Would you give in to seduction by an angel?

I’m married, so no. No need to accept a seduction from any stranger. Even if I weren’t married, I see no reason to accept a seduction from any stranger.

It’s a great advert

No. Traditionally angels are asexual so it wouldn’t be that much fun.

I would have to bite the bullet and accept if I thought he was sent by God Almighty. lol

Sounds like fun… but might end up to be a chore… I don’t want to disappoint two girls at once… but If they took me out to dinner first and we snuggled at bit… then we will see where it goes

If they looked like the ones in the commercial, then hell yes although they may have been a tad too skinny.

ZOMG, I guess that means I should go out and buy Axe, amirite?

Are they not asexual? So the best they could give me is oral.

@ragingloli they could give you more… if you are creative… when you are older someone will tell you if you ask nicely

I would however stay away from this particular specimen, as I would have to fear for my life in its immediate vicinity.

@ragingloli (NSFW) I think I had a girlfriend like that… shudders But your angel would bring you back to life you might get addicted to it… in a S&M way

I think you might find that the angel was a demon in disguise, so no.

I’ve already been seduced by an angel many many years ago….... unfortunately our affair is entirely one sided (mine.) For details please see my avatar lol.

Only if he looks like this

:D

In Catholicism, I don’t think angels would even do that. If so, no because they’re not really on the same page when it comes to mortality and all that.

Sex with an angel…haha yeah, that would be kind of cool. Reminds me of this drawing I saw before, about a winged man having sex with a woman, and flying around at the same time. I certainly wouldn’t forget something like that.

I’d consider it a spiritual obligation and reluctantly do my duty. Actually, it’d be a welcome respite from the insatiable succubi who torment me every night.

@ragingloli
The succubi do not come to me anymore.
The last one died from food poisoning.

Are we talkin’ like, angel angels? ‘Cause I am NOT getting with a cherub. Maybe a normal angel…maybe.

@Joker94 lmao XD

@Symbeline Now just imagine getting with a Seraph. I wouldn’t be able to walk straight for days…

Oh jee haha. That’s what you call epic anal lmao.

They seem to have fallen of their own free will. Surely, it would be an insult to their sacrifice to refuse them.

And my wife agrees, so long as she can join.

Hehe, that commercial is cute!

I’m seduced by an extremely angelic person quite often—my fiance. :)

That being said, and being a monogamous bisexual, I wouldn’t give into seduction by an angel. I would be loyal to my fiance regardless of how beautiful she was. Also, I’m an atheist, so I’m functioning in terms of seduction by people as opposed to heavenly bodies. ;)

@dxs Actually according to the Bible this really happened. Their children were the Nephilim. Angles fornicated with human women, and then proceeded to teach them all sorts of practical knowledge, such as farming techniques and blacksmithing.

@FireMadeFlesh
Which would be quite interesting, because not only would these angels have had to be created genetically compatible to humans, but they would also have to be created with sexual organs, which means their creator actually intended for them to create offspring with humans.

@ragingloli The creator created beings with many abilities they should never use though, such as reason, free will, and that damned tree. Maybe we should add angel sexuality to the list.

and of course THIS angel I’d do in a heartbeat!! just saying…...

Or this

@FireMadeFlesh
Also keeping in mind that the bible is an exaggeration, but I am not sure where you are quoting from so I guess I have to know that before I say anything.

No way. In Greek mythology and the Apocrypha, mortals who sleep with immortals always come to no good end.

@dxs Genesis 6:4 “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”

The Book of Enoch gives a much more detailed account of this story, and the names of some of the more prominent angels.

@FireMadeFlesh Yes, but seduction is kind of different, especially back then.

@dxs From the Book of Enoch (which the Biblical authors regarded as scripture): “And other forms I saw hidden in that place. I heard the voice of the angel saying: ‘These are the angels who descended to the earth, and revealed what was hidden to the children of men and seduced the children of men into committing sin.’”

@FireMadeFlesh
Enoch? That’s not part of the bible…
Anyway, is there more context? Not all angels are good, like Lucifer, but if they are not good then they certainly are not angels (or angels anymore) because they are from heaven, which abides by the laws of God and that is against God’s commandments.

@dxs The Book of Enoch is not part of the modern Bible, but as I said the Biblical authors (at least those that post-dated it) regarded it as scripture. James directly quoted it, and it contains many stories that are elsewhere in the Bible. I only quoted it here to provide more detail for the story mentioned in the Bible.

Lucifer was an angel until his Fall, when he became Satan and his followers became demons. Likewise these beings were angels, but this act was their Fall, whereupon they were no longer angels (presumably).

@dxs I’m not quite sure what you mean by ”the Bible.” There’s more than one Bible, after all.

@SavoirFaire
I am talking about Catholicism, as previously stated in my previous comments.

@dxs All you said in that earlier comment was “in Catholicism…” Catholics can and do read the Apocrypha, so the phrase “in Catholicism” does not itself limit us to citing only books in the Catholic Bible. And that, I suppose, is why you’ve missed my point. There is no such thing as ”the Bible,” and so harping on what is or is not in one of the various canonizations is a bit arbitrary. This is particularly true when the book in question, Enoch, was taken as canon by those writing what you take to be canon.

@SavoirFaire
I think that you are being a little bit too technical. I mean the catholic bible, which includes the apocrypha (that’s protestant or some form of christianity that doesn’t accept it).

@dxs If you are including the Apocrypha, then on what grounds are you rejecting @FireMadeFlesh‘s point about Enoch? My comment, after all, was made in response to your attempt to get out of acknowledging what is said in that book with the phrase “that’s not part of the Bible.” Yet you are willing to acknowledge other books that are not in your preferred version of the Bible. Looks like a double standard to me.

@SavoirFaire
I am thinking more on the lines of the Septuagint (I think thats the name). I was taught that the apocrypha (meaning hidden in native language) were the seven hidden books that the protestants hid in the back of the bible as not considered divinely inspired. Catholics included these seven books. That is the apocrypha I am talking of. Any other meaning I do not mean, and if there is another meaning, sorry for not being “exact”.

@dxs It sounds to me like your talking about the deuterocanonical books. Note that the terms “deuterocanonical” and “apocryphal”—as well as the distinction between the two—are of Catholic origin. Note also that the pejorative use of the term “apocrypha” is patently absurd. First, every Christian tradition has books it considers non-canonical. Second, these books always get their own section when printed along with the canonical books in an edition of the Bible. Third, this section sometimes appears between the Old and New Testaments and not always after the New Testament. Fourth, surely it is fatuous to think that a book is being hidden simply because it appears near the back of an edition of the Bible. Or do you think Christians of all stripes, including Catholics, are trying to hide the Book of Revelation?

@dxs I’m not sure why you are willing to exclude some books and include others. If James, a canonical book of the New Testament, quotes Enoch as scripture and the story in question is paraphrased in Genesis, surely that is enough reason to give the story as much credence as any other in Christian mythology.

I think Christians are generally uncomfortable with this story, because it is much harder to work into a modern framework in the way much of the rest of the Bible has been given modern interpretations to prolong its perceived relevance. It bears the hallmarks of the Mesopotamian mythology that formed the basis of Israelite mythology.

@SavoirFaire @FireMadeFlesh
I’m just going by what I was taught. This is going way too far so I do not feel like arguing any further. I just want to say that I was taught of the 76 Books of the “Bible” as the ONLY divinely inspired books and nothing else!!. That is all; no enoch, but there is a james letter in “my bible”

@dxs Yes, we are way off topic. It has been interesting though, thanks.