OK I admit this guy is a scholar so he uses words and phrases that are sometimes hard for me to follow with my limited education. But I do understand enough to follow what he is saying. Charley Kirk is full of shit on what he thinks they bible says because he is letting his own bigotry and prejudices create what the passages mean for him rather than research it with people more knowledgeable. Jesus and the bible were not against homosexuality as we understand it because they did not see sexuality and sex acts the same way we do. The sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality and men wanting to take a higher sexual role than angels. The people of the time of the bible were like young macho men types today, worried about what looked manly enough, and putting your penis in someone regardless of sex was manly. But the person who took another person in them was not, they were lessor. Women were viewed as lessor, inferior, and so were men that took another male’s penis inside them. It was not about pleasure or love, it was all about status. One thing I like about this guy is he freely admits the bible is context driven and doesn’t know what we know and understand today, that in some areas the morals we have today are superior to that of the bibles for example slavery. Hugs.
Scottie's Playtime 