Talk:Horned God/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Origins of Christian depictions of Satan

Any idea when or where the Christian description of Satan having cloven hoofs and horns began? I haven't a clue. Wesley 19:49 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC)

The Christians actually created the idea of Satan by demonizing the god that the Wiccans worshiped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.219.119 (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Satan isn't wholly evil in the Judaic tradition. The Book of Job describes Satan as a rival to YHWH, but not necessarily a malicious entity. User:Waxmop

In fact it could be argued that the udaic Satan actually works for Yahweh as a sort of divine Prosecuting Attorney or (pun intended) "devil's advocate"--Tricksterson 17:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all a modern garble, so that a subtle reference to syncretism is only fair to the reader. Fortunately the revised entry Satan answers some puzzles. But this kind of sentence:

During the rise of Christianity, Literature attributed the image of the Horned God in the form of Satan... To hear tell, Christianity just rose like Sourdough, while I was sitting in the parlor reading my favorite author, Literature, who attributes images in the form ... Wetman 08:00, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to Ronald Hutton (our favourite author... not) in Triumph of the Moon early depictions of Satan were more often bull-horned, with clawed feet, long ears and webbed wings; the Pan-like depiction seems to be a nineteenth-century creation, representing a Christian reaction to the growing importance of Pan as an alternative focus for the literary imagination. (p. 46) I don't know whether that's more reliable than any of his other claims, but it sounds OK... Something that Hutton doesn't mention is that this Pan-like physiognomy was once a common depiction of John the Baptist, clearly recalling some earlier pagan Jack-in-the-Green type of deity. Also worth mentioning that John and Jesus were examples of the Oak and Holly Kings that Frazer wrote of. Anyway, I'm tired, I should get some sleep rather than haranguing poor Hutton. Fuzzypeg 13:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the Devil has a cloven hoof (or hooves) goes back at least to the early 17th century, when Jonne Donne alluded to it in "Go and Catch a Falling Star." My guess is that it goes back much further than that. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

Please stop the edit war, both of you. You know who you are. This is getting ridiculous, when cited information is deleted as uncited by multiple parties. FWIW, I think both parties should cease editing this page, neither is going to come to consensus on it, and this article will end up being protected.--Vidkun (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you offering assistance in a dispute-resolution capacity? That might help. --Davémon (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll tell you, honestly, I'll be useless in DR for this. I wish I could help on it, but there's no way I can be cool enough for it, and I know my habits - I'll make it worse. I'd like to see the article better, but don't have sources at hand myself to help.--Vidkun (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. If we can all agree to build on the article as it stands today using wp:rs that directly address the subject, then I'll be happy. --Davémon (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see an actual edit war here. I see constructive debate between Davemon and Fuzzypeg. This entails the occasional revert, but we haven't reached a stage where both sides are just reverting to their preferred version. This is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Controversy is good. The article will end up substantially improved. --dab (𒁳) 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an occasional revert, I see mass deletions - which is why I'm not disinterested enough to be involved in DR for it.--Vidkun (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
We're not deleting any mass. I have taken the step of splitting content to a new article becuase Fuzzypeg deleted some of it from this article. The content wasn't sourced to a wp:rs which directly discussed it in relation to the subject. However, it was sourced, so it's better that content is kept somewhere rather than just deleted because it doesn't quite fit here. Fuzzypeg may have a different attitude. Davémon (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I already have stopped editing. I appealed for help to a few different noticeboards, and got bugger-all response, and I really don't have the time or emotional capacity to continue this battle on my own. I've been restricting myself to the talk page for a long time (with the exception of those few recent edits which Davemon reverted) but my comments here seem to be wasted, so I might just just follow Bloodofox's lead, slip out altogether and return to rigpa.
Dbachmann, this is an edit war and worse. You haven't been following this very well if you think it's just stimulating debate. Either that or you're made of sterner stuff than I am, and enjoy argument for its own sake. This isn't what advances Wikipedia, this is what derails it and convinces decent editors to find other, more enjoyable things to spend their time on. Fuzzypeg 03:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The reason I removed Doreen's drawing of Atho is because I would like that image removed as it violates the fair use policy. That is not a thumbnail but a high resolution. In fact I think it is even better image than in my copy of ABC of Witchcraft. Could some one here please replace the image of Atho with a thumbnail and get the high quality image removed?. Covenofathos (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)