“I am not your son, and at 62 i am more likely old enough to be your father”
Don’t bet on it.
“Which is a desperate specious and illogical fallacy, as it no only employs a broad use of the term “Protestant” which is akin to calling Hitler a “Christian” as many atheists do, to include those who are fundamentally contrary to what basically defined Protestantism, but you assert “all of your Protestant churches are ordaining and marrying homosexuals,” which is false, as well as placing your church in that camp, not the ones i ID with.”
Ah, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. John Calvin, you may have heard of him. A Protestant. John and Charles Wesley, you may have heard of them. They are generally thought of as Protestants, as is Henry and his reformed Catholic church. I’ll let you figure out what those guys have to do with the churches I mentioned.
And I don’t defend the Anglican church, that’s the difference between you and me. I am a Christian in the Anglican tradition. This is not my club against yours, we are all supposed to be Christians. But you can’t hate your brother and say you love God.
Don’t bet on it.
Then despite being rather close to 80, you are still not my father in any sense of the word. And that you can bet on.
Ah, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. John Calvin, you may have heard of him. A Protestant. John and Charles Wesley, you may have heard of them. They are generally thought of as Protestants, as is Henry and his reformed Catholic church.
No, as you should know by your age, that is not the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, as it was not an argument based on mere rhetoric or arbitrary definition, without reference to any objective standard, but appeals to original historical meaning, which would not sanction ordaining homosexuals (or even women). Or do you really believe your American ecclesiastical cousins are consistent with Calvin etc. in so doing???
Which disallows your logical fallacy that since some modern churches sanction sodomy, then "all of your Protestant churches are ordaining and marrying homosexuals." Thus in your judgment no true Prot church would deny this, while "my Protestant churches " as in "your" certainly do, while it is your ecclesiastical kin that affirm homosexuality!
I’ll let you figure out what those guys have to do with the churches I mentioned.
Which is more fallacious reasoning, as it charges the founders with what there historical descendants did contrary to their moral standards, or else it defines the former by the latter. Do you really believe Calvin and John and Charles Wesley sanctioned sodomite clergy" Meanwhile Henry is of your ecclesiastical heritage , though not much of a theological founder.
And I don’t defend the Anglican church, that’s the difference between you and me.
What nonsense! When did i ever defend a particular church, versus the most conservative Christian faith, in contrast to Rome which you defended? It is YOU who attempted to deal with my refutation of Rome by charging all my Protestant churches are ordaining and marrying homosexuals! And then telling me to clean up "my house," as i was defending or promoting your cousins and the like!
I am a Christian in the Anglican tradition. This is not my club against yours, we are all supposed to be Christians. But you can’t hate your brother and say you love God.
Forgive me for not feeling the love when without warrant you place me and all Prots with liberal apostates, and then construe reproof of elitists Rome and false accusers as hating her members.You want to simply be a Christian in the Anglican tradition, but do not others be one in their distinctive evangelical faith, but place them with liberal apostates based upon specious reasoning. Sounds too much like RCs and liberals themselves.