Yes, it isn't written for fourth graders. one is thought to be familiar with the idea that evil things are sins, that things against natural law are sins, that disorders ae against the natural law. That chastity has a meaning beyond "not having sex." Etc.
Perhaps next time you will remember that there are meanings assigned to words, that nuance exists and that the Catechism is very precise in what it says, without being reduced to the lowest common denominator.
Maybe next time you will ask questions about what things mean, rather than assuming the worst and running with it.
Seems to me - as it always has - there is something intrinsically disordered about that. Especially when I can go to scripture and pull four passages out (not single verses) that spell it out plainly.
You do your own synthesis from the verses. It is no different than what the Catechism does, other than the fact that our language is more confusing to the uninitiated, or the one used to a simple manner of expression.
It's plain enough to your side that your own people were telling me that homosexuality isn't a sin and is not called a sin in the Bible.
No they weren't. they were saying that people we consider "homosexual" but living in chastity are not sinners. These same people you no longer consider "homosexual" or sinners. So we agree, but are using different terminology.
Now, Given the official position and the mass exodus to attack what I quoted from scripture..
People did not attack Scripture. People attacked your idea that Scripture speaking of acts referred to the people identified above, whom we consider "chaste homosexuals" and you consider not homosexual at all. No one attacked Scripture.
care to comment on how you guys can believe and speak plainly opposite of what you say is the official position?
Who did that? Homosexual acts are sinful. Thining about these acts is sinful. Living a lifestyle of sin is sinful.
Resisting temptation and living a truly chaste life is not sinful. This is the official position and this is all everyone was saying.
SD
I stated the definition that I was looking at, 2/3 of it had to do with sex. When you are talking about a subject that deals with sex, the 2/3 of that meaning are 100% applicable. One can be virtuous and still be a sinner. This is so because Virtue is not simply a religious term and your religion spends as much time engaging in sectarian philosophy as anything, thus Virtue is not a religious term by itself, you have then to narrow the field down to the greatest stretch of the language to make your case - the which I'm not necessarily faulting at the moment; but, the which is a problem that your clergy created. As I said before, they could state things in plain language that is unconfusing - that doesn't apparently serve their purposes.
No they weren't. they were saying that people we consider "homosexual" but living in chastity are not sinners. These same people you no longer consider "homosexual" or sinners. So we agree, but are using different terminology.
Whoa! Halt. Stop the cart. If you are going to label someone a homosexual, and then say they aren't a sinner, we have a problem. If they are an ex, then we have no problem. But, I am not going to agree that a homosexual is not a sinner because they aren't actively participating. Until they've repented and stopped, they are still a homosexual and still under condemnation according to the scriptures. Not because they are a homo; but, because what they are is sinful. And sin condemns until it is repented from and forgiven. So at this point, until you clarify your position we have to disagree. I have to stick with scripture.