[sionnsar]

[I don't think the author quite carries off his attempt to be "fair." --sionnsar]

[sionnsar]

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this list.
This is a moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-7 pings/day).

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com

[Chad Fairbanks]

I'm sorry, I wasn't listening...

[N. Theknow]

One can’t simply repeat that the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals is non-biblical; plenty of what has become common practice was once deemed unbiblical. One can’t invoke the Vincentian canon quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (“that which is believed everywhere, at all times, by all”), not unless one wants to roll back the ordination of women and the possibility of remarriage after divorce (to name but two prominent non-universal points).

I can't find in my Bible where God destroyed any cities for having women priests or laid waste any urban centers for allowing divorced couples to remarry.

I am also quite perturbed with "supposedly" learned people comparing homosexuality to being female, divorced and/or black.

When was being female or black ever a sin?

[WashingtonSource]

Any group that calls itself "thinking Anglicans" is, by definition, the opposite.

For starters, one has to recognize that they assume that those against their views are non-thinking Anglicans. Such condescension.

One must assume they view those who disagree with "thinking" Anglicans are people who are probably fervent in their faith. That can't be tolerated by "thinking" Anglicans.

The "thinking" Anglican writing these screed would also appear to be one who views those who think differenlty from himself as orthodox in doctrine (fundamentalist).

Thus, one arrives at what "thinking" Anglicans really means: heterodox revisionists who look down their noses at people who believe the basic tenets of Christianity.

Such a view is, in and of itself, a non-thinking, stereotype devised to make the person with that point of view feel superior to the persons being described. Thus, in the end, "thinking" Anglicans are just the opposite: a bunch of hard-line revisionists who have adopted secular Marxism as their base point for truth.

Real thinking Anglicans throughout history hever had to describe themselves as such. It was obvious that they were thinking Anglicans.

Reminds me a revisionist rector who said they he didn't expect people to "leave their minds at the door." He did, in fact, expect that. He expected orthodox believers to leave their minds at the door so that he could feel the empty minds with revisionist rhetoric.

Interesting that this "thinking" Anglican is beginning to observe the truth: that his position and that of the orthodox believer are mutually exclusive and, thus, one of them must be wrong.