Talk:Devil/Archive 1

message: 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)
::I like that quote! Hudibras wasn't Butler's only good work. Rintrah 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: 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)
thread_title: Why?

message: 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)
thread_title: POV

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Confusing statement

message: 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. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 22:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Adversary

message: 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)
thread_title: See Also

message: 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)
thread_title:  Modern idea of the Devil 

message: 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)
It is certainly inappropriate to quote a Christian bible to articulate a Jewish belief or Jewish theology. Reference to the King James version, or even the New King James Version, cannot be used to identify what is Jewish belief. I recommend TANAKH, The Holy Scriptures: The Jewish Bible, Jewish Publication Society, 1985. TANAKH is an acronym for Torah, (which consists of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Nevi’im (which consists of Joshua, Judges, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi), and Kethuvim (which consists of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, The Song Of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, I Chronicles, II Chronicles). The Talmud, or Oral Law, is also a crucial interprative tool to understand the Hebrew Bible.
The mere fact that non-Jewish sources are used to assert Jewish belief indicates that this article is of poor quality, and therefore unreliable, at best; and at worst, biased and bigoted.
--Lance6968 20:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Check

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bible Problems 

message: The presence of Zoroastrianism means that the mythology includes more than jewish and christianity.. FestivalOfSouls 21:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: 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)
thread_title: In General

message: 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. Khiradtalk 17:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zoroastrian info

message: 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
:Yama is certainly not the devil.  In fact Yama is also Dharmaraj, the god of Dharma. --RajeevA 02:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Devil in Hinduism

message: 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)
thread_title:  satan in art? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposing Major Restructuring 

message: I've added a new section to touch on how the concept of the Devil gets used in social and political conflicts. Jonathan Tweet 18:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  social and political uses of devil concept 

message: Can someone replace the picture of the Devil at the top? It is annoying, and there are better ones. A painting or illustration of a scene from Paradise Lost or Inferno would be better. Rintrah 09:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Any stories on Leviathan and the effect of this demon?
:See the article on it. There are plenty of stories on the devil; many, many good ones. Rintrah 16:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any thoughts on Leviathan 

message: A good percent of information from this page has been deleted. Is there any way to return it without reverting the edits made after the information was deleted? 66.24.238.8 19:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What information are you talking about? Why was it deleted?  If its not verifiable or original research it should stay deleted. Sparsefarce 19:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the changes made on "19:47, 23 August 2006". Everything from New Age movement to External links was deleted, most likely unintentionally. Further, all of the categories that this page was listed under, save "Articles with unsourced statements", were deleted as well. This includes the categories Christian mythology, Demons, Jewish mythology, and Abrahamic mythology. Where some of the information deleted may have been unsourced, most of the deleted information seemed to be removed arbitrarily. 66.24.238.8 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted information