HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: U43587%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: RISE UP & LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES
Date: 26 Sep 92 21:02:55 GMT
Reply-To: <U43587%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Status: RO
Originator: gwydion@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu

RISE UP & LEARNING FROM OUR MISTAKES:

To think the muslims of the world would realize the mess we are in.
From Bosnia to Somalia it seems like we can't sit down and think about
the future.  Day after day we find muslims all over the world being
slaughtered left and right.  It took a over a decade for the then USSR
to leave Afghanistan, but enough the fighting continues and peace has
not yet been restored.  Then we found the Gulf war situation lurking
our backs.  And today Bosnia & Somalia are dying.

Weird enough though, Islam was brought into this world to bring peace
& freedom to the "oppressed" masses.  But, instead we find people
using Islam to gain control over others. We find the common Muslim
looking at Islam more as a culture than a way of life and in essence
ready to lose it for a "better" way.

Just as the Muslim countries are divided and ruled by Monarchs,
dictators, and what have you, we find ourselves following suit at our
respective levels.  Although, we blame these Kings and leaders on how
they are thwarting their power and eating all of the "muslim"
resources what are we doing besides bickering and following suit.

I take the example of the muslim community of Chicago. A large
community that has estimated numbers in the hundreds of thousands.
Yet we find only a few hundred who are actively pursuing the goal of
Islam. And these few hundred are themselves divided up into different
mosques (almost 40 of them in the Chicagoland area, I don't know if we
should be proud of that or be resentful) mainly divided along the
cultural/ethnic lines. These Masjids/ organizations do not, I am sorry
to say, provide a REAL movement atmosphere and fail to provide a
worked out & planned set of goals.  Even worse so, is that when a
movement is begining to build up they strike it down and do whatever
necessary to kill the movement in fear of losing their positions at
these Masajid. They also fail to get involved in mainstream America,
which is so much necessary at this time.

My point being, A muslims goal should be to make the world a better
place to live in.  Instead we find ourselves causing harm for each
other and involved in petty debates.  It's time we show the world and
first America and our communities that we have the best, most stable
way of life. After all we are convinced that we have the best way of
life. Aren't we?

If we are sick of seeing the oppression on Muslims in the world (and
of people in general isn't time we rise up!!!)

KifMar
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Usefulness of Apologetics
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:36:16 GMT
Organization: Glassboro State College

Richard Pitts summarises several chapters from a book by D James Kennedy
titled _Why I Believe_.

I suspect that Dr Kennedy has mistitled his book; that is, I presume he was a
believer _before_ he went about digging up evidence.  If so, the evidence is
not WHY he believes, but only supports his beliefs.  The reason he first
became a believer was something else.

To my knowledge, the only person who claims to have converted by evidence is
Josh McDowell -- and if he really converted based on the arguments in his book
then he is one gullible fellow.  I suspect his arguments merely removed some
impediments to believing, but that something else actually pushed him into
converting.

It seems to me that if few people convert as a result of arguments, then maybe
trying to argue others into converting is a waste of time.  I can see where
apologetics have a use for people who get mindless challenges from non-
Christians, or even to help remove obstacles for those who would convert.
But in isolation, they seem useless as a conversion tool.

I suspect that most of us became Christians based on something that happened
inside us, not on words of men defending their ideas.  So I have a question:
are there any Christians who converted from total unbelief primarily because
of an apologetic work?


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Christianity is not a doctrine, not, I mean, a theory about what has
 happened and will happen to the human soul, but a description of something
 that actually takes place in a human life.  For `consciousness of sin' is a
 real event, and so are despair and salvation through faith.  Those who speak
 of such things (Bunyan, for instance) are simply describing what has happened
 to them, whatever anyone may want to say about it." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:36:17 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <Oct.4.21.36.29.1992.5830@geneva.rutgers.edu> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>CS Lewis (Mere Christianity) presents the idea as the husband is responsible
>for foreign affairs, while the wife runs domestic affairs.  

CS Lewis was never a father, was he?  Seems to me that a father has lots
of responsibilities in the domestic department.  He's irreplaceable in the
lives of his children, not just in their conception.

I think an unfortunate number of men have held to this standard over the
last few generations, and I think it's a contributing factor to family
breakdown.  

-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu

[Lewis was a step father.  He married late in life.  His wife had
at least one child, though as I recall the son was teenaged.  --clh]
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God's Slaves? (Was Re: Question on the Bible)
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:11:09 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA

anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Liz Broadwell) writes:
| [...] I'm not happy with the
|metaphor of Christians as God's slaves.  Part of it is because I'm a literary
|scholar and the word "slave" just doesn't carry the right connotation for me. 
|Slavery sounds like an involuntary relationship, and a destructive one -- one
|in which the person enslaved is degraded by his/her service.  

Well, regardless of our modern discomfort with the term, "Slave" [DOULOS]
is precisely the term that Paul uses and he uses it repeatedly.

Now it is true that many translations attempt to soften this into, for
instance, "Servant" as a way of appeasing our 20th century sensibilities.
But to my mind, that is part of the problem and, more importantly, it does
a disservice to the text itself.

It seems to me that the right approach is to accept that since Paul wrote
"Slave" he must have meant "Slave".  And from that point we can ask what he
meant when he said this.

| .... "Servant" is for
|me a better term in the context.  It lacks the a lot of the destructive
|connotations, and seems to keep the idea of free choice in their.  Slaves 
|can't choose not to be slaves anymore; servants must continually renew 
|their commitment to their service, since they could pack up and leave.

Even here, too, I think you're bringing an unwaranted 20th century
perspective to the discussion.  When Paul or any other member of the 1st
century Hellenistic world spoke of a "Servant", they didn't mean Martha,
the person who shows up in the morning to fix our breakfast and do some
light house-cleaning before catching the 3pm bus back to her home across
town.

Were we to view Martha's life in 1st century Corinth, I think we'd be hard
pressed to differentiate it from that of Useful, the slave of the house.

|I'd rather be the Lord's servant and friend than his slave.  I think he
|thinks so too.

Perhaps.  But it's not at all clear that Paul would agree with you.

Nichael
From: mglassey@diana.cair.du.edu (Michael Glassey)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: True Faith
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:39:11 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <Oct.2.01.05.39.1992.1846@geneva.rutgers.edu> bbs.skeezix@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Fred Felli) writes:
>
> 
>I'd be interested in any divergent views on this excerpt from "The
>Cost of Discipleship" by D. Bonhoeffer. I think it is a pretty good
>analysis of real faith, as opposed to professed belief. Does anyone
>agree/disgree?
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
While I do have much agreement, I would ask you to consider two very
important provisos:  (1) D. Bonhoeffer was not American (his Christian
brothers and sisters were not volunteers), and (2) some study of the
changing historical meanings of the words faith and belief (from NT
Greek to our current "belief" (in spite of all evidence) is quite
rewarding.
-- 
Two may own a great ship without	<> mglassey@diana.cair.du.edu
ever trying to saw her in half.		<> Michael G.(Go Union) Glassey
		-Henry George		<>  (union discussions wanted)
Mike Glassey, Anthropology, University of Denver, Denver, CO, 80208
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Biblical interpretation
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:09:30 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <Sep.25.21.29.04.1992.4481@athos.rutgers.edu>, jte@psi.com (John Eldredge) writes:

[...]

>>8.  People are quoted in the Bible.  Job is quoted.  His friends are 
>>    quoted.  The Serpent in Eden is quoted.  When someone says "The
>>    Bible says" who is speaking?
>  
> The person the Bible says is speaking at that time.  No doubt, Moses 
> was given specific revelation to pen the words of the serpent some
> 2500+ years earlier.

I can't let this go by.  Biblical Hebrew like some other languages 
disdains indirectly reported speech.  For example, in modern English 
we can say "John said he was tired" or "John said, 'I am tired'"".
Biblical Hebrew almost always uses directly reported speech.  This
does *not* mean that a direct quotation is implied in every case.
Robert Alter in _The Art of Biblical Narrative_ shows how even in
cases where an oracle has been consulted, where the message couldn't
possibly have been verbal, the results are reported "And God said..."
I can add (I believe) to Alter's examples an even more convincing one.

We do not need to believe, therefore, that the ancients took reported
speech as word-for-word renderings of what individuals said hundreds
of years earlier, often in the privacy of their homes or even to
themselves!  
-- 
********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Sex
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:33:43 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

>>According to Tim and Beverly LaHaye, in their book "The Act of Marriage",
>>(which is a good attempt - by a Fundamentalist couple - to strip away the
>
>I would hardly call the LaHaye's fundamentalists...

No?  They may fit the stereotype then, since I remember Beverly LaHaye
involved in banning school books (one sociology book because of the
heinous sin of suggesting that students ultimately have the
responsibility for making decisions for themselves).
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
    Macintosh - you can buy better, but you can't pay more!
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Chicago Heresy Trials!
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:52:14 GMT
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey


	[ Now that I've got your attention. ]

Nancy Tinkham (my wife) & I will be in Wheaton, Illinois in a few weeks, and
we'd like to meet some of the netters we've exchanged mail and articles with
over the years.

We'll bring our Usenet Mug Book, containing pictures of assorted Usenet
personalities we've met before.  (If you've ever wondered what our Fearless
Moderator Chuck Hedrick looks like, this is your big chance!  Brandy the
WonderDog won't be flying out, but we'll bring his picture along.)

If you think you can make the trip to Wheaton, and you'd like to meet us, and
you can avoid strangling me for whatever-I-said-that-offended-you, send me
e-mail and we'll haggle out the specifics.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's ox or his ass or his dinner companions."
                                                               -- Dave Butler
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:37:53 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <Oct.2.00.46.56.1992.1629@geneva.rutgers.edu> DSIMON@thor.nafb.trw.com (D_SIMON) writes:
>Job 13:15 says, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."
>
>My question is how loyal should a person be to God?  Would you
>trust, serve, love, and work for God even if He killed you?
>Even if you knew He was planning to send you to hell anyways?

Moses had this attitude.  He asked the LORD to take his name out of the
book, but to allow Israel to live.  Paul had this attitude.  He said that
he could wish that he were accursed from Christ for the sake of Israel.  
He prefaced his statement with "I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not,"

I don't think that I honestly can say things like that, that I care enough
even about an entire nation that I would sacrifice my own soul for its
salvation.  But it is possible to reach such a state of spiritual maturity,
and this is a Christ-like attitude that we should desire to have.

Link Hudson.
From: cree@elec.canterbury.ac.nz
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christians and Economics
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:26:29 GMT

>In article <Sep.24.23.52.28.1992.4300@athos.rutgers.edu> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>>Is there anybody relating their Christianity to the profession of Economics?
>>I find that there are some people who refuse to accept the idea that I can
>>be an economist and a Christian at the same time. I would like to see
>>writings on this topic.

This is a very interesting question, particularly as a citizen of New
Zealand where the government is systematically privatising (and
selling to foreign interests) the whole country without (much) regard
as to what the consequences to the socially poor are. They can do this
since New Zealand, in effect, is a democratic dictatorship, that is,
we elect which dictator is going to break almost every one of their
election promises and screw this country up even more. The voter has
only the power to vote for the only other viable dictator who then
proceeds to do the same thing! (A recent poll gave the result that
only 4% of the population thought that politicians could be trusted!!!)

However, there are a few in the church who have economic/social
training and who are challenging the government. One, that I have
personally have meet, is Paul Dalziel, a Catholic who is a lecturer in
Economics at Lincoln University. He co-edited the book (with Jonathon
Boston, a Christian political scientist):-

"The Decent society?  : essays in response to National's economic and
social policies." , Oxford Univ. Pres, 1992

Sadly, all the copies are out of the local library at present so I havn't
been able to read it to comment. I am told it is critical analysis of
the policies of the present government of NZ.

The point is that I am trying to make is that our country is in
desperate need of such people who have an understanding of 
current economic dogma and of the gospel of Christ and who are
also prepared to stand up and be prophets to our nation. If the
Christians in NZ sit down and withdraw into their little clicky
pockets then the poor and downtrodden of this country are going to be
screwed of what very little they had in the first place.

Michael Cree
cree@elec.canterbury.ac.nz
From: jwong@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Jack Wong)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-Religious Practice
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:27:51 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver


    For the past few days, I stop entering this newsgroup and I 
    purposely bounced all my e-mails addresses to me.  I didn't
    feel like getting into conflict over something I stated.  I
    also felt that I lost the freedom of using my e-mail because
    of some unpleasant mail.

    As far as my recollection goes, I don't believe I insulted anyone
    in this group.  I did state that I didn't believe in the Bible/God.
    I also pointed out by example that if someone told me in the
    street they were a billionaire, I would still need some facts to
    believe in it.  Then I mentioned that just because someone believes
    in God or the Bible doesn't imply that he/she is a better person than
    me.  Someone in this group claimed that I acted like I'm a better
    person.  I think I used the wrong pronoun 'me'.  I should have stated
    ...than a non religious person.  I didn't say all those who believe
    are bad as far as I remember.  All I'm trying to find out is more
    about the truthfulness of God/Bible.

    I think people out there thinks I'm stereotyping Christians, Catholics,
    etc.  Maybe I am, I admit.  But is that my fault.  I would say I tend
    to not agree with the Bible in some area because some friends I know
    pray all the time, yet their actions are different from their beliefs.
    Some of you out there say I could be making stories that my freinds
    are religious and that I attended bible studies.  How could I be
    making it up when I went to a Catholic school from kindergarten to
    sophomore in college?  In fact my best friend is a Catholic.  Just
    because I don't believe in any religion, I don't hate my friend 
    because he is different than me.   Also if I may say this, I agree
    with some of the values presented in the Bible.  I'm not gonna say
    which values because I don't want anything controversy again.

    In the end, my point is that there must be something besides the
    Bible that can I refer to in finding the truth.  For example,
    if the Ark of Noah or whatever you called it could be found.  
    To all those who read this, I meant no insult.  I'm just trying to
    learn.  Please don't get nasty.  I'm still gonna block my mail, so
    if you try sending me mail, it will bounce!

    Jack.
From: DSIMON@thor.nafb.trw.com (D_SIMON)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:46:57 GMT

Job 13:15 says, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."

My question is how loyal should a person be to God?  Would you
trust, serve, love, and work for God even if He killed you?
Even if you knew He was planning to send you to hell anyways?

Job believed in eternal life, but I don't think that he was
absolutely certain.  But he remained faithful to God even though
(it appeared) God had forsaken him.

These are somewhat theoretical questions, but they have practical
import as well.  Sometimes a person (such as Job) experiences such
terrible loss and tragedy that they think that God has forsaken them.
And sometimes they die in the midst of their tragedy.  We advise them
to remain faithful to God because it all pays off in the end (heaven).
But should we be faithful to God only because of what WE can get out of it?
If faithfulness to God DIDN'T pay off (e.g. if there was no heaven, 
or if the person knew somehow that he was going to hell anyways) 
would there be any possibility of encouraging the person to remain 
faithful to God?
------------
Dan Simon
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 'my personal savior'
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:28:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: templef@columbia.dsu.edu (Fred Temple)
>Why are so many Christians so arrogant?
>I say this because I have come across so many people who
>profess to be Christ-like but behave as though they are
>superior to all others.  Also, most of the Christians I have
>been in contact with seem to believe that if you don't believe
>exactly as they believe you are damned to Hell.  Furthermore,
>many Christians seem to believe that Christianity has an exclusive
>claim to morality.  Christians, please explain this to me.  Thank you.

See my comments in another message to someone who is wondering
about the extent to which Christians should force themselves on
others. I think the problem is that the "Christians" you have
encountered are generally from a small and rather extreme
fringe which believes that Christianity is something that must
be "sold", and has a distinct sales patter rather like that
you mention. Unfortunately these people rarely point out that
they represent only one version of Christianity.

It is good of you to post, because I think you have
demonstrated how naive evangelism can put off as well as
attract, my belief being that it probably puts off more than it
attracts. I hope the interest that you have taken in
Christianity is genuine, and you will take the trouble to look
into other quieter, more liberal, or more intellectual
varieties of Christianity.

Matthew Huntbach
From: ILDI723@utxvm.cc.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Economists
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:40:24 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

Just to let you know about the existence of the Association of Christian
Economists. The Association publishes a biannual bulletin. If you want
to learn more about their activities contact the Office of the Secretary:
John Mason, Gordon College, Wenham, MA 01984 - USA.
 
Paulo Calmon
ildi723@utxvm.cc.utexas.edu
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Sex
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:40:06 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Sep.29.02.51.07.1992.4104@athos.rutgers.edu> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>According to Tim and Beverly LaHaye, in their book "The Act of Marriage",
>(which is a good attempt - by a Fundamentalist couple - to strip away the

I would hardly call the LaHaye's fundamentalists...

Mark (a fundamentalist)
From: vxv4@po.cwru.edu (Virgilio Velasco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: "The Church"
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:40:19 GMT
Reply-To: vxv4@po.cwru.edu (Virgilio Velasco)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


	I'm looking for some information on a certain church.
What's the group's name?  Good question.  You see, they don't have one.
They simply refer to themselves as "The Church."  They don't believe
that there should be any denominations, which is why they refuse to
adopt any distinctive name for themselves.  (Incidentally, some people
refer to this group as "The Local Church.")

	Their beliefs sprung largely out of the teachings of Witness Lee
and Watchman Nee.  I'm not familiar with this group's teachings at all,
which is why I'm asking you all for information.  I would appreciate
e-mail replies.  Many thanks.

-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr., grad student & roboticist-in-training, CWRU

   "Bullwinkle, that man's intimdating a referee!"     |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all."  |  Jewish carpenter.