Page cannot be displayed. That’s ok…it’s probably over my head anyway!
There was garbage in the link. Here it is fixed.
Can one love the sinner but hate the sin? If one is defined as a sinner, then are they not defined by their sin? Therefore if sin is an essential quality of their identity, then by hating the sin are you not hating the sinner? If not hating a person for their essential attributes, what are you then loving, is there some deeper ‘truer’ essence, a soul if you will that is the true habitation of the individual, something beyond temporal characteristics? If not then, a person is simply the sum of their attributes, so by hating their essential attributes, how are you not, by extension hating the person?
REVEREND LOVEJOY: Ned, have you thought of joining one of the other major religions? They’re all pretty much the same.
I don’t believe this is is strictly correct. At least in the U.S., Unitarianism arose in an Aryan form, where Jesus was considered Logos (Word of God), who came from God and returned to God, yet was separated from God when made flesh. Unitarians were certainly anti-Trinitarians, but that did not mean they necessarily denied the divinity of Christ, just that they held Him to be separate from, and subordinate to, God. Of course, this gets us into the philosophical/theological grounds of how we define “divine.” But in any case, Unitarians worshiped through Christ (his teaching and the Scriptures) even if they didn’t worship Christ directly, and at the time of the American Great Awakening (early 19th century) they were certainly considered Christians. It is unlikely the church would have been widely tolerated if it had not been Christian.
Today, the precepts held by the historical Unitarian church (in the 19th century), are more accurately mirrored by the American Unitarian Conference than by the Unitarian Universalists. AFAIK, most UUs do not consider themselves to be Christians, but Unitarian Universalism is not the same as historical Unitarianism.
Nitpick: Arian.
I wouldn’t bring it up, except that one little letter being off was rather jarring in context. 
mswas
I enjoyed working my way through this. Very interesting. OTOH, possibly the more militant atheists do not consider the delusion to be “essential,” in which case this argument would seem to fail.
Regards
testy
Quick note- that’s “Arian”, not “Aryan”.
Thanks. I was right. It was over my head. I wouldn’t have typed /url if it was going to win me the Publisher’s Clearing House Big Check.
Nah, it’s simple- you’re a doodiehead. 
Anaamika, you should pay better attention to your homeland if you wish to make such a disconnected statement. I really can’t let this one pass, even two pages late (I was at work! Sorry!). From the State Department :
(I don’t get the impression that India’s history in regard to other religions and their missionaries is any better.)
My general thought: how does a lack of clarity in one’s own beliefs aid discourse with people who hold different beliefs? When the Pope says that protestants like me aren’t a part of the true church, he is only stating his (valid, but IMHO incorrect) beliefs, a standard Catholic doctrine. While I disagree with him, I do know that any attempt at reconciliation between my church and his requires the acknowledgment that there is currently a gulf between them. And all of this ignores the undeniable fact that Benedict isn’t talking to me; he’s talking to the people who he is to lead. And let’s face it: the Roman Catholic Church desperately needs to start clarifying what it believes with its practitioners.
Also, I didn’t see a direct quote of the pope saying that other Christians don’t achieve salvation, the Arizona Republic’s assertion put aside. In fact, it’s the only source that I have read that gives such an account.
…and now I see that tomndebb has addressed this point.
How would you define an essential characteristic then? In what temporal capacity would you define a person. If they are deluded now then are they not ‘delusional’? Rather should we define them by what we think that they were, or a possibility of what they might become? If the present characteristic is not essential, by what criteria is it inessential? Because theoretically in the abstract they can become undeluded?
“Well, *all the other kids *call him that” :rolleyes:
It’s childish. It’s fine to discuss the Pope’s political shortcomings and disagree with the Pontiff’s policies. But calling him names just puts you on the level of a 12 yo. Or is it 8? 
I always thought it was quite funny that Joey Ratz looks so much like Palpatine.
I know, I know, I should have more respect, I mean he has a Mitre for God’s sake!
Emphasis added.
Oh, the irony.
I suppose the answer, mswas, is that sin by definition is not a part of a person’s essential nature - rather, it is an intrusion, an imperfection that keeps him from being the earthly child of God that he was meant to be. I would never (were I in my right mind) say “Love me, love my wife-beating; it is part of my essential nature”; rather, I would wish to be rid of my dreadful propensity for domestic violence, that I might be more truly what I ought to be.
(I do not in fact beat my wife, but you see what I’m saying.)
Well, you know, were this GD, I might refer to his Unholiness by his correct name/title (I’d certainly be more inclined to use it in GQ than I am here), but this is, wait for it, The BBQ Pit! Insults are a dime a metric kiloassload. If “Joey the Rat” is too thin skinned to deal with it, well, then, that makes him a pussy. As is anyone who get’s their panties bunched up over it.
Quite frankly, insulting name slinging is one of the hallmarks of the Pit. By way of example, allow me to direct your attention to this thread, which is one of the finest to ever grace the magnetic storage media of the SDMB. You’ll notice that Cervaise does not refrain from calling the subject of his OP such charming names as “cunt,” “sniggering, self-centered shithead,” “mentally retarded,” “mentally ill,” and “Grade-A flaming fruit-bat’s asshole” in just the first half of his OP. If name calling bothers you so much, I suggest you not continue on reading his thread.
Now, admittedly, this thread really isn’t worthy enough to share the same space as Cervaise’s, but I figured that since things involving ol’ Palpy tend to get a bit heated, that I’d just slap this up someplace where if it did get heated, there wouldn’t be someone whinging about it being in the wrong forum. Quite frankly, I have neither the time, nor the inclination to get bogged down in what is ultimately a pointless discussion of the finer points of the Prick of St. Peter’s latest policy. For you see, I’m fairly certain that not only does the Bastard of Rome not lurk/post here no one he knows does, either! So, in terms actually being able to accomplish something in regards to getting the church to change policy, any comments made here are, to put it bluntly, as effective as someone handing Shrub a set of instructions to enable him to differentiate his ass from a hole in the ground: Not at all. Thus, such a discussion would, in fact, be nothing more than masterbation. Personally, I prefer to masterbate to things such as photographs of naked females, but to each his own, I suppose.
One would think that someone who’d adopted a username which has connotations of a certain Michican doctor recently released from prison would consider name calling and other insults to be par for the course in a forum designated for hurling invectives against people. Obviously, however, that is not the case. Perhaps you should consider a change of venue since you have difficulty with this one.
The trouble is, if one defines as a sin that which is in fact part of a person’s essential nature – homosexuality, for example – then you get doctrinal support for bigotry. In which case, all the protestations of hating only the sin mean bupkis to the putative sinner.
The trouble is, if one defines as a sin that which is in fact part of a person’s essential nature – kleptomania, for example – then you get doctrinal support for bigotry. In which case, all the protestations of hating only the sin mean bupkis to the putative sinner.
I thought we’d get around to gay issues sooner or later.
I was posing that directly to Voyager’s post. Outside of an atheistic context it doesn’t make any sense. From a Christian perspective the obvious answer is ‘the soul’ is their essential character, and sin is an affliction. The point was to ask whether from an atheistic perspective a person can have an essential nature apart from their immediate circumstances. Can a person who is deluded at the moment be considered as though they are not deluded as a norm.