Re: RE: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation

From: Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Dec 06 2008 - 12:08:51 EST

Hi Jack,

Hope you had a good Thanksgiving! Sorry for the delayed response on this, but I wanted to make sure I had enough time to give you a proper reply... see my responses interspersed below...

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org

--- On Mon, 11/24/08, Jack <drsyme@verizon.net> wrote:

> From: Jack <drsyme@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: RE: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation
> To: christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 3:47 PM
> Hey Christine
>
> You and I have discussed this here and off line. But we
> have not discussed the moral aspects of your view.
>
> What is your stance on humans utilization of animals?

Thanks for your good questions :)

 I
> would never try to justify abuse of animals, but I think
> that God has provided animals for us for various reasons.
> These include companionship, but also as pack animals, food
> and subjects for medical experimentation. This latter two
> uses obviously requires killing the animal. If an animal
> has an eternal soul, do you see any problem with us killing
> them? I certainly would have a problem with it.

You note several different uses here...let me take each in turn...

I have no problem with the use of pack animals, provided they are properly cared for. Though the animal is being compelled into service, it is receiving a benefit for that service--mainly, a level of care that they're wild counterparts would not receive. Though the animal itself certainly doesn't understand this arrangement from this sort of "business" perspective, it nevertheless is a fair exchange that causes the animal no particular pain or suffering. In fact, over time, animals and people can come to enjoy this type of service as a form of companionship, like dogs and people who participate together in dog sledding.

Regarding the use of animals for food--as I alluded to earlier, I am not and never have been a vegetarian. Interesting that you would pose this question though--my Catholic friend not long ago asked me the same thing when we discussing the very same topic :) There are a couple reasons here for why this does not cause a problem for me. First, there is no Biblical mandate or indication that eating animals is wrong--in fact, after the flood it is specifically described as being okay. Similarly, there's no indication that Christ ever taught this or that He himself had a problem with eating meat--no doubt based on the Biblical accounts he at least ate fish, and presumably other animals as was the practice in the day. Secondly, it is evident from science that the predator-prey relationship has been in existence pretty much ever since animal life began; if it hadn't been, the planet surely would not have been able to support life for very long. It is, if you
 will, a divine form of population control that accommodates the finite character of the earth's natural resources. Hunting or raising cattle for meat, etc. is just another form of this predator-prey relationship, a "natural evil" (if indeed one believes that predator-prey relationships are a form of evil, which I would question) that we humans, being also animals, partake in. Which leads in to my final point and your more specific question--how does this jive with animals having eternal souls? Oddly, I draw (very carefully!) a few parallels here between this and the concept of a "just war". In a just war, we are called upon to kill our fellow humans--who have eternal souls--for a specific purpose. We trust that though this is not ideal by any means, that this is somehow "ordained" or "pardoned" by God because we believe (we hope!) that we are nevertheless acting in accordance with His will. In an ideal world, all people would be pacifists and there
 would be no need for a just war, but we live in a world that was created "good" but not perfect, and so often times pacifism is not possible for everyone, and may in certain cases be considered irresponsible. Similarly, humans kill animals--who have eternal souls (from my perspective :) )--for a very specific purpose, which I trust is "ordained" or "pardoned" by God because we are acting within the bounds of His will. In an ideal world, this predator-prey relationship would not be necessary--indeed, the Biblical imagery of heaven indicates that it will be abolished in His kingdom--but at the moment, we live in a good, yet imperfect world where eating meat is acceptable, and where only some are called to become vegetarian. In short, although I respect and appreciate the reasons why vegetarians choose to abstain from meat, I don't believe it is wrong to eat meat and don't feel called to abstain from it myself. That being said, again, the animals raised
 for meat should be treated humanely and those hunted for meat should be hunted fairly.

Regarding the use of animals for medical experimentation...this is by far, the one I struggle with most. To be honest, I haven't totally resolved this question in my own mind. So rather than argue a particular position, let me just explain some of the thought processes and questions I have been grappling with, to give you a sense of my reasoning....

To begin (and somewhat as an aside), I totally oppose animal experimentation if it is not for the purpose of finding cures or medicines for a serious medical condition. Thus, I totally oppose animal experimentation if its for the purpose of testing cosmetics or other consumer products, or minor human illnesses (i.e. common cold). To weigh the "need" for make-up or perfume or botox as greater than the suffering and/or death of an animal (with or without an eternal soul) is disgusting to me, and just illustrates how materialistic and vain I think our culture has become. If you can't test the safety of make-up without harming another life, than better to do without the make-up. So (getting back to the main point), the benefits to humans have to be sufficiently large and urgent (i.e. lives hang in the balance), in order to even begin to justify the use of animals as experimentation subjects. Another question that factors into this is how intrusive is the
 experimentation? Are we talking just taking blood samples or taking an X-ray? If so, that obviously is something that does not cause the animal a great deal of pain, and would certainly not threaten their lives, so in that case, it's okay from my point of view.

But the place where it gets really thorny (and I assume this is where your question was targeted), is when a researcher is proactively inflicting diseases, great pain, and/or death on an animal for the sake of say, developing a cure for cancer. My thought processes and questions are as follows....my first reaction to the *general idea* is that this is okay--with so many human lives at stake, surely the ends justify the means? If you were to weigh the life of a rat versus the life of my Grandmother (who died from cancer, or my other one, who died from Alzheimer's), then surely, my Grandmother wins, right? But then, if I actually picture in my mind the image of a researcher inducing pain or suffering in an animal (i.e. the image I got when I once read that researchers were inducing heart attacks in dogs)--my gut tells me differently--the image makes me physically want to throw up. If I have such a strong reaction to the actual deed, surely I can't ignore
 this, can I?--couldn't this be my conscience telling me something here? As much medical research as we do and as many diseases as we will cure, all people will die at some time, from something. By going so far, to inflict pain and death on thousands, probably millions of innocent creatures to avoid pain and death ourselves, what does this say about ourselves? That we think we can ultimately cheat death, or that pain is so dishonorable and abhorrent that we must avoid it at all costs? Christ suffered and died--shouldn't we accept this too if the price to avoid it amounts to torturing and slaughtering millions of God's creatures? But surely, healing people is a noble calling of Christ? Perhaps we can find different ways of doing the research? Afterall, there is not a perfect correlation between the anatomy and biology of humans and animals (though I don't have enough medical background to really press that point intelligently)? But then, what about in the
 meantime, when we're still waiting for these other methods to be developed? Would I really want my husband to the first living recipient of a drug? Perhaps it would be okay with really strict guidelines on animal care and reducing their suffering to the least amount possible? Another factor is--is the animal already sick? Perhaps humans could volunteer their sick pets for research in the hopes that it would help heal their animals too? But no, that would probably not be feasible. Perhaps experimentation is justifiable though, if animals also benefit from the research--development of a cancer cure for humans based on animal experimentation would likely also help other animals suffering from cancer of the same/similar species. More basically, if the model for our stewardship of animals is Christ's lordship over us, how does Christ "use" us? Surely, Christ calls us (who have/are eternal souls) to suffer at times--to take up our cross and follow Him, even
 to death. But then, there is a voluntary component to that--we are able to say "yes" to him. We may call upon animals to suffer for us, even to death, but they are incapable of saying "yes" or "no" to us. Should that lead us to exercise greater authority--to say all the more that we may compel them to such an involuntary service to us? Or should their lack of understanding lead us all the more to say no, we can't compel them because they are more vulnerable--think of the animal who places their trust in the humans they are surrounded by, even as they are suffering pain and are completely confused as to what is going on around them--are we, their "shepherds", not violating the trust of our "sheep"?

>
> But, I dont think they have souls, and I think we are to
> use them, in a humane manner, for reasons mentioned above
> and perhaps other reasons. I dont even think that your
> schema of brain complexity applies here, we eat cows, and
> use primates for medical research. Your philosophy cannot
> be consistently applied without being a vegetarian that
> completely avoids all modern medicine.
>

Well, although I'm sure we will still continue to disagree on this, I hope you can see from my thoughts and ramblings above that I have considered these questions systematically, in relation to my faith and more specifically, in relation to my belief that animals have (or are) eternal souls. And, at least in my own mind, I think I have applied my philosophies consistently without becoming a vegetarian or totally rejecting modern medicine :) What do you think?

In Christ,
Christine (ASA member)

>
> Nov 24, 2008 07:05:12 PM, christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> Hello again!
>
> My goodness...much to respond to :) Sorry for the delayed
> reply, but it's been quite a busy week!
>
> Bernie writes:
> "Christine- I just don't see any point in the
> animals going to heaven. Some say that 99% of all species
> that ever lived are now extinct- that is a lot in heaven.
> Also consider that the Earth has been around for billions of
> years- lots of animals. Also consider all the babies that
> died- lots of animals"
>
> I think I've already responded to this in previous
> messages. Really though, I find this totally unconvincing.
> It seems to me you're basing your theological arguments
> on 1) a gut feeling ("what's the point") 2)
> another gut feeling ("people have too much attachment
> to pets") and 3) the notion that scale is a problem for
> God. In contrast, I have cited several Scriptures and have
> layed out what I think is a reasonable theological basis for
> my viewpoint, including its relation to the crucifixition,
> the nature of sin, and what constitutes a "soul".
> My viewpoint is by no means unassailable--Jack and others
> have reached different conclusions based on areas where our
> theologies diverge...but at least they were kind enough to
> engage the issue theologically, and I respect that. Based on
> your arguments however, I'm getting the sense that
> you're not taking me seriously.
>
> Bernie writes:
> it isn't just the few pretty adult animals making it
> into your idea of heaven).
>
> St. Peter is at the gate checking those who enter.
>
> St. Peter:
> You're a cute tiger, you're in! Welcome! Next.
> You're a spider- sorry, not allowed. Too icky.
> You're a slug, sorry, too gross. Next.
> You're a turtle that only lived for 5 minutes before
> you were eaten,
> sorry, you have to be at least 1 day old to enter. Next.
> You're a tiger that died in childbirth- doesn't
> count as
> "life," sorry. Next.
> You're a tiger that was naturally aborted- sorry,
> doesn't count as a birth. Next. (Man, we get a lot of
> these!)
> A human... you refused Christ, sorry. Next.
> Another human... you received Christ, welcome! Next."
>
>
> And this just reinforces what I said above.
> Toungue-in-cheek aside, this is a vast oversimplification
> and misrepresentation of my viewpoint.
>
> As I said, I don't claim to know where the line is, but
> I've already postulated a few ideas. Again to emphasize,
> I did not say that brain development = eternal soul. What I
> said was that there is a correlation between the
> characteristics I attribute to having a soul/spiritual
> nature (i.e sentience, emotions, rationality, etc.) and
> brain complexity. It seems to me that a sufficient level of
> brain development is a *prerequisite* for such things, and
> therefore, it may provide an indication as to at what point
> God's "breath of life" is reflected in
> creation. But I am not God, so I don't pretend to know
> for certain.
>
> Moreover, if you were to replace animals with humans in
> some of your examples (i.e. not living long enough, dying in
> childbirth, aborted before birth, etc.) these are just as
> thorny theologically, if not more so; Just witness the
> debate about where human "life" starts, let alone
> when its okay to "abort" it. If we don't have
> the answers to these questions for humans, why should you
> expect me to have them for animals?
>
> Gordon writes:
> "Now, on to the real point I want to make in this
> message. We are not told
> very much about what specifically to expect in heaven. From
> the Scripture
> I conclude that the main thing we should be looking for is
> to be with
> Jesus, our Savior. That should be enough for us, and we
> should trust that
> whatever else He gives us will be to our liking whether or
> not it is what
> would most appeal to us in our present life. For example,
> some people have
> a hard time accepting that there will be no marriage in
> heaven. If your
> pets are not there, you will realize that the Lord has
> something better
> for you."
>
> In concept, I don't disagree with you here. But I
> don't see how this invalidates my viewpoint. Are you
> trying to say that even the question is inappropriate, and
> that we should move on to more "important" things?
> If so, then we should also quit caring whether other people
> "go to heaven", since obviously even if my husband
> isn't there, Jesus will have something better, so I
> don't need to worry myself.
>
> Murray writes:
> "Like NT Wright I simply see this idea of "going
> to heaven" as entirely divorced from the New Testament
> understanding which sees humanity living in a renewed earth.
>
> So, for my money, the question should be a different one,
> viz: "will there be animals in the redeemed
> creation" or "on the new earth"
>
>
> I don't believe I ever used the phrase "going to
> heaven", but thanks for bringing this up. I just
> finished N.T. Wright's book on the resurrection a few
> months ago, and found it extremely interesting :)
>
> Murray writes:
> "I particularly like the observation that the question
> is usually NOT a generic one (i.e. "will there be
> animals in heaven") but specific (i.e. "will spot
> / fiffi / tiddles be in heaven"). Now apart from the
> aforementioned reservations about talk of earthly creatures
> (human or otherwise) ending up "in heaven" - I
> think that when such a specific question is put we simply
> can't offer a conclusive answer for at least the reason
> that we don't know whether animals have a
> "self" that might be restored (at least some of
> the "personality" of animals seems to me a case of
> projection on our part) and we don't know what criteria
> God might use to determine which animals "deserve"
> what amounts to an equivalent of salvation.
>
> I don't think any of the above conclusively answers
> what I believe should be the "real" question of
> whether animals will be found "in the new
> creation" but I think it may point toward an
> affirmative answer."
>
>
> I appreciate your comments and the Scripture verses you
> quoted in your earlier post. I concur that the Bible is not
> explicit on this point, though as you've pointed out, I
> think it does lean in the affirmative direction too. I think
> the point where you and I differ is the level of certainty
> of animals having a "self". For me, I am certain
> that some animals have one (speaking less of scientific
> studies here, though some studies do address this point, but
> I am speaking more from my own intuition and experiences
> here too); my own uncertainty lies in how extensive the
> development of that "self" is, and where the
> "line" is between those that possess a
> "self" and those that don't. As an aside, I
> think your reference to the specificity of the question
> (Fifi versus all dogs) merely reflects the origin/trigger of
> the question, and should not be taken as to reflect
> something more problematic...more on this in my next
> response....
>
> Murray writes:
> "One final thought occurs to me in closing: that WE
> are going to be fully redeemed suggests that we will undergo
> some sort of transformation in our attitudes to animals.
> I'd offer the speculative suggestion that this might
> involve a lessening of our emotional dependence on pets such
> that we might come to see this question in an entirely
> different light. We might come to see that some of our
> current attitudes to animals (such as Bernie has commented
> on in earlier posts) are misplaced and that the question at
> hand therefore displays a certain lack of perspective."
>
> and
>
> Bernie writes:
> "As a parallel, there is nothing wrong with getting a
> little tipsy with wine, since Jesus turned water into wine
> at a wedding celebration. What if someone asked "will
> there be wine in heaven?" because they are so attached
> to it on Earth? In a way, it is all about attachments... and
> there will be better things in heaven, namely Christ, but
> who knows what else. Christine- we all agree, I think, that
> we should reasonably care for animals- such as animal
> shelters and preventing abuse. And we all agree that many
> people go overboard on their pets, which must be a sin when
> humans are dying of starvation around the world... misplaced
> attachments. Others may be really concerned about their car
> and house. To me- it's all the same, acknowledging that
> some are animate and others are inanimate."
>
> I don't disagree that our notions of animals (and
> everything else) will change when we are redeemed.
>
> However, I do object here to the idea that somehow, this
> all goes back to some sort of unhealthy attachment. The
> specificity of the question "will Fifi go to
> heaven" (or, "be present in the redeemed
> creation") is not indicative of an unhealthy attachment
> or a lack of perspective/maturity; it is an expression born
> in grief over the loss (or expected loss) of a specific
> loved one. If this shows an unhealthy attachment, then you
> may as well condemn everyone who ever asked "will my
> Grandpa go to heaven?" or "will I meet my wife
> again after death?" as having an unhealthy attachment
> or lack of perspective. Such questions may or may not give
> rise to, or be reflective of, a more mature theology
> regarding the issue, but I think the question itself is
> totally innocent, understandable, and reasonable. Likewise,
> I take issue with the idea that concerns for animals may be
> equated to a concern for cars or houses or other earthly
> "attachments" like wine. At the end,
> Bernie correctly notes the difference--some things are
> inanimate, other things are animate. And that makes ALL the
> difference here. You cannot experience companionship or
> friendship or any type of real relationship with an
> inanimate object, but you can with God's animate
> creatures--both humans and animals. And all things, all
> relationships, can only be properly balanced and understood
> through God. This holds true regardless of whether you are
> talking about people or animals.
>
> More generally--Bernie, I appreciate your statement that
> "we all agree, I think, that we should reasonably care
> for animals- such as animal shelters and preventing
> abuse". However, I think we differ on what this means.
> Earlier, you said that " People will spend a lot of
> money on pets (medical treatment, gifts, etc.)" I do
> not think the $$ amount spent, particularly if spent on
> medical treatment, equates to "going overboard"
> with pets, and that this constitutes a sin. Medical
> treatment is for the purpose of maintaining and restoring
> health, and for ensuring quality of life. To me, this is
> "reasonable care" for an animal because it
> prevents pain, relieves suffering, and uplifts another of
> God's creatures. This is not only consistent with
> God's concern for the poor and meek and vulnerable, but
> I think it is part and parcel of fulfilling His command to
> be good stewards of creation. Yes, it is true that we can
> take life, we can euthanize, but it should be
> done judiciously, as a last resort, not a first resort,
> with the animals' best interest in mind (not our
> wallet's). The dollar amount in and of itself, is
> irrelevant. It's what you're doing with those
> dollars, and the sentiment reflected by that choice, which
> is really important and which ultimately determines what is
> "sinful" and what isn't.
>
> And I have already pointed out that spending money on
> animals and investing resources for people are not mutually
> exclusive, and can in fact be complimentary. The idea that
> you have to "choose" between them, and that if you
> choose "animals" this is a sin, is a FALSE
> DICHOTOMY. God entrusts to each of us certain financial
> resources and other gifts, and gives us basic instructions
> for how we use them (i.e. tithing). Those gifts are diverse,
> and are designed and distributed in such a way that ALL
> needs (including the needs of animals and creation) should
> be met. If a Christian has met their general obligations
> (i.e. tithing) and if their particular gifts and calling
> relate to fulfilling the needs of animals (whether in
> addition to, or instead of, people's needs), then I
> don't see why any member of the Body of Christ should
> scorn or admonish their brother when their brother exercises
> proper stewardship. In other words, it is not right for the
> hand to say to
> the foot, "why are you walking instead of building a
> house?", when the foot is doing exactly what the foot
> was intended to do.
>
>
> In Christ,
> Christine (ASA member)
>
>
>
> "For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II
> Corinthians 5:7
>
> Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit
> www.azrescue.org to find out how.
>
> Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to
> power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn
> more at www.cleanup.org
>
>
> --- On Wed, 11/19/08, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
> > From: Dehler, Bernie
> > Subject: RE: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation
> > To: "ASA"
> > Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 4:41 PM
> > Pastor Murray said:
> > "We might come to see that some of our current
> > attitudes to animals (such as Bernie has commented on
> in
> > earlier posts) are misplaced and that the question at
> hand
> > therefore displays a certain lack of
> perspective."
> >
> > As a parallel, there is nothing wrong with getting a
> little
> > tipsy with wine, since Jesus turned water into wine at
> a
> > wedding celebration. What if someone asked "will
> there
> > be wine in heaven?" because they are so attached
> to it
> > on Earth? In a way, it is all about attachments... and
> > there will be better things in heaven, namely Christ,
> but
> > who knows what else. Christine- we all agree, I think,
> that
> > we should reasonably care for animals- such as animal
> > shelters and preventing abuse. And we all agree that
> many
> > people go overboard on their pets, which must be a sin
> when
> > humans are dying of starvation around the world...
> misplaced
> > attachments. Others may be really concerned about
> their car
> > and house. To me- it's all the same, acknowledging
> that
> > some are animate and others are inanimate.
> >
> > Pastor Murray said:
> > " Like NT Wright I
> > simply see this idea of "going to heaven" as
> > entirely divorced from the New Testament understanding
> which
> > sees humanity living in a renewed earth."
> >
> > How about this as an NT example of "going to
> > heaven?":
> >
> > Phil 1
> > 21For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.
> 22If I
> > am to go on living in the body, this will mean
> fruitful
> > labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know!
> 23I am
> > torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with
> Christ,
> > which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for
> you
> > that I remain in the body.
> >
> > Feel free to answer that by starting a new thread, as
> it is
> > off-topic. If Paul departs and is with Christ- where
> are
> > they right now? Certainly they aren't on the new
> Earth,
> > because it wasn't made new yet.
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> Murray Hogg
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 2:10 PM
> > To: ASA
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Not responding to anybody in particular, but simply
> airing
> > a few thoughts;
> >
> > First, my biggest problem with this entire question is
> the
> > ongoing talk of anyone / anything -- human OR animal
> --
> > "going to heaven".
> >
> > Like NT Wright I simply
> > see this idea of "going to heaven" as
> entirely
> > divorced from the New Testament understanding which
> sees
> > humanity living in a renewed earth.
> >
> > So, for my money, the question should be a different
> one,
> > viz: "will there be animals in the redeemed
> > creation" or "on the new earth"
> >
> > Here I find it interesting that some of the most
> poignant
> > images of this new creation include animals;
> >
> > 6 " The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
> > The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
> > The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
> > And a little child shall lead them.
> > 7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
> > Their young ones shall lie down together;
> > And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
> > 8 The nursing child shall play by the cobra's
> hole,
> > And the weaned child shall put his hand in the
> viper's
> > den.
> > 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy
> mountain,
> > For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the
> LORD
> > As the waters cover the sea.
> > Isaiah 11:6-9 (see also Isaiah 65:25)
> >
> > I'd also affirm the remarks found on the website
> of a
> > Victorian Baptist associate of mine found at;
> >
> > http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16560.htm
> >
> > I particularly like the observation that the question
> is
> > usually NOT a generic one (i.e. "will there be
> animals
> > in heaven") but specific (i.e. "will spot /
> fiffi
> > / tiddles be in heaven"). Now apart from the
> > aforementioned reservations about talk of earthly
> creatures
> > (human or otherwise) ending up "in heaven" -
> I
> > think that when such a specific question is put we
> simply
> > can't offer a conclusive answer for at least the
> reason
> > that we don't know whether animals have a
> > "self" that might be restored (at least some
> of
> > the "personality" of animals seems to me a
> case of
> > projection on our part) and we don't know what
> criteria
> > God might use to determine which animals
> "deserve"
> > what amounts to an equivalent of salvation.
> >
> > I don't think any of the above conclusively
> answers
> > what I believe should be the "real" question
> of
> > whether animals will be found "in the new
> > creation" but I think it may point toward an
> > affirmative answer.
> >
> > One final thought occurs to me in closing: that WE are
> > going to be fully redeemed suggests that we will
> undergo
> > some sort of transformation in our attitudes to
> animals.
> > I'd offer the speculative suggestion that this
> might
> > involve a lessening of our emotional dependence on
> pets such
> > that we might come to see this question in an entirely
> > different light. We might come to see that some of our
> > current attitudes to animals (such as Bernie has
> commented
> > on in earlier posts) are misplaced and that the
> question at
> > hand therefore displays a certain lack of perspective.
> >
> > Blessings,
> > Murray Hogg
> > Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria,
> Australia
> > Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of
> Theology
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 Sat Dec 6 12:09:29 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 06 2008 - 12:09:29 EST