Talk:Devil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Judaism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Islam (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith / Left Hand Path / New religious movements (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Left Hand Path work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group.
 
WikiProject Occult (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Horror (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Mythology    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Mythology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject Bahá'í Faith (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Bahá'í Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Spirituality (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Zoroastrianism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, which is a collaboration of editors who strive to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zoroastrianism-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ancient Egypt / Egyptian religion  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Egyptian religion work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Culture (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Literature (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Devil:
  • Create a section on the cultural background and possible origins of the Devil. (Russell's The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Forsyth's The Old Enemy: Satan & the Combat Myth, Pagel's Origin of Satan and Wray and Mobley's The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots can be taken as resources.)
    • Temporary comment: attending the Warburg's Open Seminar 2.12.2011 in London may be useful.
  • Replace the "Religious accounts" section with new sections; "Religious narratives" and "Theological/philosophical beliefs about the Devil". The former should describe how the devil is portrayed in narratives (e.g the temptation of Jesus) with little reference to theology.
  • Create a section on the Devil in modern literature (e.g Paradise Lost, The Devil and Daniel Webster) and expand on the folklore section.
  • Create a section on how the Devil was portrayed in art.

Different main picture?[edit]

The first image of the devil on the page is very uncharacteristic of images of the devil (he is portrayed as a handsome, nude human Adonis, as opposed to an ugly, red, horned demon). This article would probably be better if the first image on the page was a more typical portrayal of the devil.

Reference title incorrect[edit]

Hi, I don't have editing rights, but notice that the title of reference 18 is incorrect. It currently reads "Do You Believe in a Devil? He is a saint." This appears to have been vandalised. The correct title is simply, "Do You Believe in a Devil?" and the link leads directly to an electronic version of a booklet with this title. Christadelphians do NOT believe that the devil is a saint. The booklet was never entitled this, and does not say anything remotely like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.194.102 (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sup with that Mayor Hall picture?[edit]

What's the story behind that? I hate articles that have photos with no explanation and what's going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.208.218 (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Who is Mayor Hall? Overall this article is lacking. 77Mike77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Readability[edit]

Horus is victorious over Set and Ausar, being brought back from the dead becomes lord of the underworld.

should read:

Horus is victorious over Set; and Ausar (being brought back from the dead) becomes lord of the underworld.

The difference is that it is not one sentence, but two separate sentences connected by a common thought, thus the semi-colon, and the parenthesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.18.19 (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is horrible and extremely misleading! It appears to be written by someone who hates Christianity. Please take this article down and get someone who is not such a bigot against Christianity to write about Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.5.65 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Supernatural or superhuman?[edit]

I propose to change the adjective "supernatural" in the first rows with the adjective "superhuman". See the talk page of the article Deity for the matter. I paste that here:

“01:02, 11 June 2011 Mann jess (talk | contribs) (17,010 bytes) (Undid revision 433634278 by 87.19.60.51 (talk) No. Lots of things are "superhuman". This is explicitly "supernatural". Please don't [[WP:EW discuss on talk.) (undo)”

Supernatural means over-the-nature and more specifically *not part of the nature*. Let me quote the article:

“natural phenomena as lightning, floods, storms, other 'acts of God', and miracles are attributed to them”

Miracles are things unexplicated by science (ethimologically it is synonym of wonder). Admitting deities, angels and so on exist, are these beings out-of-our-comprehension (in their particular conformation) or *not part of nature*? (note 1)

We must free the field from a "neo-positivistic" vision of nature. What is out-of-our-comprehension is not unnatural, and even if it should refer to other-than-human beings, it does not mean they are less *part of nature* than us.

About the other part it explains by itself. It says about ruling on natural phenomena, they are a deep inside *part of nature*. I shall be more clear. Juppiter rules on thunders and so on, Thanatos on death, Dike on justice, Robigus on rust, they have power on these things but it means their abilities and their specific nature are over-human-abilities and over-human-nature (superhuman - and also -maybe not forever- out-of-our-comprehension), not they are not *part of nature* like us.

Ultimately the whole concept of the so called "supernatural" must be revised. note 1: Semele, mother of Dionisus, asked to Juppiter to let her see him in his deity form. The myth tells she was disintegrated.

Mormegil 87.19.77.115 (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi 87.19. We've been using this definition for a while, and we'd need sources to modify our fundamental definition. Generally speaking, I'm not sure that changing "supernatural" to "superhuman" is an improvement in describing the term, in part because lots of things are "superhuman"; Indeed, anything with abilities 'above' that of humans could be seen as such. Biological enhancements are one example, which clearly don't qualify as a "Diety". Supernatural, on the other hand, implies that a Diety is beyond nature itself, unlike the everyday things we encounter. Personally, I find this to be a more compelling definition. If you can find a source which supports your proposal, however, we would be able to discuss such a change to the lead.   — Jess· Δ 03:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
A source? Dictionary?
"superhuman
–adjective
1. above or beyond what is human; having a higher nature or greater powers than humans have: a superhuman being.
2. exceeding ordinary human power, achievement, experience, etc.: a superhuman effort."
www.dictionary.com
The 1st definition is (also) a deity. The 2nd, regarding deities, is what a deity can do.
Bye, Mormegil 87.19.77.115 (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
No, we need a source for "Diety". Not a source for "superhuman".   — Jess· Δ 15:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
God
noun
1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2 - (god)(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:a moon god, the Hindu god Vishnu
- an image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god.
- used as a conventional personification of fate:he dialled the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once
excerpt from http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/God
see the link for deepening (I stripped just the first two definitions, bold highlighting is mine).
Bye, Mormegil 87.18.196.100 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
If anyone has not anything to reply, I shall procede with the below amendetion in a week or a little more:
"A deity is a recognized preternatural or superhuman immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often religiously referred to as a god.
The demi-urges are considered by Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 50 Case 6 as being something of a halfway house, neither fully divine nor fully human, and, moreover, heirarchised within that structure. His argument fails to reconcile the ostensible contradiction, in that being spiritual beings they have no scope for upping their game, but not being God they have infinite scope for improvement. That then opens the door to the concept of the fallen angel, with the distinction that the doctrine of salvation is for men, whose Original Sin was second-hand/indirect, being mediated by Satan, unlike the demons, whose sin was overt rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.13.121 (talkcontribs) 09:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deities are depicted in a variety of forms, but are also frequently expressed as having human form. Some faiths and traditions consider it blasphemous to imagine or depict the deity as having any concrete form. They are usually immortal, and are commonly assumed to have personalities and to possess consciousness, intellects, desires, and emotions similar to those of humans.
They have power over one or more aspects of nature and/or human fortunes. Such natural phenomena as lightning, floods, storms, other 'acts of God', and miracles are attributed to them, and they may be thought to be the authorities or controllers of various aspects of human life (such as birth or the afterlife). Some deities are asserted to be the directors of time and fate itself, to be the givers of human law and morality, to be the ultimate judges of human worth and behavior, and to be the designers and creators of the Earth or the universe."
Bold highlightins are the amendations. Maybe I shall do further wiki formatting like links and others.
Bye, Mormegil 87.19.76.137 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about Deities, but the dichotomy supernatural/superhuman is the same.

Mormegil 87.19.77.127 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's worth examining Aquinas in detail, as he brings together the often contentious early fathers' theology with Aristotelianism, building the baseline off which everything else works. He considers the demi-urges (Summa Theologiae, 50 Case 6) as being something of a halfway house, neither fully divine nor fully human, and, moreover, heirarchised within that structure. His argument fails to reconcile the ostensible contradiction, in that being spiritual beings they have no scope for upping their game, but not being God they have infinite scope for improvement, but plumps for the latter. That then opens the door to the concept of the fallen angel, with the distinction that the doctrine of salvation is for men, whose Original Sin was second-hand/indirect, being mediated by Satan, unlike the demons, whose sin was overt rebellion - therefore, they may be the worst case of all, neither empowered (the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell - again a needful link) nor capable of fulfillling any potential. He continues in the specific case of the diabolical (Summa 80 onwards).
The second point to bring out is that none the less there is very little applied demonology until an understanding was needed for the medical catastrophes of the second half of the fourteenth century, which came within a gnat's whisker of reducing civilisation to the stone age - indeed, it did in some areas. From then on in we get the Totentanz culture exploding, from Bosch to the early puritans, and the later witch crises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.13.121 (talkcontribs) 09:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see that the above weird use of "superhuman" wasn't used after all. An ET with a higher IQ and better tech would be "superhuman". "Supernatural" is the right word for this article. 77Mike77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Mushyhuz, 13 September 2011[edit]

Resolved

Under the Title "Islam" the third line has the following sentence "According to Muslim theology, Iblis was expelled from the grace of God when he disobeyed God by choosing not to pay homage to Adam, the father of all mankind."

Kindly Change the part the father of all mankind to the creator of all mankind. As per Islamic belief God is not the "father" but "creator" of mankind

Mushyhuz (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologise if I'm mistaken, but I believe you're misreading the line. It is Adam, not God, who is being referred to as the father of all mankind. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 09:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Mushyhuz (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Oh yes! you're right! sorry I didn't get that.

No worries, easily done. Face-smile.svg Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 00:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from TheSpoilerCeaseth, 29 September 2011[edit]

Much "Satanic" lore does not originate from actual Satanists, but from Christians. Best-known would be the medieval folklore and theology surrounding demons and witches. A more recent example is the Satanic ritual abuse scare of the 1980s – beginning with the memoir Michelle Remembers – which depicts Satanism as a vast (and unsubstantiated) conspiracy of elites with a predilection for child abuse and human sacrifice. This genre regularly describes Satan as actually appearing in person in order to receive worship.<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm</ref>

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO THE FOLLOWING:

"Satanic lore" originates from those who state that they worship him, and their teachers. Best-known would be the folklore, and said theology surrounding demons and witches. A more recent example is the Satanic ritual abuse scare of the 1980s – beginning with the Victoria, British Columbia, Canada memoir Michelle Remembers – which depicts Satanism as a vast conspiracy of elites with a predilection for child abuse and human sacrifice. This genre could describe Satan as actually appearing in person, or spirit, in order to receive worship or voice, etc.<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm</ref> The person of God, is, at times, depicted alongside these stories as the the final inquisitor, or as the devil himself behind the horror.

Michael Anthony Furtado (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Changing Much "Satanic" lore does not originate from actual Satanists, but from Christians. to "Satanic lore" originates from those who state that they worship him, and their teachers. would be inaccurate. --Jean Calleo (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1. Please substantiate with references. OTO and their ilk have done more than a certain amount to build the Wheatley-Hammer imagery of the 1960s onwards by publishing Crowley's works. Wheatley knew that circle (indeed lunched with Crowley), so that correction is sui generis indefensible. This angle should include the alchemical "Massacre of the innocents" which includes Dutroux (a snitch managed by members of OTO's Abraxas sect), Gilles de Rais (who explained it), and Ian Huntley, who tried to study the subject in prison.
2. On the other hand, there is the well-documented contretemps that much paedophilia stems from within the Church itself, and would be instantly denied as the work of the Devil by the said body, and that the terms of reference were pretty much defined by the Christian fundamentalist wing, as you suggest. Given that the meme's reference is saliently defined by that, it becomes hard to deny the likely need to have a dualist reply covering both angles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.13.121 (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Satan in Hinduism[edit]

Hinduism has also got the concept of Satan.Many people say that Hinduism is a religion without the concept of Saitan.Every religion says the one and the same but in different manner.Hinduism says that there is existence of two things in this world.The GOOD and the EVIL.Sree Devi is a goddess in Hinduism,Where as Mu Devi is regarded as the Goddess of evil(Satan) in Hinduism.Mu Devi was once a God who became Satan later on.This Mu Devi misguides people to do ill things.Mu Devi wants people to worship her instead of worshipping God... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.40.22 (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hasty generalizations about religions aren't acceptable. Also, Satan is a Jewish and Christian figure. He isn't in Hinduism, but he would be in other religions which borrow from Christianity, just as Christianity borrowed from Judaism. Oct13 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please edit the Dvaita part, where "Satan" does exist. Kali Purusha (ruler of Kali yuga) is a central satanic figure. Kali Purusha's wife Alakshmi (referred to in Sri Sukta of Rig Veda and also referred as Mudevi by above writer) is also a cause of all evil only next to her husband, Kali Purusha. In Mahabharatha Kali Purusha takes an avatara as Duryodhana along with his evil followers (as brothers and uncles) to fight against Shri Vishnu (Shri Krishna), Vayu (Bheema) and rest of the devatas (good side).

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m15/m15031.htm

Know that Duryodhana was Kali, and Sakuni was Dwapara. O thou of good features, know that Dussasana and others were all Rakshasas.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01068.htm

The evil-minded and wicked king Duryodhana, the destroyer of the fair fame of the Kurus, was born of a portion of Kali on earth. He it was who caused all creatures to be slain and the earth to be wasted; and he it was who fanned the flame of hostility that ultimately consumed all. They who had been the sons of Pulastya (the Rakshasas) were born on earth among men of Duryodhana's brothers, that century of wicked individuals commencing with Duhasasana as their first.

Madhvacharya, the founder of Dvaita school (where panchabheda or five fold differences is considered eternal) recognizes (1.) hierarchy of demons or daityas and also (2.) that daityas are intrinsically evil. Kali purusha is the leader of these intrinsically evil daityas. Refer the following books.

Sharma, B. N. Krishnamurti (1962). Philosophy of Śrī Madhvācārya. Motilal Banarsidass (2014 Reprint). ISBN 978-8120800687. Sharma, B. N. Krishnamurti (2000). A History of the Dvaita School of Vedānta and Its Literature, 3rd Edition. Motilal Banarsidass (2008 Reprint). ISBN 978-8120815759.

Garuda Purana mentions the hierarchy of demons who go to eternal hell and mentions Kali Purusha as the worst among all asuras. Translation from The Garuda Purana, Part III, Motilal Banarasidass Publishers

Hardcover: 1223 pages Publisher: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd.; 1ST edition (2014) Language: English ISBN-10: 8120838211 ISBN-13: 978-8120838215

http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/1_sanskr/3_purana/garup3_u.htm

asmacchatāyuḥ paryantameka eva kaliḥ smṛtaḥ // GarP_3,12.76 //

Full one hundred years of my (Brahma) life constitute an age of Kali (Kali Purusha).

kalau saṃti kalpamānaṃ kalerante saṃti ca / tasmindine brahmarūpe gacchanti ca tamontikam // GarP_3,12.77 //

The period of Kali is counted by kalpas. Life exists though Kali expires. During the day of BrahmA, the sinners who have strayed from the path of virtue go to the dark regions (tamo means one of the hells).

tatra sthitvā lokamārgaṃ pratīkṣante na saṃśayaḥ / sādhakairviṣṇukāryāṇāṃ vāyudāsaiḥ prapīḍitāḥ // GarP_3,12.78 //

While staying there, they wait for the turn of their destiny while the attendants of vAyu carryout th eorders of the Lord (Shri Vushnu) and torture them severely.

śatavarṣānantaraṃ ca sarveṣāṃ kalinā saha / vāyorgadāprahāreṇa liṅgabhaṅgo bhaviṣyati // GarP_3,12.79 //

After the lapse of one hundred years, the living beings (sinners) together with Kali will have their subtle bodies (linga deha) smashed (bhanga) with the thrust of the club (gada) of vAyu.

tamondhaṃ praviśantyete tāratamyena sarvaśaḥ / tamasyandhepi saṃsāre nātra kāryā vicāraṇā // GarP_3,12.80 //

Since the translation is NOT provided for this verse properly, I will provide one.

All these enter blinding darkness as per their gradation in every direction. After entering blinding darkness (eternal hell), there is no thinking of returning to samsara (this world).

sarveṣāmuttamonte yaḥ kalireva na saṃśayaḥ / dūṣako viṣṇubhaktānāṃ tatsamo nāsti sarvadā // GarP_3,12.81 //

Of all ages, Kali comes at the end. Kali is the foremost of those who slander the devotees of Vishnu.

saṃsāre vāndhatamasi sarvatra haridūṣakaḥ / mithyādāne jñānabuddhirduḥ khe ca sukhabuddhimān // GarP_3,12.82 // tasmātkalisamo loke śivabhakto na kutracit / duryodhanaḥ sa evokto duḥ khānantyasvarūpavān // GarP_3,12.83 //

In the world of mortals and the world of blinding darkness, there is none equal to Kali who slanders the Lord, among the devotees of Shiva who finds pleasure in ignorance and aversion to knowledge. Kali is known as Duryodhana, the endless pain incarnate.

tasmācchataguṇāṃśena kalibhāryā tu sarvadā / alakṣmīriti vikhyātā sā loke mantharā smṛtā // GarP_3,12.84 //

The wife of Kali, whose qualities (evil qualities) are one-hundredth that of Kali, is known as Alakshmi, popularly known as MantharA.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.223.227 (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Those sources are primary sources, you need non-primary sources. Even if those sources were not primary sources, they do not mention Satan at all. You're confusing the specific character of Satan with a general devil archetype. Satan is a type of devil, and the figures you mention could be described as fitting the devil archetype by some people, but that does not mean they are the same figure.
Socrates was mortal. Cats are mortal. Does this mean that Socrates was a cat? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It is beyond ridiculous to expect literally the mention of the word "Satan" in Hinduism. Hinduism obviously does not follow Christianity or Islam in language or theology. However, Kali Purusha is satanic figure within Hinduism and especially within Dvaita school of Hinduism. Kali Purusha is considered intrinsically evil. He is the source of all evil here. He causes all unrighteousness and evil in all other beings. He is the leader of all demons who obey Kali. The evil nature of Kali Purusha is not due to external things, but is intrinsic to Kali Purusha, which means Kali Purusha is the personification of evil and not an archetype as you imagine. In this way Kali Purusha is equal to the concept of devil or satan and is a Universal symbol of evil in Hindu scriptures and Dvaita school. I am sure you do not understand anything about the significance of primary text, Garuda Purana, I have quoted. I also understand your statement that this figure Kali Purusha is not identical to the character "Satan" of christianity or Islam, which is fairly obvious and one should not expect such things from theologically different religions with no connection. However, you can at the least mention this figure within the context of Dvaita school and Hinduism, just as you did for Ayyavazhli school.

I will give secondary source here.

http://michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Philosophy-of-Sri-Madhvacharya.pdf

page 322

″The theory of tripartite classification of souls as proposed by Madhva has to be judged on its own merits and evidences, as a broad hypothesis of human nature and destiny. No useful purpose will be served by importing unnecessary sentiment into the discussion of the problem. Madhva and his commentators have put forward what they consider to be adequate grounds and textual authority in support of the theory. Kali and Vanisvara (i.e.Brahmadeva) as Madhva says, represent the two poles of evil and goodness. They must have their reward. The doctrine of Traividhya is thus a corollary of Anadiyogyata (beginningless fitness) which seems to be the ultimate explanation of diversity of natures, propensities and opportunities, going beyond all other explanations offered by the hypothesis of Karmabheda (differentiation by Karma) and every other explanation including free will. ″

page 323

″An intrinsic divergence of nature and faith into sattvika, rajasa and tamasa which is rooted in the core of individual nature (dehinam, svabhavaja) as stated in the Gita, is the ultimate basis of this theory according to Madhva. What is thus ultimately traced to the essential nature (svabhava) of the selves must indeed be unalterable.″


Please see the mention of two poles of good and evil above. Also see the mention of the classification of beginning-less (Anadiyogyata) selves (jiva or souls) having essential nature (intrinsic nature) as sattvika (good), rajasa (mixed) and tamasa (evil). Kali is worst of evil souls and BrahmA is mentioned as the best of good souls, thus giving two poles of good and evil, each deriving their qualities from their essential natures. This also puts the locus of evil squarely on evil Kali and thus answers the problem of evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.223.227 (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, too long, didn't read. Your exact words were Please edit the Dvaita part, where "Satan" does exist. Kali Purusha (ruler of Kali yuga) is a central satanic figure. It is ridiculous that you think it's ridiculous that I expect your sources to mention Satan when you describe them as mentioning Satan. Per our policy WP:No original research, we do not accept ramblings as a source. Your source has to mention Satan in a Hindu setting or it doesn't count. Furthermore, the source really needs to be a non-primary source, such as a critical academic commentary on a religious work -- not personal interpretation of a religious work. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sharma, B. N. Krishnamurti (1962). Philosophy of Śrī Madhvācārya. Motilal Banarsidass (2014 Reprint). ISBN 978-8120800687.

The above book (provided as reference in other wiki sources) is available as PDF in the following link.

http://michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Philosophy-of-Sri-Madhvacharya.pdf

quote from page 322

″The theory of tripartite classification of souls as proposed by Madhva has to be judged on its own merits and evidences, as a broad hypothesis of human nature and destiny. No useful purpose will be served by importing unnecessary sentiment into the discussion of the problem. Madhva and his commentators have put forward what they consider to be adequate grounds and textual authority in support of the theory. Kali and Vanisvara (i.e.Brahmadeva) as Madhva says, represent the two poles of evil and goodness. They must have their reward. The doctrine of Traividhya is thus a corollary of Anadiyogyata (beginningless fitness) which seems to be the ultimate explanation of diversity of natures, propensities and opportunities, going beyond all other explanations offered by the hypothesis of Karmabheda (differentiation by Karma) and every other explanation including free will. ″

quote from page 323

″An intrinsic divergence of nature and faith into sattvika, rajasa and tamasa which is rooted in the core of individual nature (dehinam, svabhavaja) as stated in the Gita, is the ultimate basis of this theory according to Madhva. What is thus ultimately traced to the essential nature (svabhava) of the selves must indeed be unalterable.″

quote from page 390

CHAPTER XLIV PROBLEM OF EVIL IN RELATION TO ETHICAL ADVANCEMENT

"THE problem of Evil and suffering in the world is the most difficult one in Theism. We have explained Madhva's attitude to the allied problem of freedom and freewill on the basis of the doctrine of natural selection (anadisvarupayogyata) of good or bad and of the tripartite classification of souls. It is not, therefore, necessary for Madhva to answer the question of the compatibility of evil with Divine goodness.

There are many worshippers of Satan and his ways and they have no moral code or spiritual values. They are unmitigatedly anti-social in their outlook. Their type is outlined in the Scriptures."

I have quoted from the same book. It would help if you read through my post instead of being one lazy fellow. There is th emention of satan in the above quote for you.

Second my mention of "satan" within quotes was meant as a central figure or a source of all evil, a Hindu satanic figure. Hinduism does not and cannot mention the word "Satan" itself. It is ridiculous for you to expect such things from Hindu sources.

It is sad that wikipedia employs unqualified people (one who does not have any knowledge about this field) as yourselves controlling what should be posted or should not be posted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.223.227 (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Joke's on you, I'm not an employee. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I am dealing with not only an ignoramus but also an adolescent here. When you decide to act with maturity, let me know.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.223.227 (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Satan as the serpent of Eden[edit]

“Satan is often identified as the serpent who convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit; thus, Satan has often been depicted as a serpent. Though this identification is not present in the Adam and Eve narrative, this interpretation goes back at least as far as the time of the writing of the book of Revelation, which specifically identifies Satan as being the serpent (Rev. 20:2).”

Strictly speaking, is this true? As far as I can tell, Revelation doesn’t specifically identify Satan as being the same serpent who spoke to Eve in the Garden of Eden, certainly not in any translation that I’ve ever come across. Revelation could well be alluding to the serpent from Genesis but it doesn’t specifically identify Satan as being that same serpent.

Some examples of the verse in question:

“And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, who is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.”

“He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.”

“He seized the dragon, the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,”

I think that something like this would be more appropriate: Satan is often identified as the serpent who convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit; thus, Satan has often been depicted as a serpent. Though this identification is not present in the Adam and Eve narrative, this interpretation goes back at least as far as the time of Justin Martyr, who, in his Dialogue with Trypho, specifically identified Satan as being the serpent of Eden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.156.230 (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Devils, plural[edit]

This article leaves no scope for plural "devils". It's monodiabolic as God merely tends toward monotheistic (because the latter includes much discussion of gods).

Devils does not redirect here and the only plural "See also", Hierarchy of devils does redirect to Classification of demons. So the second illustration with its fitting caption "Devils - a fresco detail from the Rila Monastery" is inappropriate for the article. --P64 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The line between demons and devils is blurry, so there's bound to be some overlap. This article concerns the concept of an evil antagonist to god(s), and there can be more than one. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The article needs some rewrite in order to fit plural lowercase "devils". For example, see God. --P64 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Opposite of devil[edit]

1. what is the antonym of devil ? 2. if devils are bad then who is good ? 3. Are human beings devil ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilakantha08 (talkcontribs)

The answers to those questions depends entirely on which religious tradition you're discussing. There are different views, even within the same religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

link to Persian[edit]

please add this http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/شیطان fa:شیطان

Belal.taheri (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for sharing the link. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

That sentence "Many of the authors have been severely chastised for their writings, and their followers killed." Should most DEFINATELY be taken out. 69.127.64.123 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Good catch! Taken care of it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Neopaganism section is biased and inaccurate[edit]

It says, 'Few neopagan reconstructionist traditions recognize Satan or the Devil outright. However, many neopagan groups worship some sort of Horned God,' The Horned God of these religions has nothing to do with the devil. There are horned gods that predate Christianity, some of whom were used to create the modern image of Satan. To imply that neopagans have any connection with Satan is wrong, and this, as it is currently written, implies just that.--Jcvamp (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC) The neopaganism section should make it clear that neopagans do not recognise Satan or the Devil, regarding it as a Christian concept. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The devil was unknown to the pagans of the Roman Empire. According to Robin Lane Fox: "Pagan society knew no "Devil" with whom individuals could make a pact, and thus no torture and persecutions of "false" prophets and prophetesses. These features were a consequence of Christianity."

Is that were this BS comes from? "The devil was unknown to the pagans of the Roman Empire. According to Robin Lane Fox: "Pagan society knew no "Devil" with whom individuals could make a pact, and thus no torture and persecutions of "false" prophets and prophetesses. These features were a consequence of Christianity."" --- Because, this isn't really true, since there were equivalents of what we call the devil. And yes the persecution of "false prophets" "witches" was common practice in paganism, which lessened with Christianization and turned up it's head in the later middle ages / early modern era. --41.151.36.23 (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The devil is an allegory for what?[edit]

Second paragraph of the text, lines 4-5: "As such, the Devil is seen as an allegory that represents a crisis of faith, individualism, free will, wisdom and enlightenment." The quoted text does not mention who views (or viewed) the devil as an allegory for each of the mentioned abstract ideas nor does it cite any sources.MHortulanus (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 June 2013[edit]

Devil or Sahitan is misunderstood due to religious that they consider it evil force but Devil is only heat. Devil is the smokeless fire means heat. It has no shape like humans or animals it is a heat that we use to heat up to get help to melt the metals and heat is inside our body and inside the earth. Quran also mentions Shaitan is made from smokeless fire means heat. Most religions still they do not think about it. It is misleading us. Heat is the enemy of human beings that Quran also mentions that Shaitan means heat is your enemy. Fakeer.miskeen (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use original research, requires reliable sources for all additions, and only states what common doctrines are instead of commenting on them. Your personal interpretation will not be added to the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2013[edit]

Of course the Devil is an interesting topic. But I've always thought of it like this. What can challenge God's Will? Nothing. The Devil was created because it had to be. Every good story needs a heel. And the Devil is the greatest heel ever. If the Devil did rebel, it is only because it was designed to do so. But to think that the Devil rebelled against God because it wanted to is a much better story. MOPOP69 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. An edit request should be "a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it". This appears to just be your personal take on the story of the Devil. --McGeddon (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for edit in the Diablo mention[edit]

It mentions that the game Diablo was created "in honor" of the Devil. I don't think the game is honoring the Devil, so could that be worded differently?

Theyongary (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

To remove[edit]

As such, the Devil is seen as an allegory that represents a crisis of faith, individualism, free will, wisdom and enlightenment. These bold words need clarifying or removing. Preferably by a religous scholar they contradict my understanding.

46.208.157.54 (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2014[edit]

Please remove "myth" as this word means: NOT REAL. United States was founded by God by our ancestors. Why else would our currency say: "In God We Trust." Just because a lot of people have chosen to stop believing in God that doesn't mean that we all have stop believing.

Gee whiz, I didn't think I have to put this on a talk page to be approved. I don't want to argue with unbelievers. I know God's REAL because I seen the miracles! Men hooked on heroin, coke, alcohol, cigarettes addictions, and these addicts were all healed by the hand of God. No rehabs could cure these individuals but only the hand of God freed them. A few miracles, I saw with my own eyes. The poor became comfortably well-off and lack for nothing. Many generous gifts (blessings from God) because God provides for his children. Faith comes from something you don't see. Hebrews 11:1 Be saved and receive the Holy Spirit. You can't get into Heaven without the Holy Spirit. That is not my opinion but a true fact. It will be easier to be saved now then after the rapture. A good website to know God is here: spamlink removed

Thewaythelightthetrue3038 (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No. "Myth" is used by academics (which Wikipedia sides with instead of philistine colloquialisms) to refer to religious stories, without judgement as to their veracity.
You seem to have piety and academic quality confused. Those are considered different things on Wikipedia. They may overlap at points, but they are nonetheless distinct. Personal experiences are right out for sourcing as well. And this is not an attempt to suppress your beliefs, believe as you will -- but do not confuse personal subjective belief for collected observations by multiple persons aiming to be objective.
And with regards to your non-sequitur arguments about "In God We Trust": Wikipedia is not America. It has American editors, but it also has British editors, Australian editors, Indian editors... Furthermore, "In God We Trust" was added to money during the Cold War -- Not by the founding fathers, who had deists such as Franklin and Jefferson among their number. Appeals to patriotism, like appeals to piety, are in no way legitimate arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for edit: Devil is not an Angel but a Jinn[edit]

I just wanted to inform the editors of this page that there is an error in the 2nd paragraph.

"While mainstream Judaism contains no overt concept of a devil, Christianity and Islam have variously regarded the Devil as a rebellious fallen angel that tempts humans to sin, if not committing evil deeds himself."

In Islam, it is believed that the Devil is a Jinn who disobeyed Allah. The Islamic belief is that Angels have no free will and therefore cannot disobey Commands from Allah (while humans and jinns have free will). Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.74.244 (talkcontribs) 00:50, 17 July 2014‎

Yes check.svg Done, have added the words "or jinn" to reflect the article body. --McGeddon (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2014[edit]

"In mainstream Islam and Christianity, God and the Devil are usually portrayed as fighting over the souls of humans." This is not true. In Christianity, The Devil Fights for the souls that God created. God gave us free will to choose to follow him or to follow The Devil. The Devil (Satan) is the only one of the two fighting for souls. IAmTheRingleader (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That's splitting hairs, and assuming that all of Islam and Christianity are firmly on the free-will side of things. While belief in free-will is perfectly compatible with those religions (and even though I personally am firmly in the "free will" camp), there is also belief in Predestination in Islam and also in Christianity. Whether God is merely betting on humanity to choose Him, or instituting some cosmic laws to bring people to Him, there is action on God's side to oppose that of the Devil's. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
the correct phrasing for this edit request would have been: "In mainstream Islam and Christianity, God and the Devil are usually portrayed as fighting over the souls of humans." — this is completely unreferenced, please remove unreferenced material from this page. Also, got to love the next sentence "The devil commands a force of evil spirits, commonly known as demons", referenced to Revelations 12:9. Look, I just checked this "reference", and it has nothing on terminology equating evil spirits of some class or other with demons. The Revelations verse says that the "dragon" (δρακων) who is also known as Satan (σατανας) the slanderer (ο διαβολος) was thrown out (εβληθη) with his angels (αγγελοι αυτου). Perhaps we can try to base a topic like this on actual secondary literature? Scholarly? Or else WP:TNT this and disambiguate/redirect it? --dab (𒁳) 15:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Diavolo[edit]

The usage and primary topic of Diavolo is under discussion, see talk:Diavolo Dance Theater -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Satan[edit]

The two article pretty much cover all the same information. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. It seems that "Satan" comes from Hebrew, wich was loan-translated to "Diabolos" in Greek Septuagint, leading to English "Devil". Thus, the meaning seems to be the same both conceptually, etymologically and practically (the content of the articles). Merge! –St.nerol (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Merging would be rather short-sighted decision. The Satan's article is about the Abrahamic devil, and the Devil's article is about the concept. Merging these would be like merging Mary (mother of Jesus) (Mary as a person) with Blessed Virgin Mary (Mary as a saint). Sometimes the religious viewpoint is better as a separate article, and these articles are also too long to be merged conveniently. Ceosad (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
They are both about the Abrahamic devil. This article discusses "similar concepts". But that's all they are. Their is no evidence that there is such a thing as "the devil as a concept". The name devil either refers to Satan or is used as a synonym for demon. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
With no consensus after several months, I'm now declaring this discussion closed and removing the notice from the article. -- The Anome (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2015[edit]

category:supernatural legends 76.88.98.65 (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article describes devil as more of a figure in religion - the archenemy of God. This is distinct from say, a demon, which is listed under your proposed category. Cannolis (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I would say, the article doesn't know what it is describing, it is a garbled mess of material people have dumped here over the years; WP:TNT or merge into Satan as suggested. --dab (𒁳) 15:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Dubious[edit]

The final sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is unsourced and is very dubious and unlikely. If the Devil is associated with heretics and unbelievers, religious people would definitely not associate the devil with enlightenment, since they use "enlightenment" to refer to spiritual awareness and "knowledge". It also seems to have been here for seriously far too long (two years or more) and is also very POV pushing, so unless there are any objections, I'll remove it after five hours. Any objections?Gonzales John (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, since there are no objections, I'll remove it. Gonzales John (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are talking about this: "As such, the devil is seen as an allegory that represents a crisis of faith, individualism, free will, wisdom and enlightenment", it is problematic in other ways. Christians at least have had a long history of demonizing opponents, so the Devil has been associated with whoever was the opponent of the day: pagans, Christians with opposing beliefs, Jews, Muslims, colonial people seen as savages, sinners and free thinkers, freemasons, republicans, revolutionaries, capitalists, socialists, communists, atheists, and secularists. When divorced from historical context, it is hard to determine what the devil stands for in the eyes of Christians. In this case, the sentence reeks of original research.

For what is worth, I am going to check what parts of the article still lack sources. Dimadick (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it fine to remove it now? As I said above, that sentence has been here for far longer than it should have. Gonzales John (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Remove it. Whatever is not sourced in an article can be challenged and removed. Dimadick (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Devil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)