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

[GG]

In Danish we have a phrase: As the devil reads the Bible.

Here we have one of these ignorant men, using the text as it pleases him and when it (at a first glance) shall sustain his objective, however without any deeper consideration about time and place and relevance. Poor guy.

Greg

[kc8ufv]

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

Except for the cream color hose on the guy on the left, I see nothing wrong with the photo mentioned...

[slohairt]

What a fool!

He probably believes that all men should clean-shaven and wear black suits, whilst the womenfolk wear floral dresses!

[tulloch]

Except for the cream color hose on the guy on the left, I see nothing wrong with the photo mentioned...

Weelllll, I think the one on the Right wears his a little long. Otherwise not bad.

[kc8ufv]

Weelllll, I think the one on the Right wears his a little long. Otherwise not bad.

Only slightly. If you look, he's standing on rocks a little lower. The bottom of his kilt is at about the bottom of the knee. His kilt appears to be twice as long as the guy on the left because his shirt is tucked in it, while the guy on the left has his hiding the upper part of his kilt. Though, if the guy on the right were to lower his kilt a bit, considering that pleats aren't really visible in that pic, I would possibly consider that it's not a kilt, but a tartan version of the (modern) German mannerok (sp?)

(Had to put this in here to possibly bring this thread back around)

[Lallans]

I just hope I never drive by a barn painted with the slogan "The Wages Of Kilts Is Death!"

[Mike_Oettle]

Canuck in NI wrote: “The Wages of Kilts Is Death!”



There have been several references to what PiperDBH called “old King Jimmy's Bible”.
Many people still quote the King James Bible (or Authorised Version) because it is what they grew up with (I still have the AV that my grandmother gave me when I was confirmed).
It is also a translation that resonates with the English-speaking culture, partly because it has been around for so long, partly because it is very similar to Shakespearean language, partly because its meaning is very close to that of the original Hebrew, and partly because it is more familiar to most English-speakers than any particular modern translation.
This is not to say it is infallible. Its source texts have been shown to contain errors, which have been rectified in later translations through reference to older documents.
The OP is not alone, however, in believing it to be inerrant. Various sects put forward this belief.
Some of them place so much reliance on this claim that they are genuinely convinced of entirely false teachings.
Take this man’s preaching from whence it comes.
Regards,
Mike

[biblemonkey]

To reinject a little giggle worthiness, here is a direct quote from his erroneous supposition.

I've never seen a construction worker wearing a kilt. I've never seen a truck mechanic or a coal miner wearing a kilt. I only see men with clean jobs, or playing bagpipes, wearing kilts. Kilts are for men in the palace, not for John the Baptist type men ... real men!

I bet there are quite few rugged and ready types in kilts out there who would LOVE to make this guy's aquaintance.

Let's see, I know a 6'-6" construction worker who kilts on the job, we have here a number of highland games strong-men, some woodsmen and explorers of the wilderness, and last but not least, martial artists. Most of whom wear kilts during said activities. Manly enough for ya?

Hugh

P.S. Alan? You're right.

[OC Richard]

Many people still quote the King James Bible (or Authorised Version) because it is what they grew up with... it has been around for so long... it is very similar to Shakespearean language...its meaning is very close to that of the original Hebrew...it is more familiar to most English-speakers than any particular modern translation.

I think it's more than just being around a long time. Nobody remembers the Cloverdale/Tyndale, Taverner, Cranmer (Great Bible), Geneva, or Bishop's bible which came out in the years leading up to the King James.

It's because the committee that wrote the King James (yes it's one of the few good things to be created by committee) put a huge emphasis on the poetry of the language. It was meant to sound good read out loud. The committee considered a number of translations for each passage and chose the one that sounded the best.

Our modern translations all sound to me like they're written by scholars, not poets. They're very accurate to the original Greek (NT), much more accurate than the King James, because we have older manuscripts to work from today, and better scholarship to understand them. But when I read them they sound wooden and stiff (at best) and clumsy and unidiomatic (at worst). Some modern translations have a bizarre mix of modern slang and formal language.

Off topic I know! But interesting stuff to me at least.

On topic: I work with a guy who might be the poster child for narrowminded judgemental Christians, and when I told him about this thread, even HE thought this kiltwearing-sinful-guy is an idiot. (As a former Marine he views the kilt as a warlike garment, not an effeminate one.)

[McClef]

Mod Hat off!

Here on X Marks there are people with religious beliefs and none.

It is not a debating forum for the existence or non-existence of any deities or of one religion being better than another one.

But members often do refer to the fact that they have or practice a faith simply as fact which is not a problem, especially when it is kilt-related.

Slippery slopes start when people want to argue about the merits of a faith or want to start an attack against one or to argue their own POV which has nothing to do with the context in which the faith was mentioned.

Just looks at how many thread problems resulted because the Pope wore a tartan designed by Matt Newsome to see what I mean.

The context in this thread is that a guy attacks kilts and those who wear them and claims a biblical justification for doing so.

So some of those who disagree with him ( and I guess it's all of us! ) have written that they do disagree and by one means or another say why they believe he is wrong. Some have used the same source from which he claims his justification (i.e. the Bible). It does not depend upon how one views it in terms of inspiration, it still exists as a work of literature and reference just as other books considered holy by various religions do. One does not have to believe or be an adherent to know the material within.

But to introduce arguments that are nothing to do with the matter in hand is where problems start. Introducing arguments about the number or non existence of God or gods is nothing to do with the terms of reference and take the thread off at a tangent that, even if we did not have Rule #5, create heat and get personal and make the thread unrecognisable from how it started.

An atheist who posted his photographs of the Little Clompington Humanist Association's annual Burns Supper and dinner dance would no doubt be just as upset if they were preached at and urged to repent and believe. The kilts and the haggis would be forgotten in the resulting furore.

Surely we are here to support and celebrate and defend the kilt and our enjoyment of wearing the kilt.

Whatever else we believe or do not believe.

The rules and principles seek to protect that, and to promote respect

And they are what Moderators (hat back on) have to sometimes enforce and remind people of.