I'm /un/twisting it, you walking pile of hypocrisy incarnate. And I think most of the non-delusional people on this thread, Christians included, can see quite clearly that I am untwisting it from the self-righteous tangle you've got insulating your brain against reasoning divine /or/ human.
Have you ever tried /not/ regurgitating itemized gobbets of scripture over everything you touch online? Trust me, it makes a far better impression of your integrity and virtue on others when you stick to practising your faith in your own right instead of telling other people what they ought to be believing - and that again, is what Jesus instructed - /not/ to go around being a judgemental nuisance in the name of your religion. Given that you can't stop nagging at everyone /else/ to repent, confess, believe, etc., I have every reason to believe that you are a hollow echo-chamber with no actual thoughts inside - which is a shameful waste of your "God-given" /potential/ for reflection and self-awareness. You profane what mental gifts you have been given when you choose to insult facts and logic instead of looking deeper and considering where truth actually can be found.
The Bible is just a book - written down, assembled, edited, translated and argued over by human minds and human agendas of conformity and the perpetuation of religious and temporal authority. It has some good ethical stuff in it (without which /any/ religion is worthless or worse), but a hell of a lot of encrusted bullshit that people need to get over already - cf. separating out the wheat from the chaff. Discernment. Wisdom. Not being a blind tool for any self-proclaimed infallibility. Literal religionists like yourself are a disgrace to human evolution - and instead of being "wise as serpents and inoffensive as doves", are dumb as posts and bombastically destructive as an elephant stampede.
I'd tell you to repent of your arrogant ignorance, but you're clearly incapable of any humility or self-examination in your current state of intellectual sin. How about this....I'll pray for your eyes to be opened to the truth. Just be prepared for a nasty headache when it hits you. O:-)
Kcits, if you believe that facts and logic are inherently corrupt, then you're not worth arguing with - or at any rate, your arguing personally should never be dignified by the name of debate. Fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed man...it just ain't sporting.
Now...again let's to the matter of Greek, since Jim earlier declared himself to be literate in it in defending all your literalist anti-gaynesses. Remember the beginning of the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God"? Well, the word /for/ "word" in Greek is "logos" - from which comes the word "logic." The concepts of language and of reasoning are theologically (uh-oh, I used "logic" again!) entwined and cannot be neatly separated because of ZOMG!!1!FAITH!
To translate for your limited human intellect, there is a logic beyond the logic which you are capable of understanding. /Trusting/ in that logic is faith. Denying logic altogether is willful ignorance and blindness.
And who do you think you are to say that you know others /don't/ have logic sufficient to their living ethical lives? What about "those who, while not having the Law, are become a law unto themselves"? You don't know, and it is not /given/ to you to know...therefore judge not, and get that bloody two-by-four out of your own eye.
It's /Koine/ Greek....how do you read it if you can't even spell it properly?
And, more to the point to the dispute re gayness...how does St. Paul's assurance that homosexuals cannot enter the Kingdom (esp. given that he was a noted Zealot before his conversion, and therefore steeped in radical religious conservatism) get to override Jesus' own notable lack of condemnation on the subject?
Just wondering, you know, seeing as you brought it up as accurately /translated/...
Just finished reading the text - Macaulay knew what he was talking about, and he projected a good many of the situations with which we now have to contend, even without knowledge of the various technologies to come. I strongly second that it should be read by anyone and everyone with an interest in the reasonings of copyright law (and with having it conform /to/ actual solid reasoning).
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Aureantes.