Talk:Satan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because

• The article is not stable
• This article has a cleanup tag on it, henceforth is obviously not a GA
• Is subject to too much vandalism
• Is missing too many citations

False Prophet 01:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reason three not a reason to remove as many articles are subject to vandalism, everything else is worriesome, endorse removal Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

---

This article on Satan is unbalanced

I don't understand how anybody could put up such an article and present only one or two oppinions and whats more state them as facts and somehow think its a good article. If you put one oppinion then you must put the other. Otherwise you have created a biased article that doesn't represent the views of people.

I am of the opinion that the whole article should be taken off viewing until such a time as we can come up with a balanced article.

The bible itself cannot be used as a definition alone because there are on controversial issues like this at least two interpretations.

I think in this article the atheist should be represented and also christians who do not believe in a supernatural evil being.

The Jewsih section should be shortened. Although views of Jews in different era's could be added. But even this should be brief.

The catholics and other christians that believe in a supernatural being could be larger then the others but again look at the history of the belief.

some short scriptural evidence say 2 or 3 quotes could be included from the bible.

For further information links to other articles would be beneficial.

--Rainbow Warrior 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The concept's earliest attestation is in the Bible, and it's a religious concept, so naturally religious views will be discussed at length... AnonMoos 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delist

This is not a GA, there is a cleanup tag on the page, and just reading the intro, which has 5 citations neededs, I am going to delist this. False Prophet 01:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

One more note, at least the last 250 edits have been in the last 10 days, 100 of which were either vandalism or reverting vandalism. False Prophet 01:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

It's good that you have added references. However, still major flaws.

Too much trivia and Wikipedia:Original research. I'd really like to see the footnotes being based on the reference literature -- such as Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan (1995), I've heard that book is very well-written -- instead of personal interpretation of Genesis, Talmud, and other Biblical texts.

That is the most important concern. There are also some other points.

• A page-long quote from the Jewish Enc. puts undue focus on that.
• A lot of etymology should be cleaned up
• Section "In Rabbinic literature" should be cleaned up from trivia

You can see the GA criterias here: Wikipedia:What is a good article?.

Fred-Chess 14:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we not ask the Dark Lord himself to write this article? Rintrah 14:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think that helps. He has to use verifiable sources though, as I described above. / Fred-Chess 14:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks for the helpful advice I would really like to see the article get its GA status back. Its great to have some objective advice giving us points to work on. Best Regards -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

list creep in Satan in fiction and popular culture

The lists in References in films and References in television will probably grow like tumors as drive-by editors append their favorites. This should be handled differently. Perhaps just delete the section in favor of See also links.

I'd do this myself, but would rather see how others feel about this. Alternatively, does anyone feel up to replacing the list with a (non list-based) essay?

Also, the People linked with Satan list will have about 100 heavy metal singers unless the title is made more specific. — edgarde 05:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with first and last paragraph.

I don't favour a non-list based essay for the same reasons I don't favour a list. Drive-by editors target those too, and others will have to keep chopping the essay to keep it succinct. Essays which disguise list items too are carcinogenic. Let us hope no cancer in any affected section becomes metastatic. Rintrah 08:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection request?

I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia policies for articles protection, so here I come asking for your advice: would this article not qualify as a good candidate for semi-protection? My main concern is that while blatant vandalism is usually reverted within a few minutes, punctual bad-faith edits may escape the attention of recent changes patrollers and eventually disappear from the first page of the edits history.

For example, I noticed recently a suspicious name change from "belzeboub" to "belzeboob" by 128.61.66.118 which had managed to endure through several reverts and which I'm convinced was indeed vandalism after googling the name in its context and looking at the changelog for this IP. Orphu of Io 09:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

you cannot be sérieux

I'm just sort of drifting by this article but was wondering where there'd be room for the notion that Satan(ism) is regarded by many as pretty ridiculous. This may be difficult to cite, but I was looking at for example a transcription of Devil Worship in France by A.E. Waite (1896) which sarcastically debunks reports of "Devil worship" in 19th century France

• If a short time ago that ultimate and universal source of reference, the person of average intelligence, had been asked concerning Modern Diabolism, or the Question of Lucifer,—What it is? Who are its disciples? Where is it practised? And why?—he would have replied, possibly with some asperity: "The question of Lucifer! There is no question of Lucifer. Modern Diabolism! There is no modern Diabolism." And all the advanced people and all the strong minds would have extolled the average intelligence, whereupon the matter would have been closed hermetically....... But, this improbable development of Satanism is just what is being earnestly asserted, and the affirmations made are being taken in some quarters au grand sérieux.

You know, stuff like that. Hakluyt bean 13:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

However ridiculous, we should report only objective information; not set out to affirm some sentiment, and then find examples for it. Rintrah 14:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your concern. Maybe the question revolves a little around whether common sense is 'some sentiment' or something else. In any case, despite my concerns that it would be difficult, I cited a published book. Probably this comes under the heading criticism of topic or maybe other views. Cited naturally :) Separately, according to that citation, modern 'Satanism' has maybe clearer roots than the article suggests. I'm not sure satanism in its modern sense has been around that long. Hakluyt bean 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to bring that subject up in the Cultural Satanism article. -- Kesh 15:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thx for the advice, and I agree with you. Hakluyt bean 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Confused

The nominative satan — is "nominative" there to distinguish it from genitive or ablative? "Satan", as I understand the word, does not transform with case. Rintrah 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Isaiah 14:12-16
I believe that Isaiah 14:12-16 refers to the attempted taking of Jehovah's throne by the original king of Babylon, Nimrod. You will find this recorded wn in the book of Jasher chapter 9; a book refered to twice by the Old Testament (Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18) yet thrown out by the Church.

Compare:

Jasher 9:26 - ...and whilst they were building (the tower of Babel) against the Lord God of heaven, they imagined in their hearts to war against him and to ascend into heaven.

Isaiah 14:13 - You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God;...

Net sources:

Jasher 9 sounding very similar to Isaiah 14: http://www.earth-history.com/Pseudepigrapha/Jas/jasher-09.htm

Josephus' account of Nimrod's ambition: http://www.godrules.net/library/flavius/flaviusb1c4.htm

Which version of the bible do those verses come from? Rintrah 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor Changes

I deleted the word nominative, as it seemed like the author really meant "proper noun"... Hebrew doesn't have a case system anyway, so it's use was inappropriate.

I also changed a little bit of the arabic to make more sense. At one point the Arabic word "Ibliis" was transliterated "Shaytan". 68.51.219.91 23:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Persian Is Currently written "Ahriman" in the Arabic script --72.218.184.248 (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

satan is cool

Forbiden Tree

After their creation, Adam and Hawwa' (حواء, Adam and Eve) dwelt in Paradise (الجنة, AlJannah), where Allah forbade them to go near the cursed tree. "The Satan" (or al-Shaitan in Arabic), tricked Adam and Hawwa' into eating from the tree. Allah then expelled both of them from Heaven and onto Earth, to wander about not as a punishment. In Islam, Allah created humans to send them on to Earth, which he created for them. He was just to see how long the humans, Adam and Hawwa could stay in heaven or paradise.

Actually Allah just want them to learn some important things about life before they can be sent to Earth. Since they’re still newly created, they have less experience. It's all about obeying Allah and to know that Satan is their real enemy. It's the basic meaning of life. They've learned this lesson and understood this after being fooled by Iblis. It's like 'a knock on the head become a lesson ahead'. As for Iblis, Allah has granted his wish to astray all human being and so He let Iblis to trick Adam and Hawwa' althought Allah can 'zap' satan into ashes before he tried to fool them. Allah actually want Iblis to know for himself how far he dares to be. So it's not about He want to see how long can human stay in the Paradise because Allah already knew how long they will stay and when came the time they are ready to be sent to earth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.186.90.6 (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Question

This page is inaccuate. It should be replaced by Conservapedias page on Jesus. Much better

In the introduction this sentence leaps out without explanation: Ha-Satan is the accuser, a member of the divine council, who challenged the religious faith of humans, especially in the books of Job and Zechariah.

Is Ha-Satan an angel? Who employs him? What is the divine council? How does he challenge the religious faith? Some kind of transition is obviously needed. Meep 10:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does a so well known mythological figure only have a B-class article? Meep 10:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess because when you have a controversial topic (tons of heat here between faiths, as well as within them) it makes it very difficult to add or remove anything significant without drawing fire from a christian/pagan/(insert believer in another faith concerned with Satan here) who disagrees with you. Add to that the fact that you can't really cite a reputable source when it comes to Satan, as anyone writing about him clearly has some strong viewpoint on the subject, and is therefor not neutral. --Munkel (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate reference

The reference to the lake of fire in revelation is oncorrect - he is in fact only thrown in in chapter 20 verse 20 rather than verse 10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acgs1 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The scripture verses given for referencing satan being referred to as the prince of this world and the god of this world are incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.177.127 (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Satanism Section

The Satanism section seems mainly concerned with Satan and less concerned with Satan's role in said religion and I would suggest clean up to focus more on what he means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.5.145.74 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Fixed, though I have to add references. WerewolfSatanist 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream Christian section

I think the statements saying that Satan was one of the highest, or the highest of the angels, need a citation. I believe some protestant traditions hold that his rank was that of an Arch Angel. I'll try find a cross reference for hierarchies of angels, unless someone is worthier than I. Aestiva 05:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Two Articles

The two articles "Devil" and "Satan" are covering mainly the same item and show nearly same content. Intention? Pluralism? --charlandes 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Article was replaced with an article on jesus. i reverted to the pervious version Narmical 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Apocrypha section

I can not work out what is meant by the sentence "An "argumentum a silentio" can not, therefore, be adduced as proof that concepts of Satan were not wide-spread; but if Satan is true it must rather be that reference to him and his realm is often implied in the mention of evil spirits."

I can't make sense of "if Satan is true" -- does this mean "if Satan was truly mentioned" or some such? Andrew K Robinson 12:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. The statement as it stands appears to contain the logical fallacy of question begging. The fact is that since there are almost no references to satan in the Apocrypha at all, it cannot be claimed that concepts of satan were widespread. In the absence of evidence that they were widespread, it is begging the question to claim that they were but that they were described in covert terms. I think the Apocrypha section needs a major cleanup, and some proper mention of relevant source material. I might see if I can contribute to this in the next day or two. --Taiwan boi 08:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violation?

"Lucifer is sometimes used in Christian theology to refer to Satan, from a mistaking of the Latinized Hebrew word Hillel, meaning shining one, a reference to the planet Venus, the bright morning star, as a reference to the king of Babylon's spiritual backer. Isaiah 14:12-14.[citation needed]"

Yes, that's what Judaism believes but not what Christianity believes. I think someone should clarify that.

Same with this one: "In Greek, the term diabolos (Διάβολος, 'slanderer'), carries more negative connotations than the Hebrew ha-satan (שָׂטָן, 'accuser', 'obstructer', 'adversary') which possesses no demonic qualities in the Torah writings and is believed by many to be a great and glorious Angel who was created on the sixth day of creation.[original research?]" Sion 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I was the one that added the OR tag on the latter quotation, so you're not the first one to see a problem with these texts. The first quotation needs to go immediately unless it can be sourced, as it is written in a rather informal, BS tone. The latter quotation may very well be true, but the "is believed by many" leads me to believe that this part of the paragraph is based solely on the writer's beliefs. In any case, there's a problem.--C.Logan 00:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I tossed the qualification "... meaning ... as a reference to ..." a) the article isn't on Lucifer and b) there was an objection/contradiction from a Rabbinical point of view as well. The next sentence read: "In Jewish theology, this figure (Helel in Hebrew) has nothing to do with Satan. It is generally agreed among Rabbinical sources that Isaiah was in fact referring to King Nebuchadnezzar." -- Fullstop 18:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated Link

In '5.2 In Satanism', 'child-molesting' links to the aritcle on pedophilia, a subject which isn't necessarily related. It should link to the article on child sexual abuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.100.195.12 (talk) 03:17, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Removing a fair amount of pro-Christian theological bias

I'm in the process of removing a fair amount of the pro-Christian theological bias from this article. Much of it makes theological implications that involve a fair amount of original research. I think if the article hopes to see good article status again, it should be written from a neutral perspective, not a Christian one. Drumpler 15:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

kudos. While you're at it, would you please remove the <ref>s for quotations of scripture (or whatever)? They are primary sources, and can only be used in support of preceding - preferably cited - statements (that must also be able to stand alone without the scripture quotations). The chapter:verse pointers need to be inline, i.e. in parenthesis.

-- Fullstop 19:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, Scriptures should only be cited if mentioned in reliable, secondary sources? This might take some time. Drumpler 06:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it another way.

• Ideally, scripture (or any other primary source) cannot be quoted/cited by themselves at all. Ideally, primary sources can only be cited when a secondary/tertiary source is already citing them (to back up the same statement that the sec/tert sources are being cited for). For example, what the article does with the JE (which should be tersified btw, not quoted en-bloc as now, but thats another matter) is quite ok.
• Completely illegitimate are the statements relying on a direct quotation - refs [2], [4], and [5]. These statements are not at all valid. Its evident here that the editor is making his own conclusions. Such statements need to vanish. This is also true for statements that do not begin with "In ... ", for example "Mastema, who induced God to test Abraham through the sacrifice of Isaac, is identical with Satan in both name and nature.[7]" This is again an obvious interpretation.
• "Semi-"illegitimate are some of the other statements with <ref>s that are chapter:verse pointers. These are (it seems) not OR, even if they do not cite a proper source. They should not however "pretend" that the chapter:verse pointers are bibliographic references, because they lose all credibility that way (they make themselves look like OR). These references should be moved inline.
  For example, "In apocryphal literature, Satan rules over a host of angels.[6]" should becomes "In apocryphal literature - for example in Martyrdom of Isaiah 2:2 and Vita Adæ et Evæ 16 - Satan is described to rule over a host of angels."

Did I explain myself better now? -- Fullstop 17:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Thanks. Drumpler 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, when did the article have "good article" status? Might help to know that. Drumpler 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

9 November 2005. -- Fullstop 01:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick correction suggestion - "LaVey rejects the Black Mass"

Actually, LaVey wrote a book titled "The Satanic Rituals" which actually included *his version* of a classic Black Mass, so this statement is misleading and should probably be revised. Church of Satan members, including current CoS High Priest Peter Gilmore have performed mock Black Masses for the media.

It would be more appropriate to just leave the part about the black mass out, since explaining the differences between the folklore black mass and LaVey's presentation of the ritual would be beyond the scopeof this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.174.151 (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Add Category

Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible 75.15.207.103 18:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's far from clear that Satan in the Hebrew Bible is any kind of "Deity"... AnonMoos 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hes basically a unamed angel. Last time I checked angels weren't exactly "deities". Xuchilbara 03:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

He's called one of the Sons of God, basically the same thing as a deity. Job 1:6 75.14.214.102 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia: Satan: "Such a view [Satan as a distinct being] is found, however, in the prologue to the Book of Job, where Satan appears, together with other celestial beings or "sons of God," before the Deity, replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come, with the words: "From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it" (Job i. 7). Both question and answer, as well as the dialogue which follows, characterize Satan as that member of the divine council who watches over human activity, but with the evil purpose of searching out men's sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor, who sees only iniquity; for he persists in his evil opinion of Job even after the man of Uz has passed successfully through his first trial by surrendering to the will of God, whereupon Satan demands another test through physical suffering (ib. ii. 3-5)." 75.14.214.102 05:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Brown Driver Briggs uses the term superhuman adversary. 75.14.214.102 06:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This article itself in the intro uses the term minor god. 75.14.214.102 06:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The basic fact remains that though some vew Satan as a deity, and Satan is in the Bible, Satan is not really a deity IN the Bible... AnonMoos 17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like a proper source on where Satan himself is considered a deity. I know theres Caananite and other influences on, including deities, Satan, but where does it say he is specifically a deity in hiw own right?

Xuchilbara 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"One day the divine beings presented themselves before the LORD, and the Adversary [note: Heb. ha-satan] came along with them." Job 1:6 New Jewish Publication Society of America Version 75.0.3.63 00:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure who this is in reply to, but it certainly doesn't satisfy Xuchilbara's query. I should note, additionally, that not a single piece of evidence presented by 75.14.214.102 seems to support his case. Am I missing something here?--C.Logan 00:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you're not missing much. IP's quotation of Job 1:6 tells us "adversary" is distinct from "the divine beings", which rather contradicts his/her initial position.

And, the "sources" are non-RS and the interpretation illegitimate (OR). But then this article really isn't a good example of what not to do.

On the other hand, I wonder if Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible is such a smart choice of a title (note also that 'Golden calf', 'Burning bush', 'Beelzebub' etc are all "deities").

-- Fullstop 00:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh Lucifer is in the bible cat of deities, but hes not really a "biblical deity", the translation is a bit off there. Maybe the association w/ lu is why someone decided to add Satan. Xuchilbara 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Golden calf is specifically called a deity in Ex 32:4, the Burning bush is the I am that I am deity, Beelzebub is the god of Ekron in 2 Kings 1:2, Lucifer is the KJV translation of O Shining One of Isa 14:12, widely considered to be an astral deity. 75.14.219.82 06:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading these examples, I'm getting the sense that the category is very improperly titled, and the apparent criterion is very haphazardly thought out in the first place. The Burning Bush is a theophany, whereas the Golden Calf was an idol which was erroneously deified (well, idolized) by the wayward Israelites. Beelzebub is the deity of the city of Ekron, whereas "Lucifer" is considered by some to refer to the Devil, and to a Persian royal by others (to note, I am extremely suspicious of the claim "widely considered to be an astral deity").

I think this category is badly conceived, as the membership appears to be based on a particular user's original research. The Bible is primary source material, and therefore we should use caution when considering it as a source (rather, we should simply stick to secondary sources)- it appears that this category is based on a bit of synthesis and some general unique interpretations of the source material.

This category pertains to the OT, but I can imagine that if the Bible was the general playing field, then 2 Cor. 4:4 might be used as a "source"- ignoring the fact that it is figurative language. This is the problem with making judgments based on primary sources; we editors aren't experts on the topic (and even if we are, policy assumes that we aren't), and therefore we can only rely on secondary sources to validate such claims. And again, this category seems very poorly defined, as the inclusions noted here prove clearly.--C.Logan 07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you proposing? Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible according to Judaism, Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible according to Roman Catholicism, Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible according to Neo-Paganism, Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible according to Canaanite scholars, Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible according to secular scholars, Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible according to Biblical critics ... ? 75.15.207.148 20:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Lucifer" is a Roman poetic name for the morningstar = Venus (the planet). The way by KJV is not a mistransaltion per se, but it resulted in a misinterpetation. There is no Lucifer in the Hebrew bible because it was impossible for him to appear of such, given thet the Hebrews had no contact w/ the Romans at the time it was written. But there is an deity mentioned in that same passage; Babylonian/Caananite Shahar. Ironically, whoever compilled the list missed that. And no Satan still does not belong on that list. Xuchilbara 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose another possibility would be Category:Pagan deities in the Hebrew Bible. Would that make everyone happy? As a side note, Lucifer is from the Vulgate (Isa 14:12). 75.15.207.148 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

More on Lucifer: Strong's H7837 75.15.207.148 21:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That cat would make more sense, imo. But Satan should be excluded from it. I won't deny Satan didn't have pagan influence, just that he is not really a deity of any sort. Unless, you count in the modern times. Xuchilbara 21:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider Satan a Demigod? 75.15.207.148 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No; the Bible doesn't note him as such. I think the above proposed category is viable. There's a few names that could go in that list.--C.Logan 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the 'pagan deities' sounds ok as well (and excluding Satan and others as Xuchilbara/C.Logan noted). The other terms that crossed my mind were

a) 'Divinities in the Hebrew Bible' - less loaded than "deities" and includes angels but excludes burning bush etc.

b) 'Concepts in the Hebrew Bible' - vague enough to include pretty much anything

b) 'Preternatural concepts in the Hebrew Bible' - a mouthful but more precise than just 'concepts'

what do y'all think? -- Fullstop 00:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Satan is not a "Deity" in the Hebrew Bible"

Those who claim that he is don't study the Hebrew bible. He is an accusing angel that is in favor of strict justice but he has no powers of his own. The way Christianity tries to make Satan into a separate power is idolotrous. -- 07:57, 8 November 2007 User:Grafix1

He is immortal and he has supernatural power. Is that not a deity? 24.136.144.118 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Satan has the same power as, say, an Angel would. He is a created being (he has a beginning), and he is not omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, so on and so forth. In some faiths, he might be considered worthy of being called a "deity". In Jewish and Christian though, however, he is not on par with the concept of "deity".--C.Logan (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bahai

This article has an error in it. It says "In the Bahá'í faith

In the Bahá'í Faith, 'Satan' is not an independent evil power as he is in the Abrahamic faiths, but signifies the "base nature" of humans."

Satan is not an independent evil power under Judaism! Satan is the accusing angel and is not evil or a separate power from the Lord. The Satan has no power of his own and is only an angel. The way Christianity separates G0D and the devil is almost like they are saying that there is more than one creator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grafix1 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In Judiasm, Satan is an angel and he does have powers, he cannot work w/out God's premission though. (If he didn't have powers, he would not have been able to do what he did to Job now would he?) Later, he became indientified with the Jewish angel of death, Samael. Satan, is actually just a title and according to the Hebrew bible, hes unamed. Hes considered to be a "enemy of mankind", but he is not an enemy of God in Jewish traditions as Christian traditions paint. The Christian tradition was heavily influence by Zoarastrianism, so was Judiasm, however, the effect is really seen with Christianity.

Xuchilbara 17:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While I strongly disagree with Xuchilbara's belief concerning the influence of Zoroastrianism on Christianity (or, for that matter, Judaism), I will have to side with him over the anon on the matters of the Jewish perspective of Satan. The discrepancy between the Hebrew concept of Satan and the Christian one is vastly exaggerated, and hearing treatments of the topic by talking heads unfamiliar with Christian theology throughout history only makes the whole thing more confusing and misleading.--C.Logan 23:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh many scholars will tell you of Zoroastrianism's influence on the notions of Satan. (Also some demons are inherited from them, like the Jewish Ashmodai.) Thats where you get Satan in Christianity as this big anti-God figure. See Zoroastrianism's relation to other cultures, also note that the Bahá'í has a big connection with Zoroastrianism, as there are a many of similarities, and it is believed to have its roots in Zoroastrianism.

Xuchilbara 00:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I'm sure they would; many scholars have particular opinions on certain issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their theory is correct, nor does it mean that I have to gobble up whatever they say on the matter. As it stands, I disagree with the conclusions reached (considering those I've seen), as I'm a strongly skeptical individual. As it stands, I'm a believer in subjective "truth", and therefore it wouldn't do us much good to argue over the whole issue- I find the conclusions unsatisfactory and optimistic, but that is just my opinion, and it seems that you don't agree with it. In any case, I'd posted here only to note that the user in objection was arguing towards a conclusion which, as I see it, is not really accurate. Therefore, I'm not about to get into another endless discussion on the matter (as I've reached my monthly limit on endless discussions).--C.Logan 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

While this discussion waxes on with no proposed solutions, it should be noted that the statement and notion comes from the quoted source (Abdul'-Baha). No matter what anyone (scholar or not) thinks about its validity, its a WP:V statement. That will suffice for its inclusion. Unless a qualifier of an opposing *verifiable* opinion is provided, this verifiable statement can stand as it is for its source is cited. Jeff 08:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, while Abdul-Baha is of unimpeachable credibility with respect to Bahai, does he actually state that Satan is an independent evil power in the Abrahamic faiths? I ask because it is this that Grafix1 appears to have a problem with.

It could easily be resolved by simply removing the comparison, i.e. "In the Bahá'í Faith, 'Satan' is not an independent evil power as he is in the Abrahamic faiths, but signifies the "base nature" of humans." (the comparison is the struck out bit). -- Fullstop 00:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bahai faith seems somewhat eclectic, I think we could do w/out the Abrahamic comparison. Xuchilbara 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

People still think it's eclectic just because it's not common in the U.S.? Outside the U.S. and the Middle East it is quite widespread, and at least we don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster. :P JuJube 01:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. No I was commenting on things like "Bahá'u'lláh is regarded as the most recent, but not final, in a line of messengers that includes Abraham, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad and others" and the influence of Indian, Abrahamic, and Zoroastrianism etc.

Sorry if my comment sounded offensive, (and I acknowledge my assumption may be wrong.) my knowledge is very limited on Bahai. ;) Xuchilbara 02:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry... if I was offended, I wouldn't have brought up FSM. :) JuJube 02:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there some special meaning of 'eclectic' that I need to be aware of to understand that? As far as I know (and what I assumed Xuchilbara meant), 'eclectic' means "selecting the best from various sources".

But thats not the point of this talk section, is it? -- Fullstop 02:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just guessing here, but I think JuJube may have confused "eclectic" and "eccentric".--C.Logan 04:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Or just composed of elements from various sources. Obviously Satan is from one of those various sources, which is why imo the Abrahamic mention may not be needed. Xuchilbara 17:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah, thats what I thought you meant. :) -- Fullstop 14:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed said verse. I'd love to chime in about the details of the Baha'i Faith (for no one here seems to have a clear understanding of it), but this page is not for that. The Baha'i Faith main page and it myriad sub pages are very enlightening. The mainpage was actually a featured article last summer. I mention it because it seems a good way to cut through to the heart of the hearsay. Cheers. Jeff 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Leviathan is not an angel!

Look under "Satan in Christianity." It refers to the Leviathan in the bottom bullet as an "angel." The Leviathan is a sea monster, not an angel! Who wrote that? Zillakilla (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily arguing with you, but the Leviathan article says:

Leviathan is also sometimes said to have been of the order of Seraphim. According to the writings of Father Sebastien Michaelis, Balberith, a demon who allegedly possessed Sister Madeleine at Aix-en-Provence, obligingly told the priest not only the other devils possessing the nun, but added the special saints whose function was to oppose them. Leviathan was one devil that was named and was said to tempt men into committing sacrilege. Its adversary was said to be St. Peter.

Therefore, it would seem he is considered to be an angel by some...--C.Logan (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why one should not depend on another WP article as a source. :) That passage from the Leviathan article is OR rot.

The "Seraphim" in this context is not the "Seraphim" in the sense that we are familiar with. It is completely out-of-context, more-or-less *exactly* from The Encyclopedia Of Witchcraft & Demonology, which in that passage is not discussing Leviathan, but Sebastien Michaelis's "Hierarchy of Hell." Sebastien Michaelis's demonology book is from 1612 (!)

In this context, the Seraphim are a category of demons in the "hierarchy of hell", and it is only in this context that the second/third sentence make sense. When one doesn't know this, everything after that first sentence appears to have nothing to do with the first sentence. After all, the second/third sentence make rather plain that there is nothing very angelic about Leviathan.

This "special" 1612 use of "Seraphim" is not compatible with the general understanding of "Seraphim", nor would Michaelis' work be considered even remotely "reliable." And the out-of-context OR disqualifies it for use in the article on Leviathan, leave alone on Satan.

-- Fullstop (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I'd said, I'm making no arguments, just taking guesses. I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, and I just did a quick search on the subject to see why such a tag might even be added. On a side note, this source appears to note a few cases of the association between Leviathan and an angelic origin. Just to note.--C.Logan (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

oh, yeah. I wasn't disagreeing either. Only pointing out that that passage can't be used to infer that Leviathan was a (fallen) angel, and - not being in-context - can't be used for anything related to either Leviathan or Satan. -- Fullstop (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Very true. As I've mentioned, however, the above source does seem to oppose Zillakilla's claims on the issue in two examples (perhaps more; I'm tired and don't care to read much). Once again, I'm not actively arguing, but making a point to note.--C.Logan (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically Leviathan is probably more accurately described as a pagan 'God' or 'Goddess', rather like Baal or Belial. If you look at Egyptian magic there are many obvious correspondences with Satanic spirits though I don't know if there is much formal witting on this - anyway Leviathan might be linked with Isis. There are obvious comparisons between Satan and Lucifer and Osiris and Horus and the great pyramid, an even more obvious comparison is between Set and Jehovah (Jehovah's main function for the Egyptians was to bring disease and death).

Another completely separate link is between Leviathan and Tiamet - described as world serpent or world eater. Leviathan is a huge sea monster (ie whale) but she is one who is killed by man or God and because she is eternal (a god) this happens again and again. Other tales/suggestions tie Leviathan to the serpent in Adam and Eve, the fish caught and killed by Jesus, and as a friend of Lillith. The 'definitive' reference for Leviathan is The book of Eden, which is one of the lost books of the Bible and is regarded by some as the 'true' Satanic Bible. Lucien86 (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In Islam: Adam and Eve section.

This section remains in the article for reasons I do not understand. Not only is it poorly written and largely unreferenced in the first place, but it is also misplaced. The information detailed in the paragraph is really too specific to be relevant to an article on the general concept of Satan.

In comparing the sections on Christianity and Islam, it's clear to see that the Islam section handles the topic poorly, suddenly moving from an introduction to a pointless narrative that really just wasted space. It does nothing to elucidate on the concept itself.

The story is relevant to the concept, but it shouldn't be placed here. As it is, the narrative is already covered extensively on Iblis, which the section refers to at the end in a somewhat corny manner, in my opinion. I think that this section should be deleted; at most, the information within this body should be condensed to no more than 2-3 sentences. Is there a good argument for the inclusion of this extensive narrative?

For now, I am deleting the section for the many reasons mentioned above. If anyone somehow prefers that version, revert me, but I'm fairly confident that most will agree that a better replacement would be a general overview with a short mention of the relevant narrative.--C.Logan (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Natalie Pavlatos

What is this? I've never heard of this before in my entire life: "Natalie Pavlatos (شيطان) is the equivalent of Satan in Islam." Yaye (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is apparently a case of vandalism by User:Piradius that went overlooked for days.--C.Logan (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Related: "اهریمن Satanás in Persian" - اهریمن is Ahriman, not Satanás. Ahriman is the Middle Persian equivalent of Angra Mainyu, who could arguably be said to be the Zoroastrian equivalent of Satan. But I don't know, maybe the person who wrote this had some divine plan or something, so I'l leave it be for some registerd person to change...

Vandalized!

This is funny.... the article on Satan has been replaced with an article about Barak Obama... so funny! But it does need to be fixed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.54.182 (talk • contribs) 19:41, March 4, 2008

Again

Removed this

"SATAN IS THE MOST GLORIUOS GOD IN THE WORLD.HE SMALL SMITE GOD AND HIS DISGUSTING ANGELS. ALL WORSHIP SATAN.g"

from the paragraph abuot Etymology. 121.247.68.245 (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Another act of vandalism: "Satan was has been spotted boostcruising forum in search of boostbabes for easy access to there turbo excels, Many of them give in and become apart of his possy." in Section "International affairs". I deleted it - 217.236.30.210 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This article gets vandalized a lot. It's best to just revert it, warn the vandal and ignore it. -- Kesh (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms traditionally attributed to Satan in European heraldry

"...three unclean spirits like frogs" (Revelations 16:13).

Here are the old attributed arms of Satan, if it's of interest... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources on this? -- Kesh (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See Image:Satan-traditional-arms.svg#Summary. btw: In my experience, AnonMoos is an ace on European symbolism and iconography, and he can be depended on to have done his homework. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This heraldic emblem Image:Satan-traditional-arms.svg is perhaps not all that important in the grand scheme of things, but it is probably older and more authentic to the Christian Satan than most other "Satanic symbols" that are out there (including the goat of Baphomet etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, frogs as evil is age-old, in the case of Medieval Europe perhaps related to the pagan Scandinavian idea of frogs as the vehicles of evil. Of course, being cold-blooded creatures, the association of frogs with evil is much more universal than that. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Satan's son?

I've asked some friends if Satan had a son according to the Bible, they said yes, and his name was Mammon, I've searched the Mammon article and can't see a link and I was wondering if anyone knows more details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghyslyn (talk • contribs) 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so; "Mammon" is just the Aramaic word for "wealth", used to refer to the sin of greed... AnonMoos (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick google search for "Satan's son" and "Mammon" shows that the only time (I think) he was his son was in Constantine, which was written by an atheist. In Paradise Lost, he's the fallen angel who speaks third at Satan's council. I don't think he was ever Satan's son in the Bible, though.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So does anyone know of any existance of any son of Satan?Ghyslyn (talk)

Not in the Bible itself, no... AnonMoos (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

removed unethical gratuitousness

much trimming would be required and I estimated that I wwould take such responsibilites --Imagemonth (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I reverted them. As I said in the edit summary, you don't want to make changes like you did without discussing them first. You don't get to overlook policy because you feel it is an ethical emergency. JuJube (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JuJube. Although the article does in fact need cleanup ("trimming"), I don't really see how the complete removal of whole sections (and containing valid material too) can be thought of as cleanup. Given that there are no universal ethical values, "unethical gratuitousness" is not a valid reason for such a drastic action. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Even the first sentence is incorrect

The idea of Satan isn't an invention by the "Abrahamic" faiths. The word may be Semitic (or at least an early borrowing into a Semitic language), but the concept is not. Zoroastrianism is based on the duality of good and evil and predates the Abraham stuff. The Yezidi sometimes get called Satanists in Islam because Zoroaster basically abolished their old Indo-European deities and lumped them under the evil power. That's how Satan traditionally functions in religion: the older faith is undermined by a newer one, the old religion becomes the dark side of the new one. I'll check back when the revert wars end and maybe add something. Hypatea (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in "Images of Satan"?

The graphic of Satan appearing in the "Images of Satan" section has a caption that reads, "Jesus christ of the holy bible." I'm guessing this is vandalism? 69.68.18.13 (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The article was vandalized thirteen hours ago, see here. I restored the original caption now. Thank you for pointing this out! If you like, you can "undo" this kind of vandalizing edit yourself, should you encounter it again in the future. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for more information. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Face on Stomach?

Anyone who has played the Ghosts N Goblins video game knows Satan is depicted with a second face on his stomach. But I swear I've seen this on historical art pieces before, I recall seeing something that may have been a medeival illuminated manuscript or something depicting Satan or some demon with a face on his stomach.

Anyway I'm just wondering if anyone knows anything about this depiction of the devil, what cultures used it, what it might signify, where the video game creators may have gotten it from, etc.VatoFirme (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't get at these books much online, but it seems to have been common in the middle ages.[1][2]

[3] The books say there are carvings of it in some cathedrals, and I also read some sets of tarot used to show Him that way. Sticky Parkin 23:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)