From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 23:11:59 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   You might find it more productive to reflect on why you create the   
   impression rather than criticising me for getting it.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
      
   No comment on any of that? After all, it is from the link that you   
   posted.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)