[Kapsig1]

Sorry if I appeared to be off the handle. It still looks like UNF was getting pretty dogpiled by those nasty PC Police tendancies that we can ALL develop when we type first, think later.

I know that the makeup of GC is pretty much in agreement that if we all revisited our ritual a little more often, we'd all be better off, and I truly was trying to recognize UNF's efforts in that respect.


Now, Brother RC:

Originally posted by KSig RC


Who's talking about sex between men? We're talking about homosexuality - being attracted to men. If we're using your definition, then UNFSigmaChi is not, strictly speaking, heterosexual, b/c he's waiting for marriage, and of course if homosexuality is sex between men, then heterosexuality is sex between a man and a woman.

KSigRC; come on now, at least let's call it like it is. The root word sexuality does indeed infer that sex is involved. This goes back to the whole what "is" is. But for discussion's sake, I will reference it as "same-sex sex" in the future; which IS the root of objection for anyone using biblical standards, including UNFSigmaChi.

Originally posted by KSig RC

Also - be careful with usage. We share a common (root) religion, and I seriously doubt that any in my church hierarchy would make any comments similar to 'our God abhors homosexuality.' That seems a bit . . . strong.

OK, the original translation actually called same-sex sex an "abomination." Somehow, I don't think "abhor" is much of a stretch. People in my church hierachy may very well agree with yours; however, they are not God and they did not inspire the written Word.

Originally posted by KSig RC

How is not passing judgement on someone (ie "condemn or condone") outside of the reasoning powers of a common person? Honestly, this is the stance that is supposed to be taken on most, if not all, people - judgement is reserved for your Supreme Being of Choice. And . . . isn't denying a bid the same thing as condemning? Food for thought, if your stated standard is indeed what we should be using.

I think you misqouted me. I stated that it was "beyond the reasoning being taught......," nevertheless, as humans we have a very strong inclination to either condemn or condone. Have you watched the freak talk shows lately, the common person judges in a heartbeat. You are of course right, the judgement is supposed to be reserved. The question about denying a bid as condemning may hold merit. But it's no more or less judging than when we deny a bid for someone who pisses us off.

Originally posted by KSig RC
[B
You and I have knowledge only of our own ritual, but I think the points people are raising in this realm are more likely that a basis in Christian ideals does not necessarily result in an exclusion of gays. Kudos for finding the meaning in this ceremony, and personalizing it - people are merely questioning him as to how he came to this conclusion, all the while attempting to keep from asking questions about esoteric information (which really keeps the discussion from going anywhere, but that's OK).
[/B]

I applauded UNF for his EVEN THINKING of the ideals held in his initiatory; and was attempting to temper those crying "diversity" without allowing UNF to be diverse in thought.

I NEVER said I agreed with his conclusions. Instead I challenged UNF to read something (book of Romans) that discusses his faith and specifically addresses homosexuality within the context of that faith. I'll allow God to do the work from there. BTW UNF, there are tons of homosexuals who have "changed" as a result of a new found faith in Christ. Impossible? Phil 4:13

[
This is one of the better discussions we've had here in a while.
[/B]

I agree.