Talk:Devil

As for the talk of splitting him into 3 entities, from what i can gather, The 3 entities are the same being, but dependant on what task is underhand. For instance, Lucifer is supposedly the deciever (Incubus if you will?) So he would maybe take part in the seduction areas. Also i believe i read somewhere that Beelzebub is one of the rulers of hell, and that he leads a certain amount of legions. I guess if this is indeed a part of satan, it would be one of the conquering aspects.

Not sure if this is what you all agree with or not, but this is how I personally have percieved what i have come across, so i guess what im trying to say in general is if Satan/God both exist, then the devil is maybe split personality, each aspect takes on a different form for the task given. I personally couldnt see a large over grown bug seducing someone.

Wow is this ever a stub. How to divide the concept of Satan, of a minor devil in Hell/Heck/wherever, and similar concepts of demons in religion?

Not sure. Maybe break it down more like - etymology, common usage (maybe making a distinction here between "a devil" and "the devil"?), the devil in literature and popular culture, and end with a few book titles & a good quote. RL Barrett 07:45 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

An apology for the devil: it must be remembered that we have heard only one side of the case; God has written all the books. - Samuel Butler (1835 - 1902), The Note-Books of Samuel Butler (1912)

An alternate etymology for the term devil. RL Barrett 07:48 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

maybe: "The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil from the Earliest Times to the Present Day" - by Paul Carus ISBN 0875483070 RL Barrett 15:32 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I quote from the article "Why? There is no answer; nobody gave an explanation for this." -- Not very encyclopediac, is it ? [smell my butt] 06:26, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The entire "Names of the Devil" is entirely christian POV, as far as I can see, so how about renaming that entire section to something reflecting this, such as, "Names of the Devil in Christian tradition". Then the subsection about Christian tradition is odd, but, it is already odd, as the entire section is Gnostic? Pagan 07:28, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've moved the mostly-irrelevant D&D section to demons in Dungeons & Dragons. -Sean 09:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You know, I couldn't make heads or tails of the following (in reference to the splitting of Satan, Lucifer, and Beelzebub into three entities):

"Perhaps the fact that many ignorant people (as instructions was uncommon for most population) was interrogated during the witch trials collaborated, because one person could answer "my master is Lucifer", another "I made a pact with Satan", etc., not having these people knowledge of the different names of the Devil, and being sometimes suggested the name to them by the interrogator, depending on how he called the Devil in that moment. But this cannot explain that demonologists that supposedly had this knowledge (many of them were priests, with important studies) continued using these names for different entities coexisting in the same Hell."

So I just took it out. But if anyone does understand and wants to articulate it better, go for it. I feel bad for just excising it, but it really doesn't make any sense. Ansate 15:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, the "adversary" in the book of Job is never explicitly named as Satan, and many scholars of Judaism and Christianity believe this is an incorrect identification. I will try to find some references for this. [[User:CyborgTosser|CyborgTosser (Only half the battle)]] 22:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The Satan" means "the adversary." Hebrew names are descriptive (i.e. Abraham means Father). Satan is not so much a proper name, in our sence of a proper name, as it is a description. This is were some of the confusion comes from as people use it as a proper name. [allranger]

In the "See also" section, I removed "*Imps" ... the Imps article has no relation to this, and there's no article I can see that does. joe 14:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modern idea of the Devil

Hi. I believe the article is missing a passage on a more recent conception of the Devil in Catholicism (although the Pope himself is not a follower of this). It's been brought to attention that the notion of the Devil as an adversary of God's work, or a being that can actually exist outside of God's rule and even wage war on His kingdom (even if he always loses) is conflicting with the dogma of God as an all-Mighty being. In that notion, the Devil would be working for God, under Him, just like all other supernatural beings. It's just that he's running Hell, a "correctional facility", so to speak. But even Hell is part of the Lord's dominion. In that context, to say that the Devil is working against God rather than for Him, would be like believing that the warden of a prison is a criminal who exists outside the system, rather than a public servant who just happens to have a lousy job (sorry if any wardens or people with wardens in their families are reading this, no offense). Adepts of that train of thought tend to believe that evil is a result of the human imperfect nature, which would be, afterall, part of God's design, since the very nature of God would exclude peremptorily the possibility that God could make mistakes. That theory, to the best of my knowledge, does not encourage Devil worshiping, since the Devil is still a fallen angel, and with a bad personality too. That's to say that, even if he is not God's enemy, he is still not a role model, in fact his example is not to be followed in any way, unless one wishes to meet him in person (i.e., go to Hell, literally). Should that be reflected in the article? Regards, Redux 19:49, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jewish views

I don't follow the logic of the line: There is no evidence in Torah, or in the books of the Prophets and other writings, to suggest that God created an evil being. In fact, Isaiah, Job, Ecclesiastes, and Deuteronomy all have passages which reflect that God himself creates the evil of this world.

If those sources say that God does create the evil of this world, then how can there be a claim that there's no evidence that He created an evil being? I think the intention was to say that since God creates evil Himself, there's no evidence that He delegated this job to someone else.

But I disagree with that. There are angels in charge of all sorts of things. Why not an angel in charge of evil?

POV Check

This section on "Jewish Views" seems like it was written by a Christian. (See [User:Pagan]'s comment above) Indeed, it shows no knowledge of particular Jewish theology and tradition. It does not mention the Talmud, the Mishna, the Rabbinic sages, or any Jewish folk tradition. It merely sections off segments of the Hebrew scriptures and treats them by themselves. That's a Christian's take on Judaism. It also skips over hundreds of years of Judaism and opines about the Jews who went on to form Christianity, supposing that they had contect with Zoroastrian religious influences rather than being aware that the developement of a personal devil had happened in Judaism in the "inter-testemental" period.

Similar problems existed/exist in the following section on "Original names"... I have tried to disambiguate the Jewish and Christian views (unfortunately anonymously as 12.15.168.114, sorry) but it needs further work. Emyth 13:55, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

WTF?

"The medieval Cathars believed that the Old Testament Yahweh was, in fact, the devil, based partially on ethical interpretations of the Bible and partially on the beliefs of earlier gnostic sects (such as the Marcionists) who regarded the god of the Old Testament as evil or as an imperfect demiurge."...(um,they're going to hell)

Therein lies the problem and the source of all the confusion.Those rotten fiction writers were themselves inspired by the evil one!

Their influence at different times in history has caused confused perceptions to arise at times,and caused twisted schools of thought to form and,at various intervals,intermittently disperse certain fantasies,and superimpose "confusion" into the zeitgeit!

The gnostics are like a demon-possessed super group of pimple-faced,cosmic "computer hackers" foisting a virus into our proverbial hard drives!

The gnostics are a hoary host of devils and demons all unto themselves.

--The anti-gnostic 11:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, The anti-gnostic, you certainly make your POV clear here... But do you understand the ethos of our Wikipedia? You can't simply insult people you disagree with and expect us to take you seriously. At the moment you are coming across as a sophmoric punk, someone who knows just enough about things to make themselves dangerous, but not enough to act wisely. Here's the challenge... You want us to take you seriously? Show us that you take our project, the Wikipedia, seriously and show some respect. It can be rough and tumble, but it's great fun... Join us... Don't get blocked for vandalism. All the best... Emyth 14:09, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Bible Problems

A few problems I have with this article are as follows. One is, the reference to Judaic beliefs in Satan comming from Zoastrianism is stated as a blanket statement when in truth it is what some scholars believe, and should be stated as such. The second, and not before stated problem is the reference to God creating evil. The author quotes Isaiah 45:7 of the King James version but fails to compensate for vernacular and contexual meaning of the time. A more modern transaltion, such as even the New King James Version, says "I form the light and create darkness,I make peace and create calamity;I, the LORD, do all these things.' " Now there is a differance between evil and calamity, and as word meanings have shifted that is needed to be explicitly stated (this is somewhat asumtion based on an understanding of how Bible translation works)

Correct. I added "Some scholars believe". The other issue seems to have been fixed, but in any case I've changed the quotes from KJV to NIV. ··gracefool |☺ 13:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil in Islam

I notice that although the article refrences the Devil in Judaism and Christianity (and the absence of a Devil-figure in Hinduism) that there are no details or refrences to the Devil in Islam in the article. I don't know much more about his depiction in Islam other than that he is acknowledged to exist.

The devil revealed through circumstantial and tangible evidences

Can anyone tell me why on Earth this subject is here?! Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia?!

It was there because someone had decided to flood wikipedia with links to their blog. —Xezbeth 12:12, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

deva

"In other languages devil may be derived from the same Indo-European root word for deva, which roughly translates as "angel"."

Maybe this is saying something relevant or at least interesting but I can't tell what it is. What languages are we talking about here and what exactly is 'deva'? ae7flux

In General

I don't like the way all Christians always get painted with the broad brush.There are so many brands of so-called Christians but all Christians are painted with the broad brush whenever the word "Christian" is used when distinctions could be made such as mentioning that the group that is being talked about is "Catholic" or "gnostic" for example.I always see sentences like "Christians go on warring crusades" or "Christians eat babies" when the article author could identify the particular group they are talking about more specifically than with the blanket term "Christians" which tends to paint all Christians with a broad brush.Tell me that you are talking about Catholics or gnostics,respectively,and specifically,if that's the case.

thankyou

So which one eats babies again? Indium 21:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Made a slight change in the wording of the last line of the introduction to clarify that it was The Devil who was prideful, etc..., not God. I'm sure everybody got that already, though.

Arkady, 17:08, 10 April 2006.

File:Blackadder II - Money.jpg

Non-gnostics ate babies

The gnostics never went on a crusade. The non-gnostics on the other hand were responsible for the Albigensian crusade, The Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, the burning of the Library of Alexandria, the Thirty Years' War, Banning Christmas, and the Baby Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells. Clinkophonist 23:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article failing its purpose

on the first line "The Devil is the name given to a supernatural entity, who, in most Western religions, is the central embodiment of evil." will drive people down the wrong road. To the mass of information, some in cross purposes about god, creation and devils part in it, this article has an obligation to present main relevant groups of issues, and I think it has not.

For example: 'In the beginning there was god(meaning nothing else), creation(meaning all that we see and have is gods creation), evil and good(meaning all acts can be divided into evil or good or somewhere in this spectrum- and the key point here is free will which god gave us [and quietly linked responsibility for our acts which is called sin] ), sin cannot be in the presence of god, so hell created with its rings to burn sin in emotional torment in spirit form to purify the soul again( my personal opinion is a bit like the movie Groundhogs day), Devil in charge of hell to achieve this. So Devil may not be the 'central embodiment of evil' but "embodiment of forced-path to purity of soul". Pure soul can then be with god as its rightful place*a pure soul cannot be in hell, it will disrupt it. The character of devil is flawed as well (meaning not a pure soul) and I suppose in the process of being purified as well.

Confusing, Yep. I think eventually everyone one has a choice in what they believe, Christ takes up all your sins by dying on the cross and so straight to heaven on the proviso you totally believe in this- to no way to short circuit the purification of soul in hell, being the ends of the spectrum. I think the truth may lie somewhere in there.

Sam

Zoroastrian info

The Zoroastrian info was really -- what's the word.. - wrong. I imagine its either outdated information (the actual study of the religion being rare), or just plain biased. This is still a living religion people. I corrected it but it still isn't clean and I've got church so I'll just leave with this: if you've got questions or want my sources please ask! I'd also like to hear more on the Jewish view of the inter-testimental period. From my knowledge pof Zoroastrianism its sorta obvious there was some influence at the very least! But more on Christianity than Judaism (apart from the Essene sect) I will clarify. Khirad^talk 17:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mara but no Maya

If Mara should be, horribly inprecisely, shown as a Buddhist idea of Devil, or like Devil, then Maya should be also mentioned as a Hindu equivalent; in fact Mara and Maya are most probably etimologically linked.

Devil in Hinduism

Some suggested that Yama (deva of death), Maya (Devi as Prakriti) and Kali purusa (Kroni in Ayyavazhi version) are Devil. This is wrong although some similarities are there. However, the best fit is Rahu. - Jan/VEDA, Apr 26 06

satan in art?

should there not be a heading along with Satan in Literature etc, satan in art...?

There should be a whole section on the changing images of the devil. Nowhere does it state how views of the devil have changed and why he is looked at today as a red man with horns, and a pointy tail. There is a whole history on the everchanging image of the devil and I feel it is very important to mention it in this article. I don't know about it extensively but I might know someone who does. If anyone else has information, then it should be added. Rayana fazli 23:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing Major Restructuring

Over at Talk:Satan, we've been discussing how we should categorize information about the Devil, Satan, various religions' take on this entity, etc. After thinking about this on and off for two weeks and seeing how Wikipedia breaks up parallel topics that relate to more than one religion, here's how I think these articles should break out.

The Devil = general purpose Devil article, with "the Devil" as he appears in various religions, traditions, etc. Includes etymology of the word "Devil." Bascially the current Devil article.

The Devil in Christianity/Islam/Judaism/etc. = more specific articles about the Devil as he has appeared and is understood in various religions. The "Devil in Christianity" article will have a lot of material that's currently in the Satan article.

Satan = the specific term "Satan," its etymology and use

Lucifer = the specific term "Lucifer," its etymology and use

Shaitan = the specific term "Shaitan," its etymology and use

etc.

Since "Satan" appears in more than one religion, it doesn't make sense for the "Satan" article to be about the Christian devil, as stated in the intro on the Devil page.

What do folks think about this proposed structure? Jonathan Tweet 14:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]