From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 11:56:17 -0800, John Harshman   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 1/28/26 10:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:47:39 -0800, John Harshman   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>    
   >>> On 1/28/26 6:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>> 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   
   >>>> of good, honest debate and discussion.   
   >>>>   
   >>> Hey, I already told you that you've defeated me. Why the need to keep   
   >>> replying without replying?   
   >>    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)