Huh. Someone managed to phrase the taboo question in a constructive way.

@DavidStratton Impressive.

I know, right? I re-read it like five times. First because I couldn't believe I couldn't thnk of a reason to vtc and then because I was flabberghasted that NOBODY had thought of asking that question that way. I hope that person sticks around a LONG time.

I feel like doing the Wayne's World "We're not worthy" to that question.

@mawia Thanks for working on tag wikis. Please don't take that rejection as a call to stop, I just wanted to draw your attention to the guidelines. Esp the line that uses "email" as an example. Some things don't need defining so much (everybody knows who "God" is) as they need help knowing when to apply or not apply a tag to a question.

@Caleb I also thought the same. Was just trying. :)

If I ask about the Inquisition, will it be closed?

@Mawia Not on topical grounds alone. If you ask carefully, it should be fine.

If you actually want to learn something, go for it.

@fredsbend How about this? Its from stack overflow.

@Mawia That may not help me in upcoming elections, but I am bored and had to one up your numbers :)

@Caleb U&L?

@waxeagle No. C.SE + browser with a DOM inspector/modifier.

@Caleb ah :) too easy :)

@Alypius I'm not the downvoter, but I suspect it's because you didn't really answer the question in a substantial way. You gave support for the position that Jesus didn't have the ability to succumb to temptation and then effectively said "You could argue that Jesus could have given in to temptation by arguing against [these points]."

> Of course, in an attempt to show that Jesus could sin, any one of the three points could be argued.

In contrast, David Stratton's answer gives an actual basis, not the negation of a basis for the opposite position.

How frustrating. When I read David's explanation, I thought that it addressed a separate question of whether God could sin, not whether Jesus could sin. When I wrote my question, I pointed out all three points at which the argument could be made, and then specified the actual argument used: "separate Jesus into two persons, so as to undermine the divinity of some aspect", and then backed up my claim by citing this as Nestorianism.

Most of the time it feels like I'm answering blind, since I have no metric for judging how my answer will be judged.

@Mawia cool.

@Caleb What is this voodoo!? Still pretty cool. I would have not thought to do that.

Hey @TRiG...

@El'endiaStarman Booyah! rofl.