He sure knew how to compile a list…
[QUOTE=astro]
Satan more overzealous than evil says UCLA Historian - Satan is very misunderstood
[/QUOTE]
I’m just a boy whose intentions are good
Oh, Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I’m just a boy whose intentions are good
Oh, Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood
[/QUOTE]
You have my sympathy.
Why have we no “Mick The Lick” smiley?
I’m a seminarian, and I’ve never heard my professors attribute anything in the OT to Satan (but I haven’t studied Job yet), and things are very rarely attributed to him in the NT. He’s mentioned a few times in parables (which are obviously not to be taken literally), and a lot in the Revelation – which certainly isn’t to be taken literally either. The word “satan” just means “adversary” in Hebrew, so I imagine there’s some places where it could rightly be translated as such.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I think the coneption we have of Satan comes from sources other than the Bible.
[/QUOTE]
I would say heavily so – what the average man-on-the-street thinks of when Satan or Hell are mentioned is likely more heavily colored by Dante, Milton, and the ancient/medieval theologians from whom these two borrowed; but the man-on-the-street isn’t aware of that all (or that the writers and theologians were in turn influenced by extant mythologies – e.g. Tartarus, the place in the Greek netherworld where folks such as Tantalus were tortured).
One could even say what is called “Satan” in the NT and in the theologians is not quite the same as what is called “Satan” in the Book of Job. This may have involved a period of Zoroastrian influence, that led in the direction of a more black-and-white embodiment of the Good-Evil opposition. Like Grammaticaster mentions, “Satan” may have been used in some passages in the sense of an embodiment of “the adversary” or “the enemy”, in whatever the context is of the adversarial or enemy role in the particular writing – sometimes a mere challenge, sometimes outright evil.
[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
Why have we no “Mick The Lick” smiley?
[/QUOTE]
That was an Animals song, not a Rolling Stones song.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
That was an Animals song, not a Rolling Stones song.
[/QUOTE]
Sir, I know it is rather unique for me to be right about things around here, but I politely insist that ity is a Stones song.
It was the first song on the Begger’s Banquet album. I think.
But it was a Stones song!
“Sympathy For The Devil” is the first song on Beggar’s Banquet, but it doesn’t contain those lyrics
[QUOTE=RetroVertigo]
“Sympathy For The Devil” is the first song on Beggar’s Banquet, but it doesn’t contain those lyrics
[/QUOTE]
Correct, but I was riffing on the Thread’s theme, not the lyrics.
[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
Sir, I know it is rather unique for me to be right about things around here, but I politely insist that ity is a Stones song.
It was the first song on the Begger’s Banquet album. I think.
But it was a Stones song!
[/QUOTE]
From Wikipedia:
(Underlining mine.)
Beggars Banquet tracks here.
[QUOTE=Frylock]
That probably increases the number of citations by quite a bit… but it’s perfectly legitimate IMO to debate whether the identification of “Satan” with these various labels is correct in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
[Church Chat Lady]
Oh, could it be, I don’t know,
SANTA?
[/Church Chat Lady]
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
From Wikipedia:
(Underlining mine.)
Beggars Banquet tracks here.
[/QUOTE]
We have a communication problem here.
What is your contention–stated explicitly?
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
I’m familiar with the notion’s roots in Jewish folklore, but I don’t see how that is “ironic” in any but an Alanis Morisettian sense. In what sense do you think it ironic?
[/QUOTE]
Nice one. That song sure had stupid lyrics.
[QUOTE=mr. jp]
Nice one. That song sure had stupid lyrics.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed - it has been said that the only ironic thing about the song is that AM does not appear to know what ‘ironic’ means.