Then what's the difference between wordly and sinful in that case? Are they synonimous? Are they similar but of a different scale (like wordly being like sinful but better or worst)?
I'm asking a lot of question because your use of the term is vastly different than the one I am used which is "wordly" as in "of this world" or in reference to the natural world in opposition to the supernatural. A "wordly" problem is thus a problem observable in reality as opposed to a metaphysical problem for example.
Because your "assessment" of homosexual people's character was obviously slanderous, mean spirited, overly sweeping, based on prejudice and deranged. Obviously many homosexuals aren't crass, nor vulgar but extremely polite and cultured and soft spoken. Some are extremely generous and charitable, thus not selfish. Some are prude and reserved and thus not bimboish, etc. Laura Jane Adams, a Nobel peace prize winner, philosopher, social worker, founder of the ACLU and leader of the women's suffrage movement would be one good example of a homosexual person being the exact opposite as would famous poet, philosopher and early environmentalist Vicente Aleixandre (also a Nobel prize winner, but in literature). These are just two examples of homosexual people being far more generous, cultured, charitable, pro-social and enlightened than the common man. Thus there are many more, less illustrious, but still very good, living around today.
Your explanation also seems like a petty excuse of a person of low moral character. Do you know anybody who insult someone else without thinking the insult is apt? It basically gives you "carte blanche" to insult and demean anybody you want on the basis that "you believe you are correct". That basically makes your injunction to never demean, insult or slander others completely moot by creating a giant escape hatch for any behavior. It's even more unsettling coming from a self-described Christian; a religion with a clear as crystal injunction against judging others for none are truly pure and thus all judgement should be directed inward.
Wordly is figurative, it's symbolic of the conventions and paradigms of this world, the same way that Babylon or ancient Rome is a figurative term for decadence and hedonism. I'm speaking to an atheist, one who does not acknowledge the spiritual realm, nor the spiritual dimension in man. Thus, you cannot seem to comprehend how I'm speaking about about the spiritual warfare that takes place in every man between good and evil. The flesh is aroused by sinful vices, where the wisdom of the spirit abhors it. Sorry epronovost, this is an extremely common and prevalent term in theological circles, if you don't get it, you don't get it, ...even though you should. But, like I said, you're not even aware if God exists or not, how will you be able to recognize or appreciate the ramifications of embracing the devil's domain (the world), and God's (heaven)?
Excuse my abruptness epronovost, but it is required that you learn to differentiate between judging wisely with perception and insight, as opposed to self-righteously criticizing in a bigoted or ostracizing manner. It sounds childish when peopled can't seem to appreciate the necessity of, first of all, recognizing subversive and decadent behaviour, and secondly, overtly denouncing it. Pre-judging, when there are no substantial grounds to do so, is an offense to God. Bu discerning between healthy and corrupt lifestyles, subversive and edifying behaviour, wise and prudent actions against reckless and unbridled lasciviousness, brings glory to God and His precepts, and saves those who practice such illicit activities.
In other words, it sounds foolish that you keep playing the 'judging or bigot card, I'm trying to promote healthy and wholesome lifestyles that build character and does cast indignation amongst the participants.
Majority of homosexuals men are flamboyant and effeminate, and the women are or butch or tom-boys, confused and conflicted. Equally shameful and hypocritical are those who are promiscuous, gluttonous, slothful, avaricious and uninhibited. Why is cross-dressing so prevalent in the homosexual community - because they are confused and hypocritical - they claim it's ok for a man to be physically intimate with a man, and yet, they have to dress and act like women in order to do so. Have you never noticed???? I don't care about a few exceptions to the rule, and you have absolutely no idea of their characters (Jane Adams or anyone else). My contention and denunciations lies in the act itself, and what it elicits in people's behaviour. You show me one seemingly sound, decent and productive homosexual, and I'll show you ten who are not.