"Here's what the Christian Bible says:
Typing 'King James I gay' into Google, these are the first two results:
Curious how the latter comes up with nothing when one clicks on it, eh Jer? And Jack Chick is one of your go-to sources for BS to spew even though you say he is a liberal source.
Not so liberal though, when what that Satanic 'liberal' says suits your purposes at a particular time. Thus your hypocrisy. The former Wiki link says this about the authoriser of your 'Christian Bible':
'The personal relationships of James I of England included relationships with his male courtiers'
That latter Chick link was apparently to a section which mentioned the fact that his precious KJV is gay in nature, due to the one who authorised such. Yet - unlike the Wiki link - it's unavailable.
Perhaps Jacky-boy's not as much the hypocrite as you are: who rails against teh ebil gheys as per your subjective bigotry based on you cherrypicking that gay Bible of yours to justify your personal hatred. Yet, according to that referendum in Holland in 2001, the 2013 Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, that referendum in Ireland, and that 26th June SCOTUS decision, your 'God' now approves of LGBT people, and he's abandoned you fundies. Romans 13:1-5 says so.
...oh, and here's what local hero William Wilberforce says about slavery.
(from Wiki link):
'A supporter of the evangelical wing of the Church of England, Wilberforce believed that the revitalisation of the Church and individual Christian observance would lead to a harmonious, moral society'
You know who uses the KJV, Jer? The Church of England. You know who was a past head of said C-of-E? King James I. Who was gay.
You know who dropped their opposition to S-SM, thus that 2013 Bill breezed through Parliament and entered the statute book? Bishops & archbishops in the House of Lords: Church of England clergy peers.
'In the New Testament, Jesus frequently refers to slaves in his parables, the witty stories that marked his most distinctive teaching style. He never addresses slavery as an institution, though unfortunately one of the parables assumes that beating a slave is acceptable (Luke 12:47-48). More controversial is the apostle Paul, often blamed for promoting or condoning slavery. The great African-American theologian Howard Thurman recalled how his illiterate formerly enslaved grandmother would not allow him to read Paul to her. Slave owners, she said, constantly employed Paul's letters to promote docility among the slaves.'
Your 'Lord' condones slavery. A quick visit to the Wilbeforce Museum here in Hull would prove that your 'Lord' is in fact inferior to we superior Atheists. Including yours truly: here in Hull.
'One passage often cited by apologists as supposed evidence for New Testament condemnation of slavery is 1 Timothy 1:10. However, as the King James version accurately translates, this condemnation is of "men stealers" (Greek: andrapodistais), i.e. slave raiders who kidnapped and sold people as slaves, not slave traders or slave holders in general. So Paul only singled out slave raiders to be considered "lawless and rebellious," and to be categorized with murderers, homosexuals, liars and oath breakers.
The rather bland admonishment to slave masters by Paul is more than balanced by the demands for absolute obedience made of slaves. It is also rather telling that the masters are likened to God and Jesus, while the masters are simply told that they have a higher lord. So much for Jesus as the embodiment of the underdog - Paul could have pointed to Jesus' imprisonment and death as a cautionary tale to slave masters that even humble(d) characters can be important.
Before the apologist plays the "but Jesus didn't condone slavery"-card, following all these Pauline examples, try reading Matthew 18:25, where Jesus uses slaves in a parable and has no qualms about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold, while in other parables Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51).'
'Contextualise' that. If you can, Jer. Otherwise, explain William Wilberforce's need - as a 'True Christian' - to eliminate that which your 'Lord' condoned. Enjoy your paradox.
Also, the fact that William Wilberforce is one of the Elect, as are anyone who condemns slavery (remember: your 'Lord' & Paul don't), and you aren't.
I condemn slavery. Are you prepared to go against your slavery-condoning 'Lord' to maintain your 'Elect' status, Jer? Enjoy your paradox II.