Talk:Satan/Archive 1

message: This article is mostly a discussion forum rather than an collection of information.
I'd like my paragraph to be added under the first sentence in the New Age Section. It calls Satan "The Light" without ever explaining the origins of that. So I'll be adding this : "The idea of the devil being "the light" is based off a common misunderstanding about the name "Lucifer" which means "Morning Star". In actuality the Hebrew Bible's reference to Lucifer was about a Babylonian King by that title and not Satan. Christian monks assumed "Lucifer" was a reference to Satan while translating the hebrew bible into latin. Another common misunderstanding about Satan is his image as being that of a "Goat head". This misunderstanding is due also to the translation of the hebrew bible when mentioning the demon Azazel. Azazel was a goat god supposedly worshipped by some tribes in the middle east and promptly became an evil spirit in jewish mythology." These are facts which can be verified on the internet where sources are mentioned. 
Another thing that disturbed me was under the Islam's View on Satan section. There is no where mentioned in the Qur'an that "Iblis was so good that he was counted among the angels" Iblis was a Jinn, a creature made of smokeless fire, and he was a chieftain among the chief according to the Qur'an. He refused to bow when Adam after God commanded it due to a kind of miracle that had been performed. Iblis argued that he is made out of smokeless fire and Adam is just made out of modified clay, thus Iblis believed himself superior. I'd like to fix it just lightly.
On Nov 29 2001, Balanone revised the last paragraph from
:Satan is worshipped by (so-called) satanists; they disagree however on what Satan is: some claim he is a real being while others believe he is a mere symbol? for the animal desires of humans. 
to: 
:It is often supposed that Satan is worshipped by satanists. As discussed in more depth within the article on Satanism, there may be some called satanists who do worship Satan, but that many others do not. Some satanists will claim he is a real being; others view him as a symbol? for the animal desires of humans; still others view him as a symbol for the rebellious or independent aspects of humanity. 
RK then rewrote this to the paragraph below, asking, "Why accuse Satanists of lying about their beliefs? If they say they worship Satan, then they worship Satan. Calling them liars is NOT a neutral point of view."
:Satan is worshipped by Satanists. Some satanists claim Satan is a real being; others view him as a symbol? for the animal desires of humans; still others view him as a symbol for the rebellious or independent aspects of humanity. 
Would this be a better compromise?
:It is often supposed that Satan is worshipped by satanists. As discussed in more depth within the article on Satanism, some of those who call themselves satanists worship Satan, but many others who also call themselves satanists do not. Some satanists will claim he is a real being; others view him as a symbol for the animal desires of humans; still others view him as a symbol for the rebellious or independent aspects of humanity. 
-----
The current article contains the suggestion that the story of Lucifer falling from heaven is influence of Milton's Paradise Lost. I don't know for certain, but I doubt that this is true. As I understand it, this belief is based on interpretations of (admittedly somewhat obscure) passages in Revelation and Isaiah; interpretations that date back to the early church. Milton, rather than being a source of this story, merely expressed it in poetry. -- Simon J Kissane
You're correct Simon. Revelation 12:7 - 8 (NIV)
:And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. -- Stephen Gilbert
-----
re: "In a few neopagan religions, Satan is merely seen as a symbolic representation of humanity's collectively evil ways. "
Not true. Neopaganism teaches that we are naturally good, not evil. There is no concept of hell, satan, or sin. --Dmerrill
You are comfortable speaking for all neopagans here?
----
There is a need for more discussion hee of past examples of Christians identifying those who reject Christian beliefs, values, and practices as "Satanists" even though those people never claimed to worship Satan.  I am not refering to contemporary neo-pagans, but to non-Western societies under European colonial occupation, and non Christians in the early middle ages (I am not refering to Jews but to other Europeans).  I have heard from enough sources that this has occured to believe it, but I am no expert and hope that other Wikipedians can fill this out,  SR
----
Removed this: "(Interestingly, scientists have discovered that primitive snakes did indeed have legs.)"  
sure, snakes evolved from lizards around 100M years ago and there were transitional forms. But it is a non-sequitur in this context. clasqm
----
Removed this: "Yet, there are still others who believe that Satan is actually another alias of the Sumero-Egyptian Deity Enki/Ptah..."Spiritual Satanists"....these are the beliefs of the Joy of Satan Church."
The Joy of Satan Ministries is a very small group of "satanists" (mainly a Neo-Nazi org - www.666blacksun.com), that have been exposed for fraud, and blatant plagerism. One of their former founders and high priests HP Dann, has written an expose which is located at: http://www.satanspowers.tk
If you would like to provide an example of traditional satanism, I would recommend Diane Vera's Theistic Satanism page at: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/ 
Sekhmet
----
I took another stab at the last paragraph.  My main objective was to get rid of this phrase,
:Satan is thought to be worshipped by Satanists
My objection is to the passive voice, which not only (in my personal opinion) sounds pompous, but more importantly is unclear.  In this context, it is especially important to specify WHO thinks Satanists worship Satan.  I do not knw the historical literature well enough and hopeothers will develop this.  But I do know that many accounts of "satanists worshiping Satan" were written by Christian authorities, and it is far, far from certain that the people in question actually identified themselves as Satanists, or whether they were actually worshiping Satan.  SR
: Of course I don't know which accounts or which Christian authorities you may be referring to, but I think you may be misunderstanding what many Christian writers have called Satan worship. Any form of idolatry, or worship of other gods (such as the Greek or Egyptian pantheons) was often blamed on Satan simply because Satan is known as the father of lies, and the worship of false gods was called the result of Satan's deception. This isn't quite the same as accusing the heathen greeks of directly worshipping Satan himself, even if some writers enthusiastically said that the worship of Zeus for instance was actually the worship of Satan. In the Orthodox rite of baptism, which serves as a rite of initiation into the Church, one of the very first parts of the liturgy is to renounce Satan and the world, turning to worship God. This doesn't mean the Orthodox think that every convert is a former Satanist, but that every convert was formerly deceived in some way. I think that the Catholic and many Protestant baptismal services have a similar renunciation of the devil in their services as well, though I'm not certain. At various times, heretics may have been accused of Satanism or similar language used, simply because they were thought to be spreading lies, which may have been thought to have originated with Satan.
: Are these the sorts of accounts you were referring to, or were you thinking of something quite different? At any rate, I think the new text could use a tiny bit more precision. Wesley
:: Wesley, I welcome your help in revising my recent change in order to make it more precise.  I only ask that we maintain NPOV.  I understand why Christians might think of non-Christian beliefs and practices as "satan worship."  But it is crucial that we distinguish between what one group of outside observers claim, what other outside observers might claim (non-Christians would not identify any form of idolatry such as ancient Greek or Egyptian pantheons as satan worship), and what the people themselves (e.g. ancient Greeks or Egyptians) claim.  This is my main concern.  
::: I entirely agree that these distinctions should be maintained.  Wesley
::I do understand the distinction you make.  Be that as it may, there is some evidence that medieval witchcraft was not (originally, at least) Satan worship in the eyes of medieval witches, but was nevertheless identified as satan worship by the Church.  I also know of examples of Christian missionaries who have identified local religions in South America and Africa as "Satan worship" even though the people in Africa and Suuth America didn't see it that way.
::: I won't dispute either of these examples. Perhaps they should be identified, instead of the vague reference to "Christian authorities"? Wesley
::I know there are two other phenomena this article should address: people who worship the devil or Satan but who do not share Christian's understanding of what/who the devil is (I think the article already acknowledges this), and also people today who do worship the same Satan that Christians abhor (I actually do not know if this happens, but the article suggests it does and I think could benefit from more detail).
::: I don't know if there are such people either. I do know there was a professed evangelical Christian, Mike Warnke, who published a once-popular book in the seventies or early eighties called Satan Seller, in which he claimed to have been a Satanist High Priest, described his experiences as such and his later conversion to Christianity. Some time in the late eighties he was exposed as a complete fraud. I think his book and concert sales have dropped off considerably since then. :-/  Wesley
:: As you say, it could be more precise.  But the contribution I recently made comes pretty close to the limits of my own knowledge, SR
----
about the line: "One novel view is that Satan will be restored in the last days and become a good angel again."
could someone provide a reference to where this view comes from?
JFQ
:Wesley, thanks for remembering that the "novel view" came from the Unification Church. That was one of my earliest contributions, but it was a bit vague, eh? I've included an external link to Lucifer, A Criminal Against Humanity, which includes what UC members generally accept as Satan's confession (I doubt any other church gives it any credence, of course). --Ed Poor
:: No problem. Thanks for the external link. Just skimmed a couple of sections, and it's certainly interesting. Wesley
----
The article provides a Hebrew and a Greek derivation for the word.  It is my understanding that the word is Hebrew, it entered Greek from Hebrew, and is no more a Greek word than it is an English word.  Is there any expert on the history of Greek out there who knows more about this? Slrubenstein
:The Greek forms of satan and satanas are merely borrowings from the respective Hebrew and Aramaic words, so I put those forms instead. -- Stephen C. Carlson
::isn't the Hebrew word "shaitan", and shouldn't that word be used for the "adversary" concept from the Torah, i.e. in the Book of Job?  This concept is VERY different from the idea of Satan in Christianity. See "Origin of Satan" by Elaine Pagels for the whole history of evolution of this concept.
No. Shaitan is the Arabic spelling of Satan. شيطان for those of you who can read Arabic.  ---Chiramabi
------
From the article: That such imagery calls to mind the Christian Satan is by no means coincidental. That is to say, despite their persistent attempts to distance their traditions from Satanism per se, modern witchcraft and neopaganism turn out to fundamentally involve reversals of Christian imagery, probably as a form of sublimated protest. (Another clue would be their reclamation of the names "witch" and "pagan," which are traditionally associated with evil.)
Where the farging hell did that come from? I've removed it and added some more well-established history. Dan 05:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: I changed the article before but perhaps i should have made a name and all that good stuff... This article is horrible and no where near correct in many places.  After a whole lot of research on the fallen angels for a script I was writing; I came to the conclusion that Satan and all the other fallen angels were in fact quite different. Including Lucifer being an enitrely different being from Satan. Read the Dictionary of the Angels. Including the Fallen.  It explains everything.
:Actually according to the Bible, Satan is just another name of Lucifer.  Lucifer was an angel who wanted ultimate power and was kicked out. He became ruler of Hell and is called Satan, devil, The Red-Guy, whatever you want to call him. He's all the same being. --Yancyfry jr 06:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Lucifer is not even mentioned in the Bible (see the intro in the Lucifer article). However later translations contain this name, borrowed from unrelated Roman mythology; these translations are particularly controversial, especially since the simile "Morning Star" is also applied to Jesus (and in this context is not translated as Lucifer)! Fuzzypeg☻ 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satan VS Lucifer 

message: I removed the additional name "Rachelle". I can't find any corroboration for it. I'm very suspicious to see a modern girl's name in the list of appelations of the devil. If I was oversuspicious, please replace. --ESP 00:54, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rachelle 

message: Better to begin with the history and development of Satan before you get to depictions of Satan in the movies. Eliminate all passive voice of nonattribution. Get your dates attached to your documents (ca 150 A.D.-- like that). Use more quotes. There is no satan in paganism, that's a Christian and post-Christian fantasy. Leave the movies and video game images for the end. Forget "Apocrypha:" give books their names and dates. How can you discuss O.T. Satan without dividing your discussion into pre- and post-Exilic notions. What about Persia? "Apocrypha" is a historical development in itself and incompatible with NPOV, right? Get a format here where people who have some hard facts can hang them on something. Wetman 02:26, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History and Development of Satan 

message: The first paragraph states regarding Satan:
In the Hebrew Bible, Satan is an angel that God utilizes to test man for various reasons usually dealing with his level of piety (i.e. the test of Adam and Eve in Genesis, and the Book of Job). In the Apocrypha and New Testament, Satan is portrayed as an evil, rebellious demon who is the enemy of God and mankind.
From my knowledge of the Bible and various religion's interpretations of such, I would say that statement presented one of several different interpretations of who or what Satan is/represents in the Bible.
In addition, the paragraph implies that the Satan of the Old Testament is different to the Satan of the New Testament, which isn't a view many religions share. Perhaps the paragraph could be rewritten to present a more multilateral explanation.
--ClintonDaniel 06:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, most Hebrew scholars have said that there are no evil or fallen angels evident in the OT, this can be seen be merely reading those "specific" texts as well. Judaism at large do not look at that text the same way as Christianity does. Satanael 09:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over introductory paragraph re origin of Satan. 

message: If Satan is a servant of god, and Michael is also, then why do Micahel and Satan fight each other? Is Revelation 12 the same in the Hebrew Bible? --Rebroad 20:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hebrew Bible is a neutral-ish term for what Christians call the Old Testament, and Jews call the Tanakh. It does not include the Revelation of St. John, which is the final book of the Christian New Testament. --FOo 21:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revelation 12 and the Hebrew Bible 

message: The page says "On the Day of Atonement his power vanishes; for the numerical value of the letters of his name (gematria and Hebrew numerals) is only 364, one day being thus exempt from his influence (Yoma 20a)." but the Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar and does not have 365 days. What's up with that?
- Not sure, you are correct in that there are only 354 days in the Hebrew calendar (except for years with an extra month) but Aish confirms the information. --69.153.241.162 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yom Kippur influence of Satan 

message: Why at the ens of the section "Images of Satan" there stands 2Hail Satan" and a Satanist symbol depicted? Andres 08:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a result of vandalism and has now been reverted. Wipe 14:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Satanist vestige? 

message: The following piece of text was removed by User:Marcus2 from the section Satan#Satan in entertainment media. His edition summary was: "not relevant or notable enough to the article; please don't revert again". If you have an opinion about this, please add your comments. I feel there should be at least a mention about The Powerpuff Girls, if not a full description. Feel free to reorganize the entertainment section, as it currently is in a poor state.
:Cartoon Network's The Powerpuff Girls mildly depicts Satan as the cheerfully evil, red-skinned, cross-dressing demon simply referred to as "Him".
Wipe 18:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satan in Powerpuff Girls 

message: I (--Wasabe3543 16:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol! This makes very good material for unencyclopedia. It would be a shame if it doesn't find its place somewhere. My chest hurts from laughing. Rintrah 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satan's Fall to Earth 

message: The intro paragraph currently gives Genesis as an example of a place in the Hebrew scriptures/OT that God uses Satan to test humans.  However, Genesis merely refers to the "serpent," not Satan, and that text is pretty clear that the serpent is merely one of its species rather than Satan-the-angel (otherwise the "Just So Stories" curse upon all of serpent-kind to slither in the dirt makes little sense).  Ignoring of course POV religious retcons, is there something in the original Hebrew of the original source(s) of Genesis that suggests that this serpent is Satan, or was it just a talking snake as it clearly appears to be in the English translations?  Additionally, what in Genesis indicates that God was testing humans?  Job was explicitly expressed as a test—a bet, in fact, between God and Satan, but in Genesis, it doesn't appear that God was trying to see what humans would do, but rather that he just expected that they would obey.  Postdlf 07:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satan in Genesis 

message: I've restored this cat which was removed on the grounds of being "POV".  I find this removal difficult to understand.  Satan does appear as a major character in several works of the Old and New testament.  He is unquestionably part of the Abrahamic mythology. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a wild guess, but I think the POV, is the word "mythology", as in making it look like Satan doesn't exist. I could be wrong. --D-Day 11:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category: Abrahamic mythology]]

message: I removed this. I think there should be a passage on secular humanism, but this one reads too much like an essay and it has absolutely no references.
: Secular humanists have observed that historically, Christianity has vilified its enemies as being aligned with Satan, and proceeds to persecute their enemies using the most dreadful torture. As a result, many secular humanists not only do not believe that Satan exists, they also hold the view that a belief in Satan is a serious obstacle to human progress, peace, and a just world, and that the belief itself should be eradicated through education and scientific thinking. 
			
: Others understand the Satan figure to be a metaphor for evil—the personification of a tendency of mankind to do evil, in contradiction to its moral values, which tend to require a sophisticated process of positive social indoctrination. An educated secular humanist view often sees and appreciates the symbolism of Satan and other religious personifications, but holds some skeptical reservations about the dangers of literal belief, and of the literal believer —whom to secularists tend to appear as under the spell of a dogma, rather than being inspired with the meaning of the symbolism. The view, like the religious view of the secularist, is a perceptual one —not necessarily based in substance.
Questions:
# Where's the evidence for the statement that "historically, Christianity has vilified its enemies as being aligned with Satan.
# Which secular humanists have made this observation?
# "many secular humanists not only do not believe that Satan exists, they also hold the view that a belief in Satan is a serious obstacle to human progress, peace" Okay, if so, then let's name some major secular humanist proponents of this point of view.
# "Others understand the Satan figure to be a metaphor for evil—the personification of a tendency of mankind to do evil, in contradiction to its moral values, which tend to require a sophisticated process of positive social indoctrination."  Okay, then which other secular humanists are these?  Name names, give references.
--Tony SidawayTalk 12:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satan in secular humanist thought 

message: I still think that the article could use improvements.
First off, we need to get rid of that Ezekiel quote, it seem to add nothing to the article at all. We need to have a part that specifically explains how the myth of Satan originated, how it evolved, the various influences on it, more of the various current views on him, how he is seen by demonologists etc.
All the article does is add info, most of which people who know anything on the subject already know from before. It needs to present why that info is relevant.
We should present what relevance other gods and demons have to Satan, what infuences they have on the myth, what similarities there is etc. For example, Tiamat, Apis and Angra Mainyu have most likely inspired much of the current idea of Satan. Other gods such as Baal, Dis, Hades, Moloch, Pan, Pazuzu, Set and Shiva are likely to have contributed much to his image.
:Let alone Gnostic beliefs about dualistic creator gods. -Visorstuff 23:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About improving the article 

message: The religion's veiws on Satan isn't that unique. Why does it garner its own entry on Satan?  Many other adventist and  fundimentalist churches have almost the exact same veiw on Satan.  This entry looks more like an advertisement for a religion rather than an exposure on unique beliefs.
ColdRedRain 05:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-comfort/satanicinfluence.html
http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0102.htm
http://www.atruechurch.info/adventists.html
ColdRedRain 03:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jehovah's Witnesses 

message: Is there a reason why great slabs of this article have been simply copy/pasted from the article on 'Satan' in the Jewish Encyclopaedia without any creditation or reference to the source whatsoever?  Is this what makes it a 'Good article'?
I am interested in improving the quality of this article, since I have studied this particular field for a few years, but I would love to know what kind of standards people are practicing here.
Taiwan boi 15:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism

message: I note that no one has mentioned the fact that 'Lucifer' was considered by some of the Early Church Fathers to be a title of Christ.  I'll assemble some of my notes and make a reference to it, unless people think it's grossly offtopic.
Taiwan boi 15:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucifer has his own article. So yes, it's  rather offtopic. Post your info about Lucifer there instead. --Switch 13:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lucifer

message: The article suggests that the idea of Satan was most likely introduced by Zoroaster and provides the www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=147&letter=Z&search=zoroaster article as supporting this view. The article however contains this and the opposite POV that the Hebrews may have influenced Z and concludes with the suggestion that time will 'show the likelihood of a common influence at work upon both the Persian and Jewish cults'. Johnmarkh 18:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence of Persian beliefs on Hebrew bible 

message: The article in its current form really needs attention to documentation. We assert quite a few things, without evidence. Could a few folk take the time to read through the lit in the reference section and add notes to the text? Thanks! --CTSWyneken 22:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need a citation that Satan is also known as the Devil? Some of the citations aren't needed. Foday 02:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: In the section on the New Age, the article states scholars from the Middle Ages made a mistake when they saw this passage as referring to Satan and not to the King of Babylon. Since quite a few Christians, including major figures in the history of Christianity, well aware of the King of Babylon, still see it as a prophetic reference to Satan, we should not take sides like this. If there's no objection, I'm simply going to remove the paragraph, which really is not needed in any case.--CTSWyneken 22:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucifer, Satan and Isa. 14 

message: and he tries to make me believe in global warming and dentistryPeter cotton tail 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  he talks to me through my TV set

message: June 1st, kmat put this up "HEY EDITER BASTARDS DONT DELETE THIS OR YOU AND YOU FAMILY WILL KNOW THE NAME OF SATAN FOREVER. I WILL BRINAD HIS EVERY WORD ONTO YOU BODY, REMEMBER SEPTEMBER OF 1997, THAT WAS ME... ALL SIX OF THOSE PEOPLE. " and deleted all the rest of the text in this section.
Earlier in the day they did this in the same section: "I LOVE SATAN!!! He is basically the bomb....everyoe should worship him and do his biddings..LIKE KILL!!!! "
sigh Lsjzl 18:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I cleaned up and expanded the section the "satan" in the Tanakh.
I removed the reference to the serpent in Genesis. This section is about the use of the term "satan" in the Tanakh, and that term is never used in the Tanakh in reference to the serpent. This reference belongs elsewhere, discussing Satan in the New Testament or something.
I split off the reference to Job. In the other references, the term "satan" is not a title or name but simply the term "adversary." In Job it's different, so the refference to Job is split off from the common-noun "adversary" references.
I added reference to Satan inciting David to sin. It's a telling reference because it shows Satan doing what we commonly thing of Satan as doing: getting people to sin. Jonathan Tweet 03:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satan in the Tanakh 

message: I reverted changes by an anonymous user. Their assertion that informed Christians understand the serpent to have been possessed by Satan portrayed a minority view as the "informed" view. Given the controversy over the identity of the serpent, maybe we should spell out all the various interpretations rather than trying to name one as the "Christian" interpretation. Jonathan Tweet 03:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serpent and Satan 

message: *Does anyone here love Satan as much as I do?  Just kidding.  What does everyone think about expanding this section to include additional names for Satan in English and in other languages?  Beelzebub (sp?), Eosphoros, Luciferus, Teufel, Diablo, Old Scratch and the like.  I know him by so many names.--BonerJoe 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fine idea, but it should go on the Devil page. The Devil page is more general than the Satan page. Jonathan Tweet 16:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology and other names

message: I do not see any word about linkage of satan to Egyptian god Set even from etymological point of view but this can not be a co-incident.There are a close relations between many religious items between pharoanic and semitic especially Arabic and Hebrew e.g. item denoting otherworld collectively assigned in Greek and Roman as underworld but in pharoanic it is called Akhert and in arabic      الآخرة and the famous goddess Isis who called in pharoanic Izza and in old arabian Ozza عزي  and so on .Therefore there is a definitive relation between Set and Satan.Of course there is no relation between Set mythes and Adam myth which is derived from Babylonian and Sumarian but we must put into consideration the complex interactions between nations of Near East since dawn of civilization.  Dr Philip Attiya
:"Therefore there is a definitive relation between Set and Satan": I don't see how anything you've said above leads to this conclusion. Is that a typo? I'm not so much arguing, as failing to comprehend... Fuzzypeg☻ 02:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links between old Egyptian and semitic items 

message: I admit its funny to edit one article about a person and direct it to this, but it should not be done. I just fixed an edit of the page about Ehud Olmert which directed to this. People could be using Wikipedia at school for research, and that would just ruin their opportunities. Please don't do anything like that again.
:It's called Vandalism; vandals like to link up different people and concepts to this page. No point complaining here about it, as it's usually anon ip users who do it rather than full time users. If it where up to me I would ban any anon user from submitting to wikipedia but it would stop valuable contributions from people like youself. Best Regards -- Shimirel (Talk) 19:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, funs over.

message: Perhaps this may be a little far afield, but why would anyone worship a loser like satan? If there are any satanists out there perhaps you can tell me.
Satan revolts against God and is tossed out of Heaven on his keester. Jesus whops his butt the lowiest Angel of Heaven has more power than he does so why would anybody be depraved enough or silly enough to worship such a loser?
If you are going to worship someone go for the Big Guy, the Boss, the Universal Creator, no some psycho nutcase that's lost over and over again and is too stupid to realize that he's lost. Carr 00:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a Satanist, but I would imagine that a Satanist's interpretation of Satan is different than yours. If they looked at Satan the same way you do, it is unlikely that they would worship Satan. The idea that Satan is weak isn't universally held even within Christianity.--RLent 07:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Come on, man. You do not "back" a side. God and Satan are not baseball teams. One set of spectators does not chant, "Go God!", while the other chants, "Go Satan!". You either believe in God, in which you case you are compelled to worship Him, lest you burn in hell, or you do not believe in Him. Rintrah 12:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why worship satan? 

message: Any idea? In popular belief he is male, of course, but afaik the Bible is not precise on this point. The question should be discussed in the article. --89.50.212.128 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The gender of Satan 

message: Looking at the simplified Chinese word for Satan (日本人), I noticed it was identical to the Japanese word for Japanese (a Japanese person to be exact).  I put it through a translator for simplified Chinese, and I got the same meaning.  Is this a coincidence or an error? 199.126.137.209 00:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct. I've removed the slanderous vandalism. --BorgQueen 23:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplified Chinese

message: Rusbel redirects here, but no mention of this name is made in the article. --NEMT 04:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from a 1902 encyclopedia article, but it's not really noteable. I've nominated it for speedy delete. Good catch. :) Justin Eiler 04:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rusbel

message: CjayC is also another reference to Satan, I dunno why you guys took that out.
:If it were, I think Satan himself would have protected his own identity; he doesn't need your help. Rintrah 12:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CjayC