Raf

I think Madonna's husband directed it.

Dooj, We are in full agreement.

As tough as riding shoelaces and tying a bike. :) Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrells

Dooj, as you are late to this conversation, please allow me to fill you in. There's nothing new here. These specific questions have been asked of Mike before. It's not so much speaking for him as it is remembering his previous answers and anticipating how he would respond to the questions as reworded. You're right. No one should speak for him. Guilty as charged. But I've heard his answers to these kinds of questions before. I wouldn't be surprised if my "guess" was not that far off the mark. P.S. Everything in my previous post, Mike has told me personally. Not in those specific words, but I made nothing up.

Hey Dooj, post a song!

Inconclusive either way, IMO, but certainly enough for me to retract what I said. Thanks. I'll keep looking at that. Interesting stuff.

Come on, guys, put yourself in Mike's position, and the answer is easy. First, PFAL is the touchstone for truth, so the fact that IT IS WRITTEN in PFAL makes it true. Therefore, the question is not "Why does PFAL say it?" The question is, "Why don't you believe it?" You see, there WAS a bar-mitzvah before the time of Christ. There had to be, because God said in the pages of PFAL that Jesus went through bar mitvah at 12 instead of 13 because he was considered illegitimate. God can't be wrong. Therefore, PFAL is right. Furthermore, we know that the "old piece of literature" Wierwille trusted to make his assertion was legitimate and accurate, even though that old piece of literature has never been identified and no comparable piece of literature, old or new, has duplicated the assertion. How do we know the old piece of literature is reliable? God allowed Wierwille to include it in PFAL. Had it not been reliable, God wouldn't have allowed Wierwille to write it. Therefore it was reliable, there were bar mitzvahs prior to the first century, and Jesus was bar mitzvahed at 12 instead of 13 because he was considered illegitimate. Oh ye of little faith.

I don't believe PFAL demands that you buy into the system 100% or nothing. That's TST (The Smikeolean Tradition). It is inconsistent with PFAL to treat PFAL as a model of perfection.

Ok, Bluzeman. Just remember, the "New York/Big apple" things was an anomaly. Usually the pix will help sound out the words. But feel free to be playful if the mood strikes you. Hmm.. someone something ants.... Got it! Good one.

Oh, it was definitely meant to be cutesy. I stole the idea from the other board, where the clues led to "Windy City," an actual movie. One of the (incorrect) guesses was "Chicago." I thought it would have been cool if Chicago were the right answer. Hence...

If that's how you feel. :)

Yup!

So I shouldn't let my appreciation of PFAL be compromised by his distortion of it.

Did I say there wasn't a lot of great stuff in there? Did I say that "mastering PFAL" would result in a failing grade? No. All I said was "aim higher." Stopping at mastery of PFAL is limiting God. By all means, master it. But don't stop there.

You'll know what to do when it gets hold of you, and with a little help from above...

You can call me Al Paul Simon

Ok, take it to the next step. What movie would be represented by two big apples?

Yeah! (and, as you know, I was not commenting on your posts, but posting another quote). But you knew that. :)

I think the topic is whether mastery of PFAL is necessary. I teach a grammar class. For students to pass the class, they need to score at least 75 on a test (over which I have no control). Semester after semester, I see students striving for that 75. They work hard to reach it, and most of them do. Then there are those students who strive for 100. They're usually the ones who get a 90 or better on the test. To me, devoting time to mastering PFAL is like striving for the 75. If you hit it, great. You passed. But the better students are the ones who go beyond the merely acceptable passing grade. PFAL is the flawed work of a flawed man. It has errors, both technical and doctrinal. To the extent that it leads people to an understanding of God in Christ, I rejoice. But I rejoice more when we aim higher. The law of believing is nothing. Faith in God in Christ is everything. Five sonship rights? That's it? What's more important, the number of crosses on the side, or the one in the middle? Which one did we spend more time on? Master PFAL if all you want to get is the 75. Master the Bible if you want to go further.

How could anybody figure that out? It's completely mental!

Nope.

It was just a flesh wound. OH! He hit me right in my profession, which is relevant to this discussion because... yeah, I don't know either. Must be from the Dodge, Distract School of Discourse. What the Hey, I don't know what to say. You are so divorced from reality it's not worth responding. But hey, you're a fun read. By the way, it's SOLELY, not SOLEY. "Soley" is actually ancient estrangelo for "idolatrous sycophant."

I can see why you'd answer that, but no.