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.
Repeat drivel as often as you wish; it is still drivel. Repetition of drivel does not lend it gravitas.
“What interpretation?”
Going back to posts #964 & #998, the original point I raised was that “fantastic tales” of talking snakes, talking donkeys, and so forth, are not central to Biblical Instruction. I suggested, rather, that most important was to heed the two great commandments, to honor one’s mother and father, to murmur not at the ways of Providence, and to attend to all the other lessons central to Biblical Instruction. It’s been back and forth since.
Apparently, you would have us believe, as a matter of objective fact, that 2 billion people around the earth crack open their bibles to adore talking snakes, talking donkeys, and to attend to other “fairy tales.” That such a claim must be accepted as a common assumption. And that the Biblical lessons I’ve mentioned are merely peripheral. Is it your position that anything a Materialist asserts must be admitted as objective?
“Again, if I wanted the RM to catch it, I could have pressed the "abuse" button or simply pinged the RM.”
Again . . . Your accusation of “mind-reading” in the hope the RM doesn’t catch it, is itself an instance of implying motives.