Websites

FWOTW: dividedbytruth.org

36 Comments

For all those who have asked whether fundies think kilts on men are as sinful as pants on women, this week’s site for you! Evidently those Scots are just a bunch of pansies.

Also included is the truth about beer, warnings about the New World Order, and another fine example of overactive apostrophe use.

Be warned that clicking on the wrong links on this site could take you to gory abortion and drunk driving accident pictures. If you’re of a sensitive constitution use your own good judgment.

36 thoughts on “FWOTW: dividedbytruth.org”

  1. “Be warned that clicking on the wrong links on this site could take you to gory abortion and drunk driving accident pictures. If you’re of a sensitive constitution use your own good judgment.”

    Too late. I’m already traumatized by the Kincade-esque background.

  3. “How do you obtain salvation?…Not by repentance of sins.” Um which Bible have they been reading?

    As for the kilts, yeah, that William Wallace was quite the pansy. I’d love to see the average IFBer take him on. *roll eyes*

  4. I clicked on the fundamentals link, cause I get endless laughs out of poeple who call themselves fundamentalists and don’t know what the fundamentals are. Not shockingly they mention all kinds of random stuff “satan’s apples have worms”, assurance of salvation, Cain’s wife, the “true believers will be hated”, Prayer. The only thing close to a fundamental they get to on the fundamentals of the faith is Scripture, and they screw that one up! Love it! (Sorry for the partial/double post.)

  5. Oh my word! I clicked on “modest dressing” like I didn’t know what I was getting into. But statements like this: “the effects of a pants-wearing mother..raising a daughter that may not have a servant spirit to men (??) or her husband unless she wants something special from him” Um that doesn’t work, I still don’t have the sewing machine I want!! Must be because I wear pants hehe. Besides, I am NOT in “subjection” to men who are not my hubby, police excluding!

  7. I forgot the superfluous apostrophe in “bible’s”, thus ruining my own joke. >:-(

  8. oh I LOVE this! “Will we have a body in heaven? The Bible seems to indicate that we will”. There’s no room for any alcohol use whatsoever in scripture, but whether we’ll have bodies or not seems to be hinted at, and not all that clear. I love these sites laughs. Feel bad for the people that are still trapped believing this BS.

  9. What is it with fundy websites looking a lot like tabloids? If that’s not an “appearance of evil,” I don’t know what is!

  10. One last comment. Bottom of homepage says the “website created December of 2005 A.D.”. Not sure if they were trying to take a shot at CE/BCE, but it’s AD 2005, not 2005 A.D.

  11. As for the kilts, yeah, that William Wallace was quite the pansy.

    Au contraire, our intrepid moralist admits that

    a man wearing a kilt may be tough, [but] 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.

    All of this is classic ethnocentrism, a buzzword I only use when very, very irritated by someone’s myopic point of view. Furthermore, according to our learned expert on Scots history and culture,

    Jesus said in Matthew 11:8, “But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses.” John the Baptist was rugged, as a man should be. The men who lived in the palace wore “soft” clothing, i.e., they didn’t look or act like REAL MEN. 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.

    Notice the flow of logic–some men wore soft clothing, meaning they didn’t look like men. You have to have a serious dose of the Holy Ghost to leap from a statement about texture to an inference about appearance. That’s right. Real men–construction workers, mechanics, and miners–should wear camel-hair shirts, so they can be like John the Baptist. (If fundy memory serves, they should also piss standing up.)

    @Reader Mo: “False doctrine’s! False bibles! Prai’se Je’su’s!”

    Epic L’O’L’s’.’

  12. Let’s see some of those fundy preachers in their Sunday go to meetin’ pants throw a telephone pole like those kilt wearin’ pansies in the highlands. BTW, on a recent trip to Scotland I was somewhat stressed about the international signs on restroom doors. I was relieved (pun intended) that they depicted the men in pants, not kilts. However, even if the men’s room door had shown an man in a kilt, it would have been easy to tell the difference because they depict the skirt-wearing lady with curves!

  13. Two thoughts from a friend of mine who exhibits typical Scots pride (informed as well by MA study in Scots/American history):

    1. The guy who wrote it is named Robert Stewart. He should probably shut his trap because he’s almost certainly SCOTTISH.
    2. I dare him, or anyone, to call a man celebrating his Scottishness by wearing a kilt “effeminate” or a sissy. He’d get a face full of targe and dirk and then get teabagged by that same Scot because, after all, the kilt just makes that sort of thing easier to do.

  14. >>a man wearing a kilt may be tough, [but] the skirt makes him look silly and foolish.<<

    I'd like to see him say that to my Scottish brother-in-law. The photographer at my daughter's wedding called my b-i-l over for a family picture saying, "You! With the skirt! Come over here."

    My b-i-l relied, "Say that again and I'll throw you through the wall over there."

  15. Reminds me of the story i heard of an American preacher who was filling a Scottish pulpit when two women wearing slacks entered the church. He launched into a tirade against women wearing “pants”. As the congregation laughed he became even more agitated. Finally the Scottish pastor quietly informed the zealot that. in Scotland, men wore “trousers” and “pants” were underwear.

  16. I think this quote from the homepage says it all:

    “All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech of the First Amendment.”

    I have to agree all of it is opinion–there are no facts apparent!

  17. I had to LOL when clicking on one of the links took me to the Jack Chick website.

  18. I’ma take a stab at some logic here:

    “She wanted Boaz to take her under his outer skirt, under his wing so-to-speak. It would be absurd to interpret this Scripture any other way. Now think of a man in a kilt, and try to imagine how he would “spread his skirt” over someone. It would be impossible while he was wearing it.”

    So you first say that “spreading one’s skirt” is to be taken “so-to-speak” (in other words, metaphorically). Then you prove that kilts are sinful by applying that phrase literally?

    For instance, I’m dressed modestly here at the office – slacks, dress shirt, and tie. If I come somehow convince a female coworker here to let me “spread my skirt” over her without being fired and/or arrested for sexual harassment, I would still find it impossible, what with my pants not having an outer skirt around them. So, I guess I’m not as much of a man as Boaz was.

    Put another way, it takes a real man to…wear a skirt?

  19. The FACT that men did NOT wear skirts in the Bible is further evidenced by the words of Ruth to Boaz in Ruth 3:9, “And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.” If Boaz was wearing a skirt, like many people today contend, then Boaz would have had to remove his skirt in order to spread it over Ruth. Which means Boaz would have been either partially or completely naked. This didn’t happen!

    I think he needs to read the Book of Ruth a bit more carefully.

  21. @ Sarah, on the modest apparel website, did you click on their family pictures? They have a picture and a description of each unmarried daughter.

  22. This whole kilt discussion really bothers me. First of all, the kilt is a native form of dress. And as I have said before, the wool kilt has about 10-15 yards of fabric all folded nicely. And it takes a real man to wear that much wool!
    @Kate LOL!!!

  23. First of all, the kilt is a native form of dress. And as I have said before, the wool kilt has about 10-15 yards of fabric all folded nicely. And it takes a real man to wear that much wool!

    Correct. Cool in the summer, warm in the winter (some can be unfolded into blankets), and a really good excuse to break heads when you’re not at home. I pointed out while talking to a friend that Scots soldiers wore kilts on the front lines in both World Wars, in conditions (especially during the First World War) that would have sent dividedbytruth.org’s pantywaist author to the psych ward. Who’s unmanly again?

  24. Utter madness!!

    What the chappie who wrote the kilts article apparently doesn’t understand is that:

    1. Shepherds and soldiers wear kilts. As J. M. Poss notes, in climes which would challenge the hardiest of men. Girls do not wear kilts, so it isn’t cross-dressing

    2. A kilt is not a dress, nor is a robe. But men in the Middle East do not wear trousers under those robes. I know, I’ve lived out there.

  26. I loved the crazy kilt article. This guy has some serious issues… All I could think about was the construction worker from the Village People.

  28. Utter silliness. I note with some amusement the link to : http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Lutherans/truth_about_martin_luther.htm/, which appears to have at best plagirized a Roman Catholic piece, and at worst to BE Roman Catholic (note the number of quotes from TAN Books, a Roman Catholic publishing house). Do the fundies really want people to be reading the Apocrypha? I doubt it! However, since the Fundy pastor is a little pope, they do want to question Luther’s views on the priesthood of all believers! I do actually read Luther, so I find these things really silly.

    Alcohol. Leave grape juice for any sort of time, and it ferments. I remember as a child visiting my grandmother (of Brethren stock) in Kent, and having her home-made apple juice. Any that was left for a night in the fridge became home-made cider overnight! And there is a classic confusion where it is assumed that anyone who drinks alcohol is a drunkard! I suppose then that all the French are drunks, and that all the Reformers were drunks! What foolishness! But then, it’s nonsense like this that leads to Gail Riplinger calling Henry Liddell a drunk for having a glass of wine a night. ONE glass. Of course, that makes me a drunk too.

    And yes, classic ethnocentrism – 20th century American culture is godly, everything else is wrong. Trousers are male, anything else is female. No, lads, the Kilt is a man’s garment, it is NOT a skirt! A woman in a kilt would be guilty of wearing male clothing… Oh, and the person responsible doesn’t know English grammar. He needs to pay careful attention to the use of apostrophes in the KJV.

  29. @ Rob Bean
    Throughout the UK ‘pants’ equals underwear, not just in Scotland. And as we are the home of the KJV and spell ‘saviour’ with seven letters, we must be right.

    My friends recently had a mission team from the USA visit them here in England. My friends got a bit concerned when these missionaries told them how much cider they drank when it was hot and what a great drink it was. They didn’t realise, (and I never knew before) that USA cider is apple juice whereas over here its an aloholic drink much favoured by under-age binge drinkers and alcoholics.

  30. Just discovered this post!

    I AM DOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I wear only kilts and burmese longyis exept at work – I´m a geriatric nurse – and I thought I was a christian!
    I guess I will never reach fundy heaven – but then I would have to wear trousers there, so good riddance!

    Shalom
    Hermann

  31. Personally, I think if women are forced to where dresses based on Deuteronomy, I think men should be required to wear dresses – oh, I mean robes – too. After all, as the writer of the article pointed out, no men wore pants in those days. Just robes and skirts.

    If robes were good enough for Moses and David, John the Baptist and Jesus, I don’t know why these men think robes aren’t good enough for them 👿

      1. This sermon has GOT to be one of my favorite all-time displays of ignorance. BTW, Darrel, thanks for your random post feature at the top of the pages. That’s how I found this old post. Very entertaining. :mrgreen:

  32. All I can think when I see “divided by truth” is to wonder if that’s like dividing by zero.

Comments are closed.