Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[LadyForCamus]

I think as a group we should probably start documenting all of our personal experiences with Odin; maybe collect them all and start some kind of book of testimonials, or something. What do you guys think? We can call it Odin’s Word.

[Huggy Bear]

I still use film in my medium format vintage Hasselblad. Sometimes the transparencies come back with little markings on them. Sometimes it's happened in the lab. Sometimes it's light leaking into the camera if I have been careless. It had never occurred to me to claim it as being evidence of the supernatural.

Yeah, because a world renowned expert never would of thought of that...

[robvalue]

I think as a group we should probably start documenting all of our personal experiences with Odin; maybe collect them all and start some kind of book of testimonials, or something.  What do you guys think?

I think that's an excellent idea. Even if no one believes us now while we're alive, in 2,000 years a random collection of stories which vaguely hang together will be instantly believed all over the world.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Jor, that’s one of the work attempts at exegesis I’ve every seen. And the verses you quoted even make the caseagainst you.

And you're basing this on what exactly? A contemporaneous document instructing readers to take it literally?

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 20:11, NASB

So not a contemporaneous text at all. FAIL! You’re just quoting the text that’s already it question. And what’s worse the text doesn’t even say that it’s to be taken as a literal fact.

The bible itself testifies to a literal interpretation of Genesis,…

You must mean the part where is says “dark sayings of old?” Yeah that sounds really super emphatic that the biblical texts are entirely and only factual in nature.

Then He said, “Hear now My words: if there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?” - Numbers 12:6–8, ESV [emphasis mine]

Wow! Way to interpret the text in the exact opposite way that it says. It is absolutely clear that sometime the Lord does speak with “dark sayings of old”, i.e. symbols, metaphors, and allegory. And that same phrase also occurs in Psalm 78:1-3

” Give ear, O my people, to my teaching;
incline your ears to the words of my mouth!
I will open my mouth in a parable;
I will utter dark sayings from of old,
things that we have heard and known,
that our fathers have told us..”

“Parables”…”Dark Sayings”…Gee whiz, that sure doesn’t sound like the bible testifying to take itself literally. Only someone with no integrity and an evil intent to make a mockery of holy things would misrepresent the biblical text like that. (That's you by the way since you have a hard time interpreting things that aren't spelled out for her)

…and the early church fathers testify to a literal belief in the flood (HERE).  That you want to make a strategic retreat from literalism because your bible doesn't square with the facts means absutely squat.

The facts are not as simple as you say and you dishonestly exclude contrary examples that do not justify your bigotry.

First, you failed to included Origen in your list of Church Fathers: http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/04/orige...g-genesis/

Then of course there is Thomas Aquinas who also couldn't be more clear:

”…It is befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things… Holy Writ, spiritual truths are fittingly taught under the likeness of material things. This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i): "We cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils." … that spiritual truths be expounded by means of figures taken from corporeal things, in order that thereby even the simple who are unable by themselves to grasp intellectual things may be able to understand it.”

And…

”… The ray of divine revelation is not extinguished by the sensible imagery wherewith it is veiled… those things that are taught metaphorically in one part of Scripture, in other parts are taught more openly. The very hiding of truth in figures is useful for the exercise of thoughtful minds and as a defense against the ridicule of the impious, according to the words "Give not that which is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6).

And who is the dog in this scenario?

Did some Church Fathers assert the factuality of Genesis and the Flood? Yes, but that sentiment was not universally agreed upon. Nor was it deemed important. It was always secondary to the spiritual meaning of the text conveyed by allegory and metaphor.

Moreover, the use of allegory and metaphor is how the bible protects atheists like you from themselves, people deceiving themselves and spewing hate by twisting the text around to justify their contempt for people of piety. Swedenborg makes this clear, echoing Matthew 7:

” The sense of the letter of the Word [literal meaning] serves as a guard for the genuine truths which lie within; and the guard consists in this, that the literal sense can be turned hither and thither, that is, can be explained according to everyone's apprehension, without its internal being hurt or violated; for no harm ensues from the literal sense being understood differently by different people; but it does harm when the Divine truths which are within are perverted...

[LadyForCamus]

I still use film in my medium format vintage Hasselblad. Sometimes the transparencies come back with little markings on them. Sometimes it's happened in the lab. Sometimes it's light leaking into the camera if I have been careless. It had never occurred to me to claim it as being evidence of the supernatural.

Yeah, because a world renowned expert never would of thought of that...

See the last sentence; the only sentence relevant to the supernatural claim being made:

“—caused by light.”

[brewer]

I'm going to start saying "Odin" when I orgasm instead of............ well........... you know.

[GrandizerII]

I still use film in my medium format vintage Hasselblad. Sometimes the transparencies come back with little markings on them. Sometimes it's happened in the lab. Sometimes it's light leaking into the camera if I have been careless. It had never occurred to me to claim it as being evidence of the supernatural.

Yeah, because a world renowned expert never would of thought of that...

Expert in photography perhaps, not in supernatural matters. That was his opinion in the last section.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm going to start saying "Odin" when I orgasm instead of............ well........... you know.

I don’t know!  Are you really going to leave me in suspense?

---

Yeah, because a world renowned expert never would of thought of that...

Expert in photography perhaps, not in supernatural matters. That was his opinion in the last section.

Even if his professional opinion also happens to be a scientific fact about the photo, all he said is that it was light.  Light being captured on camera in a dark room!  How could that be?!

[brewer]

I'm going to start saying "Odin" when I orgasm instead of............ well........... you know.

I don’t know!  Are you really going to leave me in suspense?

Lets just say I'm going to start being more specific. Other than that..............

[Angrboda]

I can provide audio recordings and photos "of Odin" if required, too. They will be thoroughly vetted by people whose believe Odin is real.

Do it.

The photo has to be scientifically vetted by an expert in the field of photography.

I can't wait.

Your photo wasn't scientifically vetted to be a photo of God, it was vetted as not having been retouched (according to 1950 standards). That's not at all the same thing. You're equivocating about what people mean by scientific evidence. Seeing that there was only one photo on the entire roll of film, and there are no contextual clues in the photograph to attest to it being taken when and where it is reported as having being taken, then fraud is a definite possibility. Fraud not involving retouching the photo hasn't been ruled out. Only retouching the photo has evidence against it. But retouching the photo isn't the only way that image could have been created so it hasn't even been scientifically vetted as a mysterious, unexplained floating light.