sin

[badgolferman]

All this talk about sin brought up a question for me:

Do non-religious people commit "sin" or is that only reserved for those
who accept the admonishments of religious writings? Non-religious
people must adhere to man's law or else be punished by the justice
system, but they are not bound to religious laws unless they choose to
adopt the convenient ones. But even if they do commit sin will they be
held accountable since they have completely rejected God?

Example:
tedw -- "Dexter, stop sinning by having sex with men."
Dexter -- "I don't believe in your sins and will do whatever I please."

--
"We need not worry so much about what man descends from - it's what he
descends to that shames the human race." ~ Mark Twain

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 5/18/2022 8:17 AM, badgolferman wrote:
> All this talk about sin brought up a question for me:
>
> Do non-religious people commit "sin" or is that only reserved for those
> who accept the admonishments of religious writings? Non-religious
> people must adhere to man's law or else be punished by the justice
> system, but they are not bound to religious laws unless they choose to
> adopt the convenient ones. But even if they do commit sin will they be
> held accountable since they have completely rejected God?
>
> Example:
> tedw -- "Dexter, stop sinning by having sex with men."
> Dexter -- "I don't believe in your sins and will do whatever I please."
>

Here is the problem: How does anyone know what is really a sin in God's
view vs. what is just human perception? For example, at one time it
would have been deemed sinful for a woman to wear a bikini.

IMO, one's conscience plays a major role in this question. Regardless of
whether one believes in God or not, it only makes sense that God would
consider an individual's conscience in determining whether he has sinned
or not. If a person knows they did wrong, then they did wrong. Are
sinning and doing wrong the same thing, or does it depend on whether or
not you believe in God? I'd say that's a purely semantic argument.

[tedw]

I know the answer to this Mike so I will respond. Yes, they do commit sin whether they acknowledge it or not.

Jesus said: ""7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me."

The best thing I have ever read about this is from the Quaker booklet " A Guide to True Peace" which was compiled in 1815 from the writings of previous Mystics.

"Jesus Christ saith: “Behold, I stand at the door, and
knock—if any man hear my voice, and open the
door, I will come unto him, and sup with him, and
he with me.”* His knocks are the monitions of His
Spirit; which touches us, and operates in us. And to
attend to these monitions and follow them, is to
open unto Him.

God speaks in impenitent sinners; but these,
engrossed in the eager pursuit of worldly pleasures,
and the gratification of their evil passions, are not
able
to hear Him. His word with them passes for a fable.
But wo unto those who receive their consolation in
this life. The time will come when their vain joys
shall be confounded.
He speaks in sinners who are in the way of
conversion: these feel the remorses of their
conscience, and these remorses are the voice of God,
which upbraids them inwardly with their vices.
When they are truly touched, they have no difficulty
to comprehend this secret voice, for it is this that so
pierces them to the quick. It is that two-edged sword
within them, of which St. Paul speaks, which goes
even to the dividing of the soul from itself: “The
word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than
any two-edged sword; piercing even to the dividing
asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and
marrow; and is a discerner of the thoughts and
intents of the heart.”*

****
The plight of the "Alcoholic" is described right there. "They are engossed in the eager pursuit of wordly pleasures and the gratification of their evil passions" And were we not all like that? And are not many of the contributors of alt.recovery. aa still like that? Does not the Spirit of Truth pass as a fable to them?

Conscience, the Holy Spirit, convicts of sin in our hearts. That is the reason many homosexuals (and other sinners of all stripes) are terribly conflicted over their lifestyles. And when they are, there is real hope for them. God does not give us inner peace in our foolishness.

Denial of Truth, hatred of Truth, is really the root cause of all Addiction (Something you may not want to admit). And why do we hate the Truth in our hearts? Is it not because we want to be God and chart our own path thru life. and take our pleasure at the local bar, whorehouse, or bath house or wherever.

Perhaps you can see there is great wisdom in the phrase "Sought thru prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God"

For those want to learn meditation, the Quaker Guide to True Peace is a good place to start. As the Big Book of AA says. " There are many helpful books......Be quick to see where religious people are right. Make us of what they offer"

Good advice which mostly falls on deaf ears at alt.recovery.aa, This is a pretty lost crowd here, and the reason in times past you have decided to exit.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 5/18/22 09:17, badgolferman wrote:
> All this talk about sin brought up a question for me:
>
> Do non-religious people commit "sin" or is that only reserved for those
> who accept the admonishments of religious writings? Non-religious
> people must adhere to man's law or else be punished by the justice
> system, but they are not bound to religious laws unless they choose to
> adopt the convenient ones. But even if they do commit sin will they be
> held accountable since they have completely rejected God?
>
> Example:
> tedw -- "Dexter, stop sinning by having sex with men."
> Dexter -- "I don't believe in your sins and will do whatever I please."
>

As an Agnostic, I view the term sin as *dickhead* behavior...I see
levels of it..Cheating on a test may not be a big deal, while cheating
on one's spouse, murder, or causing harm to others is.

--
Dr. Skeezix LaRocca, D.B. (Doctor Of Buffoonery)
Registered Linux Novice & Abuser #526706
We aren't cheap, but we're reasonable
No appointment needed

[badgolferman]

Skeezix LaRocca wrote:

>On 5/18/22 09:17, badgolferman wrote:
>>All this talk about sin brought up a question for me:
>>
>>Do non-religious people commit "sin" or is that only reserved for
>>those who accept the admonishments of religious writings?
>>Non-religious people must adhere to man's law or else be punished
>>by the justice system, but they are not bound to religious laws
>>unless they choose to adopt the convenient ones. But even if they
>>do commit sin will they be held accountable since they have
>>completely rejected God?
>>
>>Example:
>>tedw -- "Dexter, stop sinning by having sex with men."
>>Dexter -- "I don't believe in your sins and will do whatever I
>>please."
>>
>

>As an Agnostic, I view the term sin as dickhead behavior...I see

>levels of it..Cheating on a test may not be a big deal, while
>cheating on one's spouse, murder, or causing harm to others is.

So according to you "sin" is relative and according to Charlie it's
only "sin" if you feel like it is. So the child molestor who thinks
sex with a twelve-year-old is okay because it's not as bad as sex with
a two-year-old is not sinning. Maybe the two-year-old is too tight for
them

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 5/18/2022 10:59 AM, Skeezix LaRocca wrote:

> As an Agnostic, I view the term sin as *dickhead* behavior...I see
> levels of it..Cheating on a test may not be a big deal, while cheating
> on one's spouse, murder, or causing harm to others is.
>

There you go making sense with that damned moral relativism again. :-)

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 5/18/2022 12:15 PM, badgolferman wrote:

>
> So according to you "sin" is relative and according to Charlie it's
> only "sin" if you feel like it is. So the child molestor who thinks
> sex with a twelve-year-old is okay because it's not as bad as sex with
> a two-year-old is not sinning. Maybe the two-year-old is too tight for
> them

Mike, I think we all agree there are sick people who do terrible things.
I can't get inside a pedophile's head, but I would think that most (if
not all) know on some level that what they are doing is wrong.

[Charlie M. 1958]

But to expand on your example:

Case #1 - A 22-year-old man has an emotional and sexual relationship
with a willing 15-year-old girl.

Case #2- A 50-year-old man rapes a 2-year-old.

Are both men in the wrong? Absolutely. Do I think one case is worse than
the other? You're damned right I do!

[Socrates]

On 5/18/2022 6:17 AM, badgolferman wrote:
> All this talk about sin brought up a question for me:
>
> Do non-religious people commit "sin" or is that only reserved for those
> who accept the admonishments of religious writings?

Eye of beholder.

> Non-religious people must adhere to man's law or else be punished by the
> justice system, but they are not bound to religious laws unless they choose
> to adopt the convenient ones.

Huh?

> But even if they do commit sin will they be held accountable since they have
> completely rejected God?

Sometimes reading your attempts at insight causes me to have stoner
flashbacks.

> Example:
> tedw -- "Dexter, stop sinning by having sex with men."
> Dexter -- "I don't believe in your sins and will do whatever I please."

?

[Dexter]

tedw wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 6:17:28 AM UTC-7, badgolferman wrote:
> > All this talk about sin brought up a question for me:
> >
> > Do non-religious people commit "sin" or is that only reserved for those
> > who accept the admonishments of religious writings? Non-religious
> > people must adhere to man's law or else be punished by the justice
> > system, but they are not bound to religious laws unless they choose to
> > adopt the convenient ones. But even if they do commit sin will they be
> > held accountable since they have completely rejected God?
> >
> > Example:
> > tedw -- "Dexter, stop sinning by having sex with men."
> > Dexter -- "I don't believe in your sins and will do whatever I please."
> >
>

> I know the answer to this Mike so I will respond. Yes, they do commit
> sin whether they acknowledge it or not.
>

-------| Remainder snipped as an act of sanitation |----------

So you have said in the past, Teddy. And nothing has changed, including
my response to you.

[tedw]

Do most homosexuals (if not all) know at some level what they are doing is wrong?

[Dexter]

-----------------------------
Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Teddy?

--
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually
the same god as the many ancient gods of past
civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed
monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one
wishes to know more of this raging, three headed
beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber
of people who say they serve him. They are always
of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
- paraphrased from the writings of Thomas Jefferson

[Robert Dye]

The verb "to sin" carries within it the literal meaning of "to miss the mark."

So "How much did you sin?" is more or less literally equivalent to "By how much did you miss your target?"

If you look at it as an understanding of our own reaction to our decisions/actions not meeting up with what we would see as "right"/ideal, you can apply it entirely free of any religious interpretation.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

No, I am saying there are degrees of bad behavior, or sin, as you prefer
to call it...What is bad/sin varies for the individual.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

I agree, 100%

[Skeezix LaRocca]

What two consenting adults do is none of my business, no matter what sex
they are.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

Just breaking it down for the kiddies in the group.

[badgolferman]

They have both sinned though. Should they be punished relative to your
"degree" of sinning? How would that be defined in the law?

[badgolferman]

They used to, but now homosexual activity is encouraged and even taught
in elementary schools.

[badgolferman]

Skeezix LaRocca wrote:

>No, I am saying there are degrees of bad behavior, or sin, as you
>prefer to call it...What is bad/sin varies for the individual.

It varies for the individual? So going back to the child molestor, if
he thinks it's okay to rape a two-year-old then it's not bad behavior
for him, but it's bad behavior for someone else who has a conscience?

[Charlie M. 1958]

Let me ask it this way....

First, like I said before, I seriously doubt pedophiles think what they
are doing is okay. But let's just say there is someone like that out
there, who truly is *so* mentally screwed up that he thinks it is
perfectly acceptable to have sex with a 2-year-old. That would pretty
much fit anyone's definition of insanity to think that way, wouldn't it?
If God would allow a person like this to exist, with no conscience
whatsoever regarding his pedophile behavior, do you think God would then
turn around and punish that individual, who HE allowed to exist with no
conscience? That would make no sense at all, would it?

[badgolferman]

Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

>On 5/19/2022 6:29 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>Skeezix LaRocca wrote:
>>
>>>No, I am saying there are degrees of bad behavior, or sin, as you
>>>prefer to call it...What is bad/sin varies for the individual.
>>
>>
>>It varies for the individual? So going back to the child molestor,
>>if he thinks it's okay to rape a two-year-old then it's not bad
>>behavior for him, but it's bad behavior for someone else who has a
>>conscience?
>
>Let me ask it this way....
>
>First, like I said before, I seriously doubt pedophiles think what
>they are doing is okay. But let's just say there is someone like that

>out there, who truly is so mentally screwed up that he thinks it is

>perfectly acceptable to have sex with a 2-year-old. That would pretty
>much fit anyone's definition of insanity to think that way, wouldn't
>it? If God would allow a person like this to exist, with no
>conscience whatsoever regarding his pedophile behavior, do you think
>God would then turn around and punish that individual, who HE allowed
>to exist with no conscience? That would make no sense at all, would
>it?

Who says God allowed that person to exist, but even if he did it was
probably to provide an example of evil? I would say Satan changed that
person's conscience. And the individual allowed that to happen because
they kept on sinning and Satan was able to step in.

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 5/19/2022 8:14 AM, badgolferman wrote:

> Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

>>
>> First, like I said before, I seriously doubt pedophiles think what
>> they are doing is okay. But let's just say there is someone like that
>> out there, who truly is so mentally screwed up that he thinks it is
>> perfectly acceptable to have sex with a 2-year-old. That would pretty
>> much fit anyone's definition of insanity to think that way, wouldn't
>> it? If God would allow a person like this to exist, with no
>> conscience whatsoever regarding his pedophile behavior, do you think
>> God would then turn around and punish that individual, who HE allowed
>> to exist with no conscience? That would make no sense at all, would
>> it?
>
>
> Who says God allowed that person to exist, but even if he did it was
> probably to provide an example of evil? I would say Satan changed that
> person's conscience. And the individual allowed that to happen because
> they kept on sinning and Satan was able to step in.

When logic fails, try bullshit?

I don't care if God allowed it, Satan caused it, or whatever. If a
person *truly* has no idea what they are doing is wrong, they can't be
considered morally culpable. Legality is a different matter. Of course
they need to be locked up for the protection of society.

[Robert Dye]

This is the questions which gets discussed about sociopaths/psychopaths.

(These terms are used almost interchangeably to refer to someone such as Dexter, or Hannibal Lecter, assorted serial killers. Someone who simply does not have an internal "moral sense." They don't want to get caught, and they have some sense that their behavior is illegal or unacceptable to others, but they don't have a sense of "right" vs. "wrong.")

Setting aside the question of legal consequence or how we ought to deal with such individuals once captured and convicted, what is their *moral* culpability?

Do they have any whatsoever?

We would not consider an escaped tiger "morally culpable" for attacking and eating a child. This is what predatory animals do.

Should we try to assign moral culpability to a person who, while appearing human, is basically nothing more than a human-shaped predator?

It's an interesting question. I land on the side of "they probably do *not* bear moral culpability," but this is a different question than legal culpability or what we should do with them.

[Robert Dye]

While I suppose that *possible,* I don't think it addresses the question at hand.

IIRC, there are documented cases where individuals have had brain injuries or tumors which have had profound effect upon their "moral" behavior.

If visual processing occurs in an identifiable portion of the brain, and the same is true for auditory processing, and respiration control, and motorAcontrol, and mathematical reasoning, and facial recognition, then why *not* moral reasoning?

And if this area is made of ordinary brain matter/flesh, just like every *other* part of our bodies, then why would it not be subject to error of development/damage/decay/illness/entropy, again, just like any part of our bodies?

And if due to some such defect, then where is moral culpability?

I am *not* saying no one ever *chooses* immoral behavior, but I question whether "immoral behavior" can occur entirely apart from the voluntary will.

I suspect it *can.*

Probably relatively rare, but it still *happens.*

[badgolferman]

Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

>I don't care if God allowed it, Satan caused it, or whatever. If a

>person truly has no idea what they are doing is wrong, they can't be

>considered morally culpable. Legality is a different matter. Of
>course they need to be locked up for the protection of society.

People are taught the difference between right and wrong from an early
age. They know what they are doing is wrong but are more concerned
about gratifying their insatiable needs. Any alcoholic can relate to
that.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

Exfuckingactly, in their twisted minds, often it is OK...Other times it
might be...Fuck it, I'm going to roll with it....It is in the eye of the
beholder..Unfortunately, what is OK for many, is clearly evil and goes
against everything a good society stands for

[Skeezix LaRocca]

I appreciate your honesty and I believe 100% that you believe that and
are just not stirring the pot....or are you ?

So, you're saying God allowed that two year old to be raped to teach a
lesson ?...Warner was right...God is an asshole, if in fact that is the
deal.

[Charlie M. 1958]

And I would agree your assessment covers the vast majority of bad behavior.

But we're talking about the immorality of an act *itself* vs. the moral
culpability of the person *committing* the act. They don't /always/ go
hand in hand.

Suppose you were totally lost in the woods, near starvation, and you
stumbled onto a cabin. You pried the door open and saved your own life
by taking advantage of the shelter and food that was in the cabin. We
all know stealing is wrong, but is what you did immoral under the
circumstances? Of course not.

[badgolferman]

Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

>On 5/19/2022 10:58 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
>>
>>>I don't care if God allowed it, Satan caused it, or whatever. If a
>>>person truly has no idea what they are doing is wrong, they can't
>>>be considered morally culpable. Legality is a different matter. Of
>>>course they need to be locked up for the protection of society.
>>
>>People are taught the difference between right and wrong from an
>>early age. They know what they are doing is wrong but are more
>>concerned about gratifying their insatiable needs. Any alcoholic
>>can relate to that.
>
>And I would agree your assessment covers the vast majority of bad
>behavior.
>

>But we're talking about the immorality of an act itself vs. the moral
>culpability of the person committing the act. They don't always go

>hand in hand.
>
>Suppose you were totally lost in the woods, near starvation, and you
>stumbled onto a cabin. You pried the door open and saved your own
>life by taking advantage of the shelter and food that was in the
>cabin. We all know stealing is wrong, but is what you did immoral
>under the circumstances? Of course not.

People make immoral decisions all the time and often are willing to pay
the price. No one should be excused for stealing, raping, murdering,
etc. Unfortunately bleeding heard liberals always seem to take the
side of the criminal and not the victim.

[badgolferman]

Skeezix LaRocca wrote:

>On 5/19/22 07:29, badgolferman wrote:
>>Skeezix LaRocca wrote:
>>
>>>No, I am saying there are degrees of bad behavior, or sin, as you
>>>prefer to call it...What is bad/sin varies for the individual.
>>
>>
>>It varies for the individual? So going back to the child molestor,
>>if he thinks it's okay to rape a two-year-old then it's not bad
>>behavior for him, but it's bad behavior for someone else who has a
>>conscience?
>
>Exfuckingactly, in their twisted minds, often it is OK...Other times
>it might be...Fuck it, I'm going to roll with it....It is in the eye
>of the beholder..Unfortunately, what is OK for many, is clearly evil
>and goes against everything a good society stands for

In that case why imprison or punish the child molestor? He thinks it's
okay and since morality is relative who are you to say otherwise?

[badgolferman]

Evil is often faster to manifest itself than good can, but genuine good
lasts far longer than evil. And it is because bad things happen that
the rest of the people stand up and prevent its rampant spread in the
future.

[Sharx335]

On 2022-05-19 10:18 a.m., Skeezix LaRocca wrote:
> On 5/19/22 07:29, badgolferman wrote:
>> Skeezix LaRocca wrote:
>>
>>> No, I am saying there are degrees of bad behavior, or sin, as you
>>> prefer to call it...What is bad/sin varies for the individual.
>>
>>
>> It varies for the individual?  So going back to the child molestor, if
>> he thinks it's okay to rape a two-year-old then it's not bad behavior
>> for him, but it's bad behavior for someone else who has a conscience?
>
> Exfuckingactly, in their twisted minds, often it is OK...Other times it
> might be...Fuck it, I'm going to roll with it....It is in the eye of the
> beholder..Unfortunately, what is OK for many, is clearly evil and goes
> against everything a good society stands for
>

The sad thing is that in many jurisdictions, including Canada, is that
the age of 18 is used as the magic cut off. Diddle with someone ONE DAY
younger than 18 and a world of shit descends on the perp. Throughout
history, lots of cultures married far younger than that. Nowadays
maturity, even emotional maturity occurs at a younger age. In a TRULY
just society, there would not be a rock solid cut off age for deciding
what what a crime, there would be a grey age area. In such cases, the
courts could weigh the evidence and decide if the youth really was a
victim OR a willing participant, able to give true consent.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

WTF ?...It is the collective view of society that punish the
molester...I just happen to agree with society.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 5/19/22 13:14, badgolferman wrote:

>
> People make immoral decisions all the time and often are willing to pay
> the price. No one should be excused for stealing, raping, murdering,
> etc. Unfortunately bleeding heard liberals always seem to take the
> side of the criminal and not the victim.

I really hope for your sake, you are never stranded and starving in the
woods and take the high road not to steal the can o' Dinty Moore Beef
Stew from the cabin owner.

[CW]

In your 'TRULY just society' as long as it can be shown the 2-year old
is/was very mature for her age and was totally up for it, then, no harm/no
foul?

[badgolferman]

Skeezix LaRocca wrote:

>On 5/19/22 13:14, badgolferman wrote:
>
>>
>>People make immoral decisions all the time and often are willing to
>>pay the price. No one should be excused for stealing, raping,
>>murdering, etc. Unfortunately bleeding heard liberals always seem
>>to take the side of the criminal and not the victim.
>
>I really hope for your sake, you are never stranded and starving in
>the woods and take the high road not to steal the can o' Dinty Moore
>Beef Stew from the cabin owner.

I didn't say I wouldn't do it, I said I would be willing to pay the
price for stealing.

[badgolferman]

And on that note:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10834835/Young-girls-starting-undergo-puberty-young-six-years-old.html

[Dexter]

> not moral reasoning?

>
> And if this area is made of ordinary brain matter/flesh, just like every

> other part of our bodies, then why would it not be subject to error of

> development/damage/decay/illness/entropy, again, just like any part of our
> bodies?
>
> And if due to some such defect, then where is moral culpability?
>

> I am not saying no one ever chooses immoral behavior, but I question whether

> "immoral behavior" can occur entirely apart from the voluntary will.
>
> I suspect it *can.*
>
> Probably relatively rare, but it still *happens.*

-----------------------------

That would be the frontal lobes. And the effect of injury or tumor
to the frontal lobes on behavior and personality has been widely
studied and well documented.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5786154/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6120760/

https://www.neuroskills.com/brain-injury/frontal-lobes/

https://www.flintrehab.com/frontal-lobe-brain-injury-recovery/

[Dexter]

-----------------------------
Why does it seem in the world as it exists today, despite the declarations
of fervent christians, that their god is incapable of preventing evil? Or
unwilling to intervene in the commission of evil in this world? Or
punishing evil doers when we humans cannot do so?

This question has never been adequately answered that I can discern.

--
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually
the same god as the many ancient gods of past
civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed
monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one
wishes to know more of this raging, three headed
beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber
of people who say they serve him. They are always
of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
- paraphrased from the writings of Thomas Jefferson

[badgolferman]

How do you know God isn’t already preventing evil on a much grander scale?
What you see as evil may be small things which slip through, or just
lessons for the rest of us.

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 5/19/2022 9:25 PM, Dexter wrote:

> -----------------------------
> Why does it seem in the world as it exists today, despite the declarations
> of fervent christians, that their god is incapable of preventing evil? Or
> unwilling to intervene in the commission of evil in this world? Or
> punishing evil doers when we humans cannot do so?
>
> This question has never been adequately answered that I can discern.
>

If I was going to tackle this question from the point of view of a
believer, I'd tell you it's kind of a yin and yang thing. Whether one
believes in a creator god or not, it seems obvious to me that humans
would be largely incapable of experiencing any positive without having
felt its negative. We couldn't know joy if we didn't know sorrow. We
couldn't know pleasure if we didn't know pain. We couldn't know serenity
if we hadn't felt inner turmoil. We could not recognize good if we
didn't know evil. Even in the myth of Adam and Eve, it's clear they
didn't understand what paradise was until they were expelled from it.

[tedw]

You talk as is Adam and Eve is a myth. You have proof of that , of course?

[Socrates]

And you have proof it is not, of course.

Of course with mythology there are many versions. Adam and Eve,
according to the CREATION *MYTH* of the Abrahamic religions, were the
first man and woman but there are more:

They may not be exactly the same, but they have common elements you can
pick up from story to story.

10 Variations of the Adam and Eve Creation Story in Different Cultures

https://medium.com/@amusawale/10-variations-of-the-adam-and-eve-creation-story-in-different-cultures-ba04b74eeb29

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 5/20/2022 8:46 AM, tedw wrote:

> You talk as is Adam and Eve is a myth. You have proof of that , of course?

Adam and Steve told me so.

[Robert Dye]

That's really not an adequate answer.

The closest the scriptures come to providing an answer is the Book of Job, and all *it* does is say what the correct answer is *not.* Then God shows up at the end, when Job demands an answer, and God rejects Job's standing to make such a demand.

[Dexter]

-----------------------------

“Yes, reason has been a part of organized religion, ever since two
nudists took dietary advice from a talking snake.” Jon Stewart

[jimbo]

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:17:28 AM UTC-4, badgolferman wrote:
> All this talk about sin.

Sin is an English word borrowed from archery. It means to fall short, to miss
the mark. We all fall short!

[tedw]

Yes, I would expect them to say that. Are they still AA members?

[Charlie M. 1958]

They go to all the same meetings as Mike.

[Socrates]

On 5/20/2022 8:21 AM, Dexter wrote:
> Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/2022 8:46 AM, tedw wrote:
>>
>> > You talk as is Adam and Eve is a myth. You have proof of that , of course?
>>
>> Adam and Steve told me so.

> “Yes, reason has been a part of organized religion, ever since two
> nudists took dietary advice from a talking snake.” Jon Stewart

LOL, somehow I had missed that one. Thanks.

[Dexter]

Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

> On 5/20/2022 12:47 PM, tedw wrote:
> > On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 7:20:45 AM UTC-7, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
> > > On 5/20/2022 8:46 AM, tedw wrote:
> > >
> > > > You talk as is Adam and Eve is a myth. You have proof of that , of
> > > > course?
> > > Adam and Steve told me so.
> >
> > Yes, I would expect them to say that. Are they still AA members?
>
> They go to all the same meetings as Mike.

-----------------------------
Is *that* why Mikey's always so pissed off?