Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Something like that, let’s make it simpler.

• Christ is God with all the Divinity and Perfection implied,

• Jesus is man, human.

• the Messiah is Jesus Christ, the hypostatic Union of human with the Divine Nature of God, the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, the perfect God/man, Christ.

---

I have a big problem with this, because nothing anywhere in the Bible even hints at this kind of separation between "Jesus" and "Christ." We don't know the actual nature of the hypostatic union, because it's beyond our finite minds to comprehend. But this sure isn't how it worked. He is and always was Jesus Christ, that perfect union. There's no separation between the God and the man in God's mind. Bear in mind that Jesus' coming to earth was an incarnation, not a creation; in your schema here, we still have a creation, the man Jesus, so any way you slice it, you end up with a "created God" in the second person of the trinity. Yet, you say yourself that it's not so. Hence, your approach is internally contradictory and needs a lot of work.

Furthermore, and I'm getting weary of saying it, the human Jesus was born without sin because he had no earthly father, and sin is passed through the father. You are still not addressing this issue, and it's the crux of the whole matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

I have a big problem with this, because nothing anywhere in the Bible even hints at this kind of separation between "Jesus" and "Christ."

---

I only separated them for my own clarity of mind, as it were to keep the two natures separated. I could have as easily used Christ in every instance, or Jesus Christ. No harm was intended, nor was there a separation intended.

Quote:

---

We don't know the actual nature of the hypostatic union, because it's beyond our finite minds to comprehend.

---

I suppose that's why they say it was a mystery. Yet in every mystery we can still come away with the knowledge of certain attributes.

Quote:

---

But this sure isn't how it worked.

---

I'm not trying to make it 'work' like you would a mechanical problem – you know the spark plug goes here, the piston there. What I'm saying is that when the motor runs, the wheels go round, and exhaust comes out the back. Knowing nothing about how the automobile works, we can certainly see that we don't want to drive in the ditch – rather we keep it between the lines.

Quote:

---

There's no separation between the God and the man in God's mind. Bear in mind that Jesus' coming to earth was an incarnation, not a creation; in your schema here, we still have a creation, the man Jesus, so any way you slice it, you end up with a "created God" in the second person of the trinity.

---

Which was my argument Christ is the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, one Person with two natures, God/Man, i.e. Theandros. Holding Christ to be this then fusion between man's flesh and soul and God's will must be perfect.

Quote:

---

Yet, you say yourself that it's not so. Hence, your approach is internally contradictory and needs a lot of work.

---

I haven't contradicted myself. How would you explain the fact that God and man, one Person two natures in perfect union. Explain how you can have this Divine Person come of anything less than a New Eve.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, and I'm getting weary of saying it, the human Jesus was born without sin because he had no earthly father, and sin is passed through the father.

---

But the flesh that was His came from Mary. When was the last time you heard of a man born of a man? (never mind, I don't hear it if you know of such a thing!)

Quote:

---

You are still not addressing this issue, and it's the crux of the whole matter.

---

And what was your crutch, I guess I got so far down the line I've forgotten.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

I only separated them for my own clarity of mind, as it were to keep the two natures separated. I could have as easily used Christ in every instance, or Jesus Christ. No harm was intended, nor was there a separation intended.

---

Then once again you have created a cure for which there is no known disease.

Quote:

---

I'm not trying to make it 'work' like you would a mechanical problem – you know the spark plug goes here, the piston there. What I'm saying is that when the motor runs, the wheels go round, and exhaust comes out the back. Knowing nothing about how the automobile works, we can certainly see that we don't want to drive in the ditch – rather we keep it between the lines.

---

And the music comes out there - wait, that was something else. What I meant was, that description bore no resemblance to the actual union.

Quote:

---

Which was my argument Christ is the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, one Person with two natures, God/Man, i.e. Theandros. Holding Christ to be this then fusion between man's flesh and soul and God's will must be perfect.

---

You haven't really made a good case for this idea.

Quote:

---

I haven't contradicted myself. How would you explain the fact that God and man, one Person two natures in perfect union. Explain how you can have this Divine Person come of anything less than a New Eve.

---

Again, you haven't made a good case for this, merely said it. But the fact is, it's unnecessary. Also, I have already explained it, but you're not listening.

Quote:

---

But the flesh that was His came from Mary. When was the last time you heard of a man born of a man? (never mind, I don't hear it if you know of such a thing!)

---

Only in the Enquirer... Seriously, it doesn't matter that his flesh came from Mary. It wouldn't have sin in it because SIN COMES THROUGH THE HUMAN FATHER. I'm not sure what part of that concept is so difficult to grasp. Having no human father kept sin nature from being passed to Him, even though he was born of a normal human woman. Again, I'm not sure why you're having such trouble with this, because it's a perfectly simple idea that seems to have support from the Bible.

In addition, it wouldn't matter what Mary's status was, because the presence of the Divine nature is surely enough to sanctify the flesh he got from her, regardless of her own sinfulness. I have to repeat: you're making a solution for which there simply is no problem. NOTHING in Jesus' nature requires Mary to be sinless. NOTHING. Being fully God and fully man, He had no sin. It's that easy and has nothing whatsoever to do with his mother.

Quote:

---

And what was your crutch, I guess I got so far down the line I've forgotten.

JoeT

---

Uh, that's crux, not crutch, thank you ;) And the crux is the fact that sin comes via human paternity; Jesus had no human paternity; therefore, there is no need to posit any special sinless status to his mother because her condition doesn't matter. I have now explained this five times; please give it your full attention this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

And the music comes out there - wait, that was something else. What I meant was, that description bore no resemblance to the actual union.

---

It wasn't meant to, I don't know, you don't know how the music works.

Quote:

---

You haven't really made a good case for this idea.

---

I won't make the 'cases' for doctrines of faith. We make this as a profession of faith.

Nicene Creed:
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven...

I will be happy to explain it though – It'll take some time. See CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nicene Creed

Quote:

---

Again, you haven't made a good case for this, merely said it. But the fact is, it's unnecessary. Also, I have already explained it, but you're not listening.

---

I'm trying to use well defined terms here to avoid a misunderstanding. How Catholics understand 'The Holy Trinity'. Clance through the following link – if you disagree. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity and CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Homoousion

Quote:

---

Only in the Enquirer... Seriously, it doesn't matter that his flesh came from Mary. It wouldn't have sin in it because SIN COMES THROUGH THE HUMAN FATHER. I'm not sure what part of that concept is so difficult to grasp. Having no human father kept sin nature from being passed to Him, even though he was born of a normal human woman. Again, I'm not sure why you're having such trouble with this, because it's a perfectly simple idea that seems to have support from the Bible.

In addition, it wouldn't matter what Mary's status was, because the presence of the Divine nature is surely enough to sanctify the flesh he got from her, regardless of her own sinfulness. I have to repeat: you're making a solution for which there simply is no problem. NOTHING in Jesus' nature requires Mary to be sinless. NOTHING. Being fully God and fully man, He had no sin. It's that easy and has nothing whatsoever to do with his mother.

---

Which would lead to my privious objection, if man's flesh needed such 'purification' then God created evil, man is evil (which was Martin Luther's contention), and irredeemable except by election.

Uhm, how much flesh does a man contribute to his child? Can you show in Scripture how many people were born of men and how many were born of woman? You're not hearing me, without a sinless Mary Christ would have been surrounded by sin, both in His own flesh and in the flesh of the womb that carried Him. Have you never heard of tracing ancestry through mitochondrial DNA where the maternal lineage is traced? As I understand it is much easier than tracing paternal linage. Never the less, Mary's linage is of David, a requirement for the Jews to recognize Christ as the Messiah – it's to the Jew He came for first, not us gentiles.

Quote:

---

Uh, that's crux, not crutch, thank you ;) And the crux is the fact that sin comes via human paternity; Jesus had no human paternity; therefore, there is no need to posit any special sinless status to his mother because her condition doesn't matter. I have now explained this five times; please give it your full attention this time.

---

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. Romans 5:12

So, are we to understand that Woman doesn’t have original sin? Also see 1 Corinthians 12. We are all guilty of Adam's sin which causes a privation of sanctification in a moral unity of the human society tracing it's fathered by Adam. (De Malo, I've, 1). We haven't even begun to discuss actual sin which the Blessed Mary was singularly protected. Don't fall off your crutch when I do?

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Which would lead to my privious objection, if man's flesh needed such 'purification' then God created evil, man is evil (which was Martin Luther's contention), and irredeemable except by election.

---

I never used the word "purification." You pulled that out of nowhere. If that's how you're going to deal with what I'm saying, then we're done. However...

If man's flesh is indeed NOT evil, then it doesn't matter whether Mary was sinless or not because there was nothing evil in Jesus' flesh. You're going in circles here.

Quote:

---

Uhm, how much flesh does a man contribute to his child? Can you show in Scripture how many people were born of men and how many were born of woman? You're not hearing me, without a sinless Mary Christ would have been surrounded by sin, both in His own flesh and in the flesh of the womb that carried Him. Have you never heard of tracing ancestry through mitochondrial DNA where the maternal lineage is traced? As I understand it is much easier than tracing paternal linage. Never the less, Mary's linage is of David, a requirement for the Jews to recognize Christ as the Messiah – it's to the Jew He came for first, not us gentiles.

---

So now you're saying flesh IS evil? You're not making any sense. And you're still not paying any attention to what I'm telling you. I never said anything about paternity contributing FLESH. Please get that word out of your system, because it's NOT what we're talking about. We're talking about sin, sin nature, original sin, whatever you want to call it, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with flesh. I said the Bible teaches a simple truth: that sin is passed THROUGH THE FATHER. Jesus was sinless because He had no earthly human father. I really think you're dodging that fact because it doesn't square with your preconceived notions. And that's your problem, not mine. But don't claim that you're answering me when all you're doing is tap-dancing around what I say.

Quote:

---

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. Romans 5:12

So, are we to understand that Woman doesn’t have original sin?

---

Oh, good grief. Where do you get this stuff? I never implied any such thing. I said sin is PASSED TO THE OFFSPRING through the father, not the mother. You really are just dodging, most likely because you don't have an answer but can't bring yourself to admit it. This is getting absurd. This will be my last post on the subject, because you're just playing games and I don't have time for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Something like that, let’s make it simpler.

• Christ is God with all the Divinity and Perfection implied,

• Jesus is man, human.

• the Messiah is Jesus Christ, the hypostatic Union of human with the Divine Nature of God, the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, the perfect God/man, Christ.

How then does the perfect Messiah and man reconcile themselves in the Second Person of the Trinity whom we call Christ?



There is nothing imperfect in creation, man was made perfect but because of sin is fallen, i.e. has become imperfect. (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 26-28). Man was not made evil, but rather good.




JoeT

---

Hi Joe,

You have really got me interested. Before I jump to conclusions I would like to see if I am still with you here.

The early christian theologians seems to support the idea of substance dualism. There is a definite similarity between God and Man. An example from the Bible would be ," Let us make man according to our image and likeness" I think there are probably other similar types of quotes, but I can't remember them.

All of this seems to indicate an argument for God and man being of the same substance. In other words, two ontological separate entities, characterized by having the same essential unchanging substance.

Substance dualism has been the bane of philosophers for a couple of thousand years. Notably, Descartes, Leibniz and more recently Max Black has shone some light on the subject. I don't think the problems in this area are insurmountable.

Is this your position thus far?

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Joe,

You have really got me interested. Before I jump to conclusions I would like to see if I am still with you here.

The early Christian theologians seem to support the idea of substance dualism. There is a definite similarity between God and Man. An example from the Bible would be ," Let us make man according to our image and likeness" I think there are probably other similar types of quotes, but I can't remember them.

All of this seems to indicate an argument for God and man being of the same substance. In other words, two ontological separate entities, characterized by having the same essential unchanging substance.

Substance dualism has been the bane of philosophers for a couple of thousand years. Notably, Descartes, Leibniz and more recently Max Black has shone some light on the subject. I don't think the problems in this area are insurmountable.

Is this your position thus far?

Tut

---

That's an interesting take on what I've written. How do you get dualism out of it? I'm not suggesting any such thing; in fact just the opposite. My point is that unless Mary is singularly protected from original sin and actual sin we would have to contend with a dualist system. Where did I mislead you?

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

I never used the word "purification." You pulled that out of nowhere. If that's how you're going to deal with what I'm saying, then we're done. However..

---

Oh, but you did, maybe without realizing it. By saying “SIN COMES THROUGH THE HUMAN FATHER” is to say to me that sin is likened to a virus. That is like a physical thing transmitted from father through the mother to only the son. But, that is not what original sin is. Original sin is God’s ‘withdraw,' a privation of sanctification. This withdraw doesn’t make us sick in the sense that we can get over it with chicken noodle soup and plenty of rest. Nor is mankind so doomed as to be made reprobates incapable of good.

Original sin illustrated in Romans 5:12 sqq is God’s judgment for Adam’s sin. Because of Adam's sin a physical death comes into the world; “For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead” as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15. The spirit remains alive but hampered in its conflict of sin from the withdrawal of sanctifying grace. This too is transmitted, not from father to son, but from one man, Adam, to all humanity. We can’t say sin comes into the world because of Adam’s bad example and that sin is a learned response to the world, rather it is because of the lack of sanctification we sin. (Cf. Augustine, Against Julian, 6 24) Our loss of sanctification because of Adam’s sin stains the soul or you might say hampers the soul. Nor is original sin the loss of free will as Martin Luther would say, the essence of man changes into evil that moral truths are beyond the capability of man to know. Catholics describe original sine as “privation of justice that man contracts at conception” (Trent, Session 6, iii). This privation is not totally regained in Baptism however the Sanctifying graces received are sufficient to ‘turn towards God’ (concersio ad Deum) which counters the stain of Adam’s sin which that causes a turning away from God (aversion a Deo). And that every man has this original sin and is liable. Catholics Baptize infants for this very reason, without the remission of this sin, even a child without actual sin is condemned – we must rely simply on an extraordinary mercy of God to save these tiny souls. This may also help explain why Catholics are adamantly opposed to abortion – such a death condemns a child mercilessly and we can only hope and pray that God views such souls as martyrs whereby all sins are wiped clean from a baptism of blood.

Consequently, an individual man cannot transmit, in this case sanctification, something he does not have. Therefore, to say that original sin only comes from the male species is a mistaken notion. Any man or woman born after the fall of Adam has original sin – unless he is born of a woman whose privation of sanctification is restored at conception, e.g. the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Quote:

---

If man's flesh is indeed NOT evil, then it doesn't matter whether Mary was sinless or not because there was nothing evil in Jesus' flesh. You're going in circles here.
So now you're saying flesh IS evil? You're not making any sense.

---

Sin being in the flesh was simply a manner of speech, to say that if one is flesh and blood, man or woman, then he has the stain of original sin. Wherein comes your problem, if we hold Christ to be the union of God and man, then contrary to our understanding of Divinity, he is born with original sin. The only way unity there can be a unity of God with man is for this unity to take place at conception in the womb of a New Eve, a woman whose sanctification has been restored as such does not taint the child with the stain of original sin either through contact with her flesh or the flesh she gives the child.

Quote:

---

And you're still not paying any attention to what I'm telling you. I never said anything about paternity contributing FLESH. Please get that word out of your system, because it's NOT what we're talking about. We're talking about sin, sin nature, original sin, whatever you want to call it, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with flesh. I said the Bible teaches a simple truth: that sin is passed THROUGH THE FATHER. Jesus was sinless because He had no earthly human father. I really think you're dodging that fact because it doesn't square with your preconceived notions. And that's your problem, not mine. But don't claim that you're answering me when all you're doing is tap-dancing around what I say.

---

The ‘father’ of a child after the fall of Adam cannot of his own transmits something he does not have. Original sin is ‘the privation’ of sanctification. If the man doesn’t have the flue virus, how then does he transmit it? It’s the same concept; God’s judgment to deprive the sons of Adam of sanctification is present in all mankind, whether he be born to a Catholic, an Irishman, a Jew, a Hindu, etc.

Quote:

---

Oh, good grief. Where do you get this stuff? I never implied any such thing.

---

Actually, that’s what I understood you to be saying.

Joet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Oh, but you did, maybe without realizing it. By saying “SIN COMES THROUGH THE HUMAN FATHER” is to say to me that sin is likened to a virus. That is like a physical thing transmitted from father through the mother to only the son.

---

Viruses aren't transmitted that way. Autism is though -- through a father who is on the spectrum and often to a son, sometimes to a daughter. :)

Dwashbur said that the transmission is through the father (no mother is involved in transmission) to the children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Viruses aren't transmitted that way. Autism is though -- through a father who is on the spectrum and often to a son, sometimes to a daughter. :)

Dwashbur said that the transmission is through the father (no mother is involved in transmission) to the children.

---

It isn't the pathology I'm addressing here. Primarily because you can't transmit something you don't have. Original sin being the privation (removal of, deprivation or) Sanctity, one can't transmit to their offspring something they don't have.

JoeT

The transmission is through the father (no mother is involved in transmission) to the children.

Quote:

---

Original sin is God's 'withdraw,' a privation of sanctification.

---

No, original sin is man pushing God away. God never withdraws. In fact, He comes to us wherever we are, and doesn't wait for us to "fix" ourselves and make ourselves holy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

The transmission is through the father (no mother is involved in transmission) to the children.


No, original sin is man pushing God away. God never withdraws.

---

How does one transmit that which is withdrawn by God?

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

How does one transmit that which is withdrawn by God?

---

What did God withdraw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

That's an interesting take on what I've written. How do you get dualism out of it? I'm not suggesting any such thing; in fact just the opposite. My point is that unless Mary is singularly protected from original sin and actual sin we would have to contend with a dualist system. Where did I mislead you?

JoeT

---

Hi Joe,

I don't think the problem was in you explanation. I think I took the Homoousian account to literally. Jesus as homoousios with God . In other words both being of the same substance. Coupled with taking Jesus as fully human too literally as well. I put 2+2 together and got a dualistic conclusion. I have re read your posts and I am with you now.

What I have accidentally proposed in terms of dualism might be worth some investigation but it would be definitely off topic. Perhaps, a question for some other time. For now I am happy to follow your posts.

Regards

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

What did God withdraw?

---

Sanctification

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Sanctification

JoeT

---

No, He didn't! When? From whom?

He would have absolutely no reason to do that. Silly man backs away while God's moving in his direction.

Good morning, Joe.

Let's talk about this sentence:

The SIN transmission is through the father (no mother is involved in transmission) to the children, both male and female.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Good morning, Joe.

Let's talk about this sentence:

The SIN transmission is through the father (no mother is involved in transmission) to the children, both male and female.

---

Let's restate this just a bit: because of Adam's one voluntary act of disobedience the effect of sin is transmitted to the whole of mankind for which God's justice is a punishment of which is a physical death and death of the soul of all those born of Adam.

This punishment is often referred to as banishment from Eden, sometimes called "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22), where Adam and Eve communed with God, Adam spoke to God and God spoke to Adam. Adam having fee will was one with God (oneness such as John 6:57 and John 17:21-22). Both Adam and Eve were made in the image and likeness of God, and they were one with God, i.e. spoke face to face with God. Whether Eden was a physical place on earth or a state of being is not important here. In either case, "God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good."

Thus we view original sin as the privation of sanctification, a privation from an abiding in God and God abiding in us. Eck continues exposing the converse view, that original sin is an applied guilt.

Original Sin is that men are born without the fear of God and without trust in God, is to be entirely rejected, since it is manifest to every Christian that to be without the fear of God and without trust in God is rather the actual guilt of an adult than the offence of a recently-born infant, which does not possess as yet the full use of reason, as the Lord says "Your children which had no knowledge between good and evil," Deut 1:39. (Johann Eck, The Confutatio Pontificia, 1530)

More succinctly we see that guilt requires a voluntary act and sin is an evil act,

“… sin is nothing else than a bad human act. Now that an act is a human act is due to its being voluntary, whether it be voluntary, as being elicited by the will, e.g. to will or to choose, or as being commanded by the will, e.g. the exterior actions of speech or operation. Again, a human act is evil through lacking conformity with its due measure: and conformity of measure in a thing depends on a rule, from which if that thing depart, it is incommensurate. Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God's reason, so to speak. See Contra Faustum . xxii, 27 CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Faustum, Book XXII (Augustine), St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, II, 71,6

Key to the point here is to apply guilt or innocence, to wit punishment or merit, of any act of sin must be voluntary. As Augustine explains; "Now both justice and injustice, to be acts at all, must be voluntary; otherwise, there can be no just rewards or punishments; which no man in his senses will assert." (Contra Faustum . Xxii, 78) Adam's sin was a voluntary act for which God's justice brought death, physical and spiritual, i.e. the life leaves the physical body, and life (sanctification) leaves the soul. It is God's plan in the New Covenant through the first graces of Baptism that sanctification re-instills, as it were, drop by drop or bite by bite, the 'fullness of salvific grace' in man. In Baptism the punishment for the first sin of Adam is removed, there being no guilt in the individual because the sin committed by Adam was not a voluntary act of the individual. We can see through the lens of Baptism how the nature of original sin stains all of mankind. St. Thomas explains it best:

"An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his 'fault', for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam" (De Malo, 4, 1).

We can therefore conclude original sin is not 'transmitted', as it were, like a virus from male or female (one or both gender) to their offspring, both punishment and guilt handed down from generation to generation. Rather, it is a condition of being a member of the human species after the fall of Adam. We use the term inherited only to explain that all of mankind, except One, after Adam's fall receives the effects of God's justice without the guilt, whereby we receive from Adam a privation of sanctification. Iin this way, a child born, even from a process of cloning, without father or mother, is subject to original sin. Conversely, a child born whose Father is the Spirit of God and whose mother is one without the stain of sanctification's privation is a New Eve, a human like Adam prior to the fall in perfect union with God, i.e. Christ.

JoeT

No, Joe. Nice try, but we're not at Justification or Sanctification yet. All I want to know is if you agree with or disagree with this sentence:

The SIN transmission is through only the father to the children, both male and female.

Circle one: Agree Disagree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

No, Joe. Nice try, but we're not at Justification or Sanctification yet. All I want to know is if you agree with or disagree with this sentence:

The SIN transmission is through only the father to the children, both male and female.

Circle one: Agree |Disagree|

---

I explained correctly. How would you contort my explanation so that original sin only comes from the father? Aren't you obligated to something more than 'nice try'? Otherwise, I'm left with an unsupported opinion – and everybody has one of those.

JoeT