Talk:Devil/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Nick Scratch

Ok so a while back i added Nick Scratch to the other names section but now its been removed. it is a combination of Old Nick and Old Scratch. --Nick Scratch 03:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It is because 'Old Nick' and 'Mr Scratch' are not his names that they are used. There is a belief in Occult circles that to simply use the name of Spirit beings such as Lucifer will attract them. That is where the saying 'talk of the devil' comes from when some one speaks a persons name who then arrives almost at once.Johnwrd (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's 'god's idea to screw with Job, not Satan's

From the article... "In the book of Job (Iyov), ha-satan is the title, not the proper name, of an angel submitted to God; he is the divine court's chief prosecutor...After God points out Job's piety, ha-satan asks for permission to test the faith of Job."

That is not true. Satan asks "Doth Job fear 'god' for nought?...But put forth "thine hand" now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face." "And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath [is] in thy power" (Job 1:10-12). The Dhampire LOGOS (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

God asks Satan what he was doing, Satan responds, then God is the first to mention Job. Given what is written, Satan came without seeking to harm Job and it is *God* that directs the conversation to the subject of Job. And, it is God that gives Satan power over Job. Regardless of Satan's view on Job's fear of the Lord, it seems apparent that God had the original intent here. MadAlhazred (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

devil in art/Satan in literature

I have altered the links that claim to be about the "Devil in art" to reflect that they are actually links to an article merely listing his appearances in literature. This is not a splitting of hairs; I followed the "devil in art" link with the reasonable expectation to be able to read about his appearances in painting, cinema, etc. The linked article is instead much more specific and limiting than the links originally implied.Minaker 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"demonize enemies"

an anonymous user deleted these two lines from the demonize enemies section, calling them "biased" and "unreferenced."

white devil: a term used by the Nation of Islam to refer to white Americans

Great Satan: a term used by Iran to refer to the US.

I can't see what's biased about reporting the facts that these terms have been used and by whom. Also, the wikilinks in the lines take you to pages where you can see this information for yourself. So I reverted the deletion. Jonathan Tweet 16:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Khemet

I can't see the point of calling the section on Ancient Egypt 'Khemet'. That is the country's name in Ancient Egyptian. The other sections are not called by their names in languages other than English - the 'Islam' section is titled 'Islam' not whatever Islam is in Arabic. Likewise, references to 'Ancient Khemet' are a contradiction in terms. Hut 8.5 18:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Smells

Someone keeps editing in 'the devil smells.' I've changed it back twice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chaosman (talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, you've just reverted vandalism! You've done Wikipedia a good service, well done. We need vandalism fighters urgently, so help if you can! You can find some useful stuff to help you at WP:TOOLS. Before you start reverting vandalism on a big scale though, make sure you're familiar with the policies (a list) and guidelines of Wikipedia. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protection?

Due to the number of vandals I'm wondering whether we should get this page protected from editing by non-wikipedians? Zerokitsune 02:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean semi-protection? Might be a good idea. I have it in my watchlist anyway, so I keep tabs on any vandalism. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Vanderdecken, where were you when this happened? :(

DarkFalls reverted (correctly), and then re-reverted, leaving the cruft in place.

-- Fullstop 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalised big time.

Uh, considering I cannot do anything because of not having an account here. Could someone fix this page?

~~Wikipediauser 03/29/07~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.211.2.2 (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

disambiguation?

What about all the other devils - Devil's Island, Devil's cake, Tassy devil, etc? Myles325a 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Query

Why are Satan and Devil two different articles seeing as they are both exactly the same thing?

Anon

I was wondering the same thing. Alpheus (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

They're not. Satan is a specific incarnation in Judeo-Christian and Islamic theology. The Devil is a much more broad concept, as similar figures have developed in many religions and myths. -- Kesh (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing the intro

I think the following should be deleted from the introduction: "In humour, concept of something as evil as Satan is often mocked." I don't think the concept of the Devil is so tied to humor that it needs to be mentioned, it seems only to be in the article to insult believers in this concept. Even if it was added innocently it still seems out of context and silly. Comments? Jirt 16:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Other Relgions"

is it just me does that sound wrong, as if there is a 'right religion' and oh yeah there are these OTHER religions called buddhism and hindusim (that about a quarter of the WORLD believe in) that have concepts that are KINDA like our CORRECT religion! Obviously this article was written by christian biggots that should be reading up on some of those OTHER relgions.... because maybe they have something good to say! Change the title from OTHER relgions!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.119.116 (talk) 00:38, June 24, 2007

First, please remain civil. Second, try to assume good faith. Accusing people of being bigoted and intentionally misleading is a bad foot to start out on.

That said, do you have a suggestion for what to change it to? The concept of "The Devil" is rather skewed towards Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths in the Western hemisphere, so it's best documented in that context. The concept of a singular evil, and a foil for a singular god, is not as common in other faiths. I don't see an issue with the article as-is, but I'm open to other suggestions if you have any. -- Kesh 01:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I am uniquely placed to furnish a deep insight into the subject of this article. I encountered same and cast him out.Mgr.James Horan Decd. 12:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Fallen Angel

Hi, I want to know if this picture of a fallen angel (Lucifer) statue would be appropriate here. --Andersmusician VOTE 02:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

El Diablo means Devil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.69.41 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC).

I'm writing an article about that sculpture in the Spanish language Wikipedia. It is inspired by the beginning of John Milton's Paradise Lost (Book I, 3rd and 4th stanzas). So it refers to the Devil (Milton calls him Satan). --Zaqarbal 15:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Shiva (and Kali)

In "other names of the devil" Shiva could be added. I am not saying it SHOULD be added, but in the Satanic Bible Shiva is listed as another name of Satan, or at least LaVey's version of Satan. Same counts for Kali, but not to be confused with the Kali already listed, but the Hindu godess of destruction. What do you people think?(N33 13:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

meow meow meow meow meow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.164.251 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoping to avoid a revert-war

Before an edit war gets started, let's work from this diff. While the format of the anon's rewrite looks a little better to me, a lot of other information was lost in the prior version. We need to start working out what the differences are, and the best way to continue on this article, before folks start revert-warring. -- Kesh 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

hrm. The game started 26 August. That edit, to some extent valid, was under false pretenses and brought on a whole load of trouble.

As far as I can tell, we have several options:

1. go from here
2. rewind to the version prior to that 26 August edit and then see what's worthy of merit from that edit.
3. scrub the whole thing, notify scrub on various WProject religion noticeboards, and advise new section with proper citation.
4. same as #3 but simultaneously merging with Satan
5. same as #4 but merging into an all-encompassing "Epitome of Evil" or some such.

I'm going to ask for semi-protection as soon as I've finished writing this.

So folks, a show of hands please for a course of action that you'd prefer (or perhaps suggest a new one).

-- Fullstop 00:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the man on the picture St. Augustine or St. Wolfgang?

On the 20th of the October I modified the caption of the picture to "Saint Wolfgang and the Devil by Michael Pacher)." but user C.Logan reverted it bact to "Saint Augustine and the Devil". The picture is used to portray St. Wolfgang in articles: Green, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Wolfgang of Regensburg, Deal with the Devil, Michael Pacher. This is the only article in Wikipedia which says that the painting portrays St. Augustine. Theologist 16:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As I'd noted in my edit summary, the name of the image is "Augustinus und der Teufel" (as listed in the image copyright information here and here, on Wikipedia), and I've found several other sources with slight variations of this name (such as "Teufel und Augustinus" here). As far as I can see, there is no reason beyond Wikipedian assumption as to why this is the listed title in these article spaces. The name of the painting does not support the idea that it depicts St. Wolfgang, and therefore I can assume that the captions listed on the article spaces you've mentioned are incorrect.--C.Logan 17:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture in question is on the door of an altarpiece. And doors have two sides. The outside of that particular door depicts St. Wolfgang and the devil, the inside depicts St. Augustine and the child. Hence the confusion of names for one-and-the-same piece of wood. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Spiritism

"Spiritists are very sure about their view of the Devil. God is the primal cause of everything, and He's intelligence and goodness Himself, so He couldn't have possibly created Satan and demons or that would be contrary to his absolute intelligence and justice, since we would have to assume that God didn't know what He was doing, or that He created beings destined to be eternally evil and not entitled to forgiveness. According to Spiritism, Satan is a metaphor, a personification of all the bad inclinations existing within the human kind - being His creation, he couldn't be possibly an adversary of God. Since God is absolutely perfect and powerful, He wouldn't have committed such a mistake, since he knew the future and also knew what Lucifer would become. This logic extends to what people call a "demon": it has to be understood as a simply evil spirit, that is, the spirit of someone that has died but hasn't reached the light yet, which means that there aren't creatures that will be eternally in that position or condened to Hell, since they are also able to restart over again if so he/she wishes. This happens after showing regret, realizing the bad things they have done and understanding the purposes of God and the Law of Evolution, reencarnating in a new body with the promise and perspective of doing things right this time."

I've removed this because of problems with original research and an absolute lack of sources. However, I think there may be some salvageable information here; in any case, it may be good to have a short section on the subject. I could see a revision starting with "According to Spiritism..." with (obviously) some sources provided.--C.Logan 19:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

An IP re-added the material and I have reverted accordingly. - Kesh 22:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The argument above; 'God could not have created Evil' is an old atheist argument along the line of; 'Jesus said a good Tree cannot produce Bad fruit etc'. If you read the sections in Ezekiel and Issiah that are claimed to refer to Satan you read that; 'confusion filled his (Lucifer's) heart' and his 'I Will' statements marked the beginning of Evil in the Universe. Evil was not created by God, it came from within Satan. The view mentioned previously that Satan somehow 'works with God' is nonsensical in the light of events in Jerusalem. The Gospels clearly state it was Satan (not the Romans or Jews) who was instigating events to Crucify Jesus Christ.Johnwrd (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Link

I would like to add this link Living with the Devil: a Meditation on Good and Evil or a reference to the book [1] somewhere within the article. Where does it fit best?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.72 (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

This article is largely about one entity or "The Devil", with ramifications from that premise, and I believe it would be better renamed/moved accordingly. Devil could be used as a disambiguation, including links to demon (that devil is equivalent to in many contexts; where an arbitrary distinction is questionable), to The Devil, and to any other pertinent things using/called "devil". As we know, an article like "the" is generally removed from a page's title, except where it forms part of the name. If I am not mistaken, that applies here, as we generally call Satan and the like The Devil and leave the article out in contexts where devil is more or less equivalent to demon. It already names the object of the article as The Devil at the start, contradicting the page title/placement. Who is like God? (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The concept is a fairly universal one, and this article discusses it in various contexts. Satan is merely one incarnation of the concept of a Devil/Adversary figure. -- Kesh (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Titles

Resolved

Under titles there's the name "Brynjar Víkingsson" (?).. this is just a random Icelandic name. Needs to be removed but I don't have an account. The other name "Kölski" is the correct alternative title to Devil (Djöfull).194.144.18.16 (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Kesh (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

hades?

I just want everyone who reads this article to know that hades is not identified with the devil. being god of the underworld is the only same thing.

hades was being cruel, cold and morbid, but never evil or unjust. and what I know of Lucifer is that he sometimes is. for the other gods I don't really know but I am sure Hades, was a good (though morbid and cold) god who only governed the dead, not collecting them, since everyone was meant to visit him once. he didn't need to trick or kill people, he could simply wait. unlike satan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.202.222.228 (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A better translation would be "The Personified", it’s not very particular but much better than "He Himself", because it means one who became a living belly. Titles

Der Leibhaftige (German): "He Himself" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.59.55.180 (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Addition

I am a new user and cannot yet edit semi-protected sites. I'd like to request this information added under "References":

"The Devil Notebooks," by Laurence A. Rickels (University of Minnesota Press, 2008). This sequel to "The Vampire Lectures" scours the canon and pop culture in an all-encompassing study on the Devil. The book guides readers on an entertaining journey down the darkest corridors that film, music, folklore, theater, and literature have ever offered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ump111 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

devil

The devil is a kind of creature that are mentioned scary, some people think devil's don't exsist, but they do. The devil is a scary creature, a man once said " those who underestimate the devils power will fall under their hands and will be tought a lesson. The devil is so scary that if you see the devil, your hair will become white. The king of devil" Iblis" Is the most powerful and scariest devil of all time, he's anger is dangerous. Iblis can burn anything in one second. The demons are sometimes evil, some demons are good, some demons are evil. God made creature's called " angels" Which protect people from Iblis. With a prayer, If god accepts your prayer, god will send you angels to protect you. Angels are made of light, We cannot see the angels but they can see us. Have you ever felt some watching you but you see nothing? It may be a devil, or demon, or an angel. Angels are the most beautifulest thing on time. This song was created by angelo destin because his father became a devil's searvent. " when the devil may cry" "Maybe you came here to die" " The damage you caused made up-high, And I can see the fear cliffs with a look in your eye" " There is no time to rest" "You can tear my heart from my chest" "I will succeed into making you breath your very last breath" "I know how the angel fell" "I know it too well" " I believe you won't sell" " Don't make me send you straight back to hell"

This song was toled and made in 1982.

By: Yousef Jaber Alkhashem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonprince (talk • contribs) 16:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Coptic Orthadx

Hiya -Just wondering, um, shouldn't we put in the christianity section that some coptic orthadox christians belive that Satan lives in hell with 7 devils? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.70.117 (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Eastern European "Devil" or "Chyort"/Чёрт

I cannot find much actual written information on this, and the Russian Wikipedia is no help at all (it is thoroughly Westernized). But I know from experience, from seeing countless artistic interpretations of the "devil" from both Eastern European (mostly Slavic) countries and Western countries to know that the Eastern European "devil" is a distinctly different creature even to this day (at least in the Czech Republic. I don't know about Russia). It is quite likely descended from some earlier pagan creature (maybe Bies?) and has taken on elements of Christianity, yet its character still remains different. And the demons are different as well, if you look at illustrations from the Soviet era.

After some searching, I found an article that actually said something about this:

Arunas claimed that Lithuania was the last Pagan state in Europe, with an unbroken tradition of Pagan practice in rural areas lasting until the early 19th century.

He went on to explain that Eastern Europeans have a different view of the devil from that commonly held in the West. "The devil is very close to man, he represents a part of ourselves," he told me.

In such a view, the devil is part of the natural world, and in some ways a personification of the forces of nature.The devil is also a joker, though one with a sick sense of humour, and is motivated by mischief rather than outright evil. In many ways he is similar to the Norse god Loki, another earthy figure deeply involved in the affairs of men, and a thorn in the side of the organised and predictable. He is associated with chaos, always on hand to stir up trouble if things look to be going too smoothly. In Pagan times the devil had equal status with the gods, accepted by the people as a normal part of life; it was only after the advent of Christianity that he was reviled and demonised.

Unlike the popular Western view of Satan as a potent source of terror, or of demons as the powerful representatives of evil, the East European devil is fallible, operating on the same level as man. The devil is a joker with a sick sense of humour. If we are clever we can beat him. Arunas believes the collection to be humorous rather than sinister, and seemed surprised when I asked him if the museum ever received unwelcome attention from Satanists, or criticism from the religious establishment.

It's not just the Slavs, though, the Estonians also have a creature (called "The Old Vile One" in their legend of Toell the Great) who is similar to the Russian "Chyort". See here.

I would like to know if anyone knows anything more about this, or where to find more information, and if something can be added to the article or a new article created. Esn (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah as the Devil

I posted a new section of the article by the above title yesterday. It was removed by McGeddon with the explanation that Wikipedia does not publish original research. I couldn't disagree. Although I was citing the Bible, those quotes did not directly say that Jehovah is the Devil, but that was the conclusion that I drew, and offered, based on them.

So I have done further research and found direct quotations of Marcion of Sinope, Apelles, Mani, the Albigenses, Thomas Paine, Adam Marczyk, and Walter L. Williams, as well as a couple of anonymous but articulate authors, that all make the case that Jehovah is a force of evil, sometimes using the name "Devil" or "Satan," sometimes not.

I am thus reposting this new section shortly with these citations. It's no longer presented as my opinion, but as a longstanding, although unpopular, argument made by well-known names in the theological literature.

-- WagePeace (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Concerned individual (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Claiming that Jehovah as the Devil is completely a detastable thing even just to imagine. Jehovah is the holy name of god. Wikipedia have well discussed the holy name of god, Jehovah, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah. I sincerely believe that Wikipedia intends to give, share and provide correct, true and reliable information to your faithful supporters and readers.How then Wikipedia allow this mal and misinformation be published? Thus, this portion must be deleted.

---

I have expanded the content of this section and moved it to a new article, and reduced this section to a summary of that article, with both the new article and this section under the new name, God as the Devil.

I apologize to "Concerned individual" for the offense taken to this material. Offense is not intended, but is understood. I invite him or her to add references refuting the authors I have cited.

-- WagePeace (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Creation of the Devil

Although both the Old and the New Testaments refer to a Heaven and a Hell, it was not until Dante's "Divine Comdey", written in about 1310 AD, that there was a Devil in charge of Hell. Dante's description, in the part of his Divine Comedy entitled "Inferno", was the first look any author had given into the visual workings of Hell. Dante created the Devil as being the Master of Hell and described him as being red from the heat of the inferno where he lived. He gave the Devil the horns of a goat, the cloven hoofs of a four-legged animal, the tail of a stingray and for a final flourish, had him holding the trident of the God Neptune.

Numerous artists of that period began to paint images of Dante's description. Some artists gave the Devil the wings of a bat while others painted him surrounded by half-human helpers with horns on their heads; sometimes rams' horns and sometime mineature goats' horns. These helpers were soon given the name "demons".

The concept Dante created was universally accepted by the world's major religions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.132.247.134 (talk • contribs) 17:50, May 26, 2009

This all depends on how you define hell. If you're talking about the Christian hell, then you may be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.132.247.134 (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your premise is false. The concept of the singular Devil in charge of hell did not originate with Dante, he simply borrowed from imagery available in his time (and note that many people in Dante's vision of hell are people he felt belonged there!). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Devil vs A Devil, Primarily Christian monotheist bias.

I know that for Christians the word Devil brings a specific entity to mind, but the word is not truly that specific. The entire article should be reworded to account for the fact that devils exist in many religions, and that they're not always even clearly self aware (IE some may be mindless and driven by pure hunger, or represent the characteristics of some animal). I guess my point is, "Hey, what's with the Abrahamic monopolization of this article? Let's do something about that!"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.132.247.134 (talk • contribs) 17:49, May 26, 2009

This article is specifically about the Judeo-Christian entity known as "The Devil." More general devils get a smaller sub-section. You could argue for a [[WP:FORK|fork] article about devils in general, but I don't think you'll see much change to this article in the meantime. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

GUAYOTA

In mythology guanche (Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain) Guayota was important that I be put in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.122.141 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Testing human/mankind

I keep seeing in your definitions about the devil/satan that he is testing mankind!The devil doesn't test mankind he tempts mankind and God test mankind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.5.54 (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) See James chapter 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.5.54 (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss your personal beliefs. We're reporting on what various citable sources have stated. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Devil is not red

Devil is black in white communities like white demons and etc and do test all and corrupt and loose as it is in bible like in job chapter. It is not african black as lot of white people think and it is white skin black hair person. Why african to test us and their presence in our homes when we are going through mistakes and problems in religious and worldly life. Do not say and correct in all places where you read that it is african or European. Thank you. An Indo-European —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ureddy (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're asking us to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What the Devil ACTUALLY personifies

This article quite rightly points out that, in certain religions, the Devil embodies all that those religions deem evil. What is does not make quite clear is that, to those same religions in which moral moderation and enlightenment are held as virtues, evil equates to the animalistic, bestial side of human nature and the natural world at large. Hence comes the traditional depiction of the Devil in theriomorphic terms. Geoffrey.M.Gleadall (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

New sections go at the bottom. Sounds reasonable, find a source for that and it can go in the article. We could almost just use your post from "to those same religions" to the end. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Voland "medieval France" ?

I can't find any trace of the name Woland/Voland but in the Bulgakov novel "Master and Margarita" (2Oth century). Plus, that name sounds Germanic, not French at all. I suggest it to be removed from the list of the Devil's names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.48.148.243 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Move of the article

The article's should be "Devil (Satan)" and not just "Devil", because that is more like a devil (a fallen angel). I know that there isn't an article about the creature devil in wikipedia, but please, move the article.
/Axel Kockum (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
P.S. A demon is not the same thing as a devil.

This article is about the general concept of devils, not Satan, which has its own article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, should have read it more thoroughly :S. /Axel Kockum (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Some Of Satan's Titles

Antichrist (1st John 2:18,22 4:3) (2nd John 1:7)

Little Horn (Daniel 7:8,20,21,24-26) (Daniel 8:9) (Daniel 8:9-12) (Daniel 23-25) (Daniel 11:21-30)

A Vile Person (Daniel 11:21-30)

Abomination of desolation (Daniel 8:13 9:27 11:31 12:11) (Matthew 24:15)

King Of Babylon (Isaiah 14:4)

The Assyrian (Isaiah 14:25)

Lucifer, son of the morning Isaiah14:12) In opposition to Jesus (The Bright And Morning Star)

The Prince That Shall Come (Daniel 9:26)

King Of Fierce Countenance (Daniel 8:23)

The Vile Person (Daniel 11:21)

The Wilful King (Daniel 11:36)

The Man Of Sin (2^nd Thessalonians 2:3)

The Son Of Perdition (2^nd Thessalonians 2:3)

Wicked One (Matthew 12:38,39) (1^st John 3:12) (2^nd Thessalonians 2:8) (Revelation 13:18)

The Beast With Ten Horns (Revelation 13:1)

Liar (John 8:44) (1^st Kings 22:22)

Death (Hebrew 2:14) (Isaiah 28:18)

HaveYouNotRead (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

About devils or just Satan?

Shouldn't this article reflect the generic use of Devil rather than be an article about Satan in particular? I suggest having it start with "The term devil is a generic term used to describe various evil entities in religion, mythology and folklore. It is most commonly used as a title for Satan". Otherwise we should merge this article with the Satan article. Most of the text belongs there. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, it does talk about the generic use. The Christian "Devil" is just the most widely recognized in the Western world, so he (and variants thereof) get a lot of space compared to other religions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it discusses beings simliar to Satan but they are not considered "devils" (expect maybe Mara). If this article is going to be about the Devil than it mind as well merge with the Satan article. Or we could merge it with the demon article. What's the difference between a devil and a demon anyway? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference is a devil "is the personification of evil and the enemy of God and humankind...". It's a near-godlike being devoted to destruction. Demons are lesser beings. Satan is an example of a devil, but is not the only devil. Hence, this article has a little overlap with Satan, but also includes information on other devils. Does that help clarify? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The leading paragraph refers to Satan specifically. Also why are the other "devils" put in a section called "Similar concepts in other religions" if they are devils like Satan? Plus Set and Apep are not called devils but evil gods. Angra Mainyu, Mara and Kroni are catergorized as demons. I don't see where there is a distinction made between a devil and demon. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

merge with Satan or demon article

It seems when the term "devil" is used it either refers to the Devil aka Satan or to any evil spirit and thus synonymous with demon. Evil beings in non-Abrahamic reilgion do not have the title of "the devil". Thus I propose that this article should merge with the Satan or demon article. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You're confused. Satan is sometimes called the Devil, but this article is about any being to whom the label "devil" applies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't, the lead refers to Satan in particular. The others are referred to as "simliar concepts". 24.180.173.157 (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm

The lead mentions Satan as an example of a devil. That's it. Given that the English Wikipedia is primarily read & edited by a Western audience (most of whom are familiar with the concept of Satan), it makes sense to use the most recognizable example of a devil in the lead. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The other evil beings do not have the title of "the devil". If there is a distinction between "devil" and "demon" then it only exists in the Abrahamic religions. Buddism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism ect do not reserve the name "devil" for their top evil beings and "demon" for lesser beings. Even Christianity sometimes uses devil as synonomous with demon.

Matthew 15:22; And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried to him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, you son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

Luke 9:1; Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.180.173.157, 28 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change although some scholars recognize the reference in Isaiah 14:12 to Lucifer, or the Son of the Morning, to be a reference to the Babylonian king to although it has been noted that the reference in Isaiah 14:12 to Lucifer, or the Son of the Morning, is a reference to the Babylonian king.

It is ludicrous to imply that only "some" believe this or that most believe that the Biblical writers had such an advanced view of Satan. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Done SpigotMap 12:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, can you also add "Underworld gods" as another category? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Old Testament"

Can you remove the term "Old Testament" and use the more accurate "Hebrew Bible". People can follow the link to "Hebrew Bible" to see that Christians call this the "Old Testament" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themeparkphoto (talk • contribs) 03:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The King of Babylon

Biblicaly speaking, since that is the refrence, Tyre is not he, but Lucifer, the rebellious fallen angel. The Bible says he was in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. This is not the King of Babylon, but the cherub Lucifer who rebelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.227.110 (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation in "Christianity" section, third paragraph

The first sentence of this paragraph does not parse, due to missing or faulty punctuation. Ideally, whoever entered the paragraph should correct the punctuation to reflect what s/he wanted to say. Otherwise, someone else should try to interpret the paragraph and punctuate it to reflect a reasonable interpretation.

If the person who entered the paragraph is not available to edit it, I would be willing to add minimal punctuation and grammar changes in order to make it parse. However, the protection admin would have to unprotect it before I can do so.

God as the Devil

This section needs to be completely removed or at least IMPROVED. There is nothing wiki about it. It is loaded with uncited comment and very bad weasle wording, some of the worse I've ever seen. At the very least it should give a few names of these "authors" it speaks of, or some examples of where they supposedly say the things that the section claims. It's just really badly written and should be removed until it is fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.113.67 (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a summary of the actual article "God as the Devil," which is where the citations are contained. There's too much material for the subject to be just a subsection of this article, so it got moved to it's own article. Also, weasel words would be more applicable to the body of of the God as the Devil article, since an introduction (which the God as the Devil section of this article is) actually shouldn't go into specifics. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)