Bob Schlenker on Michelangelo and serpent seed of Satan DNA

bob2bschlenker-6327315
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 references “how Michelangelo had painted a very astute representation of the deep primal imagery of the serpent/tree/DNA identity.” He thinks that the coiled serpent implied knowledge not only of the DNA molecule but knowledge of DNA, as in Satanic genetics, and the serpent seedline of Satan. Of course, he seems to neglect that DNA consists of a double helix.

michelangelo2badam2band2beve2bgarden2bof2beden-1767713

He ponders whether Michelangelo “or his patron (Pope Julius II) believe oral sex was practiced in the Garden?” Wait, what?! He thinks that the painting was “an inside joke, who see it and understand what it really means.”
But how does the painting, much less Genesis 3, implies oral sex. Well, Bob Schlenker asks us to “consider how cannibalism as a consequence might relate to oral sex as a cause.” Well, let us say that he connects the non-existing dots by, for example, reference to Hebrews 7 which refers to Levi who when Melchizedek met Abraham “was still in the loins of his father.” In keeping with his X-Rated sex orgy misinterpretation of Genesis 3 we now learn a new previously not only unknown but unimagined (and unimaginable) alleged factoid, “Did the serpent eat Adam’s seed in the Garden? If not, for what reason did the Lord God condemn the serpent to go on his belly, eating dust?”
Interestingly, he follows directly with “If you deny the presence of the ‘dots’ or refuse to ‘connect them’ you’ll have no legitimate answers at all to the hard questions that beg to be asked.” Thus, he asks us to accept his perverted sex fantasies based on gotcha questions. Well, I have already dealt with this issue in this series and the simple answer is that as per the Bible’s very own greater context: going on one’s belly and eating dust is a manner whereby to denote being humbled (see Deuteronomy 32:24, Psalm 72:9, Micah 7:17 and Lamentations 3:27-28). But that is not all, not only did Satan and Adam sodomize each other but Bob Schlenker then asks, “Did Adam engage in oral sex with the serpent, consuming his seed? Adam had eaten of the tree” so you get the picture—sadly get the picture as that would be a picture worth censoring since, as he himself puts it, “when you see what becomes so obvious you cannot un-see it.”

Bob Schlenker wrote, “I don’t know of any explicit account of oral sex in the Bible (beyond the Garden scene)” well, I don’t know of any explicit, or implicit, account of oral sex in the Garden scene. In fact, as far as I know, Bob Schlenker is the only person in history to know of it.

So infatuated is he with his very own gotcha questions (as serpent seed of Satan theorists tend to be) that he states that without his literally invented stories, “what are we left with but no answer at all?”
He states, “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” and it is “the singular version to which the evidence points. Can’t we find some reasonable alternative.” But what about that which he dismissively relates as “Adam having actually eaten some apple-like fruit from a common orchard-like tree?…If you can make that work for you with all honesty and integrity, well, good luck with that.”

Well, there is another legitimate way to interpret the scene which has worked for Judaism and Christianity for some three and a half millennia with all honesty and integrity and it is to recognize that the Bible says what it means and means what it says. The most succinct elucidation I have written is Serpent Seed of Satan article in a Christian Apologetics journal.

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

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

Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne on free will, part 8 of 9

We continue considering that Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne deny free will: find the entire series here.

But now to a deeper issue which is to actually wonder whether there is something deeper going on here? As previously noted, it is rather odd that on, Jerry Coyne’s view, we cannot affect change in our brains but environment, “the words and deeds of other people are simply environmental influences that can affect our brain molecules.” This means that the individual, literally, cannot help themselves but others can, family can, society can, government can—why not think big?

But, what are the Atheists thinking? Or, what are they being forced to “think” by thermodynamically controlled bio-sensory input?

sam20harris2c20atheism2c20true20freethinker-8710554

Consider some examples of some of the goals of some of the celebrity Atheists.
Here is an example from Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins:
Daniel Dennett: I think it may be easier than we’re supposing to shake peoples’ faith. There’s been a moratorium on this for a long time. We’re just the beginning of a new wave of explicit attempts to shake peoples’ faith. And it’s bearing fruit…
I think it’s a good thing to encourage and I don’t think we should assume that we can’t do this. I think we can.
 
Richard Dawkins: Yes, it’s almost patronising to suggest that we couldn’t and to suggest that it shouldn’t…
 
Daniel Dennett: …I would love to do is to invent a memorable catchphrase or term that would rise unbidden in their minds when they caught themselves doing it, and then they would think oh, this is one of those cosmic shifts that Dennett and Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens are talking about. Oh! right! and they think this is somehow illicit, just to create a little more awareness in them of what a strange thing it is that they’re doing.
This ties in with the concept of memes. See the essay “Inception” the movie and the meme – the New Atheist cover is blown for background.

Consider also that Dawkins stated:
It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in?
And what is the goal of having society stepping in? As Dawkins put it, it is that this “might lead children to choose no religion at all.”

Sam Harris looks forward to a time when “making religious certitude look stupid will be exploited, and we’ll start laughing at people who believe…We’ll laugh at them in a way that will be synonymous with excluding them from our halls of power.”

The point being that this is “A Clockwork Orange” all over again. The book A Clockwork Orange (if you are so inclined, do yourself a favor: read the book but do not, do not watch the movie) was originally printed in a censored form (the form after which the movie was made). The last chapter was censored out by the European country whence it came. Succinctly stated, the story revolves around a violent gang of teenage hoodlums. One is arrested and undergoes an experimental treatment which would cause a negative association with violence. Thereafter, when he even thought of engaging in violent actions he would instantly become physically sick. After attempting suicide the state apologizes, detoxes him of the treatment and he goes right back to violent ways. End of story.
Well, that was the end of the censored version. The actual end of the book is simply that he grows up and is done with his childish riotous living. End of story.

The issue is that the real life state, the European country, did not want the story to end with self-reformation but with state sponsored reformation without which there was no reformation at all.

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

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: #SamHarris, #JerryCoyne, #Atheism
Facebook: #SamHarris, #JerryCoyne, #Atheism