(September 24, 2014 at 11:07 am)Rhythm Wrote: The Other, though, I suppose that need not be "other than"...hehehe. Perhaps the serpent seduced adams wife, perhaps it represents a counterculture, perhaps a minority report, perhaps it represents our inner monologue confronted with the decrees of authority - our ability to see through the lies told "for our own good" - and then, in seeing them, our inability to resist the temptation to point them out or act upon that knowledge.

Or, maybe, the author told a story about dragons to keep coins falling in the cup - and it represents nothing other than entertainment. It's difficult to answer questions like these. Living authors are often told what their own work represents despite their vocal disagreement with the assessments of others.

That's the trouble with metaphors. Without knowing the author's intent, an orphaned metaphor is left flapping around desperately seeking an interpretation. Such can only be subjective. Thus a reading whereby a snake leads to forbidden fruit, resulting in loss of innocence, shame, and parental disapprobation, is at least as likely as any other thrown about over the years.

Of course, but even the author crafts his metaphor from a subjective point of reference.
(the interpretation you offered is pretty much what I take from the narrative as well)

(September 24, 2014 at 11:12 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 18, 2014 at 12:33 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: Second request.

But what is the first duty of one who has seized it, if mot to insure that all enjoy the same freedom of thought and action?

The first duty is to respect the rights of others. In this case, that right is the freedom of conscience. They chose a faith that subjugates them.

(September 18, 2014 at 12:33 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: Or do you just center on yourself and screw the rest?

Regards
DL

What are you doing about the 750 million Muslim women in bondage -- aside from posting on an atheist forum, of all places? I'm sure that's helpful.

Your sanctimony is nice. Let's see how it's motivated you to take practical steps in this cause.

Also, don't forget, this is the third time now: what steps do you think we should take to save these women from themselves?

Education and example.

As to me, I go wherever I have not beaned banned.

I get hell for it from some theists who somehow know how to find all the places that have banned me. The list is higher than 12. It surprised me a bit as it is the short list.

How many places have banned you?

"The first duty is to respect the rights of others."

I agree as it pertains to the freedom we were talking about.

I disagree in the sense that most people talk of rights and beliefs. Too many beliefs do damage and a moral man will not ignore them.

Lend me your ear a bit.

For the evils of religion to grow, read any scripture literally.

Any and all harmless beliefs are allowed by Gnostic Christians. We know that any myth can be internalized for good results and as esoteric ecumenists, we enjoy knowledge of all the myths that man has created about Gods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cian...=PLCBF574D

When there is a victim is when that view changes. Then you see why Christianity annihilated Gnostic Christianity. We do not let the evils of forced literalism go unopposed. To a tyrant like Constantine, we were poison. One of his first commands to his new Church was to kill off the free thinkers and of course, his new tool, his Church, did as bid. It was quite a ride for free thought for the next 1,000 years.

For the evils of religion to grow.

How can a Gnostic Christian, --- and any other free thinking moral person, --- not judge other's morals when seeing someone hurt other because of the same Church's teachings today?

Can you ignore such things if you have decent morals? Impossible. Especially with Islam pulling the same murderous, freedom stifling ****.

We must discriminate and judge constantly. Every law is a compulsion on all of us to judge.

It is my view that all right wing literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists, --- as well as those who do not believe. Literalists hurt their parent religions --- and everyone else, be he a believer or not. Literalists and the right wing of religions make us all into laughing stocks. Their God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution has got to go. So must beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic. These are all evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHa...x=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own fellow adherents.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9...eature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 3
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1185215493

Death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Z...eature=related

For evil to grow my friend, all good people need do is nothing. Fight literalism when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

Regards
DL

(September 24, 2014 at 2:53 am)ronedee Wrote: And the snake? The first experiment in [free will] that went totally wrong.... for the snake that is!

Maybe it would have went better if god would have introduced the snake as 'dangerous' instead of as a 'helper'?

(September 24, 2014 at 11:31 am)Greatest I am Wrote: Education and example.

How many Muslim women are reading this atheist forum, that they have the benefit of your "education" and "example"?

(September 24, 2014 at 11:31 am)Greatest I am Wrote: As to me, I go wherever I have not beaned banned.

I get hell for it from some theists who somehow know how to find all the places that have banned me. The list is higher than 12. It surprised me a bit as it is the short list.

How many places have banned you?

None. I've joined a couple of religious websites, but I don't preach to people.

(September 24, 2014 at 11:31 am)Greatest I am Wrote: "The first duty is to respect the rights of others."

I agree as it pertains to the freedom we were talking about.

I disagree in the sense that most people talk of rights and beliefs. Too many beliefs do damage and a moral man will not ignore them.

I don't "ignore" them. You are once again asserting that because I don't do what you prescribe, I'm doing nothing. I wish you'd stop that. Not only is it sloppy thinking, it's also untrue.

(September 24, 2014 at 11:31 am)Greatest I am Wrote: Lend me your ear a bit.

[hide tags not working for me, I snipped a long bit from the middle including videos]

Firstly, we were talking about women in Islam being treated as second-class citizens, not children being murdered. Keep your goalpost steady and your slope sticky, please.

For the record, concerning the anti-gay legislation, I posted my writing in a much more effective place than an online forum: I wrote my then-Senator and told her that I wanted to see action taken against that California-based church that was instigating it.

As for "witch-killing", I somehow doubt that those folk are gathering at online forums and taking aboard views different from their own. What are you doing in the way of actions to stop that?

(September 24, 2014 at 11:32 am)Bibliofagus Wrote: Maybe it would have went better if god would have introduced the snake as 'dangerous' instead of as a 'helper'?

I doubt it would have made much difference. They were so gullible, they didn't even think to question the existence, let alone the integrity, of literally the second talking entity they'd ever met (and the first of the subsequently created ones). Especially when it was giving them information 100% at odds with what they'd been told by a source they had no reason yet to doubt. Not even a "hey, God, could we have a quick word? We've just been chatting to this talking snake and it seems either it's lying or you are. Any chance of a ruling on this?"

Quite frankly, at this point A&E deserve to be scammed.

(September 24, 2014 at 11:32 am)Bibliofagus Wrote:

(September 24, 2014 at 2:53 am)ronedee Wrote: And the snake? The first experiment in [free will] that went totally wrong.... for the snake that is!

Maybe it would have went better if god would have introduced the snake as 'dangerous' instead of as a 'helper'?

Editors! Gah!

(September 24, 2014 at 11:48 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(September 24, 2014 at 11:32 am)Bibliofagus Wrote: Maybe it would have went better if god would have introduced the snake as 'dangerous' instead of as a 'helper'?

I doubt it would have made much difference. They were so gullible, they didn't even think to question the existence, let alone the integrity, of literally the second talking entity they ever met (and the first of the subsequently created ones). Especially when it was giving them information 100% at odds with what they'd are been told by a source they had no reason yet to doubt. Not even a "hey, God, could we have a quick word? We've just been chatting to this talking snake and it seems either it's lying or you are. Any chance of a ruling on this?"

Quite frankly, at this point A&E deserve to be scammed.

I wouldn't say it's 100% at odds, because it was god who did the introducing. But I think I agree with you. They could have asked and cleared up the matter.

Nah, they couldn't do that - how would that help to move the narrative forward in the direction the author intended to go? I mean, I suppose he could've told the story that way...but I bet no one would have remembered it.

Heh. True that.