying 'Oh well,
since you can't stop sinning I suppose one more sin isn't going to do much
to your situation.'  God knows that we can't stop sinning but it is still
a requirement that we do as He is a God of righteousness.

>Fraser.

Phil Malin
psm@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au
From: jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au (James Uther)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Creation & Evolution - the great side issue.
Date: 30 Aug 92 03:10:28 GMT
Reply-To: jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au (James Uther)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia

In article <1992Aug28.030413.20596@cc.uow.edu.au>, u9264442@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew William Easton) writes:
|> callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson) 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

well - it depends on the individuals ability to reproduce and pass on genetic
traits. If a mutation increases the chance of survival to child-bearing age for
an animal, that positive mutation has a better chance of being passed on to 
future generations. Survival of the fittest and all that.
Death is not necessary, because the vital step is reproduction.
	james
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: u9264442@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew William Easton)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:09:42 GMT
Organization: University Of Wollongong

Sorry people, but I've been very busy, and some follow up postins to my
postings seem to have been deleted before I could read them. I've replied to 
all the follow ups that I did read, so if you did a follow up to a posting of
mine, could you please repost it or e-mail it to me?

Thanx

The Bearded One..... 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| u9264442@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au | "I've had enough of Irish Americans who... |
| 				| talk about the resistance, the revolution  |
| You've all seen a disclaimer  | back home, and the glory of the revolution,|
| before. Mine's the same.      | and the glory of dyin' for the revolution. |
|				| _FUCK_ THE REVOLUTION!!!"  	- Bono       |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson)
Subject: Re: Hell & Causation.
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:16:45 GMT

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

>You will no doubt understand that as someone who believes
>that God is responsible for the existence of this space-time
>manifold, I wouldn't say that if God didn't exist, people
>would still be talking about God.  I find that a bit far
>fetched, because from my perspective, if God didn't exist,
>neither would we.  (This a consequence of traditional theism.)

Well, put it this way.  People have talked about lots of different gods,
and you'll agree that few of them exist.

>But I understand where you're coming from nonetheless.

>And hopefully, you understand where I'm coming from now;

Indeed I do.

>In this situation (with more fundamental things disagreed
>upon) we can hope for no better.  

Yep, its the ol' "you believe this, I believe that" solution.
Oh, well.

[ proof of gods existence deleted. ]

[ I forgot to do a s/God/An Evil Malevolent Omniscient Being
 but that's life ]

>OK, I admit that it's a bad argument.

That's a true conclusion.  :-)

Fraser.
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson)
Subject: Re: Becoming Catholic
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:09:52 GMT

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

>Maybe you don't know what real trouble is? :-)

You're probably right, even if my thesis is about due.  I still don't
think I would pray to anyone though.  Doesn't suit me.

>>>If there is nothing in it, why does it prick the consciences and make one
>>>feel uneasy?
>>
>>Oh, it doesn't.  My conscience is clear, only it's fun arguing about it.
>>
>So, do you claim that you are sinless in thought, word, or deed?

I meant that my conscience is clear wrt religion.  I don't lie awake
at night worrying about whether I'll go to hell or not.

I don't believe in sin.  I believe in right & wrong, and in morals, and
even in ethics when pressed, but sin implies an ultimate judge, and an
objective morality.  As we all know, very little is absolute right
or wrong.  The view of Chistianity seems to be that we're all going to
be judged by the perfect judge eventually, but there is no such thing
as a perfect judge because there's no such thing as perfect justice.
Life is too fuzzy.

>>Why are sensible people all over the world embracing lots of other
>>religions?
>>
>Because people are looking for something.  At least they are looking :-(

What makes your faith better?

>>>Is there anyone out there who wants to live a  
>>>lie?
>>
>>No, but you don't believe that it is a lie.
>If it is a lie, and have nothing in it but song singing and ceremonies,
>I would have long gone and join the world and people like you :-)

Again, you don't believe that it is a lie, which is why you haven't.
Do you think that you haven't joined the world?  You were there last time
I looked.

>Cheers Fraser!
You too.

Fraser.
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: no thrills from  no frills
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 07:08:26 GMT


Rick Jelliffe (ricko@ee.uts.edu.au) wrote:
> callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson) writes:
> >... Christianity is a No-frills religion. 
> I disagree: it is incredibly rich and ever unfolding. A puritan style of 
> religion does suit some people, but it is more bleak than God demands:
> he enjoys religious acts done by his church.
Callums replies:

>What makes you think He enjoys religious acts?  Weren't the Israelites
>tangled up in trying to earn their salvation through religious acts?  Jesus
>came to set them right again, and to explain that salvation came through a
>relationhip with God through Christ (at least after he came).  He explained
>what their underlying motives were to be and he cut through all their vain
>religious acts, causing them to become very annoyed with him.  Don't you
>get the impression that Jesus was quite down to earth?  He didn't take any
>notice of the Pharisees silly rules that _they_ had made up, not God.

I find this quite a bizarre statement. Jesus may have been down to earth,
but he was also a practicsing Jew. ( Not that these should be seen as 
exclusive things). He kept all the Jewish rituals, and indeed said that he 
had not come to end the law as some believed. Rather that the law would remain
until the coming of the kingdom of God. What silly rules that the Pharisees made up did he not keep? 

I must say that I find a lot of christians have a very bizarre attitude to 
Judaism, which appears to be based upon ignorance for the most part. Of 
course I am no expert on Judaism, but I do have some orthodox Jewish friends
who are happy to explain various practices. I have a feeling that you do not
really understand what Judaism is about. When you speak of vain religous acts,
you seem to overlook the factbtct that these are based upon the laws of Moses,
which were supposed to have been given to him by god. Precisely why Jesus 
was the subject of official disapproval is difficult to determine, but he 
seems to have been feared because of the political influence that practioners
of charismatic hasidim had over people. Witness the case of Honi the circle 
drawer, a century before Jesus.

Mark C.
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:55:49 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Andrew William Easton (u9264442@cc.uow.edu.au) wrote:
> I should have specified. The jerks I refer to are people who dismiss evolution
> for no better reason than that they believe the world was created, and they
> can't be bothered changing thier mind. You have an argument, which sets you
> above this level, whether I agree with you or not.

That's exactly why a group like the CSF would be so dangerous if they were
being deceitful.  Most people can only rely on what they are told by others
and if it makes sense then they'll believe it.  If someone comes along and
tells them lies about things, what can they do?  Not everyone's a scientist
so they believe in evolution because it's taught to them.  If someone comes
along claiming to have scientific evidence for creation and how evidence for
evolution is fabricated and here's why you should believe in creationism, then
a Christian would probably be prepared to believe a group that calls themselves
Christian over secular scientists.

> We don't need to know how, we need to know that he did. The point of this 
> thread is to try to convince evolutionists that creation is at least possible.
> Whether or not this is a realistic goal I don't know. I get the feeling, 
> however, that I may be on the wrong newsgroup (as most of you out there in
> aus.religion would be creationists anyway I imagine).

I thought few people here would be creationists.  Survey anyone?  I think
I'm coming full circle on this.  My brain hurts, I'm so confused... :-)

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: Jon.Biddell@unsw.edu.au (Jon Biddell)
Subject: Emotional Manipulation - How should a Christian respond ??
Summary: How should Christians respond to emotional manipulation ??
Keywords: women, emotion
Organization: University of NSW
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:12:48 GMT

Imaginr, if you will, a Christian couple in a relationship, that may or may 
not lead to marriage.  A stormy relationship at times, but not without it's 
good points.

He is fairly stubborn, set in his ways, and very specific about his walk 
with the Lord.

She is unsubmissive at times (dictating what church they should go to, 
against his better judgement), etc.

He has tried to break the relationship off, but appears to be overly 
concerned with her mental and physical health (every time he suggests this, 
she gets sick). In all fairness, she does have a health problem that 
precludes her from working in a stressful job or having a stressful 
relationship - as far as I can see she brings the stress on herself, and so 
say many of her friends.

He came to me for advice the other day, and I must say I am at a loss for an 
appropriate Christian response.  Anyone care to comment ???


In Christ,

Jon


 __^__                                                              __^__
( ___ )------------------------------------------------------------( ___ )
 | / | Jon Biddell              Email: Jon.Biddell@unsw.EDU.AU      | \ |
 | / | PC Consultant            Snail: P.O. Box 1 KENSINGTON  2033  | \ |
 | / | University of NSW        Voice    : +61-2-697-2929           | \ |
 | / | Sydney, NSW, Oz          Fax      : +61-2-662-2057           | \ |
 | / | DoD #: 577               VoiceMail: +61-2-962 0080           | \ |
 | / |--------------------------------------------------------------| \ |
 | / | Quote of the week...                                         | \ |
 |___|           Quote deleted do to lack of creativity !!!         |___|
(_____)------------------------------------------------------------(_____)
   ^                                                                  ^
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson)
Subject: Party Political (Was Re: Creation & Evolution - the great side issue.)
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 00:31:41 GMT

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

>  If an unborn child is just a collection of cells with no soul, and
>looks just like the embryo of a fish, elephant, and any other animal you
>care to mention, then what does it matter if we kill it?

Well now.... I think killing fish, elephants, or any other animal does
matter a lot.  That's why I don't eat them (not just elephants & fish,
though  :-).  However, I think a society which allows abortion is better
than one which doesn't.  Go figure.

Fraser.
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:11:52 GMT

Mark and I have been discussing this at some length in email, but there's
no reason you should all miss out on this.  :-)

markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU wrote:
> pick up a text book on Evolutionary biology, modern biology makes no 
> sense without evolution. None at all. You cannot explain the extraordinary
> structural similarities between organisms without evolution. You cannot
> account for the deep connections between living things at the level of
> biochemistry without evolution. Evolution is so well established, that 
> as Stephen  Jay Gould has pointed out, it can be considered a scientific
> fact in the sense that to doubt its veracity would be perverse.

Are we confusing evolution as observed in the world today or the origin
of the species?  I wouldn't doubt for a second that evolution occurs (that
would be like looking up and saying the sky isn't blue) but isn't the bit
we're talking about before that?

> 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

Wasn't this a punishment for sin given in Gensis?

> 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.

I thank you for your information however generalising it was in places.  I
am reconsidering my opinion all the time.  That is the key to learning is it
not?

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: psm@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Phil Malin)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:40:55 GMT

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

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

>>I'm afraid that to me this does not make sense.  The bible states that
>>God _created_ the living creatures blessing them and saying "be fruitful
>>and increase in number..."

>This highlights a problem with taking the bible too literally.  Was the
>Earth infinitely big back then?  Because if God wanted the animals to
>multiply, and yet didn't want any of them to die, it would have needed 
>to be.  To stop filling up you see.

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.

>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"...'

>Fraser.

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

Newsgroups: aus.religion