markomalley

http://groups.yahoo.com. You will need to sign up with your Yahoo ID (or create a Yahoo ID), then there is a section on "Create your own group" -- it's pretty intuitive from there. It's a pretty good capability: - listserv capability with message archive (limited if you're free) moderated or unmoderated - private group chatroom - online file storage (again, limited if you are on the free status) - group calendar with events (and message notification to group members for those events) - private chat room etc.

Easiest thing to do on a short-term basis is to set up a Yahoo group for your class. There are severe limitations to it...but it gets the job done (again, on a short-term basis). And it's free.

Well, I, for one, am happy to declare myself a *bad* greasespotter. And proud of it.

The LOYalty letter was the final straw. There were a lot of other straws before that point in time, though.

Mike, I am not defending you. I am not agreeing with you. I pray for you that God may open your eyes, as He did to Saul. And I pray that God will show you mercy if you continue to be deceived up until the time of your death. The reason I posted what I did earlier was not in defense of you or your arguments, rather it was based on my belief in the fundamental dignity of the human person. I do believe that each person has a fundamental amount of dignity by virtue of that person's existence, not based upon any amount of dignity or respect that person may have earned or thrown away. As such, I believe that the best way to have such an argument is through facts and logic based on ideas and beliefs, rather than attacks against a person's existence. The reason I am posting now is to clarify and reiterate my position. I actually agree with the conclusions that most of your detractors have drawn, that your beliefs are idolatrous and are deceived. I believe that your ideas and beliefs would, in fact, be quite dangerous if you had the rhetorical skills to properly present them. Fortunately, you haven't evidenced those skills. Having said that, no matter how dangerous the ideas, no matter how clumsily those dangerous ideas are presented, I don't think that attacks against the person are appropriate, no matter how much the person deserves or even begs for those attacks. No matter how many back-handed ad hominem attacks are delivered in any direction. I think the appropriate action is. as I said before, "don't feed the trolls."

That's fine, Raf. I misinterpreted the purpose of the thread. So allow me to graciously withdraw.

You and I may have to disagree a bit here, Raf. If I understand your basic premise about PFAL correctly, you believe that the basic premise of PFAL was alright, but it was plagued by several aggregious errors and that proper attribution was not provided for VPW's sources in the work. I believe that the fundamental premise of PFAL was error and that anything that is not in error is the abberation, not the errors being the abberation that scar an otherwise fundamentally theologically sound work. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I've gotten out of your posts on the subject). My problem with PFAL starts off with the very beginning of the class and move on from there. 1) The opening of the book with John 10:10 (taken completely out of it's context), sets up the class as instruction in Word-Faith theology (alternately known as "Prosperity Theology"). This enabled the massive financial gains and, when people didn't reap the promised results from the error of "prosperity theology", they were made to feel inadequate. (The theology is not in error, the person is in error) 2) The dispensationalism taught throughout the class (as proposed by Darby) was also in error. This dispensationalism allowed the error of the "absent Christ" ... and set forth the stage allowing the MOG-worship idolatry to further imprison TWI's followers. And it goes on from there. But the bottom line is that I see that the class, from it's roots, is erroneous. The theology that is taught through that class is what enabled the abuses to occur. But, of course, as always, it is IMHO. And, of course, YMMV.

OK, Rhino/Raf Point well taken. Have fun! My policy has always been: So, I guess I'll just need to excuse myself.

You know, folks, the title of this thread is "The Official, the Ultimate, the Amazing PFAL Thread"NOT "The Official, the Ultimate, the Amazing Bash Mike Thread" NOR "The Official, the Ultimate, the Amazing Bash Mike's Idolatry Thread" NOR "The Official, the Ultimate, the Amazing Bash Mike's Arrogance Thread" NOR "The Official, the Ultimate, the Amazing Bash Mike's Logical Errors Thread" Modaustin set up the following rules in the beginning: The topic: PFAL -- Note: he said PFAL, not Mike, not Mike's Idolatry, etc. The rules: 1. No profanity. 2. No threats. 3. No following posters to other threads to emphasize your point. 4. No moderator alerts. If you find this thread upsets you or makes you uncomfortable in any way, please exit immediately, and join in on any number of our other doctrinal discussions in this forum. All other discussions will follow our usual forum rules. Who this thread is for: Anyone and everyone who wants to argue about PFAL. Boxing gloves are NOT optional. But keep your fight HERE, on THIS thread. Since this is supposed to be the doctrinal basement, I think that it would be more appropriate to stay on the topic of discussing the doctrine of PFAL. I think the more appropriate place to discuss the various mental illnesses that plague any PFAL sycophant would be in the 'soap opera' forum...not that they shouldn't be discussed, but why screw up this gentlemanly forum this way?

So can you provide me his actual definition...you've given me three possibilities...but what did he define it as? I seem to remember him teaching using the words "in all categories" in regards to that. It's been 20 years since I've sat in a piffle class and about 15 years since I've cracked the book...so I want to make sure that I'm not misrepresenting something. And I figure if anybody has got the man's words memorized around here, it's going to be you.

So, Mike, using VPW's words, what did he mean when he said "life more abundant" ?

You know, Hap, I don't necessarily disagree with you on this. But one thing: TV in the good-old US of A is a profit-making business, not a government handout. Advertisers, who really run the TV industry, make loads and loads of money, not only from the well-heeled, but from all classes (in fact, one could make a very good case that the 'disadvantaged' are actually more susceptible to the messages from television advertising than the more affluent classes. If there was a question about that, just look at the ads out there). Because of this factor, I have a feeling that the television industry will do everything within IT's power to make sure that people will be able to receive the advertising...people of all classes who they believe can be manipulated by that advertising.

OK, I'll bite. Let's start off with the beginning. The first verse quoted in piffle was John 10:10, "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly." I then recall a discussion of how unbelievers lived often more "abundantly" than believers. But, according to this verse, that it was God's will for believers to live more abundantly in all categories of life, mentally, financially, physically, etc. Do I remember the beginning "accurately?"

Carry on? Carry on? :blink: This thread was a goner until our favorite pfal-o-phile decided to resurrect it from the dead.....5 bloody pages ago!

Garth/Pond, You both will please note that the article says that broadcasters will have to stop using the current analog broadcasting techniques and that they will have to stop broadcasting on the frequencies they are currently using -- and that the right to use those frequencies will be sold off at auction. Therefore, your current TV will be obsolete after 2009. It is a different issue than going from B&W to color. There will be converter boxes that will help for those who have older TVs, but that will hardly be a substitute (like having an old cable box...where you had to manually turn a knob to change channels) As for cable, this wouldn't affect cable operators; however, I imagine that, after a few years, they will stop offering analog signals at all (after they figure folks have mostly gotten digital TVs, anyway) The biggest thing is that if you're planning on getting a TV in the near future, you may want to snoop around and get one that will be compatible with the new digital signals.

Digital TV Transition Date Approved Legislation would require broadcasters to stop using analog signals in 2009. Grant Gross, IDG News Service Thursday, February 02, 2006 WASHINGTON -- Legislation requiring U.S. broadcasters to abandon their analog spectrum, opening up the "beachfront" spectrum to next-generation wireless services and emergency response agencies, is headed to U.S. President George Bush to be signed into law. Late Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a large budget reconciliation bill that included a deadline of February 17, 2009, for broadcasters to stop broadcasting analog signals and move to digital television (DTV). The House approval came after the U.S. Senate in December amended other parts of the House-approved budget reconciliation bill conference report. The final bill includes up to $1.5 billion in funding to provide two $40 vouchers per household to use toward the purchase of digital-to-analog set-top converter boxes. TV owners receiving over-the-air analog signals on older TV sets will need the converter boxes. The legislation directs the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to begin an auction of the cleared airwaves by January 28, 2008. The High Tech DTV Coalition, made up of 18 IT companies and trade groups, pushed for a DTV transition deadline to free up the spectrum for new services such as mobile broadband, mobile video and WiMax. Part of the spectrum will also go to help public safety agencies better communicate with each other. (remainder snipped) Hope nobody's bought any analog televisions recently! Article extracted per "Fair Use" doctrine for criticism and educational purposes. 17 U.S.C. 107Source URLs: www.pcworld.com;

Isa 59:1 Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; Isa 59:2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear. Isa 59:3 For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness. As shown in the above passage, it doesn't mean that God has removed Himself from you, rather you have removed yourself from Him. Mentally you are not listening and not heeding -- you go your own way in your own pride and deceit.

There are a couple of interesting essays on the subject, as well. Essay: Dispensationalism Reisinger, A History of Dispenssationalism in America Plymouth Brethren History FAQ Those might give you some background that will make fairly clear the similarity and potential inflences this movement would have had on Wierwille.

Whether or not VPW directly studied Scofield or not is something I can't answer, but it is very, very apparent that he was influenced greatly by Darby's Dispensational view of the Bible, of which Scofield was an "apostle." So many of the thoughts, particularly the dividing of "dispensations" would likely be very similar to Scofield. I recently posted some information on this here and here, both on the "Acceptable Behavior" thread.

A lot of novelties were blamed on Vatican II that are not actually part of the document generated for that purpose, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. I think that many of those changes would have been appropriate under certain, limited circumstances, but worked their way into the mainstream. A lot of this was coincident with other movements going on at the time. But this is getting way to "inside baseball" for this forum. Suffice it to say that I think a lot of the reverence has been removed from all facets of the liturgy that has reverberated into multiple areas and has, in many cases, done more to harm than for good. Again, though, let me stress, I have no problem in the world with a casual, contemporary prayer/praise service. But not the Divine Liturgy. But, that is imho and is fwiw and, as always, ymmv.

Disclaimer: I am a semi-informed health consumer, not a health professional. Take anything I say with a grain of salt. One other thing I'll add, and this part is strictly my opinion (hopefully informed by fact). Yes, there are some pretty serious side effects to the drug, as you can see from the extract of the insert I provided in my previous post. However, if you look at the incidence of those side effects, you can see that they are relatively infrequent. In addition, they are fairly readily detectable. If you do go on Lipitor, you also need to make sure to get the liver function tests done before, as you start on the drug, and regularly for the rest of your life. A liver function test can detect if you are getting some damage as a result of the drug. The MOST important thing I can tell you is: Don't ever, ever neglect getting your liver monitoring done if you go on it. If you start showing signs of liver malfunction, the blood work will detect it before any major damage is done. If you wait until showing some symptom (e.g., jaundice), it will be too late. Keep getting the blood work!!! And yet another bit of commentary: I think a lot of MD's out there are nothing better than pill-pushers. Rather than trying to treat the underlying condition, they will immediately try to medicate. Lipitor is a classic example of this. The drug company itself says for MD's to first try diet, habit, and weight modification. Then look at possible underlying conditions. Only if all other routes fail should they put a person on Lipitor. I think that a lot of doctors just go straight for the drug solution. And I think that is a mistake. Me, personally, if I had a doctor like that, I would start looking for a different MD. Again, I am a semi-informed health consumer, not a health professional. Take anything I say with a grain of salt.

Disclaimer: I am a semi-informed health consumer, not a health professional. Take anything I say with a grain of salt. From what I understand, the biggest problem with those statin drugs is that they can, in some cases, cause some liver problems. Follows is some information from the physician information on the drug. You can, and should, read the entire handout here: http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/download/uspi_lipitor.pdf. Then list your specific questions, based on FACT, and ask your doctor about them. If your doctor is at all competent, he/she will seriously discuss the information with you, if you've taken the time to actually read responsible information about the medication and have well considered questions about it. CONTRAINDICATIONS Active liver disease or unexplained persistent elevations of serum transaminases. Hypersensitivity to any component of this medication. Pregnancy and Lactation Atherosclerosis is a chronic process and discontinuation of lipid-lowering drugs during pregnancy should have little impact on the outcome of long-term therapy of primary hypercholesterolemia. Cholesterol and other products of cholesterol biosynthesis are essential components for fetal development (including synthesis of steroids and cell membranes). Since HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors decrease cholesterol synthesis and possibly the synthesis of other biologically active substances derived from cholesterol, they may cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant women. Therefore, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors are contraindicated during pregnancy and in nursing mothers. ATORVASTATIN SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED TO WOMEN OF CHILDBEARING AGE ONLY WHEN SUCH PATIENTS ARE HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO CONCEIVE AND HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF THE POTENTIAL HAZARDS. If the patient becomes pregnant while taking this drug, therapy should be discontinued and the patient apprised of the potential hazard to the fetus. WARNINGS Liver Dysfunction HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, like some other lipid-lowering therapies, have been associated with biochemical abnormalities of liver function. Persistent elevations (>3 times the upper limit of normal [uLN] occurring on 2 or more occasions) in serum transaminases occurred in 0.7% of patients who received atorvastatin in clinical trials. The incidence of these abnormalities was 0.2%, 0.2%, 0.6%, and 2.3% for 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg, respectively. One patient in clinical trials developed jaundice. Increases in liver function tests (LFT) in other patients were not associated with jaundice or other clinical signs or symptoms. Upon dose reduction, drug interruption, or discontinuation, transaminase levels returned to or near pretreatment levels without sequelae. Eighteen of 30 patients with persistent LFT elevations continued treatment with a reduced dose of atorvastatin. It is recommended that liver function tests be performed prior to and at 12 weeks following both the initiation of therapy and any elevation of dose, and periodically (eg, semiannually) thereafter. Liver enzyme changes generally occur in the first 3 months of treatment with atorvastatin. Patients who develop increased transaminase levels should be monitored until the abnormalities resolve. Should an increase in ALT or AST of >3 times ULN persist, reduction of dose or withdrawal of atorvastatin is recommended. Atorvastatin should be used with caution in patients who consume substantial quantities of alcohol and/or have a history of liver disease. Active liver disease or unexplained persistent transaminase elevations are contraindications to the use of atorvastatin (see CONTRAINDICATIONS). Skeletal Muscle Rare cases of rhabdomyolysis with acute renal failure secondary to myoglobinuria have been reported with atorvastatin and with other drugs in this class. Uncomplicated myalgia has been reported in atorvastatin-treated patients (see ADVERSE REACTIONS). Myopathy, defined as muscle aches or muscle weakness in conjunction with increases in creatine phosphokinase (CPK) values >10 times ULN, should be considered in any patient with diffuse myalgias, muscle tenderness or weakness, and/or marked elevation of CPK. Patients should be advised to report promptly unexplained muscle pain, tenderness or weakness, particularly if accompanied by malaise or fever. Atorvastatin therapy should be discontinued if markedly elevated CPK levels occur or myopathy is diagnosed or suspected. The risk of myopathy during treatment with drugs in this class is increased with concurrent administration of cyclosporine, fibric acid derivatives, erythromycin, niacin, or azole antifungals. Physicians considering combined therapy with atorvastatin and fibric acid derivatives, erythromycin, immunosuppressive drugs, azole antifungals, or lipid-lowering doses of niacin should carefully weigh the potential benefits and risks and should carefully monitor patients for any signs or symptoms of muscle pain, tenderness, or weakness, particularly during the initial months of therapy and during any periods of upward dosage titration of either drug. Periodic creatine phosphokinase (CPK) determinations may be considered in such situations, but there is no assurance that such monitoring will prevent the occurrence of severe myopathy. Atorvastatin therapy should be temporarily withheld or discontinued in any patient with an acute, serious condition suggestive of a myopathy or having a risk factor predisposing to the development of renal failure secondary to rhabdomyolysis (eg, severe acute infection, hypotension, major surgery, trauma, severe metabolic, endocrine and electrolyte disorders, and uncontrolled seizures). PRECAUTIONS General Before instituting therapy with atorvastatin, an attempt should be made to control hypercholesterolemia with appropriate diet, exercise, and weight reduction in obese patients, and to treat other underlying medical problems (see INDICATIONS AND USAGE). Please note the above precaution: the "official" information says that you should first try diet, exercise, and weight reduction before taking Lipitor. Then if you have any underlying medical problems that could contribute to elevated chloresterol, those problems should be treated. The implication is that if, after doing these things, you still have elevated chloresterol, it would be time to treat it with the statin drug. I know that a lot of doctors want to go with Lipitor first before doing the other things, but that's not what the manufacturer recommends. Keep that in mind. There are a total of 24 pages in the physician's information on that drug. You should read and (probably) print out all 24 pages.

Cool Mark. I assume that since you are of the Catholic persuasion that you prefer the more liturgical form of worship services. And I do confess to enjoying the same on occassion. The priest while performing the Mass, during certain readings, lifts his hands in the traditional stance of prayer. I think it's a beautiful act, and I really don't understand--really--what the objection is if a communicant wants to stand that way too? As far as I can see, we are talking mainly about lifting ones hands in prayer, yet ever body wants to talk about chaos and "decent and in order" and such things. as far as I can see. But hey, I like to wander myself. I am very straight-laced when it comes to the divine liturgies, whether Eastern or Western. I know you are an ex-Catholic, so I don't mean to bore you with what follows, but I feel I should for the benefit of those who have never had any catechesis in historic, apostolic Christianity (i.e., Latin, Byzantine, Syriac, or Coptic). In the Divine Liturgy (regardless of the rite in which that liturgy is celebrated), the core of the liturgy is the celebration of the eternal Paschal mystery through the Eucharist. The entire liturgy is focused around the single moment when the Holy Spirit comes to the altar during the Anaphora and transforms the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Consecration. (And before somebody starts condemning Rome, please keep in mind that this happens in any of the apostolic churches, not just the Latin Church) So obviously we can see that this is a particularly grave and profound occasion. All the practices, all the symbology in the Liturgy are focused around this moment. Everything has meaning and it all has deep, deep roots. Remember, in Hebrews 9, it says that the old covenant were but figures of the present age. And we can see in the Apocolypse of John the heavenly worship that is ongoing in heaven. The symbology in the divine liturgies come from this source. (I'm only relating this to try, somehow, to communicate the gravity to those who have never worshipped as part of these historic, apostolic churches...I assume that those folks who have, even though they reject it for themselves, will have an appreciation) When we are in a properly celebrated liturgy in a properly designed church, literally everything draws us closer to God...the incense (sweet-smelling fragrance rising to God), the signing of our foreheads, lips, and heart (Lord, may my thoughts, words, and heart be on Your Word), the head nods and bows (at the name of Christ, every knee may bow), the bulk of the prayers (Lord, have mercy; Holy, Holy, Holy; Lamb of God; etc.). For the gravity of the situation, it is, of course, appropriate to ensure that a novelty is not introduced that somehow either theologically is inconsistent with what should be happening or approaches the violation of "decent and in order." If something like that is introduced, either by the clergy or by the laity, it takes away from the liturgy, acts as a distraction, and shows either an ignorance of the theology or an inappropriate irreverence to that theology. On a theological basis, I don't see any kind of an issue if a person wanted to assume the Orans position when praying the Our Father during the communion rite. After all, we are all making supplication to God when praying the Our Father during this rite. There are other liturgical abuses which far, far, far overshadow this one. And yeah, the passage you cited is really cool. There is so much more to this subject than appears at first glance, ya know? I'm actually reading Edersheims book on the Temple currently and it's pretty fascinating stuff. It's one of those books I'd meaning to read for years and finally am getting to it. Who knew worship was so complicated back then? Sure makes me appriciate what we have now. Well, when one comes to an understanding of what is happening in Heb 9 and then see the heavenly worship, as shown in Rev 10, we have, imho, a much greater appreciation for what happened in the Old Testament. An interesting study for you to do sometime, ex10, would be a study of the greek words latreia and doulia. Oh, and one other thing: I have no problem with, and, at times enjoy, a far more free-wheeling worship/ prayer service as well. I like the spontenaity and the heart in that. But there is a difference between a worship/prayer/praise service and the Divine Liturgy.

ex10, FWIW, check this out: Psa 134:1 A Song of Ascents. Come, bless the LORD, all you servants of the LORD, who stand by night in the house of the LORD! Psa 134:2 Lift up your hands to the holy place, and bless the LORD! Psa 134:3 May the LORD bless you from Zion, he who made heaven and earth! (Note: the holy place, in context, is the Holy of Holies) Psa 141:1 A Psalm of David. I call upon thee, O LORD; make haste to me! Give ear to my voice, when I call to thee! Psa 141:2 Let my prayer be counted as incense before thee, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice! Neh 8:1 And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel. Neh 8:2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could hear with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month. Neh 8:3 And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive to the book of the law. Neh 8:4 And Ezra the scribe stood on a wooden pulpit which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithi'ah, Shema, Anai'ah, Uri'ah, Hilki'ah, and Ma-asei'ah on his right hand; and Pedai'ah, Mish'a-el, Malchi'jah, Hashum, Hash-bad'danah, Zechari'ah, and Meshul'lam on his left hand. Neh 8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people; and when he opened it all the people stood. Neh 8:6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God; and all the people answered, "Amen, Amen," lifting up their hands; and they bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground. Hope that helps a little bit. Having said that, though, it is clear that none of these provide evidence to the chaos that happens in a lot of worship services out there, though. Also, having said that, I also don't see where it is commanded that a person lift their hands. I don't see where it was forbidden. OTOH, I also don't see where breathing is commanded or forbidden, either.

Actually, I cited that section you mentioned (Paul/Apollos) -- There is only one Church. Period. (cf 1 Cor 3:3-7, 1 cor 12:12-14). (the 1 Cor 3:3-7 is the Paul/Apollos account). Rok On