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.
"Homosexual" was in quotes, because it is the definition we are in disagreement about. We would contend that someone who was in this position could be considered an ex homosexual, as you think of it. But he would still be prone to being tempted to homosexual sin. Temptation comes where we are weakest.
Someone who gave their life to Jesus and stopped drinking would be tempted to drink, wouldn't he? Would you say that he was an "alcoholic" who was on the wagon and reformed? Or would you say he was no longer an alcoholic?
And regardless of what you say, is it true that he would be tempted to drink regardless of what you call him?
SD