King james was gay!

[Luddly Neddite]

Apparently the Original poster and some blind followers.

They still haven't given a good reason why we should care about the sex life of a king who died nearly 500 years ago.

At least you aren't trying to deny the historical evidence that has been presented like the ridiculous Uncensored2008 is doing.
Baby steps.

just because evidence exists doesnt mean it's credible. Quite frankly I don't care if it is or not. No one has made any persuasive argument why it matters if it's true. So who cares?

Like I've said before, faith is the willful suspension of intelligent thought.

And, you're welcome to it.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Apparently the Original poster and some blind followers.

They still haven't given a good reason why we should care about the sex life of a king who died nearly 500 years ago.

At least you aren't trying to deny the historical evidence that has been presented like the ridiculous Uncensored2008 is doing.
Baby steps.

just because evidence exists doesnt mean it's credible. Quite frankly I don't care if it is or not. No one has made any persuasive argument why it matters if it's true. So who cares?

On what basis do find the quotations lacking in credibility?
Now, whether it all matters or not, you may have a case there. The fact that the king commissioned a book that condemned him and his behavior is no more interesting than the typical hypocrisy displayed by the average believer. Fairly run-of-the-mill.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, an eduicated person would. You don't know your arse from a hole in the ground.

The righteous indignation doesn't hide your error.

There is no error. Want to read the original Ezekiel? Would the stones his book is written on, taken from his tomb, count? Job is the oldest manuscript to survive.

There was a one hundred year rampage against Christianity following the death of Christ.
Everything Christian was burned, and authors and believers were soaked in oil, hung on poles that were inserted rectally and shoved up along their spine and then were lit to provide light for strolls in the garden. Followers were killed en masse.

Fortunately for us Christianity survived by manuscripts being spread to various locations, and scribes that painstakingly did their job. Don't trust "copies"? Look up the criteria that scribes had to follow. They were precise copies to the letter.

Bruce, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Are you mad at Jesus?

No originals exist, only copies.

 

[guno]

The righteous indignation doesn't hide your error.

There is no error. Want to read the original Ezekiel? Would the stones his book is written on, taken from his tomb, count? Job is the oldest manuscript to survive.

There was a one hundred year rampage against Christianity following the death of Christ.
Everything Christian was burned, and authors and believers were soaked in oil, hung on poles that were inserted rectally and shoved up along their spine and then were lit to provide light for strolls in the garden. Followers were killed en masse.

Fortunately for us Christianity survived by manuscripts being spread to various locations, and scribes that painstakingly did their job. Don't trust "copies"? Look up the criteria that scribes had to follow. They were precise copies to the letter.

Bruce, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Are you mad at Jesus?

No originals exist, only copies.

And a lot of forgeries

Christian Forgeries,

Scrivenings on Controversial Topics in Science, Religion and History: Christian Forgeries, the Endings of the Gospel of Mark, The Implications

and

The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics
Forgery and Counterforgery - Bart D. Ehrman - Oxford University Press

 

[Chuckt]

How do you know it's a reliable representation since there are no original manuscripts, just copies of copies. Have the copies been altered, chapters added or lost? To believe that alterations over the many centuries have not been made for political or religious reason or attempts to clarify passages is bit far fetched. You can only accept on faith that what we have today is the world of God.

So you are going by theory? That means you are going by a theory and theory isn't fact which means you are basing your life on what you don't know.

I am basing it on what we DO know, and discounting your unfounded theories.
I don't know if they are reliable records of the authors original intent. We don't have that data. They might be. How could we prove it? We know absolutely that stories got added to scripture by scribes. We have that proof.
Your theory is "it's what I believe".
You are basing your life on what you don't know, also.
The only difference is I am perfectly comfortable with admitting it.

No because we have the writings of the Church fathers and we could reconstruct the Bible with the writings of the Church fathers.
Second, it isn't just the testimony of one person but many.
Third, you went from a theory to proof. That is amazing.
Fourth, the manuscript families were in four different geographic regions that no one person or group had control over and there is no collusion.
Fifth, we have eyewitness testimony.
Sixth, I think some of the manuscripts got a later date than they should have got.

 

[Chuckt]

There is no error. Want to read the original Ezekiel? Would the stones his book is written on, taken from his tomb, count? Job is the oldest manuscript to survive.

There was a one hundred year rampage against Christianity following the death of Christ.
Everything Christian was burned, and authors and believers were soaked in oil, hung on poles that were inserted rectally and shoved up along their spine and then were lit to provide light for strolls in the garden. Followers were killed en masse.

Fortunately for us Christianity survived by manuscripts being spread to various locations, and scribes that painstakingly did their job. Don't trust "copies"? Look up the criteria that scribes had to follow. They were precise copies to the letter.

Bruce, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Are you mad at Jesus?

No originals exist, only copies.

And a lot of forgeries

Christian Forgeries,

Scrivenings on Controversial Topics in Science, Religion and History: Christian Forgeries, the Endings of the Gospel of Mark, The Implications

and

The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics
Forgery and Counterforgery - Bart D. Ehrman - Oxford University Press

Garbage

 

[thebrucebeat]

No originals exist, only copies.

And a lot of forgeries

Christian Forgeries,

Scrivenings on Controversial Topics in Science, Religion and History: Christian Forgeries, the Endings of the Gospel of Mark, The Implications

and

The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics
Forgery and Counterforgery - Bart D. Ehrman - Oxford University Press

Garbage

Well, that argument certainly overwhelms the citation of one of the preeminent NT scholars in the world.

 

[thebrucebeat]

So you are going by theory? That means you are going by a theory and theory isn't fact which means you are basing your life on what you don't know.

I am basing it on what we DO know, and discounting your unfounded theories.
I don't know if they are reliable records of the authors original intent. We don't have that data. They might be. How could we prove it? We know absolutely that stories got added to scripture by scribes. We have that proof.
Your theory is "it's what I believe".
You are basing your life on what you don't know, also.
The only difference is I am perfectly comfortable with admitting it.

No because we have the writings of the Church fathers and we could reconstruct the Bible with the writings of the Church fathers.
Second, it isn't just the testimony of one person but many.
Third, you went from a theory to proof. That is amazing.
Fourth, the manuscript families were in four different geographic regions that no one person or group had control over and there is no collusion.
Fifth, we have eyewitness testimony.
Sixth, I think some of the manuscripts got a later date than they should have got.

The Church fathers are simply early believers.
What testimony are you referring to?
We have definitive proof stories were added to scripture.
I claimed no collusion.
What eyewitness testimony do you refer to?
You "think" something? Why should anyone care what you "think"?

 

[Chuckt]

And a lot of forgeries

Christian Forgeries,

Scrivenings on Controversial Topics in Science, Religion and History: Christian Forgeries, the Endings of the Gospel of Mark, The Implications

and

The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics
Forgery and Counterforgery - Bart D. Ehrman - Oxford University Press

Garbage

Well, that argument certainly overwhelms the citation of one of the preeminent NT scholars in the world.

So that means you believe a scholar like the Apostle Paul?

Bart goes to a school, loses his faith and attacks Christianity? Right.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Garbage

Well, that argument certainly overwhelms the citation of one of the preeminent NT scholars in the world.

So that means you believe a scholar like the Apostle Paul?

Bart goes to a school, loses his faith and attacks Christianity? Right.

Paul wasn't a scholar.
He was a Pharisee, turned hitman turned apostle.
Ehrman is a scholar, one of extraordinary accomplishment that even his critics acknowledge.
You come back with a one word response.
You make it easy, even compelling, to ignore you.

 

[Chuckt]

And a lot of forgeries

Christian Forgeries,

Scrivenings on Controversial Topics in Science, Religion and History: Christian Forgeries, the Endings of the Gospel of Mark, The Implications

and

The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics
Forgery and Counterforgery - Bart D. Ehrman - Oxford University Press

Garbage

Well, that argument certainly overwhelms the citation of one of the preeminent NT scholars in the world.

Most of the translators were scholars and they translated the Bible because they believed in it.

Every one wants the Apostle Paul experience where someone goes from ignorance to knowing in dramatic fashion. Today it is a scam. Maybe you are willing to fall for a modern day scam?

 

[Chuckt]

Well, that argument certainly overwhelms the citation of one of the preeminent NT scholars in the world.

So that means you believe a scholar like the Apostle Paul?

Bart goes to a school, loses his faith and attacks Christianity? Right.

Paul wasn't a scholar.
He was a Pharisee, turned hitman turned apostle.
Ehrman is a scholar, one of extraordinary accomplishment that even his critics acknowledge.
You come back with a one word response.
You make it easy, even compelling, to ignore you.

Paul was a scholar. You want to claim you know that another scholar is correct while not knowing something about the Apostle Paul? How do you know your "scholar" is telling the truth when you don't know background history behind Paul?

 

[thebrucebeat]

So that means you believe a scholar like the Apostle Paul?

Bart goes to a school, loses his faith and attacks Christianity? Right.

Paul wasn't a scholar.
He was a Pharisee, turned hitman turned apostle.
Ehrman is a scholar, one of extraordinary accomplishment that even his critics acknowledge.
You come back with a one word response.
You make it easy, even compelling, to ignore you.

Paul was a scholar. You want to claim you know that another scholar is correct while not knowing something about the Apostle Paul? How do you know your "scholar" is telling the truth when you don't know background history behind Paul?

Paul studied scripture as an adherent, not a scholar.
There is an enormous difference.
I was a minister. I have a passing acquaintance with Paul, and with Bart.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Garbage

Well, that argument certainly overwhelms the citation of one of the preeminent NT scholars in the world.

Most of the translators were scholars and they translated the Bible because they believed in it.

Every one wants the Apostle Paul experience where someone goes from ignorance to knowing in dramatic fashion. Today it is a scam. Maybe you are willing to fall for a modern day scam?

Maybe.
Maybe Paul did.

 

[Avatar4321]

At least you aren't trying to deny the historical evidence that has been presented like the ridiculous Uncensored2008 is doing.
Baby steps.

just because evidence exists doesnt mean it's credible. Quite frankly I don't care if it is or not. No one has made any persuasive argument why it matters if it's true. So who cares?

Like I've said before, faith is the willful suspension of intelligent thought.

And, you're welcome to it.

If we are going by that definition, you are the most faithful person here.

Unfortunately for you, the definition of faith is quite different.

 

[Avatar4321]

The righteous indignation doesn't hide your error.

There is no error. Want to read the original Ezekiel? Would the stones his book is written on, taken from his tomb, count? Job is the oldest manuscript to survive.

There was a one hundred year rampage against Christianity following the death of Christ.
Everything Christian was burned, and authors and believers were soaked in oil, hung on poles that were inserted rectally and shoved up along their spine and then were lit to provide light for strolls in the garden. Followers were killed en masse.

Fortunately for us Christianity survived by manuscripts being spread to various locations, and scribes that painstakingly did their job. Don't trust "copies"? Look up the criteria that scribes had to follow. They were precise copies to the letter.

Bruce, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Are you mad at Jesus?

No originals exist, only copies.

How do we know that? Would we recognize an original if we had it? How wouldd it differ from a copy?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't understand the lefty obsession with what people do in their own bedrooms.

I personally don't even want to know that leftists KNOW about sex, let alone have to think about them having it. I'd be mightily obliged if they'd shut up about their sex lives.

 

[Cecilie1200]

King James was Gay
How many folks know that King James (who commissioned the King James Bible and to whom it was dedicated) loved men and had sex with them? At the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esme Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esme to the consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and forced to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France.

James's sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying "King Elizabeth" had been succeeded by "Queen James."
- Catherine D. Bowen, The Lion and the Throne

History and Theology: King James was Gay

What's really mind-boggling in all this is why you give a flying fuck, let alone giving enough of a flying fuck to waste time and space triumphantly posting about it. What, precisely, have you proven or won by this? Exactly what in the incredible imposition on the entire rest of humankind that is your worthless existence has this validated?

 

[Cecilie1200]

King James was Gay
How many folks know that King James (who commissioned the King James Bible and to whom it was dedicated) loved men and had sex with them? At the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esme Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esme to the consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and forced to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France.

James's sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying "King Elizabeth" had been succeeded by "Queen James."
- Catherine D. Bowen, The Lion and the Throne

History and Theology: King James was Gay

Who cares?

Apparently the Original poster and some blind followers.

They still haven't given a good reason why we should care about the sex life of a king who died nearly 500 years ago.

Well, Guano seems to think that King James commissioned the Bible to be written, rather than simply commissioning a translation of the Bible into English. Lots of books get translated into lots of languages by lots of people, and last time I checked, the sexual habits of the publishers paying for those translations in no way invalidated the books themselves. The works of William Shakespeare are still the pearl of English literature, whether the CEO of Simon & Shuster is porking the upstairs maid or not.

 

[koshergrl]

I just like to wallow in their ignorance.

What is funny is they really think they know what they're talking about. They have NO IDEA how stupid they look.