Month: August 2016

If there were another legitimate way to interpret the scene in the garden that wasn’t a sex orgy

version, I’d like that very much

—Bob Schlenker

Herein is the continuation of a review of Bob Schlenker’s article Who is Cain’s Father? Part Three having already considered parts 1-2, you can (eventually) find the whole series in toto here.

Bob Schlenker again asserts his made up sex fantasy by referring something about which the Bible does not even hint, “The kind of behavior that led to Eve conceiving and Adam spilling his seed on the ground should be obvious” but only if you accept his endless and baseless assertions.

He then writes, “I am fully assured when I make this statement. What you will read you will not like. You may think it’s merely speculative, yet, it’s my testimony that this is what the Lord gave me.” He launches into something to do with Jesus’ genealogy and some sort of numerology “Based on the work of Ivan Panin” according to which “The number of words which are nouns is exactly 56, or 7 x 8” and “The number of words beginning with a consonant is 21, or 7 x 3,” etc., etc., etc.

He seems to be looping at this point as he goes back to the claim that “there is little if any support in the scriptures for a ‘light snack’ version of what happened in the Garden there is a legitimate aspect of ‘eating.’” For example, the serpent being told, “dust you will eat All the days of your life” (emphasis by Schlenker). Yet, as previously noted, this is biblically indicative of being humbled (see Deuteronomy 32:24, Psalm 72:9, Micah 7:17 and Lamentations 3:27-28 which I already quoted within this series).

Now, note that Bob Schlenker points out the following in a section title, “To the Serpent: ‘Dust you will eat’ – To Adam: ‘You are dust.’” He asks “Could this mean that the serpent would henceforth feast upon Adam, literally consuming the flesh bodies of Adam-kind?…You might be thinking, ‘Whoa! Are you going to tell me cannibalism was one of the sins in the Garden?’ Uh, well, for now, just try not to run on ahead. We’ll get there soon enough.” A few things to note particularly as sine he is starting with a faulty premise he cannot avoid a faulty conclusion.

Indeed, there is secondary symbolism between Adam being the dust man and Satan consuming dust. In fact, “your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8). Yet, by definition cannibalism refers to physically consuming as food one’s own kind yet, Adam is a human and Satan is a Cherub. Thus, when he concludes that “this matter of cannibalism has a root in the Garden” he is simply wrong (and of course, no one ate anyone in the Garden).

He also claims that “the vampire phenomenon can be traced back to what happened in the Garden of Eden.” No, by the way, he does not explain how this would be the case.

Bob Schlenker also references Genesis 9:22-23:

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

Schlenker comments, “What it means when it says Ham ‘saw the nakedness of his father’ is that he had sexual relations with his mother, the wife of his father Noah.” Indeed, this is biblical symbolism as per, for example, Leviticus 18:8 “The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness” in the KJV but which quite literal translations have as follows:

NLT “Do not violate your father by having sexual relations with your mother…” NIV “Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother…” ESV “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother…” HCSB “You are not to shame your father by having sex with your mother…” NASB “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother…” NET “You must not expose your father’s nakedness by having sexual intercourse with your mother….” RSV “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother…” ASV “The nakedness of thy father, even the nakedness of thy mother…” YLT “The nakedness of thy father and the nakedness of thy mother thou dost not uncover…” DBY “The nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover…” WEB “The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover…”

HNV “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, nor the nakedness of your mother…”

What Bob Schlenker does with Canaan, et al., is to play mix and match so that when supposedly genetic seedlines/bloodlines fail him, he simply states that, as in this case, he was “cut off from the good tree and grafted into the bad tree.” But how was this accomplished? He wrote, “In the post-flood age, the serpent’s seed must be brought forth in the same manner as before the flood, through procreation with the daughters of men. In the garden it was the serpent Tree with Eve, and afterward, the fallen angel sons of god with the daughters of men. The thorns and thistles must be brought forth, and another sire would be required.”

As noted before, one bad theory produces another which are all peppered with a tinge of truth amongst much error. Thus, the false claim that “the serpent Tree” had sex with Eve is correlated with the true statement about “the fallen angel sons of god with the daughters of men” and the false claim regarding “The thorns and thistles must be brought forth” as indicative of Satan’s/Cain’s bloodline living amongst us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #BobSchlenker, #Serpentseed, #Seedlines
Facebook: #BobSchlenker, #Serpentseed, #Seedlines

The movie Predestination (2014 AD; starring Ethan Hawke, Sarah Snook and Noah Taylor—which you can purchase here) was written and directed by the Spierig Brothers: Michael and Peter. It is one of the premiere Gnostic movies and thus, deeply philosophical.
The story is deeply occult in two ways. 1) It is literally occult as in hidden because the Gnosticism is hidden behind the auspices of a sci-fi movie with a love story. 2) It is an aspect of the revelation of the method or externalization of the hierarchy, to name two manners in which a concept has been termed; the concept of bringing long hidden gnosis right into the open. Today, the gnosis/knowledge of the ancient secret societies and/or mystery religions are available for all to see within movies, lyrics, concerts, books, online, etc.

Predestination is based on the Robert A. Heinlein story “…All You Zombies…” (1959 AD) which is, superficially, premised on time travel paradoxes. Heinlein was exploring the concept of intersexuality which is all the rage these pop-gnosis days with the glorification of androgyny, hermaphroditism, bisexuality, gender fluidity, transgenderism, etc., etc., etc. Yet, the Gnostic aspect goes much deeper as it pertains to self-creation and thus, self-existence. Of course, to create oneself one would already have to exist and thus, the paradox which Robert Heinlein sought to solve by appealing to time travel. Of course, this resolves nothing as it creates a loop but make for some good ol’ fashioned sci-fi.

The story, anachronistically told as it is a time travel story, involves an agency called the Temporal Bureau which prevents crime before it occurs by traveling back in time to stop it before it happens.

A bureau agent poses as a bartender in order to intercept John who writes stories for confession magazines under the pseudonym Unmarried Mother. John begins to tell the tale of when he was a young girl; yes, he was a girl.
When John was Jane (as in John and Jane Doe) she eventually met an older man, fell in love, was impregnated by him and he abandoned her. The birth was difficult, resulting in a caesarean-section at which time it was discovered the, internally, she had both female and male organs. The damage to her body was such that her external female sex organ had to be reconstructed into an external male sex organ; thus, Jane became John.

This was an existential upheaval, made her/him lose all hopes of being accepted into the space travel program of his/her dreams. He/she had to learn how to be a man, talk like a man, act like a man, etc.

John became obsessed of finding the older man who loved and left him when he was a she, as that man ruined his life. The bureau agent was placed in John’s path in order to offer him the technological ability to travel back to when Jane met the man, and murder him. This was a styled test to see if John had what it takes to become an agent.
John travels back to the moment of the initial meeting and, as it turns out, the initial meeting was between Jane and John. Thus, John traveled back in time, met his female self, fell in love and impregnated himself in herself.

Thus far, we have the ultimate merging of the so called sacred masculine and sacred feminine; the literal merging of male and female as and within one single being. Now, Jane’s baby survived the birth but was stolen from the hospital’s nursery; the bureau agent took the baby into the past.

At one point, in time, the agent is shown to have a c-section scar himself. It turns out that every character is the same person. The baby was taken back in time, the baby was Jane, Jane became John, John impregnated Jane, Jane gave birth to baby Jane, ad infinitum. And yet, moreover, the agent had recruited John, John became an agent, John posed as a bartender, etc. Thus, the agent is John, is Jane, is the baby. In fact, at one point a jukebox in the bar is playing a song, the lyrics to which are “I’m my own grandpa.”

The title of the book and movie come from this line from the book:

I know where I came from—but where did all you zombies come from? I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once—and you all went away. So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light. You aren’t really there at all. There isn’t anybody but me—Jane—here alone in the dark. I miss you dreadfully!

Another aspect of the story relates to a terrorist called the Fizzle Bomber. As an agent, John’s main task has been to track down and stop the bomber. When he finally does, it turns out that, you guessed it, the terrorist is John himself as an older man.
In a very typical manner of modern storytelling, John the terrorist is, or so he claims, mass murdering people for good reasons. Many, many, many modern day stories (such as Breaking Bad—see here for a breakdown of symbolism within that show) promulgate the concept of a false dichotomy where we are lead to believe that there are only two options which are generally perish or do evil for good reasons (which, of course, make good and evil utterly subjective). This denotes the death of the hero as, anymore, the hero does the same exact things are the bad guy does but is heroic only because the hero wins in the end.

John the terrorist explains that he mass murders people via explosions based on his statistical calculations that doing so prevent even greater tragedies. In other words, if evil terrorists were going to rob a munitions building and use the weapons for a terrorist attack, John would blow up the building so as to prevent the robbery.
Sure, this resulted in mass murder but hey, it is statistically less mass murder than the bad guy terrorists would have committed. John the terrorist has an album of newspaper clipping from another time which show the evil bad guy terrorist actions and proves that he prevented them.

Well, the agent John is deadest on killing the terrorist John who tells him that it is the very act of killing him(self) which turns him into a terrorist good guy; apparently, from seeing the evidence within the album.

So, in the end (end or, beginning or, middle or, whatever) Jane/John—who is his/her own mother/father—mass murders illusory, non-existent, zombie for statistically good reasons in a paradox wrapped in a riddle served on an endless loop of self-creation and self-destruction.

If there were another legitimate way to interpret the scene in the garden that wasn’t a sex orgy

version, I’d like that very much

—Bob Schlenker

Herein is the continuation of a review of Bob Schlenker’s article Who is Cain’s Father? Part Two and commencement of considering Part Three. You can (eventually) find the whole series in toto here.

Bob Schlenker refers us to the following text:

15) Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16) You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17) So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18) A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19) Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20) So then, you will know them by their fruits.

Matthew 7:15-20

He states, “I used to be confused about this passage” and is clearly even more confused now. Of course, since he is building a theory from radically reinterpreting (or rather, misinterpreting) the Bible he sees the word “tree” and thinks Satan, Cain, etc. He states that “This really isn’t about a tree that might have some good fruit and some bad fruit…This is Genesis language…Think – two kinds of fruit bearing trees, good and bad. Think – Garden of Eden. Think – Lord God tree and serpent tree. Think – Adam and Cain as the patriarchal fruit.”
Actually, think – one can determine whether the tree is good or bad based on whether it brings for good or bad fruit. In like manner, false prophets will not produce good fruit as while the come in good form “sheep’s clothing” they are actually, “ravenous wolves.” The lesson is as simple as that: do not merely view the outward sheep-like appearance but discern the sort of fruit being produced.

Next, he references the “mysterious parable from Matthew 13” which I reviewed in detail so will simply direct interested readers to Did Jesus teach the serpent seed of Satan theory in the Parable of the Sower?

While he is clearly erroneous, he is certainly consistent is what comes to mind regarding Bob Schlenker assertion that “If the woman’s eating of the tree resulted in pregnancy, the man’s eating of the tree must be of a like kind.” Thus, he has a section titled, “Sodom – Another Echo of Eden” based on his particular, and peculiar, view that “While engaging with the serpent tree in the Garden, Adam was stimulated to orgasm through anal intercourse…Adam was sodomized in the Garden.”
He states that “The continuity of the ‘sex orgy’ theme exhibited as an echo of Eden in the account of Noah’s day is no less evident in the account of the destruction of Sodom.” But to what Noah’s day sex orgy is he referring? The Genesis 6 affair was condemnable because fallen Angels mated with humans but not even a hint of a sex orgy is mentioned. Rather, verse 2 specifies that “the sons of God saw the daughters of men…and they took them wives of all which they chose” thus, they got married. Verse 5 specifies that “GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Thus, Bob Schlenker is simply reading perverse misinterpretations into it.

He works his way to elucidating the Sodom and Gomorrah and along the way notes, “Nimrod, it is said, began to be a ‘gibborim,’ about which Tom Horn and Steve Quayle have had much to say.” Well, one must be quite discerning of Horn and Quayle as the pepper solid information with pure assertions—generally along the lines of I was told thus and such by an authoritative source that I cannot name and that you could not possible double check so believe me. For an example of Quayle’s endless and baseless assertions see, Zen Garcia and Steve Quayle on elite bloodlines.

Bob Schlenker also notes that spies were sent to “the land after the exodus from Egypt. They found giants” regarding which you can read Did Caleb and the spies see Nephilim giants in the land?

He asserts that “The Sodomites were not Adamic, even though they had the Patriarch Noah in common with Lot.” Hereinafter, he launches into a sci-fi tale stinging together that “Nimrod ‘began to be’ a gibborim” which he takes to mean that he became a giant (which the Bible does not state) and claims that “a corrupting transformation of the DNA occurred. The Sodomites were GM, genetically modified.”

Apparently, or so his story goes, “The fruit of the bad tree was truly purged from the face of the ground at the flood of Noah’s day” yet, “The Sodomites were as tares, sown by the enemy among the wheat.” Do you see how one false theory creates another or rather, is augmented? Misunderstanding the Matthew 13 parable leads him to read wheat and tares back into Genesis chaps 18-19.
So, apparently, God destroyed the Nephilim genetics (which Bob Schlenker takes to be Satanic genetics via Cain) by the flood but oops, since the Sodomites were GM then that “bad fruit came when Sodom burned.” Tying together anything and everything, as he does, he also claims that “When Goliath was slain, that branch was cut off with its fruit, yet, the cursed ground continues to bring forth cursed fruit of the bad tree.”

Now, circling back to Bob Schlenker’s fantasies about sodomy between Satan and Adam, he tells us that “The men of Sodom wanted to treat these angelic visitors like the serpent had treated Adam.”

He then references Lot and his daughters who got him drunk and fornicated with him in order to as he explains it “‘preserve our family through our father.’ For the firstborn to reason that, ‘there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth,’ she had to have known that the genetic credential was crucial because there must certainly have been men around who could sire children.”
He seems to be missing the point of the text which is that they lived in Sodom near which was Gomorrah and yet, those cities were destroyed and while Lot intended on living in a small city called Zoar, it turns out that “Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar.” Thus, again, no great mystery, no need to invent tall tales but just a guy and his two daughters living in the middle of nowhere with no one else around.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #BobSchlenker, #Serpentseed, #Seedlines
Facebook: #BobSchlenker, #Serpentseed, #Seedlines

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In reviewing the book “Spiritual Evolution: A Scientific Defense of Faith,” by George E. Vaillant (psychiatrist and Professor at Harvard Medical School and Director of Research for the Department of Psychiatry), Marc Galanter, M.D., wrote:

“George Vaillant…defines spirituality as ‘the amalgam of the positive emotions that bind us to other human beings-and our experience of ‘God’ as we may understand Her/Him’ (p. 5) and goes on to include positive feelings, such as love, hope, joy, forgiveness, compassion, faith, and gratitude, as central to its character…”1

This is interesting in that this definition mirrors the generic definition of “religion” that I quoted in consideration of The Godless Church of Unitarian Universalism (part 1, part 2). Unitarian Universalist Rev. Rod Richards’ definition is “that which inspires and guides our understanding of ourselves and our relationship to all of life.”

Marc Galanter further notes that George E. Vaillant,

“…points out a distinction between religion and spirituality in that religion embodies formal doctrines and behavioral requirements that may be characterized by ‘authoritarianism’ and ‘intolerance,’ which is in contrast to spirituality, which is ‘more likely to be democratic’ and ‘tolerant’…

While George E. Vaillant was defining “spirituality” and Rev. Rod Richards was defining “religion” we see that in this way we see precisely what we saw in virtually all pseudo-syncretistic movements: the intolerance of the self-appointed tolerant.

Did you catch it?

Spirituality is tolerant-not like that mean, nasty, authoritarian and intolerant religion.

Believe me, I will be the first to besmirch authoritarian and intolerant “religion” but this does not excuse the logical and theological fallacies of authoritatively and intolerantly pitting the supposed tolerant against the supposed intolerant as doing so placed the pseudo-tolerant into the intolerant camp.

Just how far does the pseudo-tolerance of the pseudo-syncretistic go?

“Vaillant supports his point by (conveniently) designating individuals who are often identified with religion, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi, as spiritual mentors rather than ‘religionists’…”

Get the point?

Since “religionists” have already been defined as authoritarian and intolerant it illogically follows that any “religionists” who is not maliciously authoritarian and is tolerant cannot, simply cannot be religious. Thus, parsing betwixt the two spirituality maintains its unspotted purity while religion looses some of its shining lights-yet, this is a purely artificial construct.

Lastly, we may note that Marc Galanter hits the nail on the head in noting,

“I might, however, question some of Vaillant’s perspectives. For example, he maintains that spirituality is a trait that has been percolating over the course of human evolution, but in fact the term as currently employed has come into general use only relatively recently as a product of contemporary ecumenical thinking and openness to Eastern religious philosophies.”

Indeed, in my essay Monophobia I quoted Ravi Zacharias to this effect,

“We are living in a time when sensitivities are at the surface, often vented with cutting words. Philosophically, you can believe anything, so long as you do not claim it to be true.Morally, you can practice anything, so long as you do not claim it is a ‘better’ way.Religiously, you can hold to anything, so long as you do not bring Jesus Christ into it.

If a spiritual idea is eastern, it is granted critical immunity; if western, it is thoroughly criticized.”2

Ravi Zacharias followed by noting:

“Hinduism and Bahaism have long challenged the concept of a single way to God. The Hindu religion, with its multifaceted belief system, vociferously attacks such exclusivity.Jesus also stated that God is the Author of life and that meaning in life lies in coming to Him.This assertion would be categorically denied by Buddhism, which is a nontheistic if not atheistic religion.Jesus revealed Himself as the Son of God who led the way to the Father.Islam considers that claim to be blasphemous. How can God have a Son?Jesus claimed that we can personally know God and the absolute nature of His truth.Agnostics deny that possibility…

Buddha was a Hindu before he rejected some of Hinduism’s fundamental doctrines and conceived in their place the Buddhist way.”3

C. S. Lewis wrote:

“If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through.If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake.If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth.

When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.”4

Thus, from The Bahh&#a1;”&#ad; Faith to Islam, from the “religion” of the Unitarian Universalist to the “spirituality” of George E. Vaillant’s evolutionary psychiatrics, and from atheism to theism-exclusive claims are made by all and pretending that we all believe the same or attempting to re-label luminaries as, in reality, pertaining to our particular transcendent preferences is certainly self-serving but fallacious.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #Unitarian, #Universalism, #Theology
Facebook: #Unitarian, #Universalism, #Theology

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In his 1909 AD book The Legends of the Jews Louis Ginzberg made the following remarks in chap III, “The Ten Generations—The Birth Of Cain”:

Wickedness came into the world with the first being born of woman, Cain, the oldest son of Adam. When God bestowed Paradise upon the first pair of mankind, He warned them particularly against carnal intercourse with each other.

Well, you can see why these are legends as the Bible states no such thing. However, note that he referenced Cain as, rightly and as per the Bible, “the oldest son of Adam.” Yet, he continues by noting:

But after the fall of Eve, Satan, in the guise of the serpent, approached her, and the fruit of their union was Cain, the ancestor of all the impious generations that were rebellious toward God, and rose up against Him. Cain’s descent from Satan, who is the angel Samael, was revealed in his seraphic appearance. At his birth, the exclamation was wrung from Eve, “I have gotten a man through an angel of the Lord.”

So first, Cain is “the oldest son of Adam” but then he is “the fruit of” the union of Eve and the serpent as he was of “descent from Satan.” Now, that “the angel Samael, was revealed in his seraphic appearance” is confused in a few ways such as:

1) Indeed, this is legend as it appears in, for example, the circa 600 AD Palestinian Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel aka more accurately as Pseudo-Jonathan which makes has Genesis 3:6 reading as that “the woman beheld Sammael, the angel of death.” FYI: in his article Was Cain Fathered by the Devil? No, Wait — Extraterrestrials (June 7, 2008 AD) ancient languages scholar Michaels Heiser notes, “it cannot be argued that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Genesis 4:1 is as old as Jesus’ day.”

2) An angel looks like a human male without wings nor a halo but a Seraph has six wings thus, the Angel could not be “revealed in his seraphic appearance” as he is Angelic in appearance. 3) The serpent was Satan and Satan is neither an Angel nor a Seraph but is a Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14) who has four faces and four wings (see Ezekiel chaps 1 and 10).

4) Eve stating “I have gotten a man through an angel of the Lord” is obviously not biblical and not even Pseudo-Jonathanian as that text has Genesis 4:1 as:

And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord.

Louis Ginzberg continues by noting:

…her son was born, a radiant figure. A little while and the babe stood upon his feet, ran off, and returned holding in his hands a stalk of straw, which he gave to his mother. For this reason he was named Cain, the Hebrew word for stalk of straw.

Being born “a radiant figure” seems to play off of the legend of related in the apocryphal Book of Enoch’s Fragment of the Book of Noah 107:2-3 which has Lamech stated the following to his dad Methuselah, “I have begotten a strange son, diverse from and unlike man, and resembling the sons of the God of heaven; and his nature is different and he is not like us, and his eyes are as the rays of the sun, and his countenance is glorious” (for details, see Wherein the Book of Enoch contradicts the Bible).

We are then told:

His hostility toward Abel…began when God had respect unto the offering of Abel…while the offering of Cain was rejected. They brought their sacrifices on the fourteenth day of Nisan, at the instance of their father…

Of course, legend cannot seem to make up its mind as to whether they had the same dad or not.

Lastly, Louis Ginzberg notes something very in keeping with the Bible:

If his sacrifice had been accepted graciously by God, and Cain’s not, it was because his deeds were good, and his brother’s wicked.

Serpent seedline of Satan theorists assert that the difference in the lines are genetic—with Cain having Satanic genetics and Abel and later Seth having Adamic genetics—but biblically they are based on actions—sinful Satanic actions versus righteous Godly actions—which I have demonstrated most succinctly in Serpent Seed of Satan article in a Christian Apologetics. Thus, it is accurate that Abel’s deeds were good and Cain’s wicked.

In Genesis 4:6:7, the Bible states:

And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

“Doest” is a reference to taking an action. Also, Cain can overcome sin which one would think he could not do if he was of Satanic genetics.

For more from Ginzberg, see Louis Ginzberg’s The Legends of the Jews on the Nephilim.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #satan, #serpentseed, #seedline
Facebook: #satan, #serpentseed, #seedline

In part 1 I noted that I had previously posted with regards to Unitarian Universalism and had some very interesting comments by a reader. Also, I had previously considered the attempts, hopes and/or wishes of the “New Atheists” to establish a new atheist religion. I have been commenting on a sermon by Unitarian Universalist, Rev. Rod Richards, entitled, Godless: Atheism in Our Language, Our Culture, and Our Movement

Rev. Rod Richards makes a very telling and accurate statement about atheism and apparently, Unitarian Universalism as well:

“But the truth is that atheists may well phrase the question differently. They may look at the wonder of that which is; the unlikely circumstance of our being and the wondrous ability of consciousness; the joys and sorrows of each day; the pain and passion and power of human connection…they may ask one to pay attention to the wind and the stars; to the faces around you; to the challenges we face in the world and the gift of existence itself, and ask: Is this not enough?” [ellipses in original]

Indeed, atheists, et al, are seeking to replace the normal human desire for transcendence, a desire which is illogical and unnatural on atheism, they seek to fill that God shaped void in every human heart by taking awe in nature. Of course, this is neo-Paganism and that which the New Testament predicted:

“_ men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man_

who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans 1:18-23, 25).”

Ridding themselves of God, atheists irrationally still seek for something more grandiose, transcendent and awe inspiring. Christians can likewise take awe of nature, or in nature, but would see it as awe in God’s creation and not awe in the beauty of an accident.
In other words, Christians do not receive a gift and say, “Oh gift, you are so wonderful, I am in awe of you gift, I love you gift, I adore you gift.” Rather, they would say, “This is a wonderful gift and I am in awe and adoration of the God who gave it to us.”

Yet, Rev. Rod Richards was not done but continued his “Is this not enough?” statement thusly,

“Can we afford to focus on transcendent realms when so much is right in front of us?Can we afford to squander what is before us in hopes of some unclear future reward?

Is religion meant to pull us away from this life, or to ground us in its beauty?”

Of course, this is falsely dichotomous: we do not have to choose one over the other and in fact it is those Judeo-Christians (and other theists) who believe in this world and also the one to come who have been known throughout history to establish, fund and manage charities, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, disaster relief organizations, hospitals, universities, adoption agencies, foster homes, etc., etc., etc.
Meanwhile, atheists are not particularly known for any such thing. In fact, religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals,

“…’For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice’…
people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least.'”1

“In 2000, religious people gave about three and a half times as much as secular people…br />religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals…religious people are more likely than the nonreligious to volunteer for secular charitable activities, give blood, and return money when they are accidentally given too much change. ‘There is not one measurably significant way I have ever found in which religious people are not more charitable than nonreligious people,’ Mr. [Arthur] Brooks says…households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more…

religious people, on average, give 54 percent more per year than secular people to human-welfare charities.”2

[atheists and agnostics] “are less likely than active-faith Americans to…volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit…to describe themselves as ‘active in the community’…and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person…The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics.

In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults…atheists and agnostics were more likely than were Christians to be focused on…acquiring wealth.'”3

Moreover, in a time of world-wide recession the atheists of the UK and USA have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars/pounds not in order to help anyone in any way but in order to demonstrate just how clever they consider themselves.

Now, to the issue of atheists in the church attending services: of course, they should not be withheld from doing so. They are to be welcomed, loved, dialogued with and only ousted if it becomes obvious that they are not there to learn or merely dialogue but if they are the militant activist type who turn every sermon into an occasion to besmirch God and His followers.

Yet, the question that remains in my mind, “Why would atheists attend church services?”Surely, for various reasons and certainly I could not generalize in stating “Any atheist that does so is doing so because…”One reason, of course, would be to learn what “the other side” has to say or in order to gain knowledge that goes beyond the Sunday School level (a level at which many, particularly the most outspoken New Atheist celebrity types, are stuck).

Yet, Rev. Rod Richards presents another reason. He had concluded his sermon by, again, approvingly and uncritically quoting Prof. Richard Dawkins’ statement, “There is more than just grandeur in this view of life…There is deep refreshment to be had from standing up and facing straight into the strong keen wind of understanding” [ellipses in original].

As it turns out, and “coincidence” is not a kosher word, I found myself reading Rev. Rod Richards’ sermon on the same day that I was reading Magnus Linklater’s article, Like Any Half-Decent Atheist, I’m Fond of a Bit Of Religion. In that article he notes that he finds “the militant convictions of the anti-religionists so chilling” and that he finds himself “repelled by” the manner in which Prof. Richard Dawkins argues against religious arguments and states, “Methinks the Professor takes a little too much satisfaction in the eloquence of his own metaphors and too little account of the richness of the alternatives.”
In light of these sentiments, he further writes that despite the fact that he does indeed agree with atheists arguing against theists:

“I cannot, however, share Professor Dawkins’s contempt for what he sees as the vacuity of those who proclaim their doubts about an external God, but still cling to the traditions or the comfort of organised [sic] religion…I stood, earlier this week, at a funeral where the bereaved family – not themselves believers – took deep solace from a Presbyterian service, with hymns whose lines were rich in language and faith. We listened to words from Proverbs about the virtuous woman who is ‘a crown to her husband’, and felt that the surroundings of an ancient church were perfectly in tune with the messages of love and remembrance that ran through the service.By the end of it, my atheism was still intact, but I was very glad to have been there. I cannot, like Professor Dawkins, think the less of anyone who takes pleasure from a familiar liturgy, nor deride those who fall back on a Church whose central tenets they reject…He compares those who take comfort from traditional religion to people stuck for the night on a bare mountain, who warm to the appearance of a large St Bernard dog, ‘not forgetting, of course, the brandy barrel around its neck’.

Death, he says, is something to be approached without hope or fear. It is far more invigorating to face ‘the strong keen wind of understanding’, which comes with a complete absence of faith, than to cling to ‘the security blanket of ignorance’.”

Does the last line sound familiar? Indeed, it was the one quoted, in part, by Rev. Rod Richards who apparently, was kind enough, this time, to remove the reference to the ignorance of those with whom Prof. Richard Dawkins disagrees (in that same statement Prof. Richard Dawkins makes further reference to “cheap comforts” and “comfortable lies”).

I am empathetic to the fact that to people such as Rev. Rod Richards taking deep solace from a service, with hymns with rich in language and faith is a wonderful thing and, in fact, that which he drove towards in his sermon. You can have it all: the community, the communion, the “church,” the hymns, the religious regalia, the rich language, the “faith” and still maintain your atheism.

Yet, I, now I speak as a Judeo-Christian, find myself deeply saddened by this. Why?God has made it clear that religion is of no effect; at most it once served the benefit of raising up a people, who had been indoctrinated and institutionalized as slaves for centuries, into people who would, and this is key, know God.

God has made it clear that even professing belief in Him, that is to say; making a mere intellectual ascent, is of no effect,

“You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble!” (James 2:19)

To loosely paraphrase: You believe that there is one God? Well, that’s just super. You are holding the very same theological position as demons and they, at least, have the good sense to tremble.

Nay, belief is not the point, relationship is the point, Jesus said,

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’

And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ (Matthew 7:21-23).

We did this and we did that, great, but the point is that for whatever reason they did not, perhaps they did not care to, develop a relationship with God, with Jesus. Thank God that God does not base our salvation according to deeds; for this would set up a competition and who could compete with a Mother Theresa or a Father Damien?

I sympathize and can empathize with the family and it is certainly difficult to be critical of their attendance at a funeral. Yet, I must point out that it is philosophically, psychologically, and theologically fascinating that they find any sort of comfort in a display, for the eyes and ears, of that which they do not believe.

I could not imagine myself at a Unitarian Universalist service and singing the praises of nature’s laws or stroking my ego by engaging in the “spiritual” equivalent of self-esteem-positive-affirmation.

Ultimately, it appears that what atheists seek and find in Unitarian Universalism is the same thing that the liberals of any religion find there: comfort.Yet, it is the sort of comfort that comes by seeking fulfillment in empty form; all of the religious fineries without that to which religion is supposed to point: God.It is the fulfillment of merely looking at a buffet, not eating anything, and then thinking that you have the energy to run a marathon.It is an empty shell, a white washed sepulcher.It is the sort of comfort that CS Lewis elucidated so very well:

“One reason why many people find Creative Evolution [aka Life-Force philosophy] so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences.

When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest.

If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children.

The Life-Force is a sort of tame God.

You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you.

All the thrills of religion and none of the cost.

Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?”4

Honestly, I cannot discern any difference between Rev. Rod Richards’ sermon and the atheist propaganda with which I am constantly dealing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #Unitarian, #Universalism, #Theology
Facebook: #Unitarian, #Universalism, #Theology

‹ The Godless Church of Unitarian Universalism, part 1 of 2 up

I recently finished reading a fascinating book: “The Victory of Reason – How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism and Western Success” by Rodney Stark.

I consider it to be along the lines of “6 Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization” by Philip J. Sampson for its ability to take on popular modern myths and elucidate the fact of the matter.

From pp. 35-36

CHRISTIAN COMMITMENT TO REASON AND PROGRESS WASN’T ALL talk; soon after the fall of Rome, it encouraged an era of extraordinary invention and innovation.
To appreciate this remarkable achievement it is necessary to confront an incredible lie that long disfigured our knowledge of history. For the past two or three centuries, every educated person has known that from the fall of Rome until about the fifteenth century Europe was submerged in the “Dark Ages”- centuries of ignorance, superstition, and misery- from which it was suddenly, almost miraculously rescued, first by the Renaissance and then by the Enlightenment.

Bur it didn’t happen that way. Instead, during the so called Dark Ages, European technology and science overtook and surpassed the rest of the world!

The idea that Europe fell into the Dark Ages is a hoax originated by antireligious, and bitterly anti-Catholic, eighteenth-century intellectuals who were determined to assert the cultural superiority of their own time and who boosted their claim by denigrating previous centuries as- in the words of Voltaire-a time when “barbarism, superstition, [and] ignorance covered the face of the world.”

Views such as these were repeated so often and so unanimously that, until very recently, even dictionaries and encyclopedias accepted the Dark Ages as an historical fact. Some writers even seemed to suggest that people living in, say, the ninth century described their own time as one of backwardness and superstition.
Fortunately, in the past few years these views have been so completely discredited that even some dictionaries and encyclopedias have begun to refer to the notion of Dark Ages as mythical.

Unfortunately, the myth has so deeply penetrated our culture that even most scholars continue to take it for granted that-in the words of Edward Gibbon- after Rome fell came the “triumph of barbarism and religion.”
In part this is because no one has provided an adequate summary of what really took place.

Furthermore, from p. 51

Even if Voltaire, Gibbon, and other proponents of the Enlightenment could be excused for being oblivious to engineering achievements and to innovations in agriculture or commerce, surely they must be judged severely for ignoring or dismissing the remarkable achievements in high culture accomplished by medieval Europeans.

He elucidates advances in music, art, literature, education and science. Through the book he makes specific mention of various advances and inventions in all of these fields and more.
He concludes this section by stating, in pp. 54-55

All of this Dark Age theorizing was well known to Copernicus, who was not an isolated church canon in a remote part of Poland, as he is so often depicted, but one of the best-educated men of his generation, having trained at the Universities of Cracow, Bologna (possibly the best university in Europe), Padua, and Ferrara. So much progress took place during the so-called Dark Ages that by no later than the thirteenth Century, Europe had forged far ahead of Rome and Greece, and ahead of the rest of the world as well.” Why? Primarily because Christianity taught that progress was “normal” and that “new inventions would always be forthcoming.”

This was the revolutionary idea. Nor was faith in progress limited to technology or to high culture. Medieval Europeans were equally attuned to developing better ways to get things done.

Copernicus, and for that matter Galileo, are poster children in two other myths of modernity which are dispelled in the following—with the flat earth myth thrown in:
“The Copernican Myths”

“Galileo – A Story of a Hero of Science

The Flat Earth Falls Flat

From p. 68

The path to modern times did not suddenly open during the Renaissance any more than it sprang from the forehead of Zeus. Western civilization arose progressively over many centuries subsequent to the fall of Rome: the so-called Dark Ages were a period of profound enlightenment in both the material and the intellectual spheres, which when combined with Christian doctrines of moral equality, created a whole new world based on political, economic, and personal freedom.

In the future I will be posting more from Rodney Stark’s “The Victory of Reason” as he does a great job of building his case.