We are all kilted sinners! Oh no!! :-)

[Bugbear]

Since old King Jimmy's Bible is the source which the gentleman who wrote the website used, I think that's why members here quoted from it, too. That's likely the only source that the writer in question would heed.

Yes, probably so, I recall, from my youth, the words, "literal, inerrant word of God" being attributed to the King James Bible in church. Just saying what I experienced.

I edited out the reference to my current faith in a post back there early this morning just in case... but it is not the same religion as what I grew up with...

I do think the kilt is a manly garment, so no problem there.

[Nighthawk]

Mike, I don't see that post as the "promotion" of a 'lack of belief', anymore than that many of the other posts here could be seen as a promotion of beliefs.
Lots of folks are basically saying 'my belief tells me this' , all that fellow was saying was 'I don't believe it, and that tells me this'.

Y'all are sort of helping me with my point;
statements of belief OK,
statements of non-belief, or even alternate beliefs problematic.

But we can agree on the idea that their discussion is inappropriate on X Marks.

Actually, Z, the point of this thread is more along the lines of fact vs faith. The author of that website doesn't see the distinction. You said we're helping you to make your point, that statements of belief are OK, but statements of nonbelief is a problem, and you're using it in reference to our opinions of the website author. Well, here's what the author has stated. I have put the opinion in bold and facts in red (and when I say "fact" I simply mean you can open a book and look up the quoted passage):

One only has to look at the above photo to see what's wrong with kilts or skirts on men. It's disgusting!

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." -Deuteronomy 22:5.

This Scripture naturally raises questions as to--what is men's and women's clothing?

The Bible warns effeminate men in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate ... shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Let's establish from the start, that the Word of God condemns effeminate men. "Effeminate" in 1st Corinthians 6:9, comes from the Greek, "malakos," which means "soft, i.e. fine (clothing)." We read in VINE'S COMPLETE EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT WORDS, concerning the word "effeminate" ...

"soft, soft to the touch" (Lat., mollis, Eng., "mollify," "emollient," etc.), is used (a) of raiment, Matt. 11:8 (twice); Luke 7:25; (b) metaphorically, in a bad sense, 1 Cor. 6:9, "effeminate," not simply of a male who practices forms of lewdness, but persons in general, who are guilty of addiction to sins of the flesh, voluptuous."

Although 1st Corinthians 6:9 is clearly condemning homosexuality and cross-dressing, it is also equally clear that any form of femininity in a man is sinful. (Is it then a sin to show compassion or to wear cologn? Scents and compassion are in many cultures thought of as feminine traits.)

This is why Deuteronomy 22:5 condemns men wearing women's apparel. Clearly, it is not acceptable for men to wear women's clothing. Men are to be men! Men should talk like men, dress like men, walk like men, and act like men. (I made this opinion because there is no deffinition offered by the author as what it means to talk, dress, walk and act like a man!) Kilts on men are sissyish. Although a man wearing a kilt may be tough, the skirt makes him look silly and foolish. Although most men who wear kilts aren't gay, it makes one wonder why any man would ever want to wear clothing that is considered women's apparel by 99% of the population. A quick look at any bathroom door will quickly reveal that men wear pants, and women wear dresses. (This last just makes me laugh. There are so many things wrong with it. The bathroom door men aren't wearing ties... Should I stop wearing them because the bathroom door guy isn't wearing one? Since when does the bathroom graphic dictate fashion?)

My point here, Z? My point is that the website author liberally intersperses opinion with fact, but tries to pass it all off as fact! He's not saying "My belief tells me this/that/the other." He's saying KILTS ON MEN ARE SISSYISH! And that makes it a sin. He's making statements of absolutes, and that's the difference between him and what we're talking about here. He goes on elsewhere to state that kilts are in fact womens clothing- again making it out to be fact and not misinformed opinion. He leaves no room for discussion or debate.

[gary meakin]

He leaves no room for discussion or debate.

I looked at his website.
He leaves no room for discussion or debate on anything.
This guy thinks everything is a sin
If he's not sitting on a mountain top in a robe eating locusts and honey, he's more of a hypocrite than his anti-kilt rant would lead us to believe.

[Nighthawk]

I looked at his website.
He leaves no room for discussion or debate on anything.
This guy thinks everything is a sin
If he's not sitting on a mountain top in a robe eating locusts and honey, he's more of a hypocrite than his anti-kilt rant would lead us to believe.

Yeah, I want to meet him. And he better be dressed in nothing other than denim and leather or like Davey Crocket in order to conform with the deffinition he gives for manly clothes.

[Jay]

Just another example of someone using selective scripture to justify his own personal biases.


Sad, little man.

[biblemonkey]

My point here, Z? My point is that the website author liberally intersperses opinion with fact, but tries to pass it all off as fact! He's not saying "My belief tells me this/that/the other." He's saying KILTS ON MEN ARE SISSYISH! And that makes it a sin. He's making statements of absolutes, and that's the difference between him and what we're talking about here. He goes on elsewhere to state that kilts are in fact womens clothing- again making it out to be fact and not misinformed opinion. He leaves no room for discussion or debate.

Agreed to in full. Well said sir.

Hugh

[Dale Seago]

So "soft raiment" being effeminate, if we just went back to the old-style "hard tartan" we'd be fine, hard being manly and all, right? If you've got your hard on instead of soft fabric, all's good!

[Zardoz]

Hawk, nice to meet someone else who has a copy of Vines! Although you should check out the William Mounce dictionary, it's a little more up to date on a lot of the Greek. I also compliment your post, as a person who is pretty well versed in religious studies, I can see you put a lot of thought into it. I almost made a similar breakdown earlier in the thread, but I frankly, I didn't want to do so much typing!

I agree this thread is (or should be) more about the "fact vs faith" or "opinion based on scripture" aspect of Stewart's crazy website.

But to be clear, I didn't feel the need to weigh in further on the crazy website. Basically the only point I was making, was that I feel like some posts in the thread were singled out as problematic for the sole reason that they represented a, shall we say, minority viewpoint on this forum.

I don't like to seem as trying to get in a 'last word' but that will be it from me on the subject.

[Alan H]

The man is entitled to his opinion just as long as he doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. I am also entitled to my opinion, with the same caveat.

My opinion is that he's an arrogant, self-important jerk, and I think I'll ignore him.

[biblemonkey]

Post deleted for editing by author