Discussion in 'Christianity' started by wil, Jun 30, 2015.
Truth? Revisionist history? Vicious rumor?
Does it matter?
I think true. There's a lot of contemporary evidence and not just from people opposed to the king and his favourites. Matters in what way? For the history of homosexuality, for the King James Bible, for English politics?
I read a book on this topic years ago by Michael Young titled King James and the History of Homosexuality.
I simply find it interesting.... something I was never aware of. I suppose it gives credence to him and the KJV that he didn't insist anything be changed...being King and all.
Was it common place knowledge during his time?
From what I remember of Young's book it was common knowledge at court but not too widely known among the vast majority of people outside of the court. James did a good job of keeping his wife pregnant, so maybe gay isn't the best way to describe him. Bi-sexual perhaps?
Never thought there could be a discussion on such topic, personally I think it does not matter whether he was gay or not.
Whether being gay changes the outlook or image ? could be so, but not for me..
There could and maybe should be discussion on whatever anyone questions...I imagine there was much more discussion prior to books and articles being written....I just missed it.
The man commissioned a re-examining of the biblical translations, gathering a huge number of scholars at the time and the KJV holds a high place still for many in the realm of bible translations. I've often heard said that the King Jame's Version is the only true version many times over my years...I am simply surprised to find a fellow who has sex with men worked so diligently on a book that said he should be stoned...
I wonder if the interpretation of that was different than it is with literal fundamentalists today.
Different times. People didn't publicly come out of the closet in those days. Everyone may have known, but he didn't want it talked about.
Actually, I suspect it had little to do with it, beyond funding it.
I find the concept that "the King Jame's Version is the only true version" utterly bizarre. Here's a translation of a translation of a translation. Yes, I can understand a church standardizing on it because that's what most of the congregation grew up on, and also because it's very beautiful as literature. But neither of those make it the one true version.
"I wonder if the interpretation of that was different than it is with literal fundamentalists today." There's probably more of an emphasis on the anti-gay passages with today's fundamentalists. There are maybe 12 references to homosexuality in the Bible. Today, listening to some of the fundies, you might think it's all about that.
btw, I'm pretty sure that man/man sex was a capital crime in 17th-century England. But no one was going to try and arrest the king for that. Or even bring up the subject.
It is my understanding that squires trying for knighthood and the casting couch were quite common.... while being homosexual was one thing...forcing sex from a servant...that wasn't gay... I did find this.. http://www.rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/molly2.htm
I think it might be the other way around, wil, seeing homosexuality as a sexual orientation is a new thing. I remember an old article about the homosexual community in the 50s, there where not homosexuals and heterosexuals but "queers" and "real men", but it was not uncommon for the latter to engage in homosexuality. It was the demeanour or attitude that was observed.
In older text it is only the act that is discussed and it lives on in the traditionally minded. I think it becomes a great gap between those who celebrate homosexuality and the "traditional" that don't because they are essentially talking about two different things.
Separate names with a comma.