http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_03.asp?FROM=biblecenter
James I of England is England’s greatest monarch? HA HAA HAAHAHAHAH!!! I thought most thought he was a weak and self-serving King! HA!
Jesus Mary and Joseph this guy is DUMB!
LOL! Too funny! My favorite part was this:
Good thing that Greeks and Hebrews spoke the Queen’s English, otherwise that statement would a worthless heap of flaming circumcised foreskin.
Please insert “be” into the above post.
Well, it’s more of an opinion question than a question of fact. I don’t know, James I was certainly better than his son. He had his good qualities. He was well educated, and probably one of England’s more intelligent kings. He wrote a lot himself (only book I can think of now is “A Counterblaste to Tobacco”, a book against smoking), and he was a patron of the arts and learning…he sponsored the King James Bible, William Shakespeare, etc. Unfortunately, he also tended to be indecisive, and easily influenced. A lot of his problems had to do with the unstable situation he inherited, though. Between the Catholics on one side, and the radical Calvinists on the other, it wasn’t an easy thing to balance, not to mention that the treasury was low, and both Spain and France were antagonistic. If he had been king in a more peaceful time, he would probably have been considered a better one. And yes, Jack, he probably was homosexual. It’s hard to read his relationship with Buckingham any other way.
First of all, the phrase “54 of history’s most learned men” sounds like he was raising the dead to create an all-star team of translators.
Second of all, I find it quite humorous that Jack Chick feels that the work/interpretations of the “most learned men” of the 17th century adds weight to the final product, considering the fact that if you gathered the 54 most learned people of the present, they’d unanimously tell him what a twit he is. Apparently, only old-timey scholars are smart. New-fangled scholars are a bunch of evil liars.
{Note: fixed coding. Lynn}
[Edited by Lynn Bodoni on 03-12-2001 at 04:12 PM]
I would point out, however, that, of the 8 paragraph explanation, only 2 directly address the topic of the question, “Was King James I homosexual?”
I also liked the last paragraph – Guy Fawkes didn’t like King James. Therefore, if you don’t like King James, you’re trying to assist the evil Guy Fawkes carry out his unholy mission.
He was a Catholic too, so I guess they’re all in on it.
Of course. Chick’s been onto us ever since he discovered that we Catholics were directly responsible for the Holocaust and not Christian anyway and idolatrous worshippers of Osiris and that we believe that the Pope is God and so on and so forth.
My question is, now that he’s found all this out, why haven’t the Vatican’s Jesuit death squads assassinated him? Shouldn’t he fear for his life? Maybe the Pope doesn’t know yet. I should send him an email.
Look, it’s really simple.
The King James translation of the Bible (1611 version) is the perfect Bible.
James I commissioned this perfect translation.
Therefore, James was England’s greatest monarch. QED.
Yes. I am “ready for the bomb”.
But I hadn’t pictured it as looking like something out of a Roadrunner cartoon.
In my opinion King James I was utterly self absorbed and put the trappings of his position above his people’s welfare. And he was bisexual so fuck you Jack.
I wonder what Jack would say if we called him King Flames.
(I didn’t name him that-I read it on Snopes, when we were discussing it. It’s kinda cute, in my opinion!)
And remember-James’s mother, Mary, Queen of Scots was a CATHOLIC!
Now, i’m certainly not about to defend Chick here, but the exact quote is this:
Now while it’s certainly up there, it’s not quite the same as saying “King James I was undoubtedly England’s greatest monarch.”
OTOH, i’ve never heard anyone argue that England’s greatest monarch was anyone other than Elizabeth I, so even this statement is pretty silly. Of course, Chick would never go for this, cuz Elizabeth was a girl, and girls are stinky. 
My favorite Chick rant was this one assault on Islam. The reasoning went like this:
Jesus Christ is the Son of God because the New Testament says so.
The New Testament is always correct because it presents the word of Christ, who is the son of God.
Well, since that argument is clearly airtight, I guess all of us non-Christians will just have to convert. :rolleyes:
I think you could also argue pretty strongly for Queen Victoria.
A. In regards to “I knew Jack Chick was stupid, but not this stupid”: My personal opinion of Jack Chick would not rule out him being stupid enough to think Charles I or even Edward VIII was Great Britain’s greatest monarch. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if he answered Loius XIV or Ivan III.
B. In regards to Britain’s greatest monarch, I’d make a case for Edward VII, although that’s largely due to æsthetic considerations. However, he did play an important role in negotiating the alliance with Russia that proved rather useful in WWI.
C. Just how many of Britain’s monarch’s are believed to have been closet cases? I’ve heard that Richard the Lion-Hearted and Edward II were, but hadn’t heard about James. Any others?
D. As for:
Uh, that’s the reasoning of most Chick tracts. And those are the better reasoned ones. At his worst, even allowing him to use consequents as premises and entirely make up facts isn’t enough to prevent fantastic leaps of logic or bizarre non sequiturs. Simply put, the man is completely impervious to logic.
I especially liked the part about King James I dunking on Michael Jordan repeatedly.
Actually, this masterpiece was composed by one Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D – whoever the hell that is.
Let’s see if we can find some clues by rearranging the letters of his name. Hmmm…we get:
“Camp URL digs depth”
“A phlegm duct drips”
“Mild thugs crapped”
“Gulps damper ditch”
“Drug pimp led chats”
“Mid-depth slug crap”
As you can see, this is a name that simply oozes credibility…
James I. Not my period, exactly, but I’m a Briton with some sense of history… He was the first of the Stuart kings, Shakespeare wrote in his time, he was a Protestant, for his time a moderate anti-Catholic, that didn’t stop the Catholic extremists trying to topple him and Parliament with the Gunpowder Plot.
He was a reasonably well-educated chap - commissioned the KJV, wrote several pieces himself, I remember the “King James Defence” - James agreed (in writing) with the prevailing views on witchcraft, but whenever he was personally involved in a witchcraft trial, he found some way to say “yes, there is such a thing as witchcraft, but not in this case”. Devious. I like that in a monarch.
He had nine children, so was not exclusively gay… but his (ahem) relationships with gentlemen of the court are fairly well established. One of his extra-curricular amours led into the Thomas Overbury poisoning case, which was notorious at the time, also horribly complicated, I won’t try to summarize it here.
Also noted, or at least so I’ve read, for his foul table manners and generally gross personal habits.
Um. Reasonably competent, held Britain together (and he had a tough act to follow, remember), devious, bisexual, slobbish… I’d rate him above average on the scale of British monarchs. 6.5 at least, maybe 7 out of 10.
Oh, and other gay monarchs? Richard the Lionheart (hardly a closet case, he was regularly denounced for sodomy by the Church - not to mention his famous apology to his wife, “God has not made me a lover of women”), Edward II, William II Rufus, possibly Richard II, and just possibly Queen Anne (she was very fond of the Duchess of Marlborough). I think that’s the lot. (Insert a standard caveat about not being certain about any historical figure’s preferences several centuries after the event).
[sub]sulking because Andros beat her to it[/sub]
Oh, well.
http://www.chick.com/information/authors/gipp.asp
[quote]
Sam Gipp , a former Pastor, is an Evangelist, teacher, author and Bible Conference speaker. He has the unique ability to digest large amounts of information