James I
Offline It just occured to me while reading the hate post from self-proclaimed 'good Christans' the sheer number of anti-gay references they use especialy among the KJV bible wavers.
The great Irony here is that James Stuart of Scotland, Theologian & King, instigater and namesake of the KJV was blatently homosexual. Starting at puberty apperently with a French noble named D'Aubigny Lennex. Lennox helped James murder the regent Earl of Morton and rose to prominence after helping James become Jame VI of Scotland. Other male lovers became prominent as well.
His first boyfriend has King of England was a Scotsman named Robert Carr who quickly rose to become Lord Chamberlain and the Earl of Somerset. Sleeping your way to the top was AOK with King James. Somerset was even convicted of murdering his male secretary but got off with a light punishment because of (dare I say it) his connection to the royal seat of power. Carr has Somerset lost his influence with James but he was married off to the ex-wife of the Earl of Essex.
James had meny male lovers, He desolved his second parliment in 1619 because they didn't like paying for the lifestyle of his meny favorites. His last boyfriend was an English lad named George Viliers, who became the Duke of Buckingham and was still highly influencial in forgien affairs under (straight) Charles I.
James married a woman Princess Anne of Denmark and had six children. But he found her "...boring, friviolous and stupid. " (big surprise right?)
According to historical editor Antonia Fraser "He was a learned theologian who had an original belief in witchcraft (?) but was persuaded finally of its falsity. ....he was vain, lazy and too fond of his own voice. He allowed himself to be increasingly imposed upon by his male favorites while he ...'piqued himself on his great contempt of women'.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
- Login to post comments
Good old Queen Jimmy. Most of the KJO (that's King James Only to the uninitiated) folks answer your charge with "No he wasn't." and back it up with...nothing? Well, they almost always mention a single historian who was the sole source for such a heinous lie, but the fact of the matter (as you well know) was that the succession of favorites and the "contempt of women" were remarked upon by persons during his own lifetime. As a matter of fact, if you talk to readers of the so-called "corrupted Bibles"--the NIV or even the New King James, they have no problem with the fact that James was gay. And so they shouldn't--the Bible in every translation reminds people no to put their faith in individual men and in any case, James Stuart didn't do any of the translating from Erasmus's Textus Receptus himself--the effort was taken up by a group of men under the direction of a Greek scholar named Lancelot Andrewes. And yes, their "original" Greek text dates back to the Renaissance. As a matter of fact Erasmus lost the last page of Revelation before submitting it and simply grabbed a (Latin) Catholic Vulgate and retranslated to Greek from that.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
Remember that James Stuart was a highly reguarded theologian by his contemperarys and historians alike. In short -- he knew his stuff--. It is very unlikely he wrote even one word of the KJV bible, he was far to lazy for that. But he often debated religion, He-- James-- insisted on a proper translation, likely has only a flaming queen could insist.
Was/is there a gay slant in the KJV bible? (1) James hired and ok'd the scholers involved. James AOK'D screwing your way to the top especialy if he were the screwee. That's the pro gay slant; now read (2).
(2) James I was far too much a theologian and his hirelings, no matter how good in bed they were, were far too much the scholers to slant anything. The KJV bible was and is about as honest a translation as one could get in early 1600's England, which makes it 400 years out of date but not gay slanted.
Unless any readers disagree with me, please speak up.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Of course James I/IV wasn't the first king of England to be openly homosexual. Edward II was also openly homosexual. He had a lover Gaveston who was of much lower birth, and greatly annoyed the nobles by lavishing titles on him. I'm not that familiar with the history here, I must say that Medieval History isn't really an interest of mine. I studied Marlowe's play Edward II back in my A levels and did a little bit of research which seemed to suggest that like in the play Eddy was gay.
Atheist Books
I remember that play. Edward gets killed with a red hot fireplace poker up his ass, does he not?
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
Yeah, it's pretty graphic I recall.
Atheist Books
I needed ths bump for anotheer post. But please add to the discussion.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
That's ok, I know the feeling.
[lie]Well, see.. a buncha "Damn dirty apes" talking about being sodomized to death with a hot poker simply for being gay... makes me a wittle queasy in my wittle stomach[/lie]
Actually, it was a pretty efficient manner of assassination back in the Middle Ages, precisely because (if done correctly) it was nearly impossible to investigate. It would appear like some member of Royalty just "stopped breathing" in the middle of the night.
"KJV" is basically why "White Anglo Saxon Protestant" or "WASP" was coined into popular usage. Does anything more need to be said?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)