How did Christianity go from killing homosexuals to defending them?

Everyone is a sinner who betrays the ideal.

No seriously. Jesus started the institution and simultaneously planted the seed of its downfall.

This.
Christianity, being based on a religion written by ignorant, superstitious shepherds reached the wrong conclusions on a lot of moral questions.
With the progress of science it's become clear that those positions are untenable so they've backtracked. Also they have to pander to the masses.

The ancestral Church is neither Western nor Protestant so I wouldn't know.

Then again every group has big time sell outs in the 2010s.

Above all, to put off their demise as people start realizing hey maybe that's not very nice

Yeah, Copernicus really revolutionized ethics.

Same way it stopped killing people for adultery, idols, and eating shellfish.

Cherry picking and translating the Bible poorly.

Christian lrsfrtd from 6th century would put everyone involved in prosperity ministries to death.

It's become pretty clear now that homosexuality is not a choice and that's definitely part of why it shouldn't be condemned.

The opposite has become clear.

I could be wrong but weren't the only two mentions of homosexuality in the bible about not raping the losing side's soldiers (in the old testament). The second mention of homosexuality was speaking out against male and female prostitution (new testament). Have I read the wrong bible?

Why? I know it's a cliche, but you didn't choose to be straight. Though I could see how someone might think that way if they had to fight their own innate homo tendencies.

Easy test of this. I was on an anti-psychotic called Saprhis. I stopped being interested in having sex with my girl friend and stopped looking at and collecting porn.

After I got off it, I started having sex with her again and even did things I didn't do before like give her oral.

Also started collecting porn again of thicc MILFS.

Also keep in mind while I was on it, I felt that I just didn't want to have sex anymore and I didn't like porn anymore and that this was a choice of free will.

Kind of fucks with you when you think that your life choices is nothing but chemicals.

You sound like you belong in hell.

And with this i now have no idea what the fuck you're arguing. nothing but chemicals?

Oga is not a milf yet

Look. If you can make pill to control your lust and porn addiction, then why not make pills for other sins? And if its chemical, then that leads us to the issue that not everyone is equal when it comes to brain chemistry.

So some people are naturally more likley to be lustful and fuck millions of women until their dick falls off and then some will naturally be chaste.

If we are born unequal in our sin, then how is that fair if we go to hell for it? Also why punish the people who were born centuries ago who did not have the anti-lust pill?

You know the military actually spent money seeing if they could turn people gay with chemical warfare.

>It's become pretty clear now that homosexuality is not a choice
That's the popular narrative. Do you believe in free will?

Because the supposed "LGBT revolution" has, in my experience, shown itself to be nothing more than replacing one attitude about gender (rather than sex) with another.

There's sexual attraction, which is physical and perhaps not a choice. Then there's sexual orientation, which involves questions of consent and 'free love' and what LGBT claim to be about. And then there's gender orientation or attitudes which are fully choices about what constitutes a family. Ideologies about family isn't physical, it's mental. And it all has gone down as a domino affect: conceptions of family, conceptions of sex and feelings of sex. There are many people who aren't necessarily physically gay themselves but encourage this domino effect for ideological reasons.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Actually born unequal in how temptation affects us would be the better wording... Still I have experienced a medication that makes me less likely to sin. How is that free will? Other than choosing whether or not to take the pill?

See

You don't chose your sexual attraction but you choose to act on it.

hate the sin, love the sinner kind of talk

Burning homosexuals was never Christian.

Yeah but it gave them something to do on the weekend

Homosexual Free-Masons infiltrated the Church.

Not written by superstitious shepherds you retard. NT is basically written by Romanized and Hellenized elites. The whole religion became popular because of the Roman upper class.

>Naked faggots waving their junk in your kids face is nice

Dude. I told you about my experience. You can litterally have a pill that takes away your sexual attraction.

Which begs the goddamn question... Does everyone have the same amount of temptation?

If people don't have the same chemical up like clones, then people must have varying amounts of temptation.

Like what if you were born without balls or sex organs? Why do those people get a free pass and people with lots of testosterone don't?

Or does that mean we need to make all babies sexless and only do clone vats to prevent the sin of sex?

And you can use MDMA to make people not be wrathful. Use the CIA drugs to make people tell the truth... And so on...

Your free will is nothing but a lie but chemicals thats make you think ithis is all your doing.

Honestly burning cats is even more fun, and there's infinitely more cats out there than there are faggots.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat-burning

What's the problem?

Don't send them to obnoxious pride parades or Catholic churches then.

Animal trials were even better

>innate homo tendencies.
>implying homosexuality isn't a fetish that can be acquired through exposure

Short answer: Jews

They actually destroyed Christianity by convincing the Vatican to allow usury almost 500 years ago. The destruction of usury was tantamount to the Christian faith/value system of equality and fairness. But, like they always have, the Jews exploited this goodness and now, almost a half millennium later we are still fucking paying for it.

CUNTS

I

>Pr*testants
>Christian

Burning homosexuals was a savage pre-christian practise. Christianity has progressively civilised Europe and the Americas.

>only Catholics molest kids!
>you should just stay indoors if you don't want to see fags performing sexual acts in public!

I'd didn't used to hate fags.

And as the allowing of usury happened, the faith got corrupted and turned into a bureaucracy. Now Christianity is everything Jesus hated, and it's all down to the Jews and their lies

Autism.

Keep /pol/ content on /pol/.

Early Christianity when the Roman Empire was still alive was probably full of repentant buggerers along with the rest of society. It was later with the decline of the empire and civilization that mob justice on deviants became a communal activity along with probable clerical sanctioning. These weren't the only such attitudes to shift or degrade over time. Also the culture of backwoods Romanized Celts and Germanics is a far cry from the culture of Romano-Hellenes in the towns where the epistles were first delivered.

Not arguments or retorts. Just sheer spastic

well we don't defend them in their sins or disordered and inhumane sexual tastes.

the mosaic law which states that homos should be tried by legal authorities and given the death sentence is not applicable under the covenant of christ but if a ruler wanted to enforce those laws to promote morality he is free to do so.

most honest person in the thread

>Christianity go from killing homosexuals

Europeans did
Other Christians still do so

As for why Europeans stopped it is because they're now a bunch of low test cucks

>Christ himself saves an adulteress
>hurr, why aren't Christians stoning these people?

until the 1960s europe still threw homos into jail for practicing homosexuality, porn was also illegal in some jurisdictions.

>Killing people who are declared to be profane by the divine authority
Is NOT the same as
>Carving people's hearts out of their chests and flaying the skin from their flesh because the divine authority declared that you needed to do this so there would be corn next year

And? Straight people act on their sexual urges even though they're suppose to save themselves for marriage. What's your point exactly?

Non sequitur much?

Ironically neither killing nor defending homosexuals are authentically Christian responses to this issue. Genuine Christianity condemns homosexuality as sinful so it does not defend it but neither does it proscribe homosexuals to be killed; those who live an unrepentant lifestyle will have to answer to God and all Christians are called to do is make this truth known.

Is sex before marriage not a sin?

I dunno, many will claim that everything going wrong in the world today is a result of peoples godlessness and sinfulness or God's wrath. Pretty much amounts to the same thing.

I've honestly got to ask, what is so terribly damaging about homosexuals? I don't see why homosexuality is considered this big threat to society that some people view it as.

As far as I can tell they're just doing other people of the same sex.

Muh procreation

they finally realised jesus never killed homosexuals and that maybe they should accept everyone with loving kindness as jesus did

Of course, that's why "living in sin" is a phrase. What does that have to do with butt-banditry?

Butt-banditry doesn't somehow become not a sin through marriage like hetero-sex does.

Jesus didn't accept everyone with loving kindness though just ask the money changers in the temple.

>sin
>spook

pick 2

Homosexuals oppose order and tradition so logically will support politicians that work to dismantle such things leading to the degeneration of society.

You brought it up m8, not me.

Well that was just poor taste, he still didn't say they should be burned alive

>tradition
Of course, it's tradition that keeps them from engaging in the relations they want. Makes sense that they wouldn't like that. I may be a bit biased in that I don't give two fucks about tradition.

>Order
This is what I'm scratching my head over. How are homosexuals a threat to order?

>I may be a bit biased in that I don't give two fucks about tradition.
and that's why you're scratching your head over how homos are a threat to order.

You are opposed to it as well.

He didn't say bandits should be broken on the wheel either but we still did it.

Can you at least elaborate how they are a threat to order?

I really can't see it in the least. Is the civilization really going to fall apart over less than 5% of the population having same sex relationships?

inb4 slippery slope marrying animals and children

It's possible that its a combo of a self-fulfilling prophecy and natural selection of the most depraved.

If you liked guys more than girls but only slightly, you just fucked girls out of fear of punishment. Too much risk in a tiny village where everyone gossips and privacy is limited.

So maybe the people who were gay also had comorbid traits like impulse control disorders that made them vile and hated, thus further reinforcing hatred of visible gays.

Any cultural force that is fundamentally opposed to tradition is a force of disorder, ipso facto.

>I want thing.
>Tradition says I can't have thing.
>Fuck tradition, I'm going to do whatever I want so I can have thing.

If you can't see how people doing whatever they want so they can have thing even when they're not allowed to have thing is fundamental disorderly, there's really not much I can do for you.

My personal hypothesis is that homophobia is an evolved survival trait.

Boys that weren't averse to getting buggered and going gay for pay, failed to attract mates when they grew up because no sensible prehistoric bitch wants to have kids with an effete twink that can't hunt or protect her and only gets meat because he sucks on Og's meat. She can just suck Og's meat for meat herself and cut out the middle-man. This removes prehistoric heteroflexibles from the gene pool, leaving it to be filled by strapping young lads that find the idea of sucking Og's meat repulsive and become violently angry at the idea (because sudden violent aggression is the only sure-fire way to fight off Og's advances after he's had a few too many fermented berries).

This also explains why nobody gives a fuck about lesbians.

But they do give a fuck about lesbians, sorry mate.

Yeah everybody is sinful that doesn't justify any sins

Papal infallibility doctrine is inherently anti-Christian. God and I not me and pope m'kay

It has less to do with Christianity and more to do with economics and the comparative individualism of the west. For someone poor in antiquated times, forming families was a matter of economic prudence, if not necessity. For the wealthy who, while having the money to opt for a gay lifestyle, marriages were crucial, not for love, but for political and business reasons. Even in more relatively tolerant states, buggering other men was something you did on the side; you were still expected to marry. What really started the push for gay rights were the economic prosperity brought about the industrial revolution making gay lifestyles more viable and more importantly, the notion that main purpose of marriage was for love. Comparatively, non-western states have been more resistant owing to their increased collectivism and the idea that one should marry and have kids as a societal duty still holds. As an aside, I theorize that old money elites even in the west still operate on the principle that marriage ought to serve a practical purpose seeing I don't see any of their kind coming out as gay.

To distract from the rich?

Read Nietzsche's thoughts on Christianity.

It's very much the same. "A divinity said we have to kill you. Sucks for you" is what it comes down to, the rest is dressing.

I don't like AIDS and prostate cancer that much.

Actually, human sacrifice was generally somewhere between a public execution (Celts and Aztecs in particular seemed to be fond of sacrificing POWs and the criminal elements) and the metaphysical equivalent of paying protection money to the local branch of the Mafia. A priest (or even group of priests) murdering someone else on their own initiative with the explanation of "God told me to" was still pretty inexcusable in most cultures.

Homosexuality was illegal in Ireland and Germany until 1994

Ye I'll take the helicopter to school then

the issue isn't that the Catholic Church is the only ones to do it, the issue is that they chose to cover it up while claiming the moral high ground.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of AIDS epidemics and sub-replacement fertility.

Lesbians don't procreate, and thus don't contribute to the continuation of the tribe.

they strayed from God's eternal light.
Pope Franciscus will burn for his heresy, make sure you don't follow him.

science began to contradict with the bible so they started to read it figuratively. If you read one part of the bible figuratively you can read any part figuratively and now we ignore bible morals we don't personally agree with.

It takes $400,000 annually to keep one person with AIDs alive. Less than 2% of the population (i.e. Gay men) is responsible for 67% of the new AIDs infections each year. And of course, STD infections reached an all-time high this year.

They're disgusting, they spread disease like wildfire and would rather die of AIDs than give up their weekly anonymous bath house chem-sex orgies, but instead of just dying, they lied about how anyone could get AIDs and fooled us into paying to keep their worthless asses alive.

helloo fedora

Who cares, since neither is the Christian position.

>science began to contradict with the bible
Never happened.

*publishes on the origin of the species*
heh, nothing pesonal christianity