Same holds true for you.
It’s been back and forth since
Because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that without the talking snake sin would not have entered the world, and without sin death, and without death there would be no need for the Savior. Ergo Christianity would not exist.
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
I never said anything about anyone adoring any snakes. You are making this up. I simply said that without the snake there would be no reason for the Savior.
That such a claim must be accepted as a common assumption. It's not an assumption, it's based on what's in the Bible. No talking snake; no sin; no death; no need for salvation.
Is it your position that anything a Materialist asserts must be admitted as objective?
No, not at all. I never said anything like that. But as for the importance of the talking snake being the source of man's need for salvation, that is all in the Bible, black and white.
Really?! Now just a fact; not an objective fact? Just exactly what does “objective” mean?
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts : historians try to be objective and impartial.
• not dependent on the mind for existence; actual : a matter of objective fact.
Apparently, it’s your biblical opinion (interpretation) that sin is contingent on a talking snake; that the willfulness of man has nothing to do with it. The snake said, “let there be sin,” and there was sin. Had there been no snake saying, “let there be sin,” there would have been no sin. The damned snake installed willfulness in Mankind as well as sin. That’s the instruction you take away from the Biblical story of Adam & Eve. If it’s all the snake’s doing, why, then, is man punished?
Just for kicks and giggles, let’s examine the three Great Theses you’ve nailed on the door:
without the talking snake Adam doesn't sin.
without sin there is no death.
without death there is no need for the Savior to die for our sins.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the first of these great theses, let’s go directly to the others.
According to materialist dogma, death is inescapable irrespective of one’s state of grace. In fact, since sin is nonexistent because free will does not exist and sin is dependent on free will, then one’s state of grace has no relevance anyway. Materialists don’t believe in sin, only in death. There is no need for a savior since we’re all going to die in any event. Materialists really don’t believe in any of this nonsense, so none of it is central to Biblical Instruction. Just talking snakes. So, everything hinges on the first Great Thesis.
“I never said anything about anyone adoring any snakes.”
Accept the consequences of your advocacy. You wish to appropriate the advantages of an idea (in this case that talking snake and other “fantastic tales” are central to Biblical Instruction) while denying or ignoring the validity of the understandings upon which the idea logically and genetically depends. So, while Biblical Instruction is concentrated in talking animals and other fantasies, you propose that it is the author (not that you actually believe in Him) of such peripheral bagatelles as the two Great Commandments who is to be worshiped rather than the authors of the central events of Biblical Instruction.
Your three Great Theses fail because they hinge on the failed first.