On 12-18-97 Clarence Hogan wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello Clarence, 
 
 
 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! 
   
  Adam and Eve did not obey God's words.  IOW, they did 
a "not-God thing." 
  
 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" 
  As I said, before, we determine "good" through the bible. 
The bible is our source for goodness. 
  
 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? 
     
  We either choose to obey God or we don't. 
  
        [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? 
   
  I did, "not-good" is that which is not "good." 
How do we define "good?"  We define "good" through 
the bible. 
 
        [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 
 
  Because we follow his wants doesn't mean, he sets 
this for -our- wants-, it could be -his- wants that we follow 
him.  
  In answer to your question, I have none. 
 
 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?  :) 
 
  I don't consider, children as having "a slight advantage" 
with regard to this discussion. 
  If children were required for "Godly discussions", then 
Catholic priests (Catholic priests are not allowed to marry 
and have children) would not be allowed to preach 
or would be at a disadvantage in this discussions. 
  
Take care, 
John 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Take care, 
John 
 
 
 
 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------