From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 28/01/2026 10:21 pm, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 12:02:13 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 28/01/2026 3:40 am, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:54:52 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 21/01/2026 11:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> [...]   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> [2] I don't know whether or not MarkE takes it [Adam anmd Eve] as a true   
   story but   
   >>>>> whilst he started this original thread, he hasn't been part of this   
   >>>>> particular sub-thread.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I don't have a settled position.   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm genuinely curious about this.   
   >>>   
   >>> Firstly, what makes you think it might be a real story rather than a   
   >>> figurative one?   
   >>>   
   >>> Secondly, why would it matter if it's figurative rather than literal?   
   >>   
   >> Those issues are signifcant, but here I'm not inclined to go down that   
   >> rabbit hole, e.g.:   
   >   
   > You've used that get-out several times with me when I have questioned   
   > you on religious aspects of this debate. You give the impression that   
   > you are wildly enthusiastic about going down scientific rabbit holes   
   > but considerably less enthusiastic about going down religious ones. Do   
   > they frighten you?   
      
   In my previous response (which you snipped), I said:   
      
   "In my experience, other contexts are more conducive to discussion of   
   science/theology questions, therefore here I generally focus on science   
   alone."   
      
   The tone and substance of your comment here verifies the wisdom of my   
   approach.   
      
   >   
   >> https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69795f173f808191bd5a7c31300e16f5   
   >   
   > That summary is rather dismissive of literalism as propounded by   
   > evangelicals and fundamentalists.   
   >   
   > Section 2 in it seems a fairly accurate summary of what is   
   > "doctrinally essential, regardless of interpretive model."   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   > 1) God is the intentional Creator of all that exists   
   >   
   >     * Creation is not self-existent or eternal.   
   >   
   >    * God is ontologically distinct from creation.   
   >   
   > 2) Creation is ordered, good, and purposeful   
   >   
   >    * The world is intelligible, not chaotic or illusory.   
   >   
   >    * Human beings are part of that order, not accidental intrusions.   
   >   
   > 3) Humans uniquely bear the image of God   
   >   
   >    * However one understands the mechanism or timeline, humanity   
   >       has a distinctive status and vocation.   
   >   
   > 3) Human rebellion is real and morally significant   
   >   
   >    * Sin is not merely ignorance or evolutionary immaturity.   
   >   
   >    * Alienation from God, others, and creation is a genuine rupture.   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   > I don't see anything in that which is challenged by a figurative   
   > understanding of Genesis. Neither do I see anything in science that   
   > contradicts any of it.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)