A Misconception Regarding Catholicism And Mormonism's Exclusivity Claims.

[Oceansun]

I sort of agree. I believe that there was a two president system in the early Church like in the LDS Church. There is a president of the twelve and there is the President over the entire Church. I believe that James was highest ranking apostle and President over the entire Church. He outranked both Peter and Paul. As Ed Watson noted in his book "Mormonism: Faith of the 21st Century"

"Despite the lack of an explicit description of the structure of the early church in the New Testament, certain facets of it can be discerned in the texts. The most obvious is Peter was the head of the quorum of the Twelve, not as one possessing superior authority over the rest of the apostles, but being the first among equals. However, James, the brother of Jesus, appears to occupy the presiding position in the church.

It was James, not Peter who presided over the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2-22) and it was James, not Peter, who settled the issue of the requirements of the Gentiles for admission into the church (Acts 15:13-21 esp. vv.13,19-20).

Paul obeyed the order to appear before the council (Acts 15:2) and was on one side of the two opposing parties. The traditionalists, or conservatives insisted that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the laws of Moses (Acts 15:5) while Peter (15:7-11) and Paul (15:12) took the opposite view. After both sides presented their cases, James decided in favor of Paul and Peter's position. James said, "my sentence is. . ." which proves he really presided in the council and everyone, including Peter and Paul submitted to his decision.

Because of the conduct of James, and of Peter and Paul deferring to his authority, reporting to him and being sent by him (Acts 21:18; 8:14; 15:13-21; 12:17; Gal 2:12), we can assume that James, the brother of Jesus, was the president of the early Christian church, (1) while Peter was the president of the Twelve (just as Joseph Smith was the president of the church in 1843 and Brigham Young was the president of the Twelve). This will also explain why the surviving apostles deemed it so important to convene another council to replace James after his death, not as a bishop of one particular church (out of over thirty) (2) but as the head of the entire church. Simon, the cousin of Jesus was unanimously chosen to be the next president of the church. (3)

The traditional view that James and Simon were merely bishops of the church of Jerusalem is untenable due to the actions of the surviving apostles. If they viewed James as a bishop of one church, why would they go through the trouble of assembling all of the surviving apostles and the other leaders of the church just to replace a bishop? If Simon was only a bishop of one particular church why didn't all of the apostles and leaders of the church gather in councils whenever a new bishop had to be appointed? Why is it that this tremendous effort was never done to any other church? Not even the bishop of Rome received the privilege of having all of the surviving apostles and other leaders of the church ordain him. On the other hand, if Simon was only a mere bishop of one church and he received this ordination whereas the bishop of Rome (if there was one at the time) never did, doesn't this mean that the apostles viewed the bishop of Jerusalem as being more important than any other bishop, including the bishop of Rome? The importance of James shows he had to be the president of the early church.

This will explain why James was considered by certain Christians to be "the Supreme Pontiff who rules Jerusalem . . . and the communities everywhere." (4)

St. Epiphanius said,

"He (James) first received the See (of Jerusalem); it is to him first that the Lord intrusted his throne upon the earth." (5)

ENDNOTES

1. THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.88.

2. THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.986.

3. Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 3, Chapter 11.

4. Clementine Homilies. Epistle of Clement to James. See also The Gospel of Thomas. Logion 12; Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 2, Chap. 1.

5. St. Epiphanius, Heres. 78.

6. Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Book 3, Chapter 12.5; Tertullian. Against Marcion. Book 4, Chapter 35; Firmilian letter to Cyprian. 74th Epistle; First Council of Constantinople(382). Synodical Letter; THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Pelikan). p.35.

7. THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). p.48.

While all of that is very interesting, the scriptures are clear that it is Jesus Christ who is at the head of the church. He is the rock (PETRAS)! But at the very least you have shown further cause to say that Peter was of no more special stature than the rest of his fellow Apostles.

Take Care,

Ocean

[freakin a man]

While all of that is very interesting, the scriptures are clear that it is Jesus Christ who is at the head of the church. He is the rock (PETRAS)! But at the very least you have shown further cause to say that Peter was of no more special stature than the rest of his fellow Apostles.

Well of course. But Christ is not present with us right now and he need to have someone manning the ship while he is away. The president/prophet does not replace Christ. They are servants of Christ and work under his direction. I do believe that Peter did have special status and Watson mentions that. However if anyone has ranking status, I think the evidence points to James. I do think that James outrank Peter and Peter outranked Paul in seniority. However there was no power grabbing going on just as there is none in the LDS Church. All of the apostles work together to do Christ work but there can be only one "indian chief" if you want to call it.

[Son]

While all of that is very interesting, the scriptures are clear that it is Jesus Christ who is at the head of the church. He is the rock (PETRAS)! But at the very least you have shown further cause to say that Peter was of no more special stature than the rest of his fellow Apostles.

Take Care,

Ocean

One might even say He is the Cornerstone, that the builders forgot. The followers did not (forget).

Your posts are well thought out and present the inclusiveness that Jesus sought for us all.

[bluebell]

Oceans tide must be out.

it's been 'in' for others but perhaps it will be 'in' for my questions again soon. The poor person has had a lot of posts to field.

Wow, I think I actually get what you are saying.

So you believe that the Thief on the cross was not saved, but had the opportunity in the spirit plane to be instructed into salvation?

I've never heard that. Is that an LDS teaching?

Yes, it is an LDS teaching. That every person will have the chance to hear the Gospel of Christ, to accept or reject it and Him and if accepted, to partake in the necessary ordinances that the Gospel of Christ requires of us.

Heaven is a big place, is the telestial not part of heaven, I think that is where the thiefs go. I think that is being saved, just a low position.

Saved in the most base level to me is not being in prisoned by Satan, and not experiencing the second death. What says bluebell?

Yes-that is a form of salvation-but it is not the 'greatest gift' of salvation that Christ and our Father in Heaven desire to offer us.

They want to offer us eternal life in their presence-if we don't want that and choose a lesser gift than they will allow us to obtain that instead.

A thief would go to the telestial kingdom of Heaven, but a repentant thief who has accepted Christ is no longer a thief and has claim on the mercy and grace of Christ's salvation, being then 'worthy' to gain eternal life with God.

[Paul Ray]

I do believe that Peter did have special status and Watson mentions that. However if anyone has ranking status, I think the evidence points to James. I do think that James outrank Peter and Peter outranked Paul in seniority. However there was no power grabbing going on just as there is none in the LDS Church.

What evidence leads you to believe that James outranked Peter?

Just curious.

[Paul Ray]

it's been 'in' for others but perhaps it will be 'in' for my questions again soon. The poor person has had a lot of posts to field.

Yes, it is an LDS teaching. That every person will have the chance to hear the Gospel of Christ, to accept or reject it and Him and if accepted, to partake in the necessary ordinances that the Gospel of Christ requires of us.

Yes-that is a form of salvation-but it is not the 'greatest gift' of salvation that Christ and our Father in Heaven desire to offer us.

They want to offer us eternal life in their presence-if we don't want that and choose a lesser gift than they will allow us to obtain that instead.

A thief would go to the telestial kingdom of Heaven, but a repentant thief who has accepted Christ is no longer a thief and has claim on the mercy and grace of Christ's salvation, being then 'worthy' to gain eternal life with God.

I just know I wanna go where bluebell is going.

What say ye, bluebell. Will you take me with you?

[PacMan]

Oceansun,

1) Is the oneness of the Father and Son in John 10 literal or metaphoric?

Is the oneness of the Father and Son (which we should follow) in John 17 literal or metaphoric?

Was Sephenâ??s testimony of his vision literal or metaphoric?

2) I agree the bible was written prior to the RCC counsels.

If the book of Revelation nearly got the "boot" at Nicea it would have only been for political considerations.

??? The issue was whether they were germane documents or not, and there were other very popular books/epistles that were not voted in; in other words not seen as germane by the majority.

In regards to Nicea, The First Ecumenical Council, held at Nicea, located in what is now Turkey in 325 AD was a response to the Arian Heresy, which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Iâ??m familiar with Nicea, and that is a whitewashed version of the facts. But thatâ??d not the topic hereâ?¦

I am confounding nothingâ?¦

Heheâ?¦I stand by what I said. The fact that you want proof that Paul was subordinate to a â??prophet,â? is evidence of you confounding terms.

Peter was the first called, and the first mentioned at all times. He was the one given specific instruction regarding the keys of the kingdom, and feeding His sheep.

There are a few problems with your interpretation of Peter being the literal "rock" Jesus was refering to.

Actually, as LDS we agree. The rock refers to the revelation given by the Father. Sorry you spent so much time disputing itâ?¦I appreciate it though. Most informative.

And remember there is nothing in the writings of Paul that would even come close to suggesting he deferred to Peter. In fact, Paul put in quite a larger body of work in regards to scripture than did Peter, and above all else Peter himself speaks nothing of his leadership role in God's church in 1 & 2 Peter. All of this is to say nothing of the fact that other New Testament writers fail to give deference to Peter as well. Hmmm...

FYI, this a tremendous use of ignoratium. The â??factâ? that Paul has more writing in the New Testament is ridiculous. He certainly had more writing than Christ, but it doesnâ??t affect that relational hierarchy. Moreover, I see no reason that Peter need speak of his leadership role. If he was the Chief Apostle, it was clearly understood.

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus.

Actually, youâ??re wrong. The foundation is the apostles, with Christ being the chief cornerstone. Do you want a reference for that?

Well if your group of 70 is anything like the one Jesus employed then they would be out evangelizing the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ right this very moment.

This simply shows how ignorant you are. The 70â??s purpose is to oversee the missionary work throughout the world. But funny how itâ??s biblical when you thought it wasnâ??t, huh?

Now that doesn't mean serving a two year mission for a corporate church body at the age of 19 and prior to being a member of the 70's and delivering a "grace plus works plan of salvation" with additional books that add unto God's word.

I understand that youâ??re getting inflammatory because you lack substance, and because I showed you the 70â??s reference. All the same, please grow-up and keep the conversation academic.

Evangelical Christians are "united" and perfectly so when it comes to what actually saves us. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not at all what divides us. It's the minor things that often bring us disagreement (practices).

You know, I had a feeling youâ??d say that. The problem is, so were the early Christians. If they were Christians, then they were â??united.â? So why the heck was it even said? The fact of the matter is, Paul didnâ??t qualify it as â??all Christians,â? but exclusively ALL. Mankind is not unified, and thus apostles and prophets are still needed today. You havenâ??t a grammatical nor logical leg to stand on.

Quit getting so hung up on the term "non-denominational" when I describe the christians who lived after Jesus Christ had returned to Heaven.

Then stop using it. Youâ??re wrong for doing so.

Yes they were organized in some ways but the first of the "for profit churches" (churches like yours, the RCC, the JW's and various other protestant groups) had yet to spring up.

If you keep the inflammatory rhetoric (although it proves your silly ignorance), youâ??re going to get booted. You havenâ??t a leg to stand on to prove weâ??re a â??for profit church,â? particulary since we are legally defined as an non-for-profit entityâ?¦and considering we have a volunteer lay ministry, I daresay youâ??re throwing rocks at a brick house. Just donâ??t hit Graham, Meyers, or Joel.

There was NOTHING mentioned in the above writingsâ?¦

So youâ??re whole base of faith is determinated by fallacious logic? Sounds shaky to me. Go look argumentum ad ignoratium. Secondly, youâ??re accusations are simply blatantly false, but Iâ??m simply not going to toss the holier pearls before swine. The look up John 20:30; 21:25. Youâ??re floundering.

Iraneus may have been a "bad boy" at times but his merely mentioning the books of the New Testament in his time (180 AD) is solid proof that the christians were not at all confused as to what scripture actually was real and what was heresy.

I never said he was bad, just that heâ??s unauthoritative. Moreover, I donâ??t see the issue with the booksâ?¦LDS believe them too, so what the issue?

The Bible states that we should test men claiming to be "prophets". Joseph Smith fails miserably, but I know, I know you have plenty of excuses.

Better than ignorant and fallacious sweeping generalizations.

And you want to talk of the JoD? Greatâ?¦letâ??s. What was JoD? You just stepped in a big pile of getting your booty whooped, because guess what? I know what Iâ??m talking about, and Iâ??m calling you out. Letâ??s the games beginâ?¦.

Sorry if I have offended you as it was completely unintentional and without malice.

Then you are academically immature. If you didnâ??t mean to introduce inflammatory red herrings, then you have neither the experience nor the competency to talk reasonably in this forum.

PacMan

[bluebell]

I just know I wanna go where bluebell is going.

What say ye, bluebell. Will you take me with you?

yeesh talk about pressure!

[Paul Ray]

FYI, this a tremendous use of ignoratium...

This simply shows how ignorant you are...

I understand that youâ??re getting inflammatory because you lack substance, and because I showed you the 70â??s reference. All the same, please grow-up and keep the conversation academic...

If you keep the inflammatory rhetoric (although it proves your silly ignorance), youâ??re going to get booted.

Go look argumentum ad ignoratium.

... Iâ??m simply not going to toss the holier pearls before swine.

... you are academically immature.

PacMan, my brother, you're not coming across as being very gracious, IMO.

And I'm just pointing this out because I'm now offering a class on how to use humor, if you are interested.

None of us now know everything about everything so we're all ignorant of some things, and none of us are now as perfect as we know we can be.

You seem to have a misconception regarding catholicism and mormonism's exclusivity claims.

I believe we should strive to come together and then try to stick together rather than do or say something that may prompt others to want to distance themselves from us, and I believe a greater knowledge will help to draw others a little closer to us, especially if it's mixed with some love and a little bit of humor.

Oh, and btw, the class is for free, and you can apply it to all your knowledge of everything.

[Paul Ray]

yeesh talk about pressure!

Do you think it might help if I start kicking and screaming?

I WANT TO GO WITH BLUEBELL!!!

DO NOT EXCLUDE ME FROM BLUEBELL!!!

Or would that perhaps be perceived as a little extreme?

I don't really care, either way, as long as we are together.

... with you and your husband in your house, and me and my wife in a different house, of course.

I just want to be your neighbor.

Would you like to be... my neighbor? (think Mr. Roberts. He has a nice way of saying that)

[Anijen]

PacMan, my brother, you're not coming across as being very gracious, IMO.

And I'm just pointing this out because I'm now offering a class on how to use humor, if you are interested.

None of us now know everything about everything so we're all ignorant of some things, and none of us are now as perfect as we know we can be.

You seem to have a misconception regarding catholicism and mormonism's exclusivity claims.

I believe we should strive to come together and then try to stick together rather than do or say something that may prompt others to want to distance themselves from us, and I believe a greater knowledge will help to draw others a little closer to us, especially if it's mixed with some love and a little bit of humor.

Oh, and btw, the class is for free, and you can apply it to all your knowledge of everything.

I thought Pacmans comments were right on target. I sometimes think defenders of the faith are not forthright enough, to mamby pamby for my style. I guess to each his own.

I like the idea with anything with humor.

Edited to add I'm a zealot anyway

[PacMan]

CK:

CK:

I do disagree. Jesus "taught as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the Law."

Umm…except Jesus had the authority, and it was called the Priesthood.

The truth is, priestly authority is empty authority.

So Christ’s authority and John’s (considering he was a priest) is useless?

But those who are truly followers of Jesus need only call on his name, and demons tremble. That is authority.

Actually, that’s a false dilemma. Moreover, I agree that there is inherent power in the name of Christ. All those with bodies have power over the demons (assuming they haven’t given that power away). Those demons without bodies are inherently of lesser authority than those that do.

Moreover, your list of “sources” are tremendously short. Maybe you should use www.lds.org, because it seems to work better than your limited few.

Mark 13:34

34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

Luke 9:1

1 THEN he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

Just says the twelve…

2 Cor 10:8

8 For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:

Now concerning 2 Cor 10:8, tongue in cheek or not, Paul makes it clear that he was given authority. But just the fact that Paul admits to it as “boasting,” is reason enough to understand why such authority wasn’t spoken about very often.

Titus 2:15

15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Now…it’s evident that authority was given and received.

In fact, in Galatians 1 Paul brags that he went out a' preachin' without any sanction from the apostles. Rather, his commission came directly by revelation.

This is silly, because Paul WAS an Apostle! He received his personal mandate from Christ himself.

When he visited Jerusalem, the apostles extended "the right hand of friendship," but that's apparently the only hand they laid on him.

What are you trying to prove? You are only leveraging ignoratium. That there was a hand of friendship says nothing about authority. You’re drifting from the topic, friend…

And so we see from the italicized portion that Paul was already an apostle when he came to Jerusalem. Of course he was. He was "one who was sent" by Christ himself to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles! Paul needed no ordination from the hands of the Twelve in order to be sent out by Jesus to do his work.

Again…says who? You’re making this up in false dilemma as you go!

And so we see that nowhere in the New Testament is legitimate "authority" associated-- explicitly or otherwise-- with priesthood.

Except when it’s devastating to your case, i.e, tongue-in-cheek or just altogether skipped.

The New Covenant has only Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is the final priest. This notion is not unfounded. Rather, it is founded in the teachings of the Book of Hebrews.

Then you say…

John says that he is part of a kingdom of priests.

What??? No he doesn’t! He explicitly states that they had been made a “king and priests.”

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

As I explained in another thread, the duties of the priesthood have been fulfilled by Jesus the Great High Priest, while the rights and privileges have been passed on to all Christians.

And I reject it completely! You twist Revelations in such a way to disassociate John from being a priest and make it nearly unrecognizable in the process!

But you bring up 1 Peter 2:9, and I’m glad you do. Here Peter specifically refers to being a holy priesthood. So 1) We know there IS a priesthood. Which one? What is it called? 2) Hebrews 5 speaks directly on how it transmitted. How is this any clearer?

In order to see that this is metaphorical, take a look at 1 Peter 2. This whole chapter, really, is an artful weave of magnificent metaphors

OHHHH…that’s how! When Peter DOES speak about priesthood, he’s speaking metaphorically! Except, he’s not. “AS lively stones are built up a spiritual house, AN holy Priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices!” There is nothing metaphoric about it! They as a holy Priesthood are AS lively stones. If this is all metaphor, then be consistent and explain of “offering up spiritual sacrifices” isn’t what it says.

So if something is a fulfillment of prophecy, it can violate the rules? Why then did JS have to be ordained by John the Baptist? Why didn't God just send tongues of fire? This strikes me as an ad hoc explanation for something that doesn't fit neatly into the LDS paradigm.

What are you talking about? I’m completely lost. The inspiration and gifts of the HG are not left only to those that have received the gift of the HG (baptism by fire), else the Jews would never have understood what was being said, nor would have had their hearts pricked. But what’s clear is that they didn’t there receive the gift of the HG, because Peter goes on to explain how they might receive it after their baptism. To simply say that the presence of the HG is thus a baptism by fire, is confounding the many roles of the HG.

The "they" whose hearts were pricked was the crowd. As for the apparent duplication of the apostles' baptism, you're right: there is a duplication. Jesus breathes on them in John, but in Acts they receive it later in the upper room. I view this as a contradiction, not as something to be alleviated by circular reasoning.

Again, you’re confounding the gifts of the spirit with the baptism by fire. They are mutually exclusive and needs be for any of this to makes sense. And yes, the crowd of Jews had already received the gift of translation to hear the words of the Apostles (every man in their own tongue), and had their hearts pricked ALL before being baptized and receiving the baptism by fire.

As such, it is quite evident that baptism by the Holy Spirit is NOT described…for Peter explicitly states that it has yet to come to them!!

More coming...

PacMan

[Paul Ray]

I thought Pacmans comments were right on target. I sometimes think defenders of the faith are not forthright enough, to mamby pamby for my style. I guess to each his own.

I like the idea with anything with humor.

Yes, I also think it was a pretty high horse.

Do you think he might let me pet it?

[PacMan]

CK:

Who said that Jesus derives some "benefit" from the Melchizedek priesthood? The order of Melchizedek is another allegory.

Ohâ?¦so it doesnâ??t exist? Itâ??s all metaphoric again? Heâ??s either got it or he doesnâ??t, and the bible says he does. So please tell me, what is it? To acknowledge the Levitical Priesthood as having certain authorities, rights, and privileges yet deny the same to the Melchizedek Priesthood is simply baffling.

Melchizedek was a type of Jesus, because he was both a priest and a king. In Israel that was a no-no. So in this sense Jesus was unique.

Just like John and the unknown numbers of others whom were also made priests and kings.

Since the disciples were part of the church, it is only natural that Jesus should blur the two in this passage.

No, itâ??s only natural if such distinction is incriminating for your position.

There is no indication, in any case, that he is limiting his promise to the Twelve disciples.

And thereâ??s no evidence that heâ??s not. Considering that he gave it to THEM, it only makes sense that to THEM it was given.

Rather, this binding and loosing is clearly available to all disciples wherever two or three gather in his name.

Except, thatâ??s not what the Bible saysâ?¦.he was talking to THEM. Had he said â??all disciples,â? Iâ??d agree. But He didnâ??t. Donâ??t put words in the Lords mouth.

So describing Christ as a priest in the context of this prophecy makes disregard for the lineage requirement somewhat allowable.

That makes NO sense! The Levitical Priesthood was meant ONLY for the Levites! By definition, if the lineage was â??somewhat allowable,â? it would need to change ordersâ?¦and it did: The Priesthood after the order of Aaron.

For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

The distinction is that Christ was certainly a priestâ?¦but why called from the order of Mel and not Aaron? It expressly presents that plausibility of it, which gives greater credence to why the Melchisedek Priesthood was necessaryâ??because there was a change in the law. As such, under this new law, its priests (like Christ and John and others) need this priesthood.

The Holy Ghost grants a certain kind of authority (power might be a better word) in that it endows one with gifts to do God's work.

Powerâ?¦or I would say gifts. I agree. But it isnâ??t authority, for no one acts by authority of the Holy Ghost.

Satan is given authority over the earth. Believers are given authority over demons, and authority to bind and loose.

Only if you put words in Jesusâ??s mouth.

I don't see any evidence in the Bible that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is the fount of all "authority".

And I agree itâ??s not. Thatâ??s the Priesthood.

Best,

Paul Ray,

PacMan, my brother, you're not coming across as being very gracious, IMO.

If you look at the vast amount of information Iâ??m responding to, you may appreciate the lack of pleasantries. Fallacies are fallacies, and if it offends someone to hear me calling them on it, I suggest they not commit the crime or accept it graciously. I have no problem saying when Iâ??m wrong (I just admitted to David Waltz I was wrong the other day), and how others do the same.

Iâ??ll pass on your class.

Best,

PacMan

[bluebell]

Would you like to be... my neighbor? (think Mr. Roberts. He has a nice way of saying that)

I'm pretty sure you mean mr. ROGERS.

and yes, good neighbors are always welcome on my block-here or wherever.

[PacMan]

Paul Ray,

Do you think he might let me pet it?

Stay away from me. You creep me out.

PacMan

P.S. Anything remotely rude that I say, I'll stand behind or apologize for. What have I ever said that was untrue?

Oh that greater vindictor, truth!

[Paul Ray]

Paul Ray,

If you look at the vast amount of information Iâ??m responding to, you may appreciate the lack of pleasantries.

I did read your whole post, and I did see some other things of substance.

I was simply responding to the lack of pleasantries.

Fallacies are fallacies, and if it offends someone to hear me calling them on it, I suggest they not commit the crime or accept it graciously.

I think it helps to suggest that we accept it graciously, since that is what our Lord has told us to do.

I have no problem saying when Iâ??m wrong (I just admitted to David Waltz I was wrong the other day), and how others do the same.

Yes, I noticed that. You admitted a lack of pleasantries. That's commendable.

Iâ??ll pass on your class.

Too late. You're signed up. Class dismissed.

[Anijen]

Yes, I also think it was a pretty high horse.

Do you think he might let me pet it?

I was defending Pacman for his answers. I thought they were great. Am I missing sarcasm here its sometimes to catch that when you read?

[Paul Ray]

Paul Ray,

Stay away from me. You creep me out.

This is me, slowly walking, getting closer to you.

And now I'm going to pet your high horse.

P.S. Anything remotely rude that I say, I'll stand behind or apologize for.

Okay. I am waiting. I'm still waiting.

What have I ever said that was untrue?

Strawman.

That wasn't my point.

I never accused you of being untruthful.

Oh that greater vindictor, truth!

Our Lord extolled the virtues of both grace and truth. Imagine that.

[Paul Ray]

I'm pretty sure you mean mr. ROGERS.

and yes, good neighbors are always welcome on my block-here or wherever.

Doh!

Yeah, that guy.

The guy with the closet of sweaters.

And thank you.

[Son]

Anijen,

Don't fear the PacMan, your wearing a helmet.

[Anijen]

Anijen,

Don't fear the PacMan, your wearing a helmet.

Oh boy, now Im really confused. I fear no man Pacman. I was siding with him and now I find myself defending him... Oh and BTW the helmet used to be for football but alas it is now for me. It helps keep my foot out, helps when I endanger myself with my own logic.

Go Pacman go...

[Chris Smith]

[whisper]pssst... post number 72...[/whisper]

[Son]

Oh boy, now Im really confused. I fear no man Pacman. I was siding with him and now I find myself defending him... Oh and BTW the helmet used to be for football but alas it is now for me. It helps keep my foot out, helps when I endanger myself with my own logic.

Go Pacman go...

Where do I get one of those? I never thought it could be used for that.

hey you ever had a chigger under that helmet? or are they just in Missouri.

[PacMan]

Anijen,

Hehe...thanks for the "cheerleading." Just don't turn in the helmut for a mini-skirt!

But, I really do appreciate it.

PacMan

P.S. If something is incorrect or logically incoherent, isn't the best way to identify it by saying it's "incorrect," or explaining how it's logically incoherent? I guess I can't win...