From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 06:13:59 -0800, John Harshman   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 1/28/26 3:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> 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 ….   
   >>   
   >Maybe you owe me an apology on the basis that you are so smug and   
   >condescending that you are unwilling even to explain what I got wrong or   
   >what a more correct view might be. If this is the only sort of "reply"   
   >you're capable of, better to remain silent.   
      
   Not at all smug or patronizing. I have shown here many times that I am   
   prepared to debate rationally with anyone who is willing to have a   
   sensible and rational discussion but I don't waste my limited time   
   with people who make up things about me or misrepresent what I said or   
   decide my arguments are false before I even express them. I have tried   
   on a few occasions to have a sensible debate with you but every single   
   time, you have failed on at least one count and on all of them in this   
   current thread.   
      
   >   
   >Very well, you have defeated me.   
      
   Not anything that gives me any particular pleasure; I get far more out   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)