Surely any sin associated with sexual attraction lies in inappropriately indulging it, not just in experiencing it.

The idea that Jesus would have the same relationship to all women (and presumably all men as well) as he would his parents or siblings misses the point.

There’s something deeply wrong, or at least something deeply missing whenever we claim Jesus didn’t sin because he couldn’t. That makes him a great story, but a lousy role model.

This is implying that no straight married man can keep from having adultery with every woman who isn’t his wife – and the equivalent for every gay man and every woman. Isn’t it rather more important to say that it’s perfectly appropriate to recognize the attraction to someone else, appreciate their physical beauty and attractive character, and still not choose to deliberately cultivate sexual thoughts about them that turn them into an object in your mind?

I’d rather relate to a Jesus who could agree that someone was attractive and appreciate that about them without objectifying and dehumanizing them rather than someone who was wired so differently that his example is meaningless to me.

Um….gay men!!! I never do. Seriously, despite the fact that I was married for 23 years. I did the deed and have two fine military officer sons to show for it but my “lust” was always for men.
And I have a problem with the use of the word “adultery” in this context. Adultery is “sexual infidelity to one’s spouse” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery and neither Jesus nor any man or woman can be committing adultery if they are not married, even if they lust for or have sex with someone who IS married (it’s that married person who is committing adultery). That goes for using adultery as a criticism of gays as well.
Using the word adultery in the context of general lust is a remarkably careless use of the word.

Anyway, his stat may have been wrong but it stuck with me.

being human is more than wearing a suit of flesh… it is about passion, love, lust, loss, joy, being hurt, hurting… loosing relationships and repairing them… it is also about not being 100% sure about what happens after death… and leaps of faith.

Lastly, to think that all the Jesus was and all that he experienced was captured by the biblical writers… writing nearly a generation after Jesus dies… belittles both Jesus experience. No person can be fully captured in a book. Also, the orthodox biblical writers had an agenda… to depict Jesus as a god… so the likely edited out his human aspects… there was actually a very big debate about this issue in the first and second centuries AD… this debate and centuries of thought re: Jesus and his teachings were supressed and destroyed when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire in the 300′s AD … it was then that Jesus the man… was turned into Christ the god… and all those that disagreed with this point of view were basically just killed.

So it is a nice theory… but I think it likely misses the mark.

At least I foolishly try to think of myself as fully-human most of the time. *Sigh.* *Wimper*