According to the lore, Satan is supposed to have a forked penis so he can perform intercourse and sodomy at the same time. Some chicks just dig that....
So Ivanka is getting intercourse and Melania is getting sodomy. No wonder Mel has a sour face all the time.According to the lore, Satan is supposed to have a forked penis so he can perform intercourse and sodomy at the same time. Some chicks just dig that....
Think you kinda miss the point. Go to Pornhub and search for DP. Satan's just supposed to be both guys at once...So Ivanka is getting intercourse and Melania is getting sodomy. No wonder Mel has a sour face all the time.
Miroslav Satan may be fictional but it can play it very seductive. In Edgar Wright's latest film, which looks like a Faust Pact, the demon may take the shape of Anya Taylor Joy. I checked out some of the stills, the lead actresses look like twins. Of course they can't both survive or else Wright will be seen as a Hollywood sell-out. The film is also Diana Rigg's last acting credit.According to the lore, Satan is supposed to have a forked penis so he can perform intercourse and sodomy at the same time. Some chicks just dig that....
Which translation?"Satan" as understood by the Christians is really a misunderstanding based on a bad translation.
Do you also like pizza and pedophilia?Is it possible to be a good person, loving and kind and yadda yadda, but still worship SATAN ?
Or must you be evil ?
The one in the Book of Isaiah that refers to the king of Babylon.Which translation?
You mean the Lucifer passage in KJV?The one in the Book of Isaiah that refers to the king of Babylon.
Satan is the "great deceiver".PLenty of "Christians" who love Trump, and hate homos and immigrants.
Didn't say they did.Atheists don't believe in Satan. Satanic cults offer
or at least tolerate free sex which makes them alluring
to Christians of weak faith.
Smegma between the ears...
Should have used the word 'easy' or 'uninhibited' in lieu ofSo good Christian sex requires payment?
Because the primary source for the nature of Satan is the Book of Job- as G-d's servant. The "fall of the Lucifer" in Isaiah is the evolution of Satan and the proof text at the same time.You mean the Lucifer passage in KJV?
I understand the idea Lucifer in Isiah is not supposed to refer to Satan but I'm not sure how you argue that the Christian understanding of Satan is due to that "translation error".
But that isn't the translation causing the problem. The role of the devil evolved in extra-biblical sources and then got read back in. The Lucifer in Isiah being equated with Satan isn't a translation error, it is an interpretation that evolved over the course of time through the middle ages. I mean, the idea of the Devil being more of an anti-god than the role he has in Job was already present in Jewish tradition before Christianity. If you're saying specifically the modern Christian tradition uniting those two passages sure, but next to nothing about The Devil/Satan/Lucifer and Hell in current mainstream Christian thought is based on the bible anyway.Because the primary source for the nature of Satan is the Book of Job- as G-d's servant. The "fall of the Lucifer" in Isaiah is the evolution of Satan and the proof text at the same time.
I always got that Satan had little role in the Old Testament where Jehovah was seen as a demanding and punitive God and the Israelites his servants. As long as the Faithful followed the set rituals, God would bless them with flocks and concubines beyond their wildest imaginings.But that isn't the translation causing the problem. The role of the devil evolved in extra-biblical sources and then got read back in. The Lucifer in Isiah being equated with Satan isn't a translation error, it is an interpretation that evolved over the course of time through the middle ages. I mean, the idea of the Devil being more of an anti-god than the role he has in Job was already present in Jewish tradition before Christianity. If you're saying specifically the modern Christian tradition uniting those two passages sure, but next to nothing about The Devil/Satan/Lucifer and Hell in current mainstream Christian thought is based on the bible anyway.
Absolutely, the Devil in Christianity and Satan in Rabbinic Judaism are very different. There's a good series of books by Jeffrey Burton Russel on the evolution of the concept of the Devil. The Devil (1977), Satan (1981), Lucifer (1984), Mephistopheles (1986) and The Prince of Darkness (1988). (turns out it is a 5-volume series and I have only read three, so I should definitely pick up the rest)I always got that Satan had little role in the Old Testament where Jehovah was seen as a demanding and punitive God and the Israelites his servants. As long as the Faithful followed the set rituals, God would bless them with flocks and concubines beyond their wildest imaginings.
What happens is that the New Testament is written 700 years later, in post Hellenistic Syria where the smarter folks had been reading Greek philosophy for 3 or 4 centuries. So the New Testament imported notions of moral choice and free selection not present at the time of the OT. So you got the creation of Satan as a major player representing "The Bad Choice" and Jesus represented "The Good Choice". You didn't need Satan in that role in the OT. So he was a bit player.
IIRC, the bad influence in the Garden of Eden was "the Snake", not Satan per se. And lots of nasty is done by Archangels and other heavenly enforcers. But the disobedient Israelites get wacked by Gabriel because they are disobedient - i.e. Lot's Wife - not because they make a poor moral choice. So Jehovah and his angel friends play both a positive and a negative role - i.e they can make you die horribly or they can give you really hot slave girls by letting you beat the Philistines and other pagans.
Yes, got to admit that I got the thesis from those books too. They got cheesy after the first 2 or 3 because they started commenting on B-movie horror genre Satans. But the first couple were pretty good.Absolutely, the Devil in Christianity and Satan in Rabbinic Judaism are very different. There's a good series of books by Jeffrey Burton Russel on the evolution of the concept of the Devil. The Devil (1977), Satan (1981), Lucifer (1984), Mephistopheles (1986) and The Prince of Darkness (1988). (turns out it is a 5-volume series and I have only read three, so I should definitely pick up the rest)
It is pretty clear that the concept of The Devil had evolved among various sects of Jews since the time of the early Hebrew scriptures. Christianity drew on these sources as the New Testament was written, and projected lots of interpretation backwards onto their Old Testament. The Snake gets associated with Satan. So does that passage in Isiah. Jesus Christ is considered to be acting in some of the Angel of the Lord moments. There was pretty clearly an evolving Devil tradition among some sects and it is part of what makes it into Christianity.