LOL, you may be a glutton for punishment. Here are some of the synonyms for contingent: unpredictable, accidental, fortuitous, incidental, unexpected
unforeseen, dependent.
Never mind that you left out the "uncertain" element form the definition of contingent, such as (1) "dependent for existence, occurrence, character, etc., on something not yet certain" [as in: contingent on the weather] or (2) " liable to happen or not; uncertain; possible" [as in: plan for contingent expenses.], or (3) "happening by chance or without known cause" [as in: contingent occurrences].
So much for your linguistic skills. You get an F.
It is a matter of interpretation. You claim that sin is contingent on a talking snake
I never said it was contingent on the talking snake. I would never say such an idiotic thing. If you wish to paraphrase what I said then use words such as incumbent, or compelling or necessary...but not contingent. Don't make me laugh.
Well then, debunk
Read the Bible. There was no one else.
Are you claiming that sin is a material object?
You do seem to be lost. I never said that either. More strawmen.
Clearly you are “influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts,” and are not at all objective in your judgment
You carefully avoided to answer why did God punish the talking snake if it was all the fault of Adam and Eve? Why was the snake there to begin with? You think that scam artists are not responsible for their scams?
Yet, it is your materialist dogma that blinds you to the simple understanding that sin stems directly from Mankind’s willfulness.
Then why was the snake punished?
Materialists don’t think sin exists. Therefore, talking snakes sound no less fantastic to Materialists than the willfulness of Man.
I don't think man's willfulness is fantastic; I do think the talking snake is.
You may be too prideful to admit error. The synonyms you offer are for the second definition of “contingent.” Some other synonyms, offered for the first definition of “contingent:” dependent on, conditional on, subject to, determined by, hinging on, resting on.
“Never mind that you left out the "uncertain" element form (from?) the definition of contingent”
Never mind that you left out the “determined by” element from your rebut. I provided a definition for the context in which I was using the term. You insist that sin would not exist without the talking snake (“you refuse to acknowledge the fact that without the talking snake sin would not have entered the world”). That makes sin directly contingent on the talking snake (by the gospel according to kosta, at least). Give it up. You’re only making yourself look foolish. It’s what happens when You indulge in the oldest of all fallacies: the blatant denial of the patently obvious.
“So much for your linguistic skills. You get an F.”
On the contrary our discussions have highlighted the deficiencies of your research skills. You’ve dramatically demonstrated you haven’t the expertise to be issuing grades on anyone (unless you’re doing it for comedic effect).
“You carefully avoided to answer why did God punish the talking snake if it was all the fault of Adam and Eve?”
Way back at the beginning of this sidebar (at least insofar as my participation is concerned) I observed that that none of the “fantastic tales” upon which you have been harping, or anything like them, embodies the essence of Biblical instruction. They merely give scripture scoffers an opportunity to sneer.
I suggested, rather, that the most important biblical instruction would be 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 issues central to Biblical lessons. We’ve gone round and round ever since.
Burden of proof (be it scientific, philosophic, or otherwise) does not come into play until common assumptions are established. I’m not buying into your insistence that “fairy tales” are central to Biblical Instruction and must be accepted as a common assumption. Earlier I observed that 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. You demurred. I further observed that we share no common assumptions so, while speaking to one another is possible, discussion is not. With that you seemed to agree.
Nonetheless you seem to want to continue the discussion absent common assumptions. Not likely, pilgrim.
Reading The Bible for instruction is not as simple a matter as reading a biological lab report or a paper on bones. I do accept scripture literally (as in “Thou shalt not steal”). I also accept scripture metaphorically, allegorically, historically, doctrinally and literarily. On this I would note that the dual commission issued to the KJV translators was to combine elegance of translation with faithfulness to the text (see In The Beginning, by Alister McGrath). I think the translators were eminently successful in their task. All of which leads me to conclude that scripture amounts to something more than a volume of lab reports issued on disparate scientific experiments. If one’s object in surveying scripture is for a purpose greater than merely promoting an argument, this understanding is indispensable. The cultural tradition and the literary tradition of the English-speaking people, the ancient Greeks, and of the Hebrew people, demand it.