HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: khater@sun14.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Issam Abu-Khater)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Friday prayer at waterloo
Date: 10 Oct 92 20:47:55 GMT
Distribution: local,na
Organization: University of Waterloo

[The article originally requested local distribution in Waterloo, but
that can't be arranged. Remote sites, please overlook - Moderator]


             In the name of Allah the Beneficent the Merciful
                       Muslim Study Group (MSG)

                             ANNOUNCEMENT
                        Friday Prayer on Campus

                 The Muslim Study Group (MSG) is pleased 
                    to announce the establishment of 
                        Friday Prayer on Campus.

                                 Time:
                           1:00 pm - 2:00 pm

                               Location:
                        University of Waterloo
                       Campus Center, Room 110.

                  All of you are encouraged to attend.
             For more information contact Prof. M. Elmasry 
                        (email: elmasry@vlsi)
=============================================================================
PS. Please feel free to distribute or forward this message to other Muslims.
=============================================================================
From: clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: GOD'S HOLINESS!!!
Date: 10 Oct 92 22:31:00 GMT


GOD IS HOLY.  GOD IS AWESOME.  GOD IS LOVING.  GOD IS JUST.  THESE STATEMENTS
DO NOT DEPEND ON THE BLESSINGS HE GIVES US.  OUR ARGUEMENTS MUST SEEM REALLY
PETTY TO HIM.

KEN.
From: azhar@cs.duke.edu (D. Salman [Q] Azhar)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: SRI subject stats (6 - 10th October 1992)
Date: 11 Oct 92 05:45:02 GMT


	The following subjects have been posted in between 6th-10th
October 1992 constituting a total of 41 postings.

   3 Subject: Jesus did not claim Godhood
   2 Subject: Re: Ettiquette of 'Al-Shura'....
   2 Subject: Sociology, Max Weber and Islam
   2 Subject: RE: Marriage in Islam & Quran qoutes on Marriage
   2 Subject: RE: Contradictions in Quran? ( -- Acquiring a Qur'an)
   2 Subject: Re: Dogs & Islam
   2 Subject: A lesson in history
   1 Subject: THE CALL OF THE QUR'AN TO THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK
   1 Subject: Somalia News Update, October 6
   1 Subject: Soc.Religion.Islam: STATS.SEP92
   1 Subject: Soc.Religion.Islam: STATS.OCT92
   1 Subject: Soc.Religion.Islam: At a Glance  (monthly posting)
   1 Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
   1 Subject: Re: Islam and Science (an explanation)
   1 Subject: Re: Basic Info On Islam
   1 Subject: Re: Are We Having Fun, Yet...?
   1 Subject: RE: question...?
   1 Subject: RE: SUMMARY OF SOME OLD PAGAN CULTS
   1 Subject: RE: Book By President of Bosnia
   1 Subject: QUESTION ?
   1 Subject: Minbar - August 30th-
   1 Subject: Infallability, ahadith, sunnah, Qur'an
   1 Subject: ISLAMIC WORLD NEWS (18th)
   1 Subject: Hijab in Islam
   1 Subject: Good Fiqh Book in English
   1 Subject: GOD'S HOLINESS!!!
   1 Subject: Friday prayer at waterloo
   1 Subject: Editorial in NY Times on Bosnia
   1 Subject: DROPLET VOL 1, NO 3, PART 2 & 3
   1 Subject: Convoy Aid
   1 Subject: Bosnia Week - Islamic Society of Rutgers University
   1 Subject: Any Sufi related resources on the Internet?
   1 Subject: Annual function of Temple MSA.
   1 Subject: Algeria: some questions to the tyrants

	Please note that some postings may be double-counted by my
shell script.

dsqa
From: spk@aber.ac.uk (Stephen Peter Kingston)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Suggestions about 1Cor.14: 22-25?
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:19:55 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Wales at Aberystwyth

Derek,
  You ask about the apparent contradiction in 1 Corinthians 12:22-25. Here are
my observations:

Verse 21 of 1 Corinthians 14 is a quote from Isaiah, wherein we read a passage that 
speaks of judgement upon the Jews. It would seem then that Paul is saying that
tongues are a sign of judgement.

Now consider Cornelius, who with his household did speak with tongues. The
tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jews (especially Peter) that God's grace
was poured forth upon all men.

We thus see that the quote from Isaiah is not specifically saying the
words of the tongues are prophecy, but rather when people speak in
tongues they fulfill prophecy and are a sign to the unbelievers amongst
the Jews.

Paul did perhaps cause some confusion in his wording of 1 Corinthians 14:22-25, 
but I think you will find that the best interpretation for this verse is that where 
Paul says "tongues are a sign for unbelievers" he is referring to the unbelief
of the Jews (cf. The above, especially the Isaiah quote), whereas
when he talks just one sentence later of prophecy being for unbelievers
and tongues for believers, he has switched context. 

He is now saying that prophecy is a sign to a total stranger who enters
the church and has the secrets of his heart laid bare (as true prophecy should
do). It is obvious here that an unchurched, and non Jewish stranger
who entered the assembly would be convicted by words of prophecy,
whereas if we all spoke in tongues he would think "Hold on here,
these people are not entirely sane!"

Thus there is no contradiction.

Stephen

-- 
Gweleis i rac neb nym gweles pop annwyl. ef diwyl yneges. Gweleis i pasc.
(I saw the one above all men,  he saw me;  he, the beloved of his people,
who fulfills his mission. I saw Easter.) "Yspeil Taliesin" ---Taliesin---
spk@uk.ac.aber --- spk%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk --- Stephen Kingston
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:11:21 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <Oct.14.22.34.54.1992.25367@geneva.rutgers.edu> wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes:
>in the church.  1 Timothy 2:11-15 says:
>
>"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
>I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority 
>over a man; she must be silent.  For Adam was formed
>first, then Eve.  And Adam was not the one deceived;
>it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
>But women will be kept safe through childbirth, if they 
>continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
>

Could one of our resident Greek experts summarise the various
arguements about the meaning of the term translated "have authority"
in this passage.  My understanding is that their is some very odd
grammer and vocabulary choice going on in this passage.

Could someone also make the case for Paul's "I do not permit"
being extended to all churches at all times, rather than being a local
rule for a particular situation.

Thankyou

alison
From: julian@sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Damnation
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:20:26 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Rob.Burrell@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Rob Burrell) writes:

>Hard to believe that so many people who actually read and research the
>Bible still believe in a hell where people are supposedly roasted for all
>eternity.  All the discussion on damnation really has me confused.

>Christianity is not about getting saved from hell, its about finding life,
>the only true LIFE, the life of the Father living in you, ie the Holy Spirit!

True, but the discussion about hell could equally well be extended to heaven.
What are the criteria for entering into heaven, and is God justified in
letting anyone in if some other people are excluded.

Before someon replies that we must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ",
I know that but what about people who have not heard about Him, or 
because of circumstances, etc, etc. My interest in this is to see what
the Bible's teaching about the state called Hell means. It IS in there
and we should know what it means.

>How many of you who have children will place your childs' hand on a hot
>stove every time he does something wrong??  And remember, I am only
>talking about a hand on a stove.  Would you throw your child into a tub of
>boiling water?  The God I serve would not do that (my Heavenly Father).

This is not the right analogy. Would you, as a mother or father,
allow your child to get burned in order to learn that fire burns?
God certainly does allow a lot of people to "be thrown into a tub 
of boiling water". A lot of people are starving right now, and even
in the western societies, a lot of children are being badly treated
by their parents. God allows this: presumably he thinks the universe
(and us) are worth the price, but this demands an answer to how aloving Good
can allow this. Hell is popularly supposed to be the punishment for
our nasty deeds done on earth, I do not think this is valid. Hence
the discussion.

julian
From: gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: clarifications regarding gays and lesbians
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:33:53 GMT

A couple of recent posts really need to be clarified.  Both have to
do with our favorite topic of fundamentalists vs gays and lesbians.

>From: teh@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Richie L C TEH)

>The problem got worse now because the Gay & Lesbian group are trying to
>throw SFC out of Latrobe, by filing complain to the Student Union in
>latrobe. 

What did you say during this seminar, anyway?  Did you ever try to talk
out your problems with the Gay & Lesbian group?

>From: laut@alien.gici.com (Bill Laut)

>BTW, the reason I'm picking on gays here is thusly:  I have a friend
>who turned out gay.  One of the things he used to advocate was the
>right of homosexuals to proslytize young boys.

What does this mean?  If he wants to have sex with young boys, your
friend was a pedophile.  Gay people are highly resentful of this
continual equation of homosexuality with pedophilia. It is a bit like
the "blood libel" business which Jews once had to deal with.  If you
mean something else, what do you mean?  How does one prosletize a young
(how young?) boy, anyway?  Of what did your friend hope to convince
these boys, and how did he plan to go about it?
From: jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: All curses overturned at Calvary? (was Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage)
Date: 10 Oct 92 07:01:56 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <Oct.7.01.12.50.1992.10636@geneva.rutgers.edu> alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld) writes:
>
>It seems to me from the accounts of creation that men and women were
>both created in the image of God and created equal.  "The curse" in
>Genesis 3 may not actually be prescriptive, but rather a description
>of the consequences of the Fall.  However even if it is a curse, do we
>not believe that all curses were overturned at Calvery.  In otherwords
>as Christians we should be living in relationships as God intended
>them to be from the outset, not continuing on with the fallen version.
>
>Alison

Actually, I don't think all curses were overturned at Calvary, or at
least not completely so far as my present life is concerned. Otherwise,
why do I still sin, and why will I one day die?

I think it is patently obvious that the curse of Genesis still holds. The
wife of a friend of mine recently gave birth, and my friend told me it
was very difficult for him to see her in such pain. The only way around
it is to use drugs, and I don't think that is really much of a
redemption. Just like industrialization means men don't literally sweat
anymore, but at the cost of destroying the earth.

I do agree that we should be living in relationships as God intended. I
just think the Bible clearly shows this means husbands should love their
wives instead of lording it over them and wives should submit to their
husbands instead of rebelling against that love. Like us and Jesus.

Joel

--
Joel Norris			"The fear of the LORD
				 is the beginning of knowledge."
jnorris@u.washington.edu	 -- Proverbs 1:7
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Created in his image?
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:33:31 GMT
Organization: FNAL

In article <Oct.12.02.42.17.1992.19893@geneva.rutgers.edu>
emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp) writes:
>In article <Oct.9.04.37.13.1992.14917@geneva.rutgers.edu>  writes:
>>   o Man was created in the image of God, and in his image created him he.
>>o Why would God have arms? 
>>o Why would God have legs?
>>o In fact, the human design is so poor, what superior being would 
>>  WANT to look / be a human? 
>
>Simple: God isn't a "being."
>	God is the sum total of all in existence.
>
>[The original challenge was in the context of the Biblical concept
>of man being created in the image of God.  It seemed to say that this
>makes no sense, because many human physical features would look silly
>on God.  Most responses were that the "image" was a metaphor, and
>that the similarities were not physical.  By saying that God isn't
>a being, you seem to be agreeing with the original criticism that
>it makes no sense to see humans as made in God's image.  --clh]
>
The assumption is that human beings are summed up in their physical body.  THis
is a wrong assumption.  Angels are created in the image of God (its in the
Scriptures somewhere) therefore it would disqualify that definition.  To be
made in the image of God, would mean that the being in question would assume
the communicable attributes of God.  Normally expressed, this would boil down
to 1) having volition, 2) having emotion 3) having intellect.  All three of
these have qualifiers so as to distinguish man from animal.  Animals have
intellect, but they do not think abstractly.  Animals have volition, but it
isn't free to choose like ours.   Animals have emotions, but they are unable to
love God, to think of God or to act for God.  This in a nut shell defines being
created in the image of God.

Rex

[The volition and intellect seem clear.  I though that classically God
was said to be impassible, and that this implied a lack of emotions.
I'm not sure I agree with this, but I am suspicious of a definition
that makes emotion a required part of being in the image of God.
--clh]
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Master and Serf (was RE: Christian sex)
Date: 10 Oct 92 07:00:17 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia

In article <Oct.4.22.08.59.1992.5975@geneva.rutgers.edu>, finneyk@seanews.akita.com (Ken Finney) writes:
> Just a short comment: You said that you couldn't resolve the concept
> of "bondage and submission" in a Christian marriage.  Over the past
> few years I have been studying  "B&D", and had the exact opposite
> response; when you understand the psyche of master/slave relationship,
> the master is as bonded to the slave as the slave is to the master.
> Being is a society that doesn't have slavery and serfdom, this
> relationship/mental bonding is hard to understand, but historically,
> serfswould fight on for their master after he had fallen in battle,
> and a master would often sacrifice himself on the batlefield to save
> a group of serfs.  

So;
	Male is the master
	Female is the serf
	The master should lead, PROTECT, LOVE, even DIE FOR the serf
	The serf should love the master, serve the master and support the
	  master
	Both the master and the serf are equal but have different roles

Is this right??

Questions: Why must male be master all the time?
	   Why must female be serf all the time?
	   Why should people have preset roles for them just because
	    of gender? (ie why should mothers also have to raise children
	    as well as give birth to them?)

-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
	+-----------------------------------------------------+
     ---|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |---
	+-----------------------------------------------------+
From: k136377@cc.tut.fi (Kauppi Asko)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Bible on the APPLE NEWTON ?
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:24:11 GMT
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Finland


	Is anyone porting an electronic Bible to the Apple Newton PDA ?
	(PDA="Personal Digital Assistant", a small, hand-held computer)

	The little I have seen about the Newton makes me (among others)
	want one. In my eyes, the machine would make a PERFECT BIBLE.
	Being pen-based, it would be easier to use than the current
	electronic bibles and, being the size of my normal 'old-fashioned'
	book, it could follow me anywhere I go. It would also draw much
	less attention than carrying a 'portable' PC to the church every
	weekend.

	If you know of anyone working with such a project, let me know.
	If you don't and you agree with me about how fabulous such a thing
	would be, let me know as well. I could (theoretically) start
	making the software if I only knew I'm not wasting my time.
	You might also try convincing me to do it in English instead of my
	native Finnish...   ;-)

	Any addresses to American 'electronic bible companies' are welcome.
	Any suggestions for what the 'Newtonian Bible' should be like are
	welcome as well.
							/ Asko Kauppi /
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
 / Asko Kauppi /  K136377 at CC.TUT.FI   ( Tampere University of Technology )
		  AKAUPPI at CC.UTU.FI   (  Turku University / Electronics  )
		    

[At one time there was a product make by Franklin that sounds similar
to what you want -- a small unit that was specialized as a computer
Bible.  I haven't seen it advertised recently.  It may have succumbed
to the general move to large, complex software: God's Word for
Windows, no doubt to be followed shortly by a 20 MB executable written
in Interviews...  --clh]
From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Something to keep in mind....
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:08:39 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <Oct.7.01.16.05.1992.10692@geneva.rutgers.edu>, fed!m1slw01@uunet.uu.net (Shay Woodside) writes:

> GOD IS NOT MAN...

This is not an orthodox view.  God came to earth as Jesus Christ, who died
and rose from the dead, and still rules -- as man -- in heaven.

> GOD IS NOT A CHRISTIAN...

Since Christ is God, and since "Christian" comes from the word Christ, and 
since Christ revealed Christianity to us, I would say that God is a Christian.

> WE CHRISTIANS DO NOT OWN HIM...

No, we don't 'own' God, but we do possess all divinely revealed truth about
God.

Eric
--
/===========================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer   For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment, Maynard MA     pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com        they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==========================- 2 Th 2:15 -====================================/
    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.
From: dk@imager (Dave Knapp)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Submission in Relationships
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:31:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: geneva.Oct.16.22.31.30.1992.29199
Organization: Laboratory for Experimental Astrophysics


   The whole discussion about men's and women's roles in marriage
has been particularly frustrating to me, so I thought I would add
my few cents worth.

   For a married person, I think (and I believe most Christians
would agree) that the priorities go as follows:

  1.) My relationship with God
  2.) My relationship with my spouse and children
  3.) everything else.

   Now, when it comes to making a decision about taking a job in
another town (to use a recently-posted example): if the man makes
the decision by himself, _even taking his wife's perspective into
account_, he has implictly placed (3) above (2).  

   The model that my wife and I use for such decisions is
different: we discuss our options and our feelings and we pray
until we are led by the Holy Spirit into mutual agreement.  The
process can take a long time, and is frequently very
uncomfortable; however, we are making an explicit decision to
place priority (2) higher than priority (3) for either one of us.

   So if I don't interpret Paul's words as indicating that the
man is supposed to make the decisions, then how _do_ I interpret
them?  As a man, I believe that they mean that I should exercise
moral and spiritual leadership in my home.  Not domination;
leadership.  That means (for example) being the one who initiates
prayer (well, I'm _working_ on it :-)), being the one to
apologize first when there has been a hurt (and, by the way, this
includes hurts with kids), and trying hard to love and appreciate
the whole person God gave me as a spouse.  Christ exercised
spiritual leadership by washing the feet of his disciples; I
believe I am called to do the same in my home.

   I see my marriage as the most important ministry God gave me. 
My ministry to my wife takes precedence over my ministry to the
rest of the world; if my marriage isn't healthy then the rest of
my relationships will suffer as well.

   Reading back over what I've written it looks as if I'm saying
I have it all together.  Not likely!  But I _have_ thought about
where I want to place the priorities in my life, and I have a
goal toward which I am working.

   -- Dave

-- 
  *-------------------------------------------------------------*
  * David Knapp        dk@imager.llnl.gov       (510) 422-1023  *
  *            98.7% of all statistics are made up.             *
  *-------------------------------------------------------------*
From: ljh655@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (ljh655)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re:Dating...
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:52:37 GMT
Organization: Australian National University

So, someone else started this "hot" topic...
Recent surveys in Australia show that something like 46 %
of single women under 30 are "not interested to make a
commitment" in a relationship with a man (or "another
person" for those touchy different-minded), and are not
dating at alllllll ! Most of them say the "single life" is
much easier and feels much more independent...
Imagine, 46 % ! That is a lot of folks, and I can tell it
is quite hard to feel for a young man trying to find the
right young woman... This is not certainly not just my
experience. Whenever a young single woman sends any
message or article across the network, she would most
probably be flooded with responses. Yes, there must be
something wrong happening, or probably the young people
(not just women) are still not capable to understand that
a real life-long commitment is not going to take away
their happiness and freedom (if they have it at all).
All for now to leave some space for your opinion, too.
God bless you all !
Lubosh
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Bible Software Advice
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:29:04 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University

sl313028@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jon Marcus Madison) writes:

>Check this out!  There's a version of the bible that's absolutely FREE
>and works GREAT! (i've got it, i know) it's called the On-Line Bible,
>and it *was* available via anonymous ftp to wuarchive.wustl.edu, but was
>taken off.  i've been preparing (and procrastinating) to re-upload it
>there.  it has a gizellion supplements, all free except a few versions...

This package is still at wuarchive.  It is in the /doc/bible directory.
It is a good package, very fast, including Hebrew and Greek texts.

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |