Fat chance. If someone comes here to promote their flat earth theory I am not obligated to believe that drivel just because some people believe it.
I’m not buying into your insistence that “fairy tales” are central to Biblical Instruction and must be accepted as a common assumption.
That is certainly your right, but my argument stands nonetheless, because it is objectively true, and will repeat it:
This makes the talking snake the central theme on which the largest religion on earth rests.
[“who's the editor?”]
YHWH
That is your belief, not a fact. If it is a fact, then prove it.
That “clunk” we heard was the hint you dropped hoping the RM would catch it (speaking of desperation)
If I wanted the RM to catch it I could have pinged him. So much for my "desperation." Implying motives to another FReeper, as you did, is an ad hominem mind-reading, as per the RF rules.
Nor am I obliged to accept the drivel that talking snakes are central to Biblical Instruction. You would have us believe for the sake of your argument that sin was caused by a talking snake. Since talking snakes cannot exist according to materialistic theory, ergo, sin cannot exist. That at least has the virtue of being consistent with materialistic dogma.
My observation was, however, that if you are to promote a dispute you are obliged to insist that “fairy tales” are central to Biblical Instruction, what you “believe” notwithstanding.
“my argument stands nonetheless, because it is objectively true . . . ”
from the Oxford thesaurus:
interpretation
noun
1 the interpretation of the Bible's teachings explanation, elucidation, expounding, exposition, explication, exegesis, clarification.
2 they argued over interpretation meaning, understanding, construal, connotation, explanation, inference.
3 the interpretation of experimental findings analysis, evaluation, review, study, examination.
4 his interpretation of the sonata rendition, rendering, execution, presentation, performance, portrayal.
By definition, interpretation is not objective (save perhaps the specialized application found in #3). However, according to materialistic dogma, the valid application of the term would be confined to #3, so your error is a natural consequence of that view.
You give the impression that your materialism entitles you to claim objectiveness for anything you opine, and that opposition to your view can not be objective. We share no common assumptions so, while speaking to one another is possible, discussion is not.
“Implying motives to another FReeper, as you did, is an ad hominem mind-reading, as per the RF rules.”
Look to the beam in your own eye, pilgrim. Your accusation of “mind-reading” with the hope the RM doesn’t catch it, is itself an instance of implying motives.