HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:02:32 CST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Old response to Michael Kline
              Zimmerman" at Oct 2, 92 12:38 pm

Angela,

The laws of the land say that you can be cruel and unking to everyone passing
by on the street. You never have to say a kind word to anyone, you can
to some extent abuse and make a pain of yourself...


What else besides the law of the country do you base your morals on?

(do you realise that a lot of the laws of the country are actually
reflections of Jewish/Christian Morality)


---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 08:35:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Sanctification, sinlessness and C.G. Finney.

The Wesleyan Holiness movement is a direct outgrowth of the work of Charles
G. Finney in the first half of the 19th century.  As wonderful a man as
Johnathan Edwards was, Finney was a reprobate.

Finney got his start from the Scottish school of Common Sense Realism, a
technical term describing an area of theological thought that believed in
man's ability to conquor sin and move to higher planes in his experience
without the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Finney did not believe in original sin.  He taught that children were not
sinful by nature, but, being on their own, did develop selfishness and
needed to be trained out of their sinfulness.  He believed and taught that
a person could attain sinless perfection here simply by following the laws
of nature.  In Finney's theology, the work of the Spirit had no place.  He
first believed in a "second work of grace," that enabled a man to be
sinless, but later, changed his mind and said that man could do this
completely by himself.

In fact, Finney believed that the indulgence of appetite was man's greatest
sin and that adherance to a strict diet would bring about the state of
sinlessness that he thought so sublime.  This was echoed in the works of
several 19th century writers, notably, Ellen G. White, so called
prophetess of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

Finney taught that man could choose to sin or not.  His "great"
evangelistic work was designed to cadjole people into makind decisions for
God, and then working themselves to death teying to become sinless.  Most
"holiness" movements of the last century and this one can trace their roots
to Finneyism and certain branches of Wesleyanism.

Hope this is of interest.

Dan Graham
From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahran)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: male/female/God
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:05:30 GMT
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET>

Carol,

You ask about Sue Kay.  It is a pun on the Greek word for "soul."

                                                            Peace, zane.
From: spk@uk.ac.aber (Stephen Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: That P' word, again
Date: 5 Oct 92 10:56:59 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Wales at Aberystwyth.

BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU wrote:
> 
> God foreknows who will accept Christ.  God gives everyone the faith to
> believe.  God knows from eternity past who will accept Christ through this
> faith and so predestines them to justification and glorification.  You're not
> referring to God's mode of perception regarding future events, are you?
> 
> Brian

Is predestination an active thing? If God predestines us then does he 
thereby cause belief? If so then surely God would foreknow that no-one 
would be saved, unless he chose to predestine them. Foreknowledge of 
faith would reveal that none would believe and thus none would be predestined.

So from your argument, predestination must be passive. That is to say, 
those who choose God by free will are then predestined to salvation. 

But predestination cannot be passive. If God destines someone to salvation
beforehand (pre-destinates), then He is doing something active.

All the best,
  Stephen.


-- 
Gweleis i rac neb nym gweles pop annwyl. ef diwyl yneges. Gweleis i pasc.
(I saw the one above all men,  he saw me;  he, the beloved of his people,
who fulfills his mission. I saw Easter.) "Yspeil Taliesin" ---Taliesin---
spk@uk.ac.aber --- spk%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk --- Stephen Kingston
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: QuickMail/SMTP interface.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:08:50 EDT
From:         Leo W <Leo_W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>
Subject:      Scripturette 9/28

"I must be baptized with a different kind of baptism.  I feel very troubled
until it is over" (Luke 12:50).

"Did you forget that all of us became part of Christ when we were baptized?  We
shared his death in our baptism.  So, when we were baptized, we were buried
with Christ and shared his death.  We were buried with him so that we could
live a new life, just as Christ was raised from death by the wonderful power of
the Father" (Romans 6:3,4).

"In Christ you had a different kind of circumcision.  That circumcision was not
done by hands.  I mean, you were made free from the power of your sinful self.
That is the kind of circumcision Christ does.  When you were baptized, you were
buried with Christ and you were raised up with Christ because of your faith in
God's power.  That power was shown when he raised Christ from death"
(Colossians 2:11,12).

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Leo

Scriptures quoted from the International Children's Bible (ICB), New Century
Version, copyright 1986, 1988 by Word Publishing, Dallas, Texas 75039.  Used by
permission.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:10:19 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      David Talaga I presume!!

Dear David ;

I promise I have not forgot you and your book.
I get paid this Wednesday (30 Sept. '92) and I can then go to the
Christian Bookstore and procure it and send it.

Please forgive my delay.

Jesse Irwin Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:28:28 CDT
From:         Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Confused Anti-Catholicism (was Re: Re: Confused Catholicism)
              1 Oct 1992 16:26:26 GMT from <creps@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

On Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:26:26 GMT Steve Creps said:

>In article <CHRISTIA%92093019434860@ASUACAD.BITNET> TOM BREWER
><NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:
>>EHHH? Please don't confuse me anymore. You say this is straight out of the
>>Baltimore Catechism. Jesse tried to use that weeks ago and we were told it's
>>not that authoritative. Now you use it.
>
>   I seem to recall that Jesse was not told that there was anything
>wrong with the _Baltimore Catechism_ itself.  Rather, what was wrong
>was Jesse's notion that it was _infallible_ simply because it bore an
>_imprimatur_.  An _imprimatur_ is a statement by a bishop that a work
>is free from doctrinal error, but the _imprimatur_ is not infallible
>(i.e. the bishop or his subordinate who checked the work could have
>possibly missed an error).  In fact, no bishop on his own (except the
>Bishop of Rome) has the authority to make an infallible statement.
>
>>Saint John Nuemann's catechism is the one that says specifically that only
>>the Pope et. al. can forgive sins. I'm not making this up. Nuemann is making
>>it up.
>
>   If Neumann's catechism says that, it is correct, but either
>ambiguous or taken out of context.  You have chosen to interpret it
>incorrectly in the way that puts the Catholic Church in the worst
>light, and in such a way that would be considered heresy by the
>Catholic Church.  As I have said before, a more precise statement
>would be that only the Pope, bishops, and priests have the authority
>to forgive sins in God's name.  I wouldn't doubt that the catechism
>elsewhere explains that the Pope, bishops, and priests have the
>authority to act in God's name.
>
>   Please believe us Catholics when we explain what our beliefs mean.
>Otherwise all you are doing is setting up straw men.
>
>-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
>Steve Creps, Indiana University
>creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

Do I really have to say anymore?
Tom Brewer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:31:23 CDT
From:         THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      Hi, gang...:)

Whew!!  Stress can play havoc with the witness of a Christian
college senior.  I know... it has been testing mine for DAYS now.
I just want to see what's up.
Michele tells me things are getting interesting on here.
-----
Brad:  Yo, BGA Buddy!!! Michele said you brought up an interesting
topic about Catholic/Protestant beliefs on cleansing?
Just for the record, We're cleansed by His Blood.
("For without the shedding of Blood, there is no remission
for sin")
I'm not sure where that comes from exactly, I don't have my NT
with me...
-----
Madge:  What have you been doin' besides moderating this wondermous
list?
-----
Kerry:  HEY, GAL... long time no chat, huh?
 SEND ME MAIL, willya, ok? ( :) ....)
-----
CAROL! What an inspiration you've been! I got your message
today, and was just thinking of you.  Yes, the Piccolo did
arrive... UPS just barely missed death by strangulation!!!
(Gotta understand, this picc was due here two days ago....)
-----
CONTINUE IN HIS LOVE, GANG...
I GOTTA GO PRACTICE, THEN STUFF Homecoming Flat!!!
"G"

 * <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:39:22 MET
From:         "(Frank Bechhaus)" <bechhaus@LUCKY.LION.DE>
Subject: Re: Satan Who is this guy ?
              at Sep 29, 92 11:28 am

> A) A spiritual being that tries to drive me out of the Way, the Truth and
>    the Life.
> B) Same as A) but this being is 'personal'.
> C) Same as B) but this personal being is also totaly diverse fron human
>    nature, this is, it is not a component of our own human nature.

My choice is C: A spiritual, personal being, that wants to drive people
away from the Way, the Truth and the Life, existing diverse from human
nature (as opposed to "the evil within men"). What about you, Memo ?

JC is Lord,
Frank

<><
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:45:57 -0700
From:         "(MARK DRAKE)" <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>
Subject:      sanctification

	Thanks Dan Grahan for the post on sanctification.  That is
actually the topic I was going to raise, and I enjoyed reading your
post.

	Some of my friends have some friends who belong to a Wesleyan
Holiness Church.  They seem to have some odd beliefs.  One recently
said that he was just recently justified (even though he has been a
christian for 3 years.  It seems that it recently has become easier to
resist temptation, so he believes that he has a new heart/nature.  (I
think.  Getting this third hand could have distorted this.)
	They also seem to have a view of sanctification that says
something to the effect that sanctification can be completed in this
life, and we can lead sinless, Holy lives.

	Does anyone know about Wesley's and (I think) Finney's beliefs
on this matter?  I'm not sure at the acuracy of the info getting back
to me.

Mark
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: error in I John 3,6 posting
From: bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:13:18 -0500
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Nntp-Posting-User: bthurman

don't all of us but One make mistakes? is 'bearded  bill' not careless to have
put 'says' for 'stays' in posting on I Jn 3,6? will you please correct it in
your minds? and supply such synonyms for 'stays' as 'remains' 'lives' 'lodges'?
thanks
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:48:14 -0600
From:         "(Karolyn S. Karge)" <kkarge@SILVER.SDSMT.EDU>
Subject: Re: males vs females and God

Ian writes:

I was thinking on the way home if being a female would alter my interpretation
of the 'love of Jesus' and make it any easier to accept the idea of having
what is in effect a love affair with a man! Jesus is our saviour, our
brother, our Lord, but also our HUSBAND! he is our lover. . .


Personally, I have never thought as Jesus as "our HUSBAND! he is our
lover. . ."   I have always thought of Jesus and God more in a Fatherly
sense.  Not because the Lords Prayer starts off like that, its because
I always new my earthly father would always protect me, save me from all
the harm that he could, no matter what I did, he would always love me
and forgive me!!   When ever I need someone to talk to the phone is on
the wall, etc, etc, etc.

When I think of God, I know he will always protect me, save me from all
the harm that he can, not matter what I do, He will always love me and
forgive me!!  When ever I need someone to talk to the prayer line is
always open (its alot cheeper that long distance over the phone too (: )

Anyways, that is my two cents worth.

In His Love,

Karolyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:12:00 BSC
Reply-To:     gomide@BRFAPQ.BITNET
Comments:     @FAPQ.FAPESP.BR - @FAPQ%FPSP.HEPNET - @BRFAPQ.BITNET - .BR gateway
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was GOMIDE@BRFAPQ
From:         gomide@FPSP.FAPESP.BR
Subject:      Apologies re: InterMeta course

PLEASE DO NOT SEND MONEY !
It is with regret that I perform this task. Dr. Gelson V. Gomes. a
professor of the University of Parana, Brazil, has exceeded this
privileges and announced a eletronic course:

> ____________________________________________________________
>        Mastering INTERNET Tools, Seizing METANET Power -
>                      The InterMeta Course
> ____________________________________________________________

I must apologize for this flagrant breach of network etiquette. Please
be aware that Dr. Gelson had no right to do so, since this is against
the rules of our ANSP network, and also against the Bitnet rules.
PLEASE DO NOT SEND MONEY!
I will not discuss what his motivations were. But his account has been
revoked, and there will be no such course through my network.

Please write by normal mail, to:
-> Gelson V. Gomes
-> 358, R. Alvaro Andrade - ap.1201
-> Curitiba PR BRAZIL 80610-240
to get more information on his objectives. He may want to give the
course by normal mail.  :-)

With regards,
--
Alberto Courrege Gomide | Fundacao de Amparo `a Pesquisa - (11)831-3357
Software Supervisor     | Rua Pio XI, 1500 - CEP 05468-901 - Sao Paulo
<gomide@fapq.fapesp.br> | FAX (11)261-4167 Telex (11)82014 - Brazil
(ACG8) - .BR Domain Technical Contact. |
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via: uk.ac.southampton-institute; Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:32:48 +0100
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:34:00 GMT
From:         Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: Lost tribes of Israel

Myths about about this, songs have been written, hymns even allude to it.

Places and objects claim rights to it.

I don't think they are any more than myths.

I the last few months, I read a review in one of the Sunday papers here
of a book describing a black South African tribe with a tradition of an
ark or sacred drum and a culture much like like that recorded of the Jews
of early times.

Given a bit of time, a may be able to dig it out and give you the name of the
book.

Carol L
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:07:00 N
From:         Wolfgang Hutter <HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET>
Subject:      Early release for prisoners (was about death penalty)

In a message of Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:22:23 CST
Received on Tue, 29 Sep 92 07:56 N
Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM> wrote:

> We have a big problem in Australia regarding early release for prisoners.
> I am very much against this. If you get sentanced to say 10 years,
> with good behaviour you are likely to be released in less than five.
> I believe that 10 years should be 10 years - no remission for good behaviour
> because good behaviour should be DEMANDED and bad behaviour punished by
> what ever means.

I would have consented until some months ago when I came to know a
certain family. The woman (a Christian) cared for a certain man who had
killed his wife and visited him in prison. She witnessed to him and he
became a Christian. He started a new life and is a new creature in
Christ. Later they married (in jail) and now have two children (he's
still in jail). I would be very glad if this man will be allowed to
leave the prison before his time is over. After all he's not the same
any more!

Wolfgang <><
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:15:14 CST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: DEATH PENALTY- for or against?
              Sep 30, 92 11:32 am

>
>>      If the death penalty was enforce today, the way it was in the
>>   OT times, do you think we would have as much crime and adultery   -------
>>      today?                                                            .com
>
>I'm another one who still has to work out my position on this issue.
>I lean heavily towards 'no death penalty.'  We are all appointed to
>die once.  Who makes this date?  Us or our Lord?  As Christians we are
>told not to judge?  Does this mean that it is okay to judge
>non-Christians?
>
>                                        Liz Moreau
>

Firstly, we do not really know if the DP is any real deterrant (sp?) for
crime. So I cannot answer you question Yvette..

As for Liz, I believe that as individuals we are called not to judge, however
the state or the system still needsa to judge and punish criminals.
I am not against punishing criminals - I am indeed for it - get them out
of society. The question is, am I in favour of ending their lives and
therefore MAYBE ending their chance at salvation??



---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:30:41 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Confused Catholicism
              30 Sep 1992 16:44:43 GMT from <rolfe@DSUVAX.DSU.EDU>

Dear Tim Rolf ;

Sorry ol' bean, but the book of Hebrews says that ONLY through the
shedding of BLOOD can sins be FORGIVEN.

Any human action is ineffectual toward sins' forgiveness.
If it were effectual, then WHY did Christ come to earth ... to be a mere
good example for all of us??



Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 09:23:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Rush, a Christian?

Kerry, is he really?  I wouldn't sit in judgement on anyone, but I have
heard him berate those who disagree with him at great length.  He shows so
little charity for his opponants, you'd think him a Nazi.

What have I missed?

Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 09:37:10 CST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      mail got lost - males and females

Forwarded message:
From root Mon Oct  5 09:26 CST 1992
Message-Id: <9210042354.AA25243@gatekeeper.oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 16:54:26 PDT
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@us>
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
To: Postmaster@us
To: <iwilliam@au>

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 <noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP>... Host unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received:  from oracle.us.oracle.com by gatekeeper.oracle.com (Oracle 1.12/37.7)
	id AA25241; Sun, 4 Oct 92 16:54:26 PDT
Received:  from a-hp.au.oracle.com by oracle.us.oracle.com (5.59.9/37.7)
	id AA18342; Sun, 4 Oct 92 16:54:20 PDT
Received:  by a-hp.au.oracle.com (16.7/37.3)
	id AA13744; Mon, 5 Oct 92 09:26:34 +0930
Message-Id: <9210042356.AA13744@a-hp.au.oracle.com>
From: Ian Williams <iwilliam@au>
Subject: Re: males vs females and God
To: noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 9:26:33 CST
 92 3:44 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]

>First of all, God can not be without sex.  Jesus called Him Father, (literally
>Abba, or "daddy"  He is not sexless)
>>
>I was thinking on the way home if being a female would alter my interpretation
>>of the 'love of Jesus' and make it any easier to accept the idea of having
>>what is in effect a love affair with a man! Jesus is our saviour, our
>>brother, our Lord, but also our HUSBAND! he is our lover..
>
>Only in a spiritual sense.  I don't believe in a physical sense.  In heaven,
>none will be given in marriage and so sexual relations won't exist.  I think
>we are Christ's bride only in a spiritual sense that we will have perfect
>Spiritual union with Him.
>>
>Noel Estabrook          |       If somebody publishes an article in a really

Noel, thanks for the answer..
I was not really meaning a sexual sense, only that being a male might have
a bearing on ones ability to understand and comprehend the love of God comming
from a 'male' God.

The question on the Gender of God is certainly interesting. It is noteworthy
to include the point that God made male and female in his image. I am not
one of these people who advocate a change in our calling Father, Mother or
anything like that, its just that I can help thinking that out perceptions
on MALENESS will be quite inadequate when facing up to the linving God one
day!



---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:52:46 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Security of salvation?

Dear Gareth ;

Just a little note.
Sorry if some of my words seem to run together as you read them sent you.
For some reason, when I depress one particular function key, words jam
together and sometimes I do not catch it.

No wonder I wear "Coke-bottle" lenses for glasses.


Jesse
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU