13-07-09 Yowzers!

[jack of tears]

Jack, you are simply wrong.

Check your facts

entry in the Malleus also denies your claim that incubi exclusively assault nuns - referencing the very common belief that witches, or women who would become witches, were seduced by devils.

I never once said this.

theory about incubi and succubi is old enough to be mentioned in the Malleus Maleficarum. I have no access to the documents the Malleus is (supposedly) drawing on so I can't say if it really was Augustine who came up with the theory. The fact remains that the concept's genesis comes no later than 1486.

I will give you there seems to be some contradiction here. While the "Hammer of Witches" does suggest at one point a devil might turn into a Succubus for a man, then an Incubus for a women - it goes on to say that this rarely happens as the devil feels "filthy" performing both deeds. "Perhaps because one devil, allotted to a woman, should receive semen from another devil, allotted to a man, that in this way each of them should be commissioned by the prince of devils to work some witchcraft ... " Thus typically you'll have Incubus and Succubus as separate devils sharing in the act of semen transference.

[Kamino Neko]

Jack, you are simply wrong.

Check your facts

I have. They say exactly what I'm saying they're saying.

You, on the other hand, might want to actually CITE some facts, rather than making bold, incorrect, claims, and calling everybody who points out that you're wrong uneducated.

entry in the Malleus also denies your claim that incubi exclusively assault nuns - referencing the very common belief that witches, or women who would become witches, were seduced by devils.

I never once said this.

You're right, that was brknleague. I apologize for mixing the two claims up.

I will give you there seems to be some contradiction here. While the "Hammer of Witches" does suggest at one point a devil might turn into a Succubus for a man, then an Incubus for a women - it goes on to say that this rarely happens as the devil feels "filthy" performing both deeds. "Perhaps because one devil, allotted to a woman, should receive semen from another devil, allotted to a man, that in this way each of them should be commissioned by the prince of devils to work some witchcraft ... " Thus typically you'll have Incubus and Succubus as separate devils sharing in the act of semen transference.

There is no contradiction. Individual seducer demons may have preferences, or be assigned specific tasks, but it's quite specifically mentioned that they're the same thing, just with different targets.

[Kamino Neko]

I don't know how you can call an aspect of mythology wrong

This, by the way, is a good point - the only way to make a claim about mythology, demonology, angelology, etc that is 'incorrect' is to claim something was believed when it wasn't - or, claim something was NOT believed, when it was.

[jack of tears]

I can see where your misconceptions come from - the book is a dense read - but you are interpreting it incorrectly. I gave you that I could see where the idea came from and agreed that there was some basis for it ... though if fairly clearly states this isn't the more common way of doing things.

[Don Alexander]

And now for something completely different! ;)

Just looking at that last frame, I am wondering who the tail at the bottom of the image belongs to..

That's her headband, with the horns on it, which she must have dropped to the floor.

[Kamino Neko]

though if fairly clearly states this isn't the more common way of doing things.

For it to not be 'the more common way of doing things', it has to be possible, and, in fact, is implied to happen, in at least some cases.

The Malleus clearly stated EXACTLY that.

Your claim wasn't that 'it's not the common way', it was that 'it wasn't believed', which is nonsense. If you'd claimed that 'that wasn't the common way incubi were believed to work' instead of incorrectly and without even the vaguest of support that it was not true that it was ever believed, there would be no argument.

But you didn't, until proof you were wrong was presented, then you moved the goalposts, and tried to claim that the Malleus's clearly referencing the belief supported your claim, when, in fact, it does exactly the opposite.

[nilof]

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/ ... sp?Post=22

I'll also cite "history of the devil", a book published in 1900 by Paul Carrus:

"The theory of incubi and succubi is presented in all its indecency on the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas, who in his commentary on Job (Chap. 40) interprets Behemoth (a large animal, probably the elephant) as the Devil, and derives from the mention of the animal's sexual strength (verse 16) the theory that evil demons can have intercourse with human beings. Satan is supposed to serve first as a succubus (or female devil) to men, and then as an incubus (or male devil) to women; and St. Thomas declares that children begotten in this way ought to be regarded as the children of the men whom Satan served as succubus. They would, however, The more cunning than normal children on account of the demoniacal influence to which they were exposed in their pre-natal condition."
(p 286-287)

There you go.

[Bear]

Okay guys, the succubus/incubus debate has gone on too far now and ends here.

The fact is ancient myths and legends and books of lore have been translated and mistranslated multiple times as have the myths and legends they contain so there is no one true representation of the facts anymore since having been copied and recopied multiple times has changed may of the defiantions within, as has new 'research' and rumour.

Everyone is right to a given value as right, as they are also wrong depending on the source. Debate over. Get back to discussing the strip.