Toronto Escorts

Question about Satan

y2kmark

Class of 69...
May 19, 2002
18,433
5,114
113
Lewiston, NY
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....
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Sonic Temple

Renus

Active member
May 4, 2019
417
130
43
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.
 

y2kmark

Class of 69...
May 19, 2002
18,433
5,114
113
Lewiston, NY
So Ivanka is getting intercourse and Melania is getting sodomy. No wonder Mel has a sour face all the time.
Think you kinda miss the point. Go to Pornhub and search for DP. Satan's just supposed to be both guys at once...
 

Insidious Von

My head is my home
Sep 12, 2007
38,084
6,421
113
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....
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.

Co-star Thomasin MacEnzie's last film dealt with an earthly Satan (JoJo Rabbit), going into a psychological horror film will hold no terrors for her....If their twins, which one gets boned?

anya.jpg
 
Last edited:

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
"Satan" as understood by the Christians is really a misunderstanding based on a bad translation.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
27,495
48,731
113
The one in the Book of Isaiah that refers to the king of Babylon.
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".
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
12,220
1,618
113
Ghawar
So good Christian sex requires payment? :)
Should have used the word 'easy' or 'uninhibited' in lieu of
'free'. Pre-marital and extra-marital sex are forbidden in Christian
churches. Fundamentalist churches can be even stricter in their
guidelines on what sexual activities you should not partake. Jimmy
Swaggart instructed couples in his congregation they should not
engage in oral sex. Swaggart also taught his congregation to refrain
from wearing outfit that incited lust like bikini on the beach or sexy
fitness sportswear in the gym.
 
Last edited:

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
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".
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.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
27,495
48,731
113
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.
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.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,889
68,400
113
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.
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.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
27,495
48,731
113
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,889
68,400
113
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.
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.
 
Toronto Escorts