-=> Quoting John Boone to Clarence Hogan <=-
 JB> On 12-16-97 Clarence Hogan wrote to John Boone... 
 JB> Hello Clarence and thanks for writing, 
 Hello John and thank you for taking the time to write!
 JB> [snip] 
 CH> CH>  However, it should be pointed out that we would never even know 
 CH> CH>  what evil was in that scenario, right?  
 CH> JB> However, if -all- you knew were dogs (Jesus Christ and goodness), 
 CH> JB> could you not tell what a non-dog (non-Jesus Christ and evil) 
 CH> JB> was?  
 CH>  Nope!  Could the eaglet tell that it was an eagle instead of a  
 CH>  prairie chicken? 
 JB> The issue is between good (dogs) and bad (non-dogs).  Notice, 
 JB> it is not necessary for us to clarify a difference between bad 
 JB> (non-dogs, e.g. eaglet and prairie chicken) or to even to know 
 JB> "evil".   It is sufficient for us to know good. 
 
 OK then, please explain Adam and Eve situation!
 CH> JB> Granted, this is only true if there are -only- two divisions, 
 CH> JB> evil and good.   
 CH>  If what you are saying is understood, it wouldn't be true if there 
 CH>  were a billion divisions, right? 
 JB> Yep, all it would take would take would be three.  However, 
 JB> what we as Christians are involved in is determining "good" 
 JB> from "evil" (two things). 
 And just how would one go about determining "good" from "evil"
 if one only had one or the other to choose from, for having only
 one to choose from, what other choice would there be?
  
 JB> [snip] 
 CH>  JB> In this situation, it is not necessary 
 CH>  JB> for us to know evil except that which is not Jesus like.  
 CH>  Which is exactly the point, for in this scenario we know what evil is 
 CH>  because we have seen it and we know what good is, for Yahshua has  
 JB> Yes, we have seen evil and yes we know what it is, but it is 
 JB> not necessary for us to know what evil is except to know what 
 JB> is "not-good" which can be told by knowing "good" through Jesus 
 JB> Christ. 
 Well then, define "not-good", ok?  Then we will have common
 ground to stand upon, right?
 JB> [snip] 
 CH>  JB> The above sentence is changed to "Nope, but -our- (translated  
 CH>  JB> not Jesus or God) wants are not part of the picture."  
 CH>  Tiz much better and which makes it a joy and a blessing to do 
 CH>  business 
 CH>  with you John, but it is still more of a blessing to not be your son! 
 CH>    But after giving a little more thought and consideration to 
 CH>  the 
 CH>  subject, as far as He is concerned, OUR needs and wants ARE indeed a 
 CH>  part of the WHOLE picture also, for if they were NOT, then why HAS He 
 CH>  gone to all the trouble of preparing a place for us and other things 
 CH>  that eye has not seen nor ear has not heard for those of us who love  
 CH>  Him?  :) 
 JB> I don't have an answer for you.  However, because we don't have 
 JB> answer doesn't translate into he does it for our wants. 
 Sorry about that!  How so, for if our wants are His wants, then
 why not?  BTW, do you have children?  This old man has 19 and 40
 grand children and one great grand girl at last count, which is
 not to try to put you down in any way, but it does give one a
 slight advantage on perspective, does it not?  :)
Just another humble servant of The Kingdom.......clarence.......
... Evil can only triumph when good men sit and do nothing!  :'(
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.30
---------------