>>> Part 1 of 2...
 -=> Quoting John Boone to Clarence Hogan <=-
 JB> On 12-18-97 Clarence Hogan wrote to John Boone... 
 
 JB> Hello Clarence, 
 
 Hello brother John!
 CH>  JB> The issue is between good (dogs) and bad (non-dogs).  Notice,  
 CH>  JB> it is not necessary for us to clarify a difference between bad  
 CH>  JB> (non-dogs, e.g. eaglet and prairie chicken) or to even to know  
 CH>  JB> "evil".   It is sufficient for us to know good.  
 
 CH>  OK then, please explain Adam and Eve situation! 
 
 JB> Adam and Eve did not obey God's words.  IOW, they did 
 JB> a "not-God thing." 
 
 Hummmmm, interesting!  But then again, since they were not at
 that point in time truly "eloah's", the that should not be a
 complete surprise, now should it?
 CH>  JB> Yep, all it would take would take would be three.  However,  
 CH>  JB> what we as Christians are involved in is determining "good"  
 CH>  JB> from "evil" (two things).  
 
 CH>  And just how would one go about determining "good" from "evil" 
 
 JB> As I said, before, we determine "good" through the bible. 
 JB> The bible is our source for goodness. 
 
 Yep, just as it is for evil, right?  Which, of course, gives us
 a comparison point, right?
 CH>  if one only had one or the other to choose from, for having only 
 CH>  one to choose from, what other choice would there be? 
 
 JB> We either choose to obey God or we don't. 
 
 Most certainly we do if we love Him, for it is His Commandment, 
 is it not?
 JB> [snip] 
 
 CH>  JB> Yes, we have seen evil and yes we know what it is, but it is 
 CH>  JB> not necessary for us to know what evil is except to know what  
 CH>  JB> is "not-good" which can be told by knowing "good" through Jesus  
 CH>  JB> Christ.  
 
 CH>  Well then, define "not-good", ok?  Then we will have common 
 CH>  ground to stand upon, right? 
 
 JB> I did, "not-good" is that which is not "good." 
 JB> How do we define "good?"  We define "good" through 
 JB> the bible. 
 
 And just what in Heaven's Name is "evil" if it is "not-good"?
 JB> [snip] 
 
 CH> CH> subject, as far as He is concerned, OUR needs and wants ARE 
 CH> CH> indeed a  
 CH> CH> part of the WHOLE picture also, for if they were NOT, then why 
 CH> CH> HAS He  
 CH> CH> gone to all the trouble of preparing a place for us and other 
 CH> CH> things  
 CH> CH> that eye has not seen nor ear has not heard for those of us who 
 CH> CH> love Him?  :)  
 
 CH>  JB> I don't have an answer for you.  However, because we don't have  
 CH>  JB> answer doesn't translate into he does it for our wants.  
 
 CH>  Sorry about that!  How so, for if our wants are His wants, then 
 CH>  why not?  BTW, do you have children?  This old man has 19 and 40 
 
 JB> Because we follow his wants doesn't mean, he sets 
 JB> this for -our- wants-, it could be -his- wants that we follow 
 JB> him.  
 
 It works both ways, don't cha' know?
 JB> In answer to your question, I have none. 
 
 Sorry about that!
 CH>  grand children and one great grand girl at last count, which is 
 CH>  not to try to put you down in any way, but it does give one a 
 CH>  slight advantage on perspective, does it not?  :) 
 
 JB> I don't consider, children as having "a slight advantage" 
 JB> with regard to this discussion. 
 
 OK, if you think so!
 JB> If children were required for "Godly discussions", then 
 JB> Catholic priests (Catholic priests are not allowed to marry 
 JB> and have children) would not be allowed to preach 
 >>> Continued to next message...
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.30
---------------