From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 09:09:12 -0800, John Harshman   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 1/27/26 8:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:35:50 -0800, John Harshman   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 1/25/26 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 14:46:20 -0800, Mark Isaak   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>   
   >> [...]   
   >>   
   >>>>> I got the impression it was you, Martin, who was arguing in favor of a   
   >>>>> literal first couple.  I have no idea why you would do that except to   
   >>>>> support some degree of biblical literalness.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I wasn't arguing that human beings are *biologically* descended from a   
   >>>> unique couple - that would foolishly fly directly in the face of what   
   >>>> science has shown us; on the contrary, I was pointing out is that we   
   >>>> are *biologically* descended for may specific couples such as MT Eve's   
   >>>> parents, parents, grandparents.   
   >>>   
   >>> And thousands of other couples unconnected to Mt-Eve or Y-Adam.   
   >>>   
   >>>> It is entirely possible, however, that   
   >>>> the ability to recognize good, to deliberately choose between good and   
   >>>> evil, did start from one of those couples we are descended from. That   
   >>>> is what the real message of Genesis is - humans acquiring the ability   
   >>>> to recognize good and to deliberately choose between good and evil.   
   >>>   
   >>> Which is weird, since God told them not to acquire that ability, in fact   
   >>> told them they would die if they did. Now why would he want us not to   
   >>> have that ability?   
   >>>   
   >>>> TBH, whether that started with one couple or more than one is a matter   
   >>>> of total indifference to me. I'm happy, however, to go along with the   
   >>>> Church's opinion that it did start with one couple as there is no   
   >>>> particular reason to reject that.   
   >>>   
   >>> So before Adam ate the apple (or whatever he did to occasion the Fall)   
   >>> he wasn't a true man? And is knowledge of good and evil the same thing   
   >>> as the ability to know God, which was the faculty you previously claimed   
   >>> we inherited from Adam?   
   >>   
   >> Oh golly gee, yet another poster tries to attack me with a literal   
   >> reading of the Bible when I have made it clear that I reject that   
   >> literal reading.   
   >>   
   >So you reject Catholic teaching on this subject?   
      
   No   
      
   >Which requires that   
   >there were no true men before Adam? That would require that Adam was a   
   >real person, and thus to that extent the story must be read literally.   
   >And it seems that original sin must be taken literally too, and that sin   
   >was, as you said, acquiring the ability to recognize good and evil.   
   >Whether that involved an apple or not, that's the sin. What part of that   
   >should not be taken literally? It seems to me that those bits are what   
   >you and the Church are saying is the true core of the story.   
      
   Maybe I owe you an apology, John, on the basis that you are so highly   
   qualified both in Biblical exegesis and the particular teachings of   
   the Catholic Church.   
      
   Or maybe it's just a good example of "Harran's Law" that the level of   
   confidence with which someone attacks religious beliefs is directly   
   proportional to how little they actually know about those beliefs.   
      
   I'll really have to think about that ….   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)