Why was Adam exempt from the transgression when the transgression was disobedience?

[Cyberman]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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)

[Greatest I am]

[Bibliofagus]

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'?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Education and example.

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

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

"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.

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?

[Cyberman]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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!

[Bibliofagus]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[Bibliofagus]

Heh. True that.