The Landover Baptist Church Forum - King James VI and I: a Homosexual Gay! What Was Jesus Thinking?!

The Landover Baptist Church Forum (https://www.landoverbaptist.net/forumindex.php)

- Christian history forum (https://www.landoverbaptist.net/forumdisplay.php?f=18)

- - King James VI and I: a Homosexual Gay! What Was Jesus Thinking?! (https://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=114790)

King James VI and I: a Homosexual Gay! What Was Jesus Thinking?!

Quote:

At the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esmé Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esmé 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.

Later, James fell in love with a poor young Scotsman named Robert Carr. “The king leans on his [Carrʼs] arm, pinches his cheeks, smooths his ruffled garment, and when he looks upon Carr, directs his speech to others.”
—Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, in a letter, 1611
Jamesʼs 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

Then, there's the character witness of effeminacy and clearly "gay" physique.

Quote:

A physical weakling, as an adolescent James had shown himself to be a coward, who liked only to hunt, to read (which he did, prodigiously) and to talk. To protect himself he wore thick quilted doublets, so padded that they provided a kind of armor against any assassin who might attack him with a knife. When he revealed a sexual preference for men, falling in love with his cousin Esmé Stewart and elevating him to a position of authority on the royal council...

As he aged James indulged his preference for handsome men, living apart from his wife. His doting fondness was part paternal, part erotic; he called his favorite George Villiers “sweet child and wife” and referred to himself as “your dear dad and husband.” But to his courtiers, the sight of the aging, paunchy, balding monarch, who according to one court observer had a tendency to drool, leaning on his paramours was utterly repellant.

A portrait of the teenage James clearly shows these tendencies.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0%2C_1586..jpg

A later portrait still clearly shows these tendencies.

http://scotlandsmary.com/images/Jame...Scotland02.png

It is extremely hard to accept but, as Capps and Carlin note, most of the rebuttals are circular reasoning of the kind "James was a man of God so he could not have been a gay homosexual because men of God are not gay homosexuals". In a vivid passage the authors show how desperate the opposition can be in their rationalization.

Quote:

If, for example, we knew that James fondled Villiers, we can easily imagine Coston responding: “Just because James and Villiers stroked each other’s penises does not mean that James had homosexual tendencies. Skin is only skin, after all, and in James’s time this was just like shaking hands, a common practice in the English court. Moreover, many men in England and Europe did the same. Do you seriously think that they, too, had homosexual tendencies?”

Who were the sodomite lovers of King James? Let us see!

Esmé Stuart. The object of the 13-year-old James's affections. Clearly a "bear" sodomite, whom the adolescent James must have found irresistible.

http://www.maryqueenofscots.net/wp-c...nox.square.jpg

Robert Carr, first earl of Somerset (and we all know that Somerset Maugham was a gay man, too), the Groom of James's Bedchamber. Jesus H. Christ! See the wide eyes ready to ogle the unmentionable treasures of young or old James.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...OfSomerset.jpg

George Villiers, Gentleman of the Bedchamber (:fear2:) and ultimately the Earl (1st) of Buckingham. See the forward-leaning jaw ready to engulf the male organ of James into oral stimulation.

http://spartacus-educational.com/00buckingham2.jpg

A swarm of gaydom not unlikely the following centuries on the UK throne. Why or why did Jesus choose this man to be the messenger of His most precious Words? Words that in their still ortographically incomplete 1611 form included this cherished verse!

Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leauing the naturall vse of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another, men with men working that which is vnseemely, and receiuing in themselues that recompense of their errour which was meet.

Why? Let us think! And Pray! Mostly Pray! By transmitting these wonderful words through a well-known sodomite Jesus, in fact, made His message even more reliable. If a manly womanizer with healthy ovulation-synchronized conjugal bed manners had produced the beautiful verses condemning homosexuality, it would have been passed as totally uneventful. But by making a gay effeminate "bottom" order the production of these lines, Jesus enforced the apparent Truth™ value of these sweet verses. Why would a sodomite condemn his own behavior if Jesus did not intervene? he did. He chose just the right bi-curious creature to spread His Good News. A homosexual condemning his own kind is much more powerful as a testimony than the words of a man who selflessly mounts women despite all the mess and discomfort. This great tradition is ongoing. The most powerful testimonies for Jesus are those who publicly tell how they were cured by prayer. That is the best evidence.

Why 1611? It could not have been earlier as the American tongue was not perfect enough to contain such grandiose prose. Why not a bit later to avoid the ortographical mess? Because many tens, even dozens of souls would have been lost had Jesus chosen to procrastinate. King James. A sodomite, yet the perfect man for the job. Obviously, it is unlikely that we shall meet him in Heaven but we can watch from the lookout spot (Luke 16:26) how he and his lovers receive the endless rectal ripping from Satan and his minions.

https://celticrebel.files.wordpress....qkingjames.jpg

:praise:

Yours in Christ,

Elmer :bye:

Re: King James VI and I: a Homosexual Gay! What Was Jesus Thinking?!

Pastor White, this long and highly researched revelation behind the best book ever written is tearing me apart inside, and yet it makes our Christian history all the more colorful by learning all the uncomfortable truths.

Re: King James VI and I: a Homosexual Gay! What Was Jesus Thinking?!

I'm reminded of Isaiah (55:8-11) when pondering the ways of the Lord. We've known for quite some time that the English were a nation of pooftas - and when you think about it, where else could you find men willing to get on sailing ships for months at a time without any women. These poofta sailors were critical in bringing settlers to America in the first British colonies. When the time was right the real manly men stood up and told King George where to stuff it.

Quote:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

- Isaiah 55:8-11

Re: King James VI and I: a Homosexual Gay! What Was Jesus Thinking?!

Some people think you can't see if someone is gay. But some people can not even tell if they are a man or woman.

Re: King James VI and I: a Homosexual Gay! What Was Jesus Thinking?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White (Post 1233577)

https://s26.postimg.cc/iva5ob0nd/kingjamesgay.jpg

The King James Bible. The One and Only. The 100% accurate transmission of the Word of God, of Jesus Christ in the original American, just as Jesus meant it to be. First distributed in the barbaric vernaculars of Greek and Latin until eventually restored to its perfect Celestial form by the order of King James VI and I in 1611.

We all know it and love and Cherish it as the Ultimate Guidebook for Life, Universe and Everything. However, modern Creation Science has proven that the man responsible for this - arguably the most awesome deed after Jesus's selfless temporary self-sacrifice - was a homosexual gay. The evidence is overwhelming. King James was a rampaging fatally femme queer who began his fornicatory exploration at the tender age of 13 and continued his rectal romps until his death from dysentery, a fitting end of bloody diarrhea for a sodomite. First, we shall examine the proof and then we shall assess why Jesus saw it fitting to channel His most perfect collection of writings through a gay homosexual.

The proof:
The best and most authoritative research article on the issue is the classic "The Homosexual Tendencies of King James: Should this Matter to Bible Readers Today?" by Donald Capps and Nathan Steven Carlin. In addition, several other prestigious texts provide information about the sodomite nature of King James as follows:
Then, there's the character witness of effeminacy and clearly "gay" physique.
A portrait of the teenage James clearly shows these tendencies.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0%2C_1586..jpg

A later portrait still clearly shows these tendencies.

http://scotlandsmary.com/images/Jame...Scotland02.png

It is extremely hard to accept but, as Capps and Carlin note, most of the rebuttals are circular reasoning of the kind "James was a man of God so he could not have been a gay homosexual because men of God are not gay homosexuals". In a vivid passage the authors show how desperate the opposition can be in their rationalization.
Who were the sodomite lovers of King James? Let us see!

Esmé Stuart. The object of the 13-year-old James's affections. Clearly a "bear" sodomite, whom the adolescent James must have found irresistible.

http://www.maryqueenofscots.net/wp-c...nox.square.jpg

Robert Carr, first earl of Somerset (and we all know that Somerset Maugham was a gay man, too), the Groom of James's Bedchamber. Jesus H. Christ! See the wide eyes ready to ogle the unmentionable treasures of young or old James.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...OfSomerset.jpg

George Villiers, Gentleman of the Bedchamber (:fear2:) and ultimately the Earl (1st) of Buckingham. See the forward-leaning jaw ready to engulf the male organ of James into oral stimulation.

http://spartacus-educational.com/00buckingham2.jpg

A swarm of gaydom not unlikely the following centuries on the UK throne. Why or why did Jesus choose this man to be the messenger of His most precious Words? Words that in their still ortographically incomplete 1611 form included this cherished verse!

Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leauing the naturall vse of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another, men with men working that which is vnseemely, and receiuing in themselues that recompense of their errour which was meet.

Why? Let us think! And Pray! Mostly Pray! By transmitting these wonderful words through a well-known sodomite Jesus, in fact, made His message even more reliable. If a manly womanizer with healthy ovulation-synchronized conjugal bed manners had produced the beautiful verses condemning homosexuality, it would have been passed as totally uneventful. But by making a gay effeminate "bottom" order the production of these lines, Jesus enforced the apparent Truth™ value of these sweet verses. Why would a sodomite condemn his own behavior if Jesus did not intervene? he did. He chose just the right bi-curious creature to spread His Good News. A homosexual condemning his own kind is much more powerful as a testimony than the words of a man who selflessly mounts women despite all the mess and discomfort. This great tradition is ongoing. The most powerful testimonies for Jesus are those who publicly tell how they were cured by prayer. That is the best evidence.

Why 1611? It could not have been earlier as the American tongue was not perfect enough to contain such grandiose prose. Why not a bit later to avoid the ortographical mess? Because many tens, even dozens of souls would have been lost had Jesus chosen to procrastinate. King James. A sodomite, yet the perfect man for the job. Obviously, it is unlikely that we shall meet him in Heaven but we can watch from the lookout spot (Luke 16:26) how he and his lovers receive the endless rectal ripping from Satan and his minions.

https://celticrebel.files.wordpress....qkingjames.jpg

:praise:

Yours in Christ,

Elmer :bye:

Brother Elmer, this story has been having my mind racing for a while, knowing the man who ordered this translation of the Bible to happen is some homer has been eating me up, but I guess it's better to know the truth than to live a lie!

Re: King James VI and I: a Homosexual Gay! What Was Jesus Thinking?!

In my earlier post I included something of the history surrounding the KJV. It so happens that I've almost completed my fabric selection for this year, there are some great designs around just now especially prints in different combinations, but I've been looking for a heavier material suited to Winter designs coming up to Christmas. The portrait of King James impressed me, especially the lower portion of his outfit. Artists back then were quite accurate and I noticed the following details:

A lovely winter-weight fabric from the King's upper thigh.
Teamed up with some more vivid hues this would make a
wonderful winter cape. Possibly available from Thailand??
http://www.23hq.com/23666/43456902_c...0_standard.jpg

Shoes perhaps a little overstated for Christian gentlemen. Cordwainers of the day had
different design criteria I guess. The overall scheme here would make a delightful hat!
http://www.23hq.com/23666/43456706_d...1_standard.jpg

The King stood firm against the Jesuits and came through with an Bible everyone could read. I think that is very masculine and reflected in his pansied breeches. Pansying refers to bold slashes in a fabric allowing the lining to show through NOT carving up one's jeans with a box cutter to reveal your iridescent zentai suit or, in the case of goths, a fluoro mankini which they probably wear I don't know I've never investigated. Certainly King James would never have bought one. Or a zentai suit. The vatican tried everything. Tried and failed. King James pulled it off surmounting the wiles of cardinals and threats from Romish armies which very likely included disinformation on many fronts. Some clothing, which I won't describe, is overtly insulting to God but more generally He has explained to us to look beyond the clothes and in this case we have the results still with us.

I Samuel 16:7 The LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

Re: King James VI and I: a Homosexual Gay! What Was Jesus Thinking?!

The question of a “Gaydom” of King James I/IV has long been discussed and dismissed. These lies must be set against a the background of a Roman Catholic plot to unseat the King and restore the Satanic power of Rome that did not come to an end until William of Orange defeated James’s son at the Battle of the Boyne and some degree of spiritual sanity was restored to Great Britain.

King James was as godly as they come – hence he was the vessel through which God spoke in response to the prayers of those oppressed by the Whore of Babylon, the Vicar of Rome. These rumors of his “coming in through the cat-flap” are not so different from the fake news broadcast by the liberal media against President Trump.

About 60 years ago, I wrote a short Monograph entitled “King James – Masculine Hero and Spiritual Guide – The 17th Century Prophet.” (The publication is sadly out of print, probably due to what must have been such a huge demand that the printing press broke.)

Fortunately, I recall the details so allow me to apply them and tell the Godly Truth about King James:

At the age ofthirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esmé Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esmé 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.

Any fool can see that “Esmé” is a girl’s name. This is the basic sort of mistake that any foreigner may make with names.

Later, James fell in love with a poor young Scotsman named Robert Carr. “The king leans on his [Carrʼs] arm,pinches his cheeks, smooths his ruffled garment, and when he looks upon Carr,directs his speech to others.”
—Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, in a letter, 1611

Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk was later burned as a Catholic – he had been a spy and propaganda master for Rome and met the fate he deserved. “Robert Carr” is, in fact, the name of a choirboy whom Howard regularly buggered.

Jamesʼs 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

This was written in 20th century and cannot be trusted at all. The other thing to note is that Sir Walter Raleigh lived on a diet of potatoes and smoked 2 ounce of tobacco a day – rendering him famous for being senile of 20 years before his death. He had a pet tortoise called “Fluff”!

A physicalweakling, as an adolescent James had shown himself to be a coward, who liked only to hunt, to read (which he did, prodigiously) and to talk. To protect himself he wore thick quilted doublets, so padded that they provided a kind of armor against any assassin who might attack him with a knife. When he revealed a sexual preference for men, falling in love with his cousin Esmé Stewart and elevating him to a position of authority on the royal council...

As he aged James indulged his preference for handsome men, living apart from his wife. His doting fondness was part paternal, part erotic; he called his favorite George Villiers “sweet child and wife” and referred to himself as “your dear dad and husband.” But to his courtiers, the sight of the aging, paunchy, balding monarch, who according to one court observer had a tendency to drool, leaning on his paramours was utterly repellent.

It is always difficult to argue against personal preferencesbut the author of that piece (i) commits the same error of mistaking “Esmé” fora male name and (ii) has left “James” unidentified. We must ask ourselves “Of whom does he speak?” “How many people called “James” were there in Britain at the time?”

If, for example, we knew that James fondled Villiers, we can easily imagine Coston responding: “Just because James and Villiers stroked each other’s penises does not mean that James had homosexual tendencies. Skin is only skin, after all,and in James’s time this was just like shaking hands, a common practice in the English court. Moreover, many men in England and Europe did the same. Do you seriously think that they, too, had homosexual tendencies?”

This quote was a central part of my monograph. The proof that all this “Fake News” was “Fake News” lies in [b]If, for example, we knew that James fondled Villiers, we can easily imagine[/b]

This is a fallacy of the first order – “Begging the question”- it asks us to imagine something were true and then goes on to prove that itis true because we believe it, and thus everything that follows is true. We can "imagine" anything, yet this does not make it true.
As someone famous once said: "It never happened, folks - it never happened."

_______________________________________________

I suggest that the only way to see King James is through God’sEyes: if God trusted King James, then I would be happy to share a tent withhim. :thumbsup:

Re: King James VI and I: a Homosexual Gay! What Was Jesus Thinking?!

THE REAL STORY OF KING JAMES I

WAS KING JAMES REALLY THE UNGODLY MAN THAT HIS MODERN CRITICS PROCLAIM HIM TO BE?

By Dr. Phil Stringer
Landmark Baptist College Press
810 East Hinson Avenue, Haines City, FL 33844***:link: provided by moderator.***

***unnecessary copy-pasting of the link above removed by moderator***

Re: King James VI and I: a Homosexual Gay! What Was Jesus Thinking?!

In your earlier post, quoting from EnterThe Bible, although you didn't link to your source, we saw that it promoted the heretical NRSV.
Perhaps in your introduction you could include a comment on that (and other) translations.
If they actually are translations.
Here for example is a passage from The actual Bible:

MATTHEW 18 .KJV . look up
10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

Jesus did not come to save sheep. He ate sheep. He did compare mistaken people, or wilfully ignorant heretics, to lost sheep. That does not mean He intended to eat them.

Now let's have a look at the NRSV:

Quote:

MATTHEW 18 .NRSV . look up
10 "Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones; for, I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven.
. .:blink:
12 What do you think? If a shepherd has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray?

Christians know that Jesus came to save that which was lost. Because that's what The Bible teaches. God did not make a mistake when He included Matthew 18:11 in The Bible.

The Bible is The Word of God. For those revisers, God did make a mistake. You may like to compare another heretic's "Bible" the NIV, included here for reference only.

Quote:

MATTHEW 18 .NIV . look up
10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.
. .https://www.landoverbaptist.net/images/medals/drugs.gif
12 “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?

Can you see the problem, omitting such an important idea? Why do you think anyone would remove such a verse from Matthew's Gospel? If you could address this point in your intro., that'd be great.