Talk:Devil in Christianity

message: Why is the devil called Old Nick in English? (wiki refers to this article when looking for Old Nick)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.25.212 (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Nick 

message: I don't think we need two articles for this, having it all in one would make it more complete.  This article isn't huge for it not to be in there at the moment, assuming there's any of this not in there. Sticky Parkin 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why isn't this in the [[Satan]] article

message: The disputes section is not inappropriate arguing between members, but contains issues that do come up in theological discussions about the devil.  It is a matter of common teachings against Biblical evidence, and is something that must be considered when discussing the devil.  It does NOT matter if one agrees or disagrees with one side or the other, the content should remain.  No real argument for removal has yet to be presented, just disagreement with what is in there. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are currently no references to show that a) these are actual disputes or b) they are significant disputes. The first one looks like original research (the Bible is a primary source and can't be used as a reference) and the second one is simply a quote backing up a commonly held Christian position. Please find references for the relevance of these or remove them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Disputes section of the article 

message: It is a common misconception that Satan is depicted as the Serpent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.72.3 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: False

message: Here's a redrawing of the arms which were attributed to Satan in some forms of medieval European tradition... AnonMoos (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant image

message: "Some Christian concepts of the Devil include Lucifer, which traditionally gives a name to the Devil. The name, Lucifer, is translated from the Latin, meaning loosely, "Light Bringer" (analogous to the Greek, Phosphorus) and is also used symbolically to mean the "Morning Star", (i.e. Venus), which held some significant meanings for Babylonians as mentioned in Isaiah 14:12. Since the time of Origen, Lucifer is not used to refer exclusively to the "king of Babylon", but rather solely (or additionally) makes reference to Satan before he fell, while he was yet uncorrupted, but powerful and glorious and an angel of God."
GeneCallahan (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Gene. Done, and dragged all the other scattered info on Lucifer (which has its own article) in as refs in the same section. Someone who speaks English, and someone who can actually cite references, could go over the entire article with a scythe. For an article about Christian teaching on... there's (with the exception of a few areas) almost no sourcing to actual Christian teaching. No Augustine, no Luther, no Billy Graham, no Pope John Paul II, just Wikigraffiti. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

text: What I've done is try and move everything into boxes - there was/is a massive amount of duplication, all of it unsourced (as is the way with duplication)
Contents:
    * 1 Sources of Christian teaching = Christian teaching on.. by topic
    * 2 History of Christian teaching = Christian teaching on.. by time
    * 3 Modern Christian teaching by church = Christian teaching on.. by group
    * 4 Characteristics = [dubious heading? stuff that didn't fit, yet]
    * 5 Theological Disputes = Christian teaching on.. by more than 1 viewpoint
    * 6 Duplicated Material (literature) = [stuff that needs moving out to...] 
    * 7 References
The contents tree breaks down:
    * 1 Sources of Christian teaching
          o 1.1 Old Testament
                + 1.1.1 The Serpent (Genesis 3)
                + 1.1.2 Job's adversary (Job 1)
                + 1.1.3 David's satan (2 Sam 24. & 1 Chron. 21)
                + 1.1.4 Jeshua's Satan (Zechariah 3)
                + 1.1.5 Azazel
                + 1.1.6 Isaiah's Lucifer (Isaiah 14)
                + 1.1.7 Cherub in Eden (Ezekiel 28)
          o 1.2 New Testament
                + 1.2.1 Gospels = mess
                + 1.2.2 Acts & Epistles = mess
                + 1.2.3 Revelation = mess
          o 1.3 Extra-Biblical Material = is there more? 
    * 2 History of Christian teaching
          o 2.1 Patristic Period  = totally lacking sourced material
          o 2.2 Gnostics
          o 2.3 Middle Ages
          o 2.4 Cathars
          o 2.5 The Reformation  = totally lacking sourced material
    * 3 Modern Christian teaching by church
          o 3.1 Roman Catholic views
          o 3.2 Eastern Orthodox
          o 3.3 Evangelical Protestants = totally lacking sourced material
          o 3.4 Latter-day Saints
          o 3.5 Unitarians and Christadelphians
    * 4 Characteristics
          o 4.1 Rebel = relevant, but where? totally lacking sourced material
          o 4.2 Possession = probably needs link to 
          o 4.3 Black magic = probably needs link 
          o 4.4 Christian tradition = ? 
    * 5 Theological Disputes
          o 5.1 Hell
          o 5.2 Sinfulness of angels
    * 6 Duplicated Material (literature)
    * 7 References
Does this structure cover most possible sourceable content on the subject Christian teaching on...
In ictu oculi (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could Someone Who Speaks English Rewrite This? 

message: Devil (Christianity), just a suggestion In ictu oculi (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Page rename?

message: I cut the following about the Screwtape Letters from the Anglican and Episcopalian section
:However C. S. Lewis in his Screwtape Letters is informed by a view that the devil is real and literal.
Here's my justification: The Screwtape Letters is a work of fiction. The presence of the devil in a work of fiction has nothing to do with the author's actual beliefs. If we were to argue that all of C.S. Lewis's allegorical writings were indicative of actual views, then we might as well claim that the Chronicles of Narnia is informed by the view that Jesus took the form of a lion at some point. IF Lewis believed in a literal personification of evil, AND if that information deserves mentioning in the article, it seems like it would be better to find the information from his nonfiction. eldamorie (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably a fair point, and per WP:PSTS a secondary source describing Lewis' reasons for writing the book would be preferable. Given Lewis' importance however, in English literature on this topic perhaps second to Milton, it'd be nice if there was something... In ictu oculi (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I spent some time with JSTOR (which is unfortunately the only database I have access to at the moment), but I was unable to find anything about Lewis' reasons or perspective on the book. In fact, I was unable to find any concrete statements on whether or not his belief in the devil was literal or figurative. I noticed that apparently, current editions include a preface by Lewis commenting on his motivations - if anybody has access to this it would at least provide a source for his views. It looks like Mere Christianity might be helpful also. eldamorie (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about "recent", but my 1970s paperback () has a "Preface to the paperback edition" which makes it clear that although he did believe in devils in a somewhat Christianly orthodox way, he used them in the Screwtape Letters as a literary device, not really as an accurate portrayal of his doctrinal beliefs.  The sentence above is rather unfortunate, since Lewis makes it clear that he believes in "devils" (plural) much more than in "the Devil"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut comment about the Screwtape letters 

message: The last sentence of the opening paragraph reads as follows "Much of the popular history of the Devil is not biblical; instead, it is a post-medieval Christian reading of the scriptures influenced by medieval and pre-medieval Christian popular mythology." The word 'history' implies historical events rather than previously written literature. It gives an unnecessary bias towards the POV of the existence of the Devil. A more appropriate term would be 'literature' or 'stories', which both seem more like the appropriate term in this context. Permafry42 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "lore". Good call. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect use of the word "history"? 

message: Can we get a citation for this section, specifically the proclamation made in the sentence: "He was so successful in his characterization of Satan as a romantic hero who "would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven" that his version of Satan has displaced all others."Ta2dLibrarian (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Milton in Paradise Lost 

message: I have rewritten  the beginning of the Lucifer section, the text preceding the mention of Aquila of Sinope, to improve its organization. The previous version started out by mentioning a Babylonian myth of a "heavenly being" evicted from heaven for being overly ambitious; it then turned to the Old Testament prophecy, which has a similar story in , going on to note that Christians picked up on the idea.  Then back to the Babylonians (aren't we through with them?) mentioning that, in their tradition, angels fell for being too interested in human women.
My revised version moves from the Babylonians to the prophet Isaiah then on to the Christian take on the matter without backtracking. It also avoids the awkward and ungrammatical phrase "Unlike in that" — "unlike" is an adjective requiring a noun or pronoun but no candidate is obvious. ("That" won't do because it's the object of a preposition.)
Peter Brown (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucifer 

message: Greetings,
Has someone a source for this claim "Until John Milton created the character of Satan for his Paradise Lost, the different attributes of Satan were usually ascribed to different entities. The angel who rebelled in Heaven was not the same as the ruler in Hell. The ruler of Hell was often seen as a sort of jailer who never fell from grace."? It seems there have been indeed differences between both figures, however not to the extent claimed by the section.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The John Milton Paradise Lost section 

message: The following passage is marked with a tag "not specific enough to verify": "An angel or any other rational creature considered in his own nature, can sin; and to whatever creature it belongs not to sin, such creature has it as a gift of grace, and not from the condition of nature. The reason of this is, because sinning is nothing else than a deviation from that rectitude which an act ought to have; whether we speak of sin in nature, art, or morals. That act alone, the rule of which is the very virtue of the agent, can never fall short of rectitude. Were the craftsman's hand the rule itself engraving, he could not engrave the wood otherwise than rightly; but if the rightness of engraving be judged by another rule, then the engraving may be right or faulty." Is this quote merely too long or too unprecisely--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Summa Theologiae is a massive work, comprised of 3125 articles.  The complaint is not that Aquinas is unclear but merely that the part, quaestion, and article have not been specified, rendering verification difficult. Peter Brown (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly is unclear about Aquina's quote? 

message: Greetings,
apart from formatting the sources, is there anything important missing? --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still missing? 

message: Many religions contrast light and darkness, but I don't know of any that view the lower air as dark.  On a clear night, the stars are visible; dark air doesn't block our view.  Is there some religious tradition in the early middle ages that considers the air close to the ground as being dark? The ninth of the plagues of Egypt is recorded as darkness so thick that people could not see each other, but there is no suggestion that it was limited to the lower atmosphere and anyhow it only lasted three days. Peter Brown (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. In that case it is rather confusing. I remember the book describing it as such. It seems to originate from the Ancient Greek tradition assigning Daimons to the air between earth and heaven (upper air). Maybe the term "dark" is too metaphorical to be used. I will look up what exactly the source states and rephrase this.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Peter Brown (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the objection, Medieval thinkers could see the starts. Yes, but following the Platonic cosmology, Christian thinkers seem to that earth is impure and heaven pure and spiritual. Therefore, the closer something gets to the earth, the more thick their matter becomes.I might try to rewrite this part, since it is probably confusing for readers, who are not into Platonic cosmology.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dark lower air between earth and heaven 

message: I must have erred in copy-editing.  I attribute to Aquinas the view that "the higher an angel stood the more likely he was to become guilty of pride", which implies that the seraphim, who rank the highest, are the most vulnerable, but also the view that "the seraphs' characteristic love for God makes them unable to sin". These views are surely incompatible; Aquinas could not have held them both. Somebody please straighten things out. Peter Brown (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding this matter, I rely mostly on the secondary sources. As I understood, he just contradicted himself (have seen something like that in Muslim sources about the Islamic Satan's affilation too). I want to have a look at it again and try to find original passage and check if I misunderstood the source or they have been mistaken.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems there was a minor mistake during copy-edit (thanks for your ongoing efforts supporting me by the way), but still something odd. I read into the primary source regarding this matter, and I think Aquinas is kind of "inconclusive". It seems he clearly rejects that Satan was a seraph, but a cherub instead. But later writes about "the highest angel", who leads other angels into sin. Maybe he implied that this must be the highest of those angels able to sin? Secondary literature seems to be inconclusive about this matter too. I hope I managed to write this section in a way, it does not blame Aquinas for being contradictional. I am pretty sure, he means "the highest of the lower order". He further quotes parts of the Bible to underline that certain angels are related to the demonic (the rulers for example) but others not.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Aquinas on the devil's rank in the angelic hierarchy 

message: I don't see the word  anywhere in this word-by-word discussion of Psalm 41:9. Perhaps another verse is intended? Peter Brown (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Yes the author gives some references to psalms, but the verse numbers are wrong. It is not 41:9 but 41:8. Similar, the source speaks about the term "belial" in 18:5 but it appears in 18:4.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Psalms has several different numbering schemes depending on the religion. Editor2020 (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, thanks! This explains a lot. I did not know that.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belial in Psalm 41? 

message: I wonder if this might be too much for a Devil in Christianity article and should be moved into the main article instead?
"After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, there are still remaining parts of Bogomil Dualism in Balkan folklore. Before God created the world, he meets a goose on the eternal ocean. The name of the Goose is reportedly named Satanael and claims to be a god. When God asks Satanael, who he himself is, the devil answers "the god of gods". God requests the devil to dive to the bottom of the sea to carry some mud then. From this mud, they fashioned the world; God created his angels and the devil his demons. Later, the devil tries to assault god but is thrown into the abyss, lurking on the creation of God and planning another attack on heaven. This myth shares same resemblance with Pre-Islamic Turkic creation myths, as well as Bogomilite thoughts."--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean by "the main article". I advocate leaving this text where it is. Peter Brown (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant the Devil article, by "Main article". Well, the "Devil" article is still messy. If others are fine, I agree with keeping it here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much about heterogeneous traditions? 

message: I see problems with the final paragraph of the lede as written. You have written it as the following:
First of all, the structure of this paragraph is like this: 1. scholars assert thing, 2. the big boys of Christianity reject it as heresy. 3. assert 4. reject. This sets up the impression that there are these rogue scholars out there who are "repeatedly" trying to push some kind of false belief. There are countless millions of Christians who are familiar with that exact structure: it's the religious diatribe. Thus they may be given the impression that the scholars are obnoxiously wrong, and that Wikipedia is subtly trying to push this view. You might say "well I didn't really say that the scholars were wrong, maybe all these mainline authority figures were wrong." This is true, you didn't write that. But no matter how unintentional, readers may be given that impression anyway, especially given the charged nature of words like "heresy" and the subject of the devil in general.
Secondly I take issue with just opening with "scholars". Which scholars, really? I'd reckon that most readers will assume that "scholars" means "modern scholars", because that's how the word is normally used throughout Wikipedia. Further, I'd reckon that most readers will assume that scholars means specifically "scholars of Religious studies" and not theologians trying to advance a particular theological point of view. Finally, the flow of the paragraph implies that the Cathars and Bogomiles are scholars, which is a bad implication because they were not generally scholars. BirdValiant (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair point regarding the ambiguity about the term scholar. Good someone points out possible misunderstandings.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The final paragraph of the lede 

message: Please change the nomination template to GA!  Right now you are the only one who can. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: no problem and done! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't have its little symbol yet, does the bot have to do that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! Thanks for all your efforts! VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Yup exactly! I assume you mean the one on the article page itself? Only the talk page itself needs to be updated. Bots/caching takes care of the rest. At the end of the day, satanic rituals seem a lot more straightforward than Wikipedia botomation 😈 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amen brother! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Shushugah|Shushugah]] 

message: Right, I should correct this. A link is much better. Sorry for the delay, I haven't seen any notification of a reply to the nomination and just checked it today.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe I should ping, cause you probably didn't got a notification either. @Thriley--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Did you know nomination

message: Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth I have reverted your revert of the images added by RileyXeon  because the reasoning used for those reverts is incorrect. These images are indeed specifically designated as images of Satan.   is an article on the painting "Fallen Angel" describing it as a picture of Satan, while this one  explains the Doré is one of 50 such illustrations he did of Satan falling. While it might be good to distribute them more in the article, there is no reason to claim they have no place in it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image revert 

message: Would this article also meet the FA (WP:FA?) criteria? If not, waht should be done to improve it further? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA?