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.
It's not drivel; it's obvious but I will repeat it one more time (I know it's difficult for some):
Couldn't be any clearer.
You would have us believe for the sake of your argument that sin was caused by a talking snake
That's right. No talking snake, no sin, according to the Bible.
Since talking snakes cannot exist according to materialistic theory, ergo, sin cannot exist
The materialistic world doesn't believe the Bible story. Bible believers do.
By definition, interpretation is not objective.
What interpretation? All I said was "my argument stands nonetheless, because it is objectively true." Everything I said is verifiable. Show me which of the three points I list is not objectively true.
We share no common assumptions so, while speaking to one another is possible, discussion is not
It's possible as long as we agree to disagree. But beyond the initial disagreement there is little to be gained from it.
Your accusation of “mind-reading” with the hope the RM doesn’t catch it, is itself an instance of implying motives.
Again, if I wanted the RM to catch it, I could have pressed the "abuse" button or simply pinged the RM.