Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics)

Bernie,
You are getting off topic, and away from your original
assertion:
   IF the science & history in the Bible are ancient (and wrong),
   THEN the theology is ancient (and wrong).
I won't let you fragment the argument.

Your assertion does not NECESSARY follow.

The Holy Spirit could have used ancient science & history
as incidental vessels to reveal INERRANT Messages of Faith.

d

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:59 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
(fall-away) TE and apologetics)

> Denis said:
> " to deliver the inerrant Message of Faith that sin entered the world
> because of humans."
>
> But sin did NOT enter the world because of humans. If we truly disagree
> on this, let me know, so I can explain where sin really came from.
>
> But I think we do agree, because we both know there is no human (or group
> of humans) that arose to be the first sinner(s). Correct?
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:54 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie; asa
> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
> (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
>
> Dear Bernie,
> I love you too! You remind me of Mike Behe.
> We can go at it with bare knuckles, but when
> the discussion is over, we leave the disagreements
> back in the ring. It never gets personal with Mike.
> He's gem of a guy.
>
> OK
> The question "Where did sin come from?" is
> a theological question, BUT, and here is the BUT,
> BUT the Bible answers this question using an
> ancient scientific vessel (de novo creation of Adam)
> to deliver the inerrant Message of Faith that
> sin entered the world because of humans. In other
> words, Scripture doesn't tell us exactly how this
> happened in the past.
>
> Bernie, I know this is COUNTERINTUITIVE (this
> is why I repeated this term thru my books), but
> you must SEPARATE the inerrant Message from the
> incidental ancient understanding of nature (the science),
> and NOT CONFLATE them together.
>
> Pithy enough?
> d
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:00 AM
> Subject: RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
> (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
>
>
>> Denis, I would ask this:
>>
>> Is this a theological question: "Where did sin come from?"
>>
>> If yes, and the Bible is a book of theology, what answer, or answers,
>> does
>> the Bible give? It sounds to me like you are claiming the Bible gives no
>> theological answer to that theological question.
>>
>> By the way, I greatly appreciate the to-the-point pithy responses.
>> That's
>> why you are my favorite author on this topic ;-)
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
>> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 3:37 PM
>> To: Dehler, Bernie; asa
>> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
>> (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
>>
>> Dear Bernie,
>> You are a scrapper my friend!
>>
>> You write:
>>> Ancient theological idea:
>>> Adam was the first human to sin.
>>>
>>> This statement is nothing but theology
>>
>> NOT true. It's ancient science (creation
>> and existence of Adam) delivering an inerrant
>> and Holy Spirit-inspired theology (sin is
>> very real and humans are sinners).
>>
>> Bernie: Separate, Don't Conflate!
>>
>> Best,
>> Denis
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 10:58 AM
>> Subject: RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
>> (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
>>
>>
>>>I guess the most obvious example of 'ancient and wrong' theology would be
>>>my original point about Adam bringing sin into the world.
>>>
>>> Ancient theological idea:
>>> Adam was the first human to sin.
>>>
>>> This statement is nothing but theology.
>>>
>>> Denis and I (as when I was a Christian) both reject it on the grounds
>>> that
>>> we both believe there is no literal Adam. Therefore- there is no way
>>> that
>>> Adam could introduce sin in to the world given that there was no literal
>>> Adam.
>>>
>>> Denis, I read your original answer and you explain it like this, in my
>>> own
>>> words: If one says "Adam brought sin in to the world" they are mixing
>>> the
>>> ancient (wrong) science of the day with correct theology:
>>>
>>> Ancient (wrong) since and history: Adam was first human and is a
>>> historical person.
>>> Theology (which is true): Sin is in the world
>>>
>>> The problem is that the statement "Adam was the first human and brought
>>> sin into the world" is purely theological, taught in the Bible, and
>>> received/believed as such by followers. "How did sin enter the world"
>>> is
>>> a purely theological question, and there is no alternative theory (that
>>> I
>>> know of) presented in the Bible.
>>>
>>> ...Bernie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>>> Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
>>> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 8:54 AM
>>> To: asa
>>> Subject: RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
>>> (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
>>>
>>> Denis said:
>>> "Physical death entering the world is not a theological statement "
>>>
>>> Thank you for clearly stating that.
>>>
>>> I think it is wrong, but I appreciate the answer. The ancient idea is
>>> that
>>> Adam sinned (which is theological), and this sin brought physical death
>>> (you say the Apostle Paul taught this, and I agree). Therefore, death
>>> is
>>> the result of sin, even the direct consequence, yet you say it is not
>>> theological.
>>>
>>> To me that is like the Catholic claim that they never change doctrine.
>>> Used to be, if you ate meat on Friday, it was a mortal sin (lost
>>> salvation
>>> = go to hell). Now it isn't a sin (in the USA anyway). Ask them, didn't
>>> doctrine change? They say that wasn't a doctrine. But yet it was able
>>> to
>>> threaten loss of salvation. Seems inconsistent to me.
>>>
>>> I also think I can come up with an even more obvious example of 'ancient
>>> theology,' so I'll try again later.
>>>
>>> ...Bernie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 4:12 PM
>>> To: Dehler, Bernie; asa
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
>>> (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
>>>
>>> Dear Bernie,
>>> Physical death entering the world is not a theological statement,
>>> and thus it is not ancient theology. It's a statement about nature,
>>> an ancient understanding about the origin of physical death, according
>>> to ancient Hebrew science.
>>>
>>> Once again, you are committing the error of CONFLATION.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>>> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 2:58 PM
>>> Subject: RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
>>> (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Denis said:
>>>> "Re-read my post. I gave you the answer."
>>>>
>>>> I disagree, Denis. You mentioned 'sin entering the world' and I
>>>> mentioned
>>>> 'physical death entering the world.' I'm trying to give an obvious
>>>> example of 'ancient theology.'
>>>>
>>>> I think all TE's know that Adam did not bring physical death into the
>>>> world, and you made the point in your book that the Bible (Apostle
>>>> Paul)
>>>> teaches explicitly that Adam brought physical death into the world
>>>> because
>>>> of Adam's sin. So what prevents you from identifying that as an
>>>> "ancient
>>>> theology?"
>>>>
>>>> ...Bernie
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
>>>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 1:41 PM
>>>> To: Dehler, Bernie; asa
>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
>>>> (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
>>>>
>>>> Dear Bernie,
>>>> Want a "short" and "pithy answer"?
>>>> Re-read my post. I gave you the
>>>> answer.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Denis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>>>> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:22 AM
>>>> Subject: RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
>>>> (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Denis- just a short comment and note before I reply to the rest. A
>>>>> short answer would also be appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, as I see it, in your book "Evolutionary Creationism," you say
>>>>> concordism should be evaluated on three levels: science, history, and
>>>>> theology. You then use and define terms, with examples, for 'ancient
>>>>> science' and 'ancient history.' You don't do that for 'theology.'
>>>>> Why
>>>>> is
>>>>> that? Why not also use the term 'ancient theology' and use and define
>>>>> it
>>>>> like the other two?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you ask "what would be an example of 'ancient theology'" I would
>>>>> say
>>>>> one example is the notion that death entered the world through the sin
>>>>> of
>>>>> Adam (we both reject a literal Adam; and you laid out the case that
>>>>> the
>>>>> Apostle Paul specifically taught that physical death entered by way of
>>>>> Adam).
>>>>>
>>>>> My point: you imply 'ancient theology' (whether intentional or not)
>>>>> but
>>>>> don't explicitly state it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pithy answers appreciated, pal ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> And just to be clear on the big picture, I think your two books are
>>>>> the
>>>>> only ones that I can think of to recommend to other Christians who
>>>>> want
>>>>> to
>>>>> integrate evolution into theology. They are the best I've seen.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...Bernie
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 10:01 AM
>>>>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>>>>> Cc: asa
>>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Bernie,
>>>>>
>>>>> A few folks on the listserv have contacted me to share of your recent
>>>>> shift
>>>>> away from Christianity. Since my name and work have come up in your
>>>>> posts,
>>>>> they thought that I should comment. After reading some of your
>>>>> arguments,
>>>>> I
>>>>> am sorry to say that you misrepresent my views, and quite badly. Of
>>>>> course,
>>>>> it runs through my mind whether you actually read my material with any
>>>>> care.
>>>>> Let me give you a couple examples.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri Sep 18 2009, Bernie writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> "I can explain how it ended my faith in Christ. Once accepting
>>>>> evolution,
>>>>> I
>>>>> had to figure out how to integrate it into theology. Lamoureux helped
>>>>> here.
>>>>> There is theology, science, and history in the Bible; and the last two
>>>>> are
>>>>> ancient and they are wrong. But now that I was on that road, I could
>>>>> go
>>>>> further, and say "Ah ha- it is the same case for theology- there is
>>>>> also
>>>>> an
>>>>> 'ancient theology' in the Bible that is also wrong." Of course, no
>>>>> theologian will use the term 'ancient theology' even though they
>>>>> believe
>>>>> it,
>>>>> because it will make them a heretic. So what is "ancient theology?"
>>>>> For
>>>>> one,
>>>>> the sin of Adam brought death into the world. Ancient, and wrong
>>>>> (according
>>>>> to TE's and YEC's). (Your quoted paragraph above mentions 'ancient'
>>>>> and
>>>>> wrong ideas related to theology, only they aren't labeled as such.)"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bernie, you've completely missed the entire point of my book, and
>>>>> you've
>>>>> committed the error that I attack throughout the book-CONFLATION.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the example you cite, you've conflated:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) the ancient science (the de novo of Adam, which is an ancient
>>>>> phenomenological perspective on how life arose) and
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) the Divine Theology (the reality of human sin and the fact that
>>>>> sin
>>>>> entered the world because of humans).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I give scores of examples of the ancient science being used as an
>>>>> incidental
>>>>> vessel to deliver the Holy Spirit inspired Messages of Faith (ie, the
>>>>> Message-Incident Principle which I repeat ad nauseam), but somehow you
>>>>> are
>>>>> oblivious to this categorical distinction. In this example, my
>>>>> conclusion
>>>>> is
>>>>> that "sin entered the world, but not with Adam" (p. 329).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your comment regarding the integrity of theologians ("even though they
>>>>> believe it") is shameful and crosses the line. And it simply is not
>>>>> true.
>>>>> I
>>>>> believe the theology in Scripture is inerrant/infallible, and I use
>>>>> these
>>>>> terms in my book Evolutionary Creation (2008) 153 times in 386
>>>>> pages-about
>>>>> once every 2.5 pages.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another of your misrepresentations and CONFLATIONS regards the history
>>>>> in
>>>>> Scripture. You write: "There is theology, science, and history in the
>>>>> Bible;
>>>>> and the last two are ancient and they are wrong." You fail to
>>>>> distinguish
>>>>> the ancient history in Gen 1-11 from the historical statements in the
>>>>> rest
>>>>> of the Bible. Remember, the focus of my book is on Gen 1-11. However,
>>>>> I
>>>>> did
>>>>> make a critical qualification right at the beginning of the first
>>>>> chapter
>>>>> where I deal with Gen 1-11. In the second paragraph of this chapter I
>>>>> made
>>>>> my views very clear regarding the history in Scripture:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "It has long been acknowledged that Scripture describes actual
>>>>> historical
>>>>>
>>>>> events. The scientific discipline of biblical archaeology explores
>>>>>
>>>>> the history of ancient Palestine and the surrounding regions. Evidence
>>>>>
>>>>> collected from sites in the Middle East confirms the existence of many
>>>>>
>>>>> customs, places, and peoples referred to in the Bible. To mention a
>>>>> few
>>>>>
>>>>> examples, the Old Testament record is consistent with archaeological
>>>>> data
>>>>>
>>>>> regarding religious practices (stone altars, blood sacrifices, holy
>>>>> mounts),
>>>>>
>>>>> nomadic life (tenting, herding, hospitality), cities (Rameses,
>>>>> Babylon,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jerusalem), nations (Egyptians, Assyrians, Canaanites), and kings
>>>>> (Sennacherib,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nebuchadnezzar, David). The New Testament also presents accurate
>>>>>
>>>>> history of first-century Palestine in regards to the Jewish religion
>>>>>
>>>>> (Pharisees, temples, sacrifices) and the Roman occupation (Pontius
>>>>> Pilate,
>>>>>
>>>>> centurions, crucifixion). And solid evidence supports the historical
>>>>> reality
>>>>>
>>>>> of a man named "Jesus of Nazareth" and the beginning of the Church.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, some Christians do not accept the historicity of Gen 1-11."
>>>>> p.
>>>>> 177
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, don't assume that because the history in Gen 1-11 is ancient, that
>>>>> the
>>>>> rest of the Bible features a similar ancient understanding of history.
>>>>> This
>>>>> is an injudicious extrapolation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mon Sep 21 2009 Bernie writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The idea of a firmament is wrong. Same with the idea of the Earth
>>>>> being
>>>>> stationary and unmoveable (it is moving 67,000 mph around the Sun),
>>>>> and
>>>>> the
>>>>> universe being geocentric. Lamoureux identifies ancient (and wrong)
>>>>> science
>>>>> and history. But he never identifies theology in the same way,
>>>>> explicitly,
>>>>> that it can be likewise "ancient and wrong" (but he does implicitly
>>>>> state
>>>>> it). Example of ancient theology that is wrong: A literal Adam brought
>>>>> sin
>>>>> and death into the world... something most TE's would say is
>>>>> theologically
>>>>> wrong (all those who don't accept a literal Adam)."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bernie, your rhetoric (use of the term "wrong") is irritating. The
>>>>> ancient
>>>>> science was the best science of the day, and it's what we would have
>>>>> accepted had we lived then.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But more irritating is your comment that I "implicitly state" that the
>>>>> theology is "ancient and wrong." UTTER NONSENSE. Here is the first
>>>>> paragraph of the chapter that begins my hermeneutical thesis in
>>>>> Evolutionary
>>>>> Creation:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Bible is a precious gift that has been given to us in order to
>>>>> reveal
>>>>>
>>>>> God and His will. Contained within its pages are the foundations of
>>>>>
>>>>> the Christian Faith-the creation of the world, the fall of humanity
>>>>> into
>>>>>
>>>>> sin, the offer of redemption through the Blood shed on the Cross, and
>>>>>
>>>>> the promise of eternal life. The Scriptures are also an everlasting
>>>>> source
>>>>>
>>>>> of spiritual nourishment for our soul. Through the power of the Holy
>>>>>
>>>>> Spirit, the Bible assures and encourages, challenges and admonishes,
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> equips men and women for a faithful life of good works. In particular,
>>>>>
>>>>> the primary purpose of God's Word is to reveal Jesus and the Father's
>>>>>
>>>>> unconditional love for all of us." p. 105
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you telling me that I believe the theology is "ancient and wrong"?
>>>>> As
>>>>> noted above, I refer to the theology as inerrant/infallible once every
>>>>> 2.5
>>>>> pages. So don't give me this NONSENSE that I "implicitly state" that
>>>>> the
>>>>> theology is "ancient and wrong," because I do not at all believe the
>>>>> theology is "wrong."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is clear to me that you only read what you wanted out of my book to
>>>>> serve
>>>>> your agenda, which is clearly just an attempt to justify your
>>>>> rejection
>>>>> of
>>>>> Christianity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [The next paragraph has got Bernie's approval to be posted because the
>>>>> contents came in a private e-mail]
>>>>>
>>>>> But let's get personal, because faith is not just an academic
>>>>> exercise.
>>>>> A
>>>>> month or so ago I asked you if you read the Bible DEVOTIONALLY. Your
>>>>> answer
>>>>> was a terse 'no'. Bernie, you're missing the point of God's Word
>>>>> completely. Scripture leads to a spiritual encounter. It is here to
>>>>> convict
>>>>> you and also to bless you. Reading the Bible entails having a set of
>>>>> ears
>>>>> that "hear." And though I don't for second believe in the historical
>>>>> reality
>>>>> of Adam and Eve, the account in Scripture about them is foundational
>>>>> to
>>>>> Christian Faith, because it reveals the inerrant and eternal truth of
>>>>> the
>>>>> human condition-we don't listen to God. And your non-devotional
>>>>> reading
>>>>> of
>>>>> the Bible is just like Adam and Eve's treatment of the words that God
>>>>> gives
>>>>> them in the garden. Like them, you just don't want to listen to His
>>>>> Word.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is my 30 year experience with hearing a "voice" in the Bible that
>>>>> leads
>>>>> me to reject the idea that Scripture has ancient theology. It
>>>>> contains
>>>>> a
>>>>> living theology that changes lives forever. I don't see the same
>>>>> impact
>>>>> of
>>>>> other ancient theologies (Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc.) on
>>>>> people
>>>>> today. But for most on this listserv, the "voice" in the Scripture is
>>>>> real,
>>>>> and it talks to them everyday. And that "voice" has got people praying
>>>>> for
>>>>> you, and concerned enough to challenge you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now in your defense, I can empathize with you regarding the challenges
>>>>> of
>>>>> modern biblical criticism. It certainly shook the core of my being
>>>>> when
>>>>> I
>>>>> was exposed to it in seminary. In EC (pp. 348-350), I write about a
>>>>> moment
>>>>> at the end of Regent College when I was ready to toss the faith
>>>>> because
>>>>> I
>>>>> saw an ancient feature in Scripture (the pre-creative state of Gen
>>>>> 1:2).
>>>>> But
>>>>> at the same time that "voice" arose and put things in perspective. The
>>>>> Bible
>>>>> has an ancient vessel that carries the life-changing Words of God. But
>>>>> you
>>>>> need "ears" to hear that "voice."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And I will also empathize with your tendency of focusing on the
>>>>> literature
>>>>> of the Bible. I'll confess that this has been an issue in my faith
>>>>> walk
>>>>> at
>>>>> times. As a theologian, I am always analyzing the Text critically, and
>>>>> it's
>>>>> easy to think that because I'm reading Scripture 8 hours a day that
>>>>> I'm
>>>>> in
>>>>> the Word all the time. NOT TRUE. I need devotional time in Scripture.
>>>>> Biblical criticism is great, but it's only a tool that serves us to
>>>>> get
>>>>> at
>>>>> the Message of Faith, and to understand the Holy Spirit's revelatory
>>>>> process. The Word was intended to be read DEVOTIONALLY. And that's the
>>>>> best
>>>>> part of reading the Bible-it results in a mystical encounter with God.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To use an earthy example: People like you who focus just on the
>>>>> literature
>>>>> of Scripture through biblical criticism are like to those who limit
>>>>> sex
>>>>> with
>>>>> their spouse to just the anatomical and physiological facts of the
>>>>> act.
>>>>> They
>>>>> know all the physical details of sex, and when they are in bed with
>>>>> their
>>>>> spouse they keep their mind focused on the physical reality, missing
>>>>> completely the transcendent/spiritual/mystical character of the
>>>>> event/encounter. Those who only read the Bible critically are like
>>>>> those
>>>>> who
>>>>> fail to realize that there is something more to sex . . . it's called
>>>>> making
>>>>> love.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So what's the bottom line: your arguments regarding Scripture are
>>>>> based
>>>>> on
>>>>> a
>>>>> misrepresentation and proof-texting of my work. Your so-called "ah
>>>>> ha"
>>>>> moment is an injudicious extrapolation of my views. It's rooted in
>>>>> simplistic conflations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bernie, have more integrity than Adam and Eve as they attempted to
>>>>> justify
>>>>> themselves with silly excuses before the Lord (eg, Eve to God: It's
>>>>> the
>>>>> snake that made me do it, or Adam to God: It's the woman YOU put here
>>>>> with
>>>>> me that made me do it [!]). Bernie, just be honest, toss the excuses,
>>>>> the
>>>>> rationalizations, and the justifications aside, and just say you
>>>>> simply
>>>>> don't
>>>>> want to believe. You just don't want to listen to God.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Over the last two years and two ASA meetings I have really enjoyed
>>>>> connecting with you and I quite appreciate your intensity in trying to
>>>>> make
>>>>> sense of things. You'll always be a pal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes in your future,
>>>>>
>>>>> Denis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 29 13:32:38 2009