I think I agree with R.

Her point, it seems to me, has been that Jesus could not have been morally damaged. We are in agreement there.

The issue is if tendencies to sin counts as moral damage. R and I agree that it does.

But when you insert genetic theory into this, which our authors never did, you remove the moral aspect of the discussion. Genetics is purely physical. It cannot sin.

So, if Jesus had genetic faults, they are amoral.

Gotta go.

Unnatural, perverted sex?

The "bad" sins are pride and unbelief, IMHO.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

aaah, no, no, no maam. i have friends from both of those categories and they became such from severe abuse. there is no "addiction" involved, but serious emotional pain. they feel no self-worth or value. very, very different.

Sin is an addiction. I think few here would agree that addictions are always pleasurable. They are nonetheless enslaving, even binding us tighter in their grip through pain.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

maybe this is what arnold is referring to.

Before the Father He pleaded in the sinner's behalf, while the host of heaven awaited the result with an intensity of interest that words can not express. Long continued was that mysterious communing--"the counsel of peace" --for the fallen sons of men. The plan of salvation had been laid before the creation of the earth; for Christ is a lamb "foreordained before the foundation of the world"; yet it was a struggle, even with the King of the universe, to yield up His Son to die for the guilty race. But "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." O, the mystery of redemption! the love of God for a world that did not love Him! Who can know the depths of that love which "passeth knowledge"? Through endless ages, immortal minds, seeking to comprehend the mystery of that incomprehensible love, will wonder and adore. {ST, November 4, 1908 par. 3}

yes, those are the points i understand my bible to be stressing and the ones we may be completely oblivious to.

and when we do become conscious of them there is the daily, moment-by-moment struggle to not give into them.

??? What do you think the old guys were saying?



Of course. As per the SOP "the flesh of itself cannot sin." Hence I don't see the difficulty in the assertion that Christ had sinful flesh.

It seems the only difficulty comes from Original Sin ideas, that somehow the flesh of itself, without the will being involved, causes us to sin. This has been what the whole disagreement is about, isn't it?

Christ could not have had our flesh, because if He did, then He would have been tainted. That's been the argument. We, simply by virtue of having sinful flesh, are guilty of sin.

Yes, I have this in mind. But Arnold hasn't given an explanation as to why this should be difficult.

Also, Arnold put things in terms of God's doing the right thing. Is this a proper way to formulate the issue? God was struggling between doing the right thing and what? The wrong thing? Does that make sense?

I agree with this almost completely. The only caveat is that there could be some addiction involved (in general, I'm saying; I'm not commenting about your friends), but the root of the problem is as you've stated.