If one church allows married LGBT priests and another church

>which church is right?
That depends on how you measure it. If you're a doctrinaire christian then you look at how closely their actions resemble biblical law, which in this case it doesn't. If, however, you're a more progressive, interpretative christian then you look for a parity in treatment between straight parishioners and clergy and LGBT ones. in which case this would be right.

File: P1040104.jpg (49KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 400x300px

>>2625189

Are "interpretive" Christians' souls damned?

>>2625189
The only case where LGBT priests would be allowed is under an oath before God of lifetime celibacy and renunciation.

I would argue that because LGBT is identity politics, and renunciation would require one to reject that identity, that no such oath could work.

>>2625197
Again, we have no way of knowing this for certain. You can argue it either way, scripture is decidedly vague and both sides can quote it, in the end no one truly knows who is damned or saved except for God and His Prophet (PBUH).

>>2625203

LGBT priests are allowed in some Anglican congregations under the logic that they already allow straight married priests so it's not too much of an exception. But is the lack of celibacy in general counter to the point of them being priests devoted to spreading the word of God in Christ?

>>2625203
Except Leviticus is not viewed as relevant biblical doctrine anymore. It certainly isn't practiced as written by any Christian sect not immediately condemned as a cult.

>>2625206
His prophet? Your not a towel head are you? I think you mean his son.

>>2625207
>>2625214
anything i dont like is le cult

Who cares about Anglicans, it formed because some turd wanted to centralize power and get a divorce without having to actually change the culture much

>>2625223

Religion is inherently political

Any deacon or priest that marries two homosexuals is sinning. The new and Old Testaments both condemn it. The New Testament verses can be a little ambiguous because of how Greek is translated but it's pretty clear honestly. Now that homosexuality is accepted in the mainstream a lot of christians are trying to find ways to interpret these verses differently, but it's mostly grasping at straws.

>>2625223

Orthodox priests are also a-okay to be married as long as it's a hetero marriage

so is celebacy or non the real outlier?

>>2625226
Wrong

>>2625233
Hetero marriage is fine, homo marriage is not because it is inherently a sodomious marriage.

A gay man or any other varation can be a priest, even if he is not a virgin, if he makes a serious vow of celibacy. Otherwise, I cannot see how it can be permitted.

>>2625234
No you are wrong.

>>2625234

Half the old Testament is about a tribe's various wars and the model behavior of their chieftans and kings. Much of the New Testament is about Christ unifying peoples despite their differences.

All sounds political.

>>2625250
t. doesn't understand politics

>>2625254

KING Solomon and KING David. Political titles. God is LORD. also political.

>>2625214
Why wouldn't it apply? God's law is eternal, it doesn't change.

>>2625277
It changed several times throughout the bible. Do you still sacrifice animals in the temple?

>>2625277
That's Pharisee talk. Jesus himself denounced several Old Testament practices.

all of the big religions are allowing it. you can't read a nigga's mind

>>2625179
>If one church allows married LGBT priests and another church doesn't, which church is right?

The one that doesn't.

>Are married priests in general ok with God?

Yes, look at the Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Churches (or Eastern Christianity in general). The Latin Church has the unique tradition of all priests being celibate (with very rare exceptions).

>>2625179
the non-lgbt church obviously.

>>2625258
No, wrong, sorry.
>Judaism is the only religion

Anglicanism is a total mess. They have no central authority to standardize doctrine and practice. They don't even have patriarchs like the Orthodox do. Different dioceses and sees in the Communion have wildly different practices. They even have two different names around the world (Anglican/Episcopal).

It's a complete shitshow, and I think it's a big part of why Anglicanism in the west is a mess these days. It's also why Pope Francis trying to introduce localized practices into the Catholic Church is so dangerous.

>>2625179
>Are married priests in general ok with God?
funny thing is that we know that in the early church priests were often married. part of the community was usually celebate but this wasn't neccisarily those in positions of authority within the church.