This (creative, expletive-based adjectives) man was in the news recently spewing ignorance of the Bible from the pulpit that is commonly found in rural, racist, white America.
He states, and I quote:
“God has instilled the power of civil government to send the police in 2019 out to the LGBT freaks and arrest them and have a trial for them, and if they are convicted, then they are to be put to death.”
This guy needs a big warm and fuzzy hug from a 300+ pound sweaty gay man. I would pay to see that happen; I really would.
Personally, I’m not gay. But I think that everyone should be able to love whoever he or she wants to regardless of gender. And I really don’t care what anybody’s “holy book” says about it. I don’t care if somebody marries a chair. Who am I to say who or what they can love or not love?
Christians today are listening to politicians. They’re not listening to the Bible. They’re not listening to whatever God is. They’re not listening to Jesus, whom they proclaim is their Lord.
This um, man, has inspired me to tackle the topic of homosexuality in the Bible. No easy task. And this may offend people, but frankly, I don’t care about that. I not writing articles on this blog to make friends or tiptoe around on eggshells. I’m doing it to tell the truth of what the Bible is trying to tell you on a deeper spiritual level. If you read it literally, you get religion. If you read it spiritually, the way it tells you to read it, then you get to see that it’s a roadmap for the soul. Deeply spiritual, deeply symbolic, deeply allegorical, and all about you. Isn’t that nice?
To start with, we need to show actual proof of how gay King James was. You know, the man that was in charge of the putting together the 1611 King James Version of the Bible? Yeah, that guy. And the funny part is that we have extensive proof of it!
King James was a very proud and very openly gay man. Often touching and caressing his loved one in public. Sir Walter Raleigh even joked about it, saying “King Elizabeth” had been succeeded by “Queen James.”
His first love was a Frenchman man named Esme Stuart. This relationship of fourteen years has been well documented. The two became extremely close and it was said by an English observer that “from the time he was 14 years old and no more, that is, when Lord Stuart came into Scotland… even then he began… to clasp someone in the embraces of his great love, above all others” and that James became “in such love with him as in the open sight of the people often he will clasp him about the neck with his arms and kiss him”.
But his true, once-in-a-lifetime, undying love was the Duke of Buckingham, George Villiers.
Anyone who thinks this is poppycock needs to read “King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire” by David Bergeron. King James’ tomb actually lies right beside that of Villiers’ in Westminster Abbey, as a clear representation of how close they were. Need more proof? Keep reading.
In a letter dated to 1617 from James to George, we get a true sense of the depths of their love:
“I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George.”
That is only one of the letters he wrote. We have many more but there really isn’t a need, is there? That one seems pretty clear.
But what really caught my eye was the reference to “Christ had his John, and I have my George.” James firmly believed that Jesus was gay. Why would he think that? If you are a literalist and fundamentalist and don’t want disturbing mental imagery to invade your next church service, I suggest you stop here.
James thought Jesus was gay because he was interpreting the Bible literally or “of the letter.” I’m not saying Jesus was gay. I’m just pointing to the evidence of why King James believed so. Here is the evidence that Jesus and John had a very close relationship:
First, I want you to look at the image of the Last Supper and read the passages that follow below.
John 20 1-2 (KJV)
20 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
The image of the Last Supper by DaVinci, who was also gay, was the inspiration for the movie “The DaVinci Code”, where it was believed that Mary Magdalene was the one whom Jesus loved. But in the above passage, we see that Mary Magdalene ran to “Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved”. So, the text appears to say that Jesus loved another disciple instead of Mary Magdalene. All the remaining disciples are men. Let that sink in for a moment before continuing.
John 21:7 (KJV)
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord.
John 13:23 (KJV)
23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
In the above passage, imagine walking into a room and seeing a man with his head lying on the chest of another man. What thoughts come to mind? I think we see why King James thought Jesus was gay.
In the following reference, we see that Peter became jealous of John. Jesus rebukes Peter and tells him that it’s none of his business.
John 21-20, 21 & 22 KJV
20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
If all of the above evidence isn’t enough, let’s take a look at an apocryphal text known as the Acts of John (supposedly the same John, whom Jesus loved). In it we see John spying on a naked Jesus in a very sensual way when he was praying.
Acts of John, Verse 90
And we went again: and we saw him at a distance praying. I, therefore, because he loved me, drew nigh unto him softly, as though he could not see me, and stood to look upon his hinder parts.
That seems like love to me, especially with the gazing of John at Jesus’ hinder parts.
Now let’s take a look at what Jesus said about homosexuals in the Bible. And to understand that, we need to understand what the meaning of the word “eunuch” is.
People in those days didn’t use the words we do today. They didn’t use “gay” or “homosexual” when referring to these people.
During biblical times there were three kinds of eunuchs:
- The natural eunuch
- The mutilated or castrated eunuch
- The eunuch that gave up sex for religious purposes
A eunuch to most people is a castrated male. They were very important in biblical times, and many of them were elevated to great stature in ancient social structures.
Eunuchs didn’t have many champions back in those days, but one they definitely had was a Roman Jurist named “Ulpian“. In a document known as “Lex Julia et Papia, Book 1, Digest 50.16.128” it says the following: “Eunuch is a general description: the term includes those who are eunuchs by nature, as well as those who are mutilated“.
In stature, he places the natural eunuchs first. That’s interesting. The mutilated eunuch was designated as one diseased, and the natural eunuch was designated as one not diseased, as is reflected with actual research into their history.
So, what is a natural eunuch? It’s not a man that’s born without testicles, as Bible-thumpers try to claim. That’s utter stupidity. The odds of that happening, which is extremely rare, have been referenced as a 1 in 5 to 6 million chance.
A natural eunuch is a man that displayed feminine characteristics because that is who he is. He was, in fact, born that way. Jesus even says just that in the following passage:
Matthew 19:12 (KJV)
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Jesus just referenced all three kinds of eunuchs. And yes, some “were so born from their mother’s womb”.
Ulpian makes a distinction between natural eunuchs and castrated eunuchs where he says those natural eunuchs who were freemen, unlike mutilated eunuchs, were eligible for marriage and the adoption of children, and that they had the rights and duties as ordinary men. (D 188.8.131.52.28.2.6, which is a part of the Lex Julia et Papia)
Early Church Father, Clement of Alexandria, warned Christians against the evils of eunuch servants being placed in charge of women because they will act as pimps for the women, and moreover, “the true eunuch (homosexual) is not unable, but merely unwilling to have sex“. The true eunuch is not a castrated male, but an effeminate male, or a male with feminine characteristics, according to Clement.
Even the Jewish Historian, Josephus, in his work entitled “Jewish Antiquities IV” had something to say about natural eunuchs: “For evident it is, that while their soul is become effeminate“. In other words, it’s inside of them, it’s in their nature.
The Vatican is full of statues of naked men, which were sculpted by Michael Angelo, who was gay. One of these naked statues was not going to be allowed until Angelo agreed to carve “David” on it. So, as long as it’s David, it’s allowed in our “holy” building. The statues in there now either have had their penises removed or a fig leaf put over their genitals. Remind me why we need religion again?
We could go into the rampant pedophilia of the Greeks and Romans, and how much of that is actually in the Bible. There is more than abundant evidence to establish that fact but I don’t think it’s necessary. I think that you can see how hypocritical most Fundamental Christians and their Church have become.
The pastors and priests cherry-pick certain passages to tell their adoring flock how righteous the true Christians are. That they need to stand for and uphold “family values” and all of that nonsense. That homosexuals are a blasphemous thing that God will punish on the Day of Judgment. Ugh, what ignorance!
Today’s family is not your standard family from the ’60s and ’70s. It’s dynamic and constantly changing, much to the Far Right’s chagrin. As long as it’s based in love, compassion, and acceptance, why do I care what it looks like? You shouldn’t care either.