Bernie,
I think it's clearly apparent. If Job felt that God had reasons for what he
was experiencing, what would the problem for him be? The only purpose would
be to confirm what he already felt, or wonder/curiosity. On the flipside,
Job seems to think that if only he had an explanation from God, then it
would renew/restore his trust in God. In the story God explains why that
simply will not work - and Job seems to realize not only this, but why it
won't work.
And you keep saying "the reader was told the real reason". I know that's
what Bart Ehrman thinks, but I also think Ehrman is clearly wrong on that
point. First in the expected sense of 'That's not what this was supposed to
convey'. But second, even a plain reading doesn't give a complete
explanation. God never explains why He cares to convince Satan, or asserts
that it's done purely for the purposes of inquiry, or to test, etc. At most
we get a sliver of explanation - and the end of the book explains why it's a
mistake to pursue this line of inquiry anyway.
So I'm in stark disagreement with you here. And others too, I'm certain. Job
beautifully illustrates the folly of thinking of God as just another being
like ourselves for whom it's not only proper, but wise to seek explanations
from. If our approach to God is "I'll believe and trust - but only when I
hear a complete and satisfactory account of every evil or question I can
think of!", sorry. The option isn't available. It's barely available in
human-human relationships.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:
> Schwarzwald said:
> “What Job is after is assurance that there are reasons he goes through
> what he goes through - not the reasons themselves. “
>
>
>
> That is not apparent to me- not sure how you came to that conclusion.
>
>
>
> Jon Tandy later wrote:
> “There is a lot to say about Job, but one that hasn't been discussed a lot
> came to mind with your reference to "nature red in tooth and claw". In Job,
> God basically says, "Yes, that's the way it is. Deal with it, and don't
> counsel me on why I made it that way."”
>
>
>
> That’s like a child asking his parent ‘why’ and they say ‘because I said
> so.’ We know from experience as a child that we hate than answer, and from
> experience as an adult that we sometimes say it when we don’t have a good
> reason or don’t want to consider the question because we are too tired… and
> sometimes the real reason isn’t good.
>
>
>
> In Job’s case, God never told him the real reason, but the reader was told:
> it was to test the faith of Job even if he is tortured. And he was tortured
> to the max- up to the point of almost losing life. How would Job have
> responded if God told him the real reason behind the torture? I wonder if
> that would have made him lose his allegiance to God.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Schwarzwald
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:05 PM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] (Job)
> Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
>
>
>
> Heya all,
>
> Job happens to be one of my favorite books of the bible, actually!
>
> The point of what God says to Job at the end, I think, is that the reason
> God would offer to Job honestly does not matter. In fact, it does not (or
> should not) matter even to Job himself - and the rationale indirectly
> offered to the reader is entirely unimportant and incomplete.
>
> What Job is after is assurance that there are reasons he goes through what
> he goes through - not the reasons themselves. He knows (or at least has
> great reason to believe) it isn't because he's done anything wrong, despite
> the insistence of his friends. He also seems to think that God really does
> have His reasons. What God says amounts to, in my view, "You're asking me
> for the reasons of what I permitted and permit. But realize who you're
> asking reasons from - the power responsible for bringing this universe into
> existence. For bringing into existence yourself and all you've experienced.
> Do you really expect to comprehend my motives? And even then, could you
> believe them even if they're true? In the end, the only option that's
> available to you is one of trust - and really, the only thing you want is to
> trust me. And that's going to require an act, and faith, on your part."
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> Merv:
>
> " To think the book of Job gives a neat packaged answer that it was/is all
> just an experiment -- a little wager between the powers above does extreme
> violence to a profound book."
>
> Job doesn't know the reason for the suffering, because God never told him.
> However, the reader of the story is told by the author. Why did Job suffer
> so much? The book says why, although Job never got the direct answer.
>
> Merv:
>
> " For one thing, Bernie, if that was all God wanted to communicate,"
>
> I don't think I said or implied that was ALL it was about. I agree- there
> are many other sub-themes.
>
> Merv:
>
> "How does poetry survive in a television age?"
>
> I think TV and movies have vastly advanced the art of story-telling. Many
> of the classics (they are classics because they are so good) seem to have
> moral points made in them. Modern stories can also touch the heart and
> inform the mind in profound emotional/intellectual ways.
>
> Merv:
> " And if the ancients could observe our preferences... They would probably
> laugh to hear us call ourselves enlightened."
>
> I don't think so. I think the opposite- they would be awestruck with how
> we use technology to enhance story-telling.
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mrb22667@kansas.net [mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:52 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] (Job)
> Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
>
> To think the book of Job gives a neat packaged answer that it was/is all
> just an
> experiment -- a little wager between the powers above does extreme violence
> to a
> profound book. Of course, I'm in no position to elaborate on the depths of
> what
> is there, then, but I still think it runs a lot deeper than the neat
> sound-bite
> that we modern folks want everything to reduce to. I'm not denying those
> disturbing elements in Job, but just pointing out that those are hardly the
> entire content or even necessarily the point of the book.
>
> For one thing, Bernie, if that was all God wanted to communicate,
> specifically
> to the scientifically rutted (and television conditioned) mindsets of a
> peculiar
> culture three thousand years later, then the 'book' of Job would probably
> be
> about three sentences long, giving what would have to pass for terse
> 'answers'
> to a very deep and profound problem. Instead what we get is chapters of
> the
> agonizings of a suffering Job and the attempted 'comfort' from his friends
> trying their own hand at theodicy and answers to the problem of evil. I
> don't
> think the 'point' of the book, if such a thing could be said to reduce to a
> 'point', is to deliver a soundbite answer just for those of us who would
> like one.
>
> How does poetry survive in a television age? One wonders. If any
> accommodation is needed, perhaps we are the most in need of it. The
> ancients,
> or a few of them, obviously had time to ponder deep things. But for us, we
> might (for example)need the highly repetitive and tedious Psalms to be
> given in
> 150 short sentence sound bites. ...and since many of those 150 are
> redundant,
> we could probably narrow that down to about ten and cover all the broad
> categories. And if the ancients could observe our preferences, they might
> scratch their heads and wonder how a culture so prolific with published
> words,
> thoughts, ideas, and philosophies deems itself to have time for so few.
> They
> would probably laugh to hear us call ourselves enlightened.
>
> --Merv
>
>
> Quoting "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>:
>
> > Hi John-
> >
> > I think the book of Job says the reason for Job's suffering was because
> of an
> > experiment done on him. Satan and God agreed that Job was righteous and
> > blameless, but what would Job do if all his blessing were taken away-
> > everything taken from him except life? Let's try it and find out. That
> was
> > an experiment, and I think Job passed (because God blessed him again).
> Job
> > didn't know the reason for his ordeal, but the reader is told, and the
> reason
> > is disheartening. Seems to me like Job's family was treated as
> collateral
> > damage- no payback for them for their deaths. They are treated pretty
> much
> > just as property in the story... as if they wouldn't be missed because
> God
> > gave Job more relatives to replace the old ones.
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:24 PM
> > To: Dehler, Bernie
> > Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> > Subject: Re: [asa] (Job)
> > Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
> >
> > What I see as the lesson from Job is that we are all created for His use
> and
> > glory even if it means He spends our lives or the life of our children
> for
> > some purpose of His that we may never know, as in the case of Job who
> also
> > Job didn't know why all those terrible things happened to him and his
> > children. That is ultimate trust and being a living sacrifice.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > John
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> > To: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 12:01:46 PM
> > Subject: RE: [asa] (Job)
> > Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
> > John walley:
> > "'But the lesson from Job makes this very clearly wrong"
> >
> > Briefly- what do you see as 'the lesson from Job?'
> >
> > ...Benrie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: asa -owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto: asa -owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On
> > Behalf Of John Walley
> > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:13 PM
> > To: Schwarzwald; asa @calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: [ asa ]
> > Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
> >
> > I think this is a profound perspective. Not meaning to be insensitive to
> your
> > loss Bernie, but I think we can make the same presumptions on God through
> our
> > expectations of life as we do in our theology like the YEC's. But the
> lesson
> > from Job makes this very clearly wrong, provided we accept that as
> accurate
> > theology. I know this is a theodicy based response but I don't see how we
> can
> > divorce the meaning of life from that. I think everything comes down to
> > theodicy.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > John
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> > To: asa @calvin.edu
> > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 2:57:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ asa ]
> > Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
> >
> > What's the plan and purpose for someone who lives a full and relatively
> happy
> > life, dying at age 80? As I said, the Christian message is that plan and
> > purpose isn't exhausted by earthly life - I'd add, or individual
> experience -
> > so it makes no sense to ask the question in that context.
> >
> > The only other angle I can see you coming at with your question is one
> with
> > the unspoken implication "Wouldn't it have been better if this baby was
> never
> > conceived to begin with?" Again, if we're operating within the Christian
> > view, that just seems strange to ask. Whether someone dies 1 month after
> > conception or 1000 months, they have a future beyond death to look
> forward
> > to. If they can expect salvation - and from my perspective, even if they
> can
> > expect something less than salvation but not everlasting tortuous hell -
> it's
> > clear to me that, no, it's vastly better that they were conceived.
> >
> > Or maybe you're asking me "What purpose could someone dying so early
> possibly
> > fulfill"? And there, I can see so many answers that can go on top of "For
> > their own sake". But they would all be answers similar to what I'm sure
> > you've run into already - lessons their (short) life teaches others,
> effects
> > they have on others, what they indirectly bring about, what they
> demonstrate
> > about the value (overestimating and underestimating) of earthly life and
> > existence, etc.
> >
> > Hopefully you see where I'm coming from here.
> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Dehler, Bernie
> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Schwarzwald said:
> > "And frankly, it's not as if we're somehow more special just because we
> live
> > longer lives than said babies - nor is God "done" with us after we die,
> > whether it's at 1 month or 100 years. The Christian message has been that
> God
> > has a plan and place for everyone, and that this plan isn't predicated on
> > living some long, healthy, happy life."
> >
> >
> >
> > So what is the plan and purpose for a baby that died after childbirth?
> There
> > are probably thousands of cases of this every day around the world. I'm
> > asking from a "God's will" perspective; not a theodicy question.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]
> On
> > Behalf Of Schwarzwald
> > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:00 PM
> >
> > To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [ asa ]
> > Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
> >
> >
> >
> > God has created all of us "specifically to die". Death no more eludes us
> than
> > it does any baby who dies inside or outside of the womb.
> >
> > And frankly, it's not as if we're somehow more special just because we
> live
> > longer lives than said babies - nor is God "done" with us after we die,
> > whether it's at 1 month or 100 years. The Christian message has been that
> God
> > has a plan and place for everyone, and that this plan isn't predicated on
> > living some long, healthy, happy life. In fact, I'd think the experiences
> of
> > Christ Himself would have made it clear that God's plan can include (and
> > often does include) a tragic, premature death. Once someone accepts that
> even
> > one particular tragic, early death can make total sense in the Christian
> > perspective, it illustrates how any death - even of a child in the womb -
> can
> > fit into a plan and purpose. Put another way, a dead child still has
> value.
> > Dying young, even too young to have been born, does not make a person's
> > existence somehow meaningless or pointless.
> >
> > Personally, I don't "struggle" with the problem of pain or evil anymore,
> and
> > haven't for a long time. On the Christian worldview it makes complete
> sense
> > that there exists pain and death (even in abundance) in our universe (and
> I
> > don't think "evolution" adds much to that particular issue anyway).
> Frankly,
> > it's also justifiable in a jewish, muslim, or hindu worldview as well,
> and
> > probably other theistic views. In fact, it's death and evil is vastly
> more
> > problematic for atheists who seriously contend the world is so evil that
> no
> > good God would be responsible for it or willingly expose anyone to it, or
> who
> > for whatever reason still try to load words like "good" or "evil" with
> > meaning at all.
> >
> > (Though, in response to David Clounch, I have no problem seeing destiny
> and
> > purpose in a world where evolution is true. I don't think TEs are
> > particularly hobbled on the question just by nature of their accepting
> > evolution. If anything they're hobbled because they simply, for whatever
> > reason, tend to avoid thinking and speaking in those terms - but that's
> not a
> > result of their believing in evolution, unless it's of evolution that was
> > ultimately/entirely unplanned and unguided, which seems very rare.)
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Dehler, Bernie
> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:
> >
> > David C. said:
> > "A pre-loaded universe only makes sense if it explains what your personal
> > unique meaning is to the creator, and also explains your destiny, where
> you
> > are going. It makes no sense to say a creator pre-loaded the universe to
> > produce Bernie, and then have nothing to predict where Bernie is going. "
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi David-
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't understand how anyone, and I mean anyone, can think God directly
> > makes all people for His direct plans.
> >
> >
> >
> > Consider all the spontaneous abortions (naturally occurring), still
> births,
> > birth defects, etc. God created all those people specifically to die? I
> > myself had a daughter that died a few moments after birth, due to birth
> > defects. I don't think that was God's direct will (you will likely say
> His
> > permissive will). And it is not just about my experience- it is
> multiplied
> > my many times all over the world, even more in undeveloped nations (where
> > even healthy babies and mom's die due to birth complications that could
> be
> > avoided in the USA ). So God made you and has plans for your life...
> what
> > about all those others who died way too premature? This is not a TE or
> YEC
> > question, but a question really posed for all Christians to consider...
> one I
> > struggle with too.
> >
> >
> >
> > So are you a special case in that God has a plan for you and your life,
> but
> > not for those who die of birth defects? Or is that just a "I don't know
> and
> > I'll have to ask God when I get to heaven" question...
> >
> >
> >
> > David C. said:
> > "Atheism, the worldview you seem to be endorsing Bernie..."
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm a Christian agnostic ... still sorting things out...
> >
> >
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> > (PS: Please know that it may sound personal and I may be upset, but it is
> > really a content question and I'm not emotional about it... you can't
> show
> > that over email.)
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: David Clounch
> > [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com<mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com>]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:57 AM
> > To: Dehler, Bernie
> > Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> >
> > Subject: Re: [ asa ]
> > Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
> >
> >
> >
> > Bernie,
> >
> > I have come to appreciate your posts. No matter how much I may disagree
> with
> > them. I find your candor refreshing.
> >
> > The view you just put forth is what millions of students have arrived
> at.
> > Please note your conclusion - the idea that God made humans is to be
> > rejected. Well, that is certainly not a theistic evolutionists viewpoint
> (as
> > I have come to understand TE).
> > As far as I can tell you seem to have separated human origins from
> theism.
> > It seems very clean cut.
> >
> > On the door to my private study is a sign. It reads,
> >
> > "If people, like rocks, are mere occurrences, then they can have no
> more
> > meaning than rocks".
> >
> > And you are correct that the thin veneer of humanism layered on top of
> the
> > cold hard truth is just there so we can pretend we feel better.
> >
> > But what if the atheist worldview is wrong? What if humans are more than
> > rocks? What if they have a future destiny that is non-natural?
> >
> > This is where the TE worldview has failed to fill in the blanks. A
> > pre-loaded universe only makes sense if it explains what your personal
> unique
> > meaning is to the creator, and also explains your destiny, where you
> are
> > going. It makes no sense to say a creator pre-loaded the universe to
> produce
> > Bernie, and then have nothing to predict where Bernie is going. Let me
> put
> > it this way: rocks on the beach are not going to be spending time with
> their
> > children one million years from now. But the resurrected Christians will
> be
> > doing so. See the difference? What I am getting at is: a viable theory
> of
> > origins contains a viable theory of destiny. Atheism, the worldview
> you
> > seem to be endorsing Bernie, has no theory of destiny. Neither do
> deistic
> > theories. This is why deistic Christianity isn't convincing. It isn't
> > theologically complete enough to compete with traditional Christian
> > approaches.
> >
> > >From my admittedly ignorant viewpoint, some TE theorists I have read on
> > this list attempt to solve this gap by putting a ghost in the machine -
> by
> > invoking souls and theistic action that isn't physical. I've been wary
> of
> > this idea for quite some time. Seems to me (and I could be wrong) it
> makes
> > them a modern version of "immortal deist" as opposed to "mortal deists"
> who
> > would deny there is any destiny or any soul. Or it makes them a certain
> > form of theist who believes God cannot affect the physical but only
> affects
> > the soul. The right wingers (YECs/OECs/etc) reject all that. They say
> God
> > can touch the physical any time He wants. He operates in the universe.
> He
> > terraforms solar systems the way a painter mixes paints. The painting is
> both
> > natural and non-natural. It would not exist without the painter mixing
> up
> > the paint.
> >
> > So Bernie, you seem to moving in the direction that there is no painter
> > because the paint just gets mixed naturally. And indeed a great deal of
> it
> > does. But doesn't this just make Bernie (and indeed all of us) one more
> > accident in a maelstrom of accidents? I don't think science says that
> at
> > all. I think its naturalism (and I don't mean Christian naturalism)
> which
> > says that.
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> > PS - I didnt even get to the problem with conflating cosmological
> evolution
> > with other forms of evolution. They have totally different meaning - but
> you
> > have conflated them together as a principle. This is what the leftists
> on
> > the state science standards committees want you and all our children to
> > believe. In your case Bernie they seem to have convinced you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Dehler, Bernie
> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Actually- after accepting evolution- my whole worldview has changed.
> > Accepting evolution makes me understand things in a better way (designing
> > products, competition for resources, jobs, etc). We put a human layer on
> the
> > top of it to soften it, but the layer is only a layer, and not the real
> > underpinnings of the machine. All of science is important, but evolution
> > maybe even more important as it helps us to understand how the world runs
> and
> > operates (from cosmological evolution, chemical evolution, biological
> > evolution, etc.). I'm still researching and understanding evolutionary
> > impacts, and much of it has to do with unlearning some Christian
> doctrines
> > (such as humans made 'de novo' (as Lemoureux would say) by God).
> >
> >
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]
> On
> > Behalf Of Schwarzwald
> > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 9:59 AM
> > To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [ asa ]
> > Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
> >
> >
> >
> > There's a small point I'd add to Moorad's observation here.
> >
> > As I've said before, I personally am very at home with evolution, and
> what's
> > more, I always have been. But in the past few years, what I've started to
> > find odd is the insistence that evolution is the single most important
> > scientific claim in town. I cannot name a single other scientific topic
> that
> > has so many educators collectively wringing their hands, wondering how
> they
> > can get more students (or even adults out of school) to accept it. Why is
> > there no comparable concern to promote the understanding of, say..
> quantum
> > mechanics, and how it differs from our common sense view of the world?
> > (Indeed, if the authors of Quantum Enigma are right - and I'm not saying
> they
> > are - the actual hope is that scientific laymen pay no attention to that
> > topic.) What about geological processes, or chemistry, or any other
> number of
> > topics? Why so much focus on one, and far and away only one, scientific
> > issue? And why does that same focus suggest that understanding evolution
> is
> > secondary to professed belief in it? And more than that, professed belief
> > with as little room for speculations on guidance, purpose, intelligence
> and
> > otherwise as possible?
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Douglas Hayworth
> > <becomingcreation@gmail.com<mailto:becomingcreation@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > FYI and FWIW, I commented briefly about this in one of my blog posts:
> >
> > http://becomingcreation.org/2009/03/like-it-or-not/
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Alexanian,
> > Moorad<alexanian@uncw.edu<mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu>> wrote:
> > > The central issue
> > >
> > >
> > > The central issue of the essay is the need to teach biological
> > evolution</wiki/Biological_evolution> in the context of debate about
> creation
> > and evolution in public
> > education</wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education> in the United
> > States.[2] The fact that evolution occurs explains the interrelatedness
> of
> > the various facts of biology, and so makes biology make sense.[3] The
> concept
> > has become firmly established as a unifying idea in biology education.[4]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is interesting that it does not say "as a unifying idea in
> biological
> > research."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Moorad
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to
> > majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> > > "unsubscribe asa " (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to
> > majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto: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 Thu Aug 20 18:52:47 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 20 2009 - 18:52:47 EDT