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

[McClef]

This thread is in danger of getting into religious discussions and arguments.

Please keep to the context which is still kilts and one particular person's views about them.

[Zardoz]

I may be outting myself, and I never wish to offend others, but. There is no evidence of a supernatural being that controls all. Therefore, any written word that calls on this being to pass judgments on others, must be looked on as the writers opinion. I have evidence that my kilts are real. Just sayin..

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Uh-oh....this could lead to the slippery slope....just sayin'.

This thread is in danger of getting into religious discussions and arguments.

Please keep to the context which is still kilts and one particular person's views about them.

The trouble is, this particular person's rather extreme views about kilts, and a ton of other stuff, are motivated by his extreme fundamentalist religious views. Views inspired by his interpretation of the King James Bible. Taking any viewpoint to extremes can have varying results, the same books that inspire a lifetime of service to others to some, can inspire someone else to blow something up. In this Stewart guy's case, his version inspires an annoying website.

I'm not trying pick on anyone, or promote anything, but this thread has motored along for 10 pages with many posters quoting the KJ bible or other holy works, and/or expressing their personal religious viewpoints. And like it or not, these discussions are still a taciturn promotion of those views. People talking about their faiths doesn't bother me at all, but I find it a little ironic that the concerns about "slippery slopes" and violating rule #5 only pop up after somebody talks about their lack of faith, and makes statements that relate to atheism. And believe me, there are posts by "non believers" on the first page, it's just that they generally don't "promote" their lack of belief.

[biblemonkey]

I'm not trying pick on anyone, or promote anything, but this thread has motored along for 10 pages with many posters quoting the KJ bible or other holy works, and/or expressing their personal religious viewpoints. And like it or not, these discussions are still a taciturn promotion of those views. People talking about their faiths doesn't bother me at all, but I find it a little ironic that the concerns about "slippery slopes" and violating rule #5 only pop up after somebody talks about their lack of faith, and makes statements that relate to atheism. And believe me, there are posts by "non believers" on the first page, it's just that they generally don't "promote" their lack of belief.

Personally, my response of slippery slopes came after a direct question to another memeber that related to monotheism vs polytheism, a topic that could lead to wide spread discussion turned ugly as some political posts have. That would not be MY intention for that subject matter and probably wasn't the intention of the gent asking the question but those types of things do indeed inflame somtimes. I think that most of the talk quoting the Bible was merely being used to show how far off base this guy (the anti-kilt website guy) was even concerning his own reference material, i.e. the Bible. People here have seemed to feel free to express thier religious views, regardless of what they are, without fear of reprisal (as it should be) but directly confrontational questions or statements should be relegated to PMs or emails so as not to "stir the mob" as it were. Those PMs should be in the spirit of respectful inquiry so that there are no enemies made among the kilted bretheren but respectful dialog can be had on almost ANY topic. As it has been said, a PUBLIC forum where any and all can chime in, may not be the best place for a direct debate on the existence of God. This thread is about the nut who created that website and most of the posts have been in that spirit and the others have come around sure enough.

Well wishes,
Hugh

[Mike_Oettle]

Zardoz, the red flag was not that the poster expressed a lack of belief in the Divine. It was his flat-out statement: “There is no evidence of a supernatural being that controls all.”

He is welcome to believe that. But this is not the place to promote that view, nor is it my place to insist that the contrary is true.
Let’s not have a debate on the merits of Richard Dawkins’s opinions. I have had such discussions elsewhere, but the topic is inappropriate on X Marks.
Regards,
Mike

[Zardoz]

Zardoz, the red flag was not that the poster expressed a lack of belief in the Divine. It was his flat-out statement: “There is no evidence of a supernatural being that controls all.”

He is welcome to believe that. But this is not the place to promote that view, nor is it my place to insist that the contrary is true.
Let’s not have a debate on the merits of Richard Dawkins’s opinions. I have had such discussions elsewhere, but the topic is inappropriate on X Marks.
Regards,
Mike

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.

[biblemonkey]

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.

You are still a little off base. Nighthawk, for instance, has mentioned numerous times that he is a pagan. His beliefs are diametrically opposed in many ways to mine. No one has jumped on him. I personally enjoy conversing with him as he is creative and friendly and we share many of the same interests. By the same token he has not entered posts that would be directly inflammatory to the opposing religious viewpoint and neither have I. The post that started this little tete a tete (saying there is no proof for the existence of God) was specifically refering to the belief of the absolute falsehood of a set of beliefs. It came across as confrontational in TONE and THAT is why some are giving a friendly warning to him and others to stay on topic. It has not been said that anyone is forbidden from expressing beliefs or disbeliefs but rather that here is not the place to be confrontational towards one another. There have been MANY posts on this thread that have been of opposing viewpoints on religion but they have remained (for the most part) within the context of this anti-kilt website guy being off his rocker when he twists the Bible in that way. Can we get back to busting his nutty hate-theory to pieces and stop arguing about the existence of bigotry against opposing religious views? It hasn't really popped up enough on either side enough for it to have gotten this far as a discussion so please just let it go.

Thanks,
Hugh

P.S. I did see that you agree that this is not the place. We just differ on the examples we were looking at to form our views. Good talk though.

[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.

[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