Talk:Satan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Misc

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) In case someone doesn't see the problem with that paragraph as a claim of fact, consider that the article itself attributes the popular image of "Satan" to images of the old Greek God Pan. Does Greek mythology "fundamentally involve reversals of Christian imagery"? Does the claim about neopagans exclude Greek reconstructionism? Dan 05:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I was going to mention some edits or additions I have made, but also note that I may change them. I am noting them for anyone who thinks my edits do not belong. However, I myself am uneasy with whether or not my edits belong, and will most likely change them myself. Under the "In the New Testament" section, I added to the fourth paragaph what the other two "enemies of humanity" were according to "some other forms of Christianity." Although this is factual information, it may not be worth mentioning in this section, as this is more of an extra bit of information not dealing with Satan directly, but having to do with the last statement, which stated what the other two "enemies of humanity" are according to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Any thoughts weclomed, although I may change this edit shortly. The other edit I did was at the end of paragraph #6 of that same section. All I did was add a solution to a problem Gnostics have with the world's imperfection, based on the Bible text. I thought it useful for those trying to figure out whether or not the Gnostic's could be right, but I made it brief since our topic is Satan and not "Why isn't this world perfect or ideal?" There shouldn't be much problems with my second edit. Please take in mind that I'm trying to accurately represent Satan, etc, according to the New Testament Scripture in this section, since in this section the NT Scripture is the standard/basis for the view. Cartoonist Will 08:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Satan VS Lucifer

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)
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)

Rachelle

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)

If I am not mistaken, "Rachelle" is actually an ancient Hebrew/Jewish name. The spelling in the Hebrew may be different. If I remember correctly, "Rachelle" is the name of a character in the Tanakh/Old Testament. But I will need to find proof of this. Cartoonist Will 08:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

History and Development of Satan

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)

Dispute over introductory paragraph re origin of Satan.

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)

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)

Revelation 12 and the Hebrew Bible

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)

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)

Satan and Michael fight each other because Satan disobeyed God, while Michael's allegiance to God is unquestionable. Lucifer was supposed to be the most beautiful angel in heaven and was so magnificent that he let it get to his head. Lucifer sought to make himself like or above God, believing in his arrogance that this was actually possible. When this happened those angels who still held their allegiance to God and those who began to question their allegiance fought, the former led by Michael, the latter led by Lucifer. In John Milton's Paradise Lost, the War of Heaven lasted only two days before God sent the Son to end it and cast out Lucifer and his followers. When Lucifer was cast out, he was renamed Satan and when his angels were cast out they were later referred to as the Fallen, fallen angels, or more commonly referred to as the Judeo-Christian demons. ManofRenown87 04:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yom Kippur influence of Satan

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)

A Satanist vestige?

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)

That was a result of vandalism and has now been reverted. Wipe 14:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Satan in Powerpuff Girls

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)

Is Ganon from the Legend of Zelda series of games viewed as being influenced by myths or misconceptions of Satan due to him (at least in the game "A Link to the Past") having a trident and looking like Pan, much like the non-canonical physical description of Satan? There are differences however, including that, although both have goat legs, Ganon from waist up appears to be a hairless pig or wild boar (depending upon certain games or cartoons), whereas Pan is from waist up human, or at least somewhat more human. Without proof that Shigeru Miyamoto, the creator of the Zelda series, was influenced by this view of Satan, this is probably not worth mentioning. This most likely has no relevance to the topic, and I merely added it due to the above's involvement with the entertainment section. Cartoonist Will 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

origin of satan

i would like a discussion about when and why satan was invented.

My guess would be to explain bad things happening to people in the iron age. Mythological characters were commonly accepted for being responsible for anything from bad weather to failed crop to illnesses to adultery to being born with a disability. The gods were invented to explain the good, of course. With no scientific deduction methods or capabilities, early man was left on its own to explain its surroundings and like a child, its fantasy was the best it could do. Since then humanity has of course grown as a culture (in most civilized nations), but many superstitions and mythological characters still persist today in the minds of the many including witches, vampires, goblins, daemons, gods, Jesus, angels, ghosts and of course Satan. TCorp 14:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Which, was not what that guy asked about. Satanael 15:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Q: "i would like a discussion about when and why satan was invented"
  • When: around the iron age through various mythological stories
  • Why: as a justification and explanation for negative events
it's exactly what that guy asked about. TCorp 16:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Was he asking about "when adversary gods" were invented, or "when this particular named adversary was created" or "when this adversary became the embodiment of all evil in the world today, and lord of hell and the underworld"? The article somewhat covers the gradual transition of Satan as a theological character, but a person who wasn't well versed in dating biblical texts, and the gradual evolution of (now) modern religions, might not understand the process of transition from multiple adversary figures (Iron Age) to Satan as trickster/tempter (1200-400BC) to Satan becoming the primary embodiment of all that is evil, and a ruler of a christian hell (100-500 AD), let alone understand the different theological arguments about *why* this transition occurred, changing Satan from being one of many adversary figures into the sole adversary figure. The article alludes to, and notes, portions of this transition, but doesn't really spell it out. Ronabop 20:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • When: around the iron age through various mythological stories
Satan in the OT suddenly pops up, and scholars haven't found any character from which the belief in him may have arrived. The satan that we encounter in Job is more or less a nameless adversary, directed by God, from which there is no incentative to any similar figure in any related mythology.
The belief in the identity of Satan that we have today didn't arise before after the Babylonian Exile.
Besides, the OT Satan is not really the same as a Trickster figure.
it's exactly what that guy asked about.
No, it's not. Satanael 12:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
http://demons.monstrous.com/origin_of_the_devil.htm#origin - Google it next time. - TCorp 13:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Umm, let's see, eh... no. Please, the belief in an "evil deity" is almost universal, but the idea the one being is the source of all the world's evil is not. It is likely that the Hebrews received some ideas from the Egyptians, however the fact remains that the Zoroastrian Ahriman is not likely to be a product of Egyptian political tensions. And even in light of all this, it does not explain the fact that Satan is a very minor angel in Early Judaism, is not directed by a Moral Sense, and indeed, is not the same as the fallen archangel we encounter in the NT.
The process of how the character of Satan changed from a mere adversary to the "Prince of Darkness" is not an easy process, especially not in a religion that did not originally have a belief in a Prince of Darkness. Satanael 12:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Satan's Fall to Earth

I (--Wasabe3543 16:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)) deleted this section because it contains raving nonsense as follows:

Satan's Fall to Earth

- Research into spiritual matters using archeological precepts has been enhanced by the availability of powerful internet search engines. Very interesting and profound discoveries which also reveal the existence and physical nature of Satan have been made. These possibilities were previously abandoned or not considered due to its overwhelming nature previous to the advent of the Internet. The more popularly held views of Satan are excluded in favor of a truly literal and biblical method which, abandons the deeply entrenched traditional views reinforced by the media using both spiritual and secular repetition, inculcated into the gullible and unwary youth through the education systems of todays western world and then once again regurgitated through encylopedic policy. In this way the entire world has easily been misled and deceived. The scriptures themselves provide evidence that the entire world will be deceived as a consequence of Satan's "Fall to Earth":

Revelation 12:9

9And the great dragon was cast out, the ancient serpent, he who is called Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole habitable world, he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


Availability of Powerful Internet Research Tools Identify Satan


Thank god you did, because that's a bunch of complicated unneccesary jargon. (24.4.244.190 21:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

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)

Satan in Genesis

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)

July 7th - 3:08

"Skeptics, influenced by science and rational thinking stemming from the Enlightenment have come to question whether Satan exists."

This passage implies that ONLY a questioning of Satan's existence can stem from rational thinking. The revision, which simply says, "Skeptics, influenced by thinking stemming from the Enlightenment," does not imply ignorance on the part of believers or doubters of his existence. The former way in which it was written, however, implies ignorance on the part of believers, and is biased. The revision shows no bias.

Category: Abrahamic mythology

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)

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)

Oh, yes. I think you may be right. Someone who believes in Satan might think that using the word "mythology" would imply the possibility that he doesn't exist. This is a difficult one for me. If I take it out again, shouldn't I also go around and remove all the references to other mythologies? There are hundreds of these gods, demiurges, sprites, goblins, angels, demons, fairies, and whatnot, who am I to imply that they might not in fact exist?

No, but seriously, in comparative religion a mythology is a story told by people to explain things that are otherwise difficult (at the time they write the story) to explain. The bible seems to fit well into this category. It may be completely true, but it's still technically a mythology. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Satan in Quran

Shaitan (شيطان) is the devil, or the enemy of Allah and is the equivalent of Satan in Christianity and Judaism. The Islamic view of Satan, has both commonalities and differences with Christian and Jewish views.

While Shaitan (شيطان, from the root šṭn شطن) is an adjective (meaning "astray" or "distant") that can be applied to both Man ("AlIns", الإنس) and Jinn, Iblis is the personal name of the Shaitan who is mentioned in the Quranic "Genesis", and whose origin is unclear.

Whenever the Quran refers to the creature who refused to prostrate before Adam at the time of the latter's creation, it refers to him as Iblis.

  • For a more full account of the creation of Adam, the refusal of Iblis to prostrate before him, and a description of the devil in Islam see Iblis.


Shaitan and Adam and Eve

As per the Qur'an, before the creation of Man, Allah created the Angels — which had no free will — and the Jinn. One of the Jinn, Iblis (pronounce IB-lease) was so good that Allah elevated him to the rank of the angels. Later Allah created Adam, and ordered all the angels to bow to him. All the angels did so except Iblis, who was proud and considered himself superior. For this Allah damned him to hell for eternity, but gave him respite till the Doomsday at his request. Then and there Iblis swore that he would use his time to lead all men astray to burn in hell.

After their creation, Adam and Hawwa' (حواء, Eve) dwelt in Paradise (الجنة, AlJannah), where Allah forbade them to go near a tree. "The Shaitan" (or al-Shaitan in Arabic), tricked Adam and Hawwa' into eating from the tree. Allah then expelled all of them from Heaven and onto Earth, to wander about, as a punishment. Then Adam sought to repent to Allah, and Allah taught him the words by which to do so. Allah forgave Adam and Hawwa' and told them "Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from me, whosoever follows My guidance, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (Qur'an 2:38)." Iblis will try to influence as many of their descendants as he possibly could into sin, so as to be his companions in his final destiny into Hell.


Satan in secular humanist thought

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:

  1. Where's the evidence for the statement that "historically, Christianity has vilified its enemies as being aligned with Satan.
  2. Which secular humanists have made this observation?
  3. "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.
  4. "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)

About improving the article

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)

The origins of satan is not a point of view it's a fact

It is not a point of view on the origins of satan, it a fact what I wrote, people have the right to know the truth instead of some one way narrow minded view on this article. Why is it you people have so much of a problem with the truth? It fails to state anywere in the article of the origins and if you wanna get real technical the hebrews and the christians made satan up. There is not one single shred of evidence in any ancient text (not including the hebrew bible because it's not older than sumerian cuniform) that states anything of such a being. If there is gonna be an article on satan then the origins should be there as well and not only a one sided view, or else I will put a NPOV tag on it and nominate it for the VFD process. Khaosinfire 23:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sir, Read what wikipedia is and is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Wikipedia_is_not

It's not a soapbox. There are many religious wikis where you can go to that would be to your liking. ColdRedRain 05:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this area, nor have I contributed in detail to this article, but this is an interesting point. I will study it out, but I see evidence for opposition in "gods" in nearly every culture - Sure "satan" is hebriac and greek as a word, but the concept is not unusual to religion groupings. Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Shinto, and other Monotheistic religions teach that there are evil forces as well as good - the first two start at about 600 BC (well before the concept of Satan was promulaged by hebrews), but Shinto pre-dates by quite a bit. In addition, Taoism teaches the same opposition is needed for balance. Jehovah in some ancient mid-east cultures was seen as a evil god, but Lucifer gets stuck with being "Satan." I think a more accurate statement is that Hebrews and Christians may have modified other cultures' views on the balance between good and evil with their embodiment of satan as a supernatural being. But even that idea exists in other ancient Gnostic and Egyptian texts of evil temptors or temptresses (think Lilith or similar Demon figures that pre-date Judaism/Chrisianity). As far as Lords of the Underworld, we have to consider Hades, Naraka, Arawn, Osiris, Indra. However, I think the idea of Satan most closely correlates with Supay from Incan mythology that developed seperately. I'm not so sure your statement is as clear cut as you make it. Perhaps the iconology (which not all Christians or Jews subscribe to) was a creation of Hebrew culture, but I see more Hellenistic influences on the horned satan figure in culture than hebraic. I'm not sure your argument holds water or not. Please provide more detail into your thought. -Visorstuff 00:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


Here are some links show me one reference to satan in ancient sumerian text.

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/eden/roots.html

http://demons.monstrous.com/origin_of_the_devil.htm

http://www.unhinderedliving.com/satanmyth.html Khaosinfire 02:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay. So maybe I'm missing your point? You said above that Satan was an invention of the Hebrews, but then provide links stating that Satan was borrowed from other cultures. What's your point exactly? Yes there is sumerian ties. There are other ties as well - what's your point? -Visorstuff 04:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no tie, only to demons but no actual supreme being or angel called satan, lucifer or the devil, satan does not appear until the hebrew bible. I went thru those links with a fine toothed comb and found nothing that says that satan appeared in ancient sumerian texts.

My point is that there should be a reference in the article that points out the facts of the origins of satan, otherwise people are being decieved into thinking that satan is a supreme being that is the leader of this place called hell, which is also made up later in christian texts. When I put a reference in the article it got removed saying it's a POV, when in fact it is not a POV it is a fact. So tell me how there can be a consensus thats says I am writing from a POV and not a NPOV when I am stating facts? If my statement I made is non NPOV then that means the truth cant be told because it does not fit the NPOV, in turn the NPOV is actually a lie because the whole story is not being told. People come here to learn so they deserve to know the facts and not just part of the story. Khaosinfire 07:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


You seem to be talking about two seperate issues. That is likely why it was taken out. The term "Satan" and the concept of "Satan." The term satan is very much a hebrew word. I do not think that most Jews or CHristains consider satan an "actual supreme being or angel." In fact, most christian theologians would consider Michael the archangel and lucifer as opposites. Not God and satan, as in Judaism - where Jehovah and Satan would be seen as opposites that in agreement or complement each other (ie - the story of Job, where jehovah and satan "agreed" for satan to tempt and hurt job physically, etc).
However, there is similar concepts taht are very much the same in other religions, as I demonstrated above. I personally cannot justify the statement that "the concept of a devil, a temptor, a lord of the underworld is a hebrew invention" - as it is not a hebrew invention (incidentally, hell and the hebrew concept of sheol are very different - sheol is very much in line with other religions). About half of the lords of the underworld I listed above were "evil" while the other half were "good or neutral"
Third, you said such and such is a fact. Having been involved in archaeology for a good chunk of my life, I realize the only way something can be a "fact" is if you were there - you were not there and therefore it is a theory or a supposition. I agree with your premise, however, it is not a fact, but there is evidence to support your theory. There is a difference. Please don't be so absolute in statements. Even the theory of Gravity is not a "fact" in all cases.
That said, your agument has merit, but not as an absolute statement. I'm comfortable you add back in your theory, but reference it from somewhere. such as: "so and so scholar states that the concept/term of satan is a Judeo-Christian concept/term, although there are other Temptors, lords of underworlds, etc in other cultures. This is supported by the following..... Other examples of the temptors include .... other examples of underworld lords included.... other examples of dualistic gods icnlude .... etc. however, the current concept of satan in Western culture and religion has hellenistic influences and was modified by christians and modern jews as demonstrated by ... "
I think that is how you should approach this. Not point to the lack of evidence of the term satan in other neighboring texts. The whole idea of Supay from Incan mythology is almost exactly the same concept of Satan as to what most Jews and Christian groups believe. Perhaps you are saying that Incans borrowed the concept from Jews? If so, this would support the Mormon belief of migration from the middle east to the Americas as told in the Book of Mormon. And Incans performed baptisms and ritual sacrifice. Perhaps you have something there.... :^) Seriously though, please add back in your thoughts, just support it from others research not your own. Wikipedia is not a place for primary research, and I'm not familiar enough with the research already done in this area to be of much help. Just trying to guide your thooughts as I think they have merit. -Visorstuff 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I've read the discussion here, anyway, if you want to have that part there, it needs severe edits, as how it is like this:
While Satan is originally an agent of God, rather than an opposing power, he becomes more important and malevolent as the mythology is appropriated, firstly by dissident Jewish sects, and later, by early Christian authors.
Satan does not appear in any ancient Mesopotamian writings, which is widely believed to be the true origins of the Hebrew bible. One should note that the ancient Mesopotamian writings are the oldest known writings on the earth.
Also, Satan is, in some books on Catholic Mitholygi as a twin of Lucifer. When Samael fell, and proceeded to reign in Hell, he divided himself into Satan and Lucifer, Satan being the irrationa, sentimental and evil side, and lucifer retaining the cold logic and inteligence. Lucifer was king, but later was overthrown by Satan
This is very much POV, it needs to be rephrased, reedited and expanded, if this article is going to present as much info as possible, and as satisfactory as possible.
First off, let me explain some things that are relevant to the edits. Satan was merely a nameless angel working under God in the Tanakh(Hebrew Bible), and most Hebrew scholars will tell you that there are no evil or fallen angels in the OT. Every phrase containing the word Satan/satan, there, is towards some kind of adversary, whether benevolent, neutral or malevolent.
Satan was only regarded as evil in the NT, and there it is not sure who that being called Satan/The Devil is, as it can be read as the same kind of adversary present in the Tanakh. The only exception being the Book of Revelation, but even that is highly dubious. The Dragon found in Revelation may indeed be just a metaphor or a symbolic figure, or it can be a reference to one among several different beings, for example Azazel, Lilith, Lucifer, Samael, etc.
When editing it, you should draw references towards different beings, if it is towards his traditional appearance, then references towards for example Moloch and Pan are relevant.
I suggest reading up on Angra Mainyu, Apep, Apsu, Asmodeus, Baal, Beelzebub, Belial, Chaos, Devil, Dis, Dragon, Hades, Leviathan, Loki, Lotan, Mammon, Marduk, Mars, Moloch, Mot, Nergal, Pan, Plutus, Pazuzu, Set, Shiva, Supay, Tiamat and Yaw, these may give some ideas.
Also, check up on The Book of Enoch, Dictionnaire Infernal, the Tanakh, etc. Check the article here to get some general ideas as well. Satanael 18:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think if you look at the text of the KJV (I believe the Hebrew Bible and Septagint are very similar, you'll find that Lucifer was seen as a destroyer of nations. This is evident in Isaiah 14: 9-21 quoted below. Also, it is apparent from this passage that Lucifer was equated with death, sheol, and that he was a fallen angel - this is all attributed to about 700 BC. And Job's references to the Devil date back depending on the scholar, either to Moses's timeframe (some believe he was a magician in the kings court - see Book of Jasher) or the babylonian time period. In new testament times, Baal (Beelebub) is not equated with the devil in all cases - rather Jesus points to Baal as a heresy that is evil, but not the devil. Remember the religion of Baal and the religion of Jehovah were nearly identical aside from human sacrifices. Baal's religion believed in a messiah, eventual ressurection, he was he son of another God, etc. But because of human sacrifice it was seen as heretical and the god's name was different, so the other god was displaced by the believers of Jehovah. Here's the Isaiah quote:

Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet [thee] at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, [even] all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, [and] the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; [That] made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; [that] opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, [even] all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, [and as] the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, [and] slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. -Visorstuff 00:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That's nice and all, but as said, there is no such thing as fallen angels present in the OT.
The Septaguint is the Greek translation of the biblical texts, therefore, not an original source, this goes especially for the KJV, as it was clearly a rewritten version of the Bible.
I suggest you read through the texts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The text in Isaiah 14:12 reads: Helel, ben Shahar ... Oh, morning star, son of the dawn ... And it refers to Nebuchadnezzar. Same goes for Ezekiel 28.
In the OT, any references to Satan is to an adversary, the angel in Job is no exception, same goes for Samuel, etc. Satanael 09:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The reason I removed it was because it was inconsistent, short, and drew conclusions from a POV. I do not think this article should draw any conclusions. What I think it should do it present info from every point of view, and every school of thought, and not as a point of view.
We should point out similarities between other adversarial, chaotic, demonic, tempter and trickster figures, and show the similarities between the origins and the currect views on it.
We should point out where different entities and philosophies may have incluenced the stories of Satan as well.
As for an Images of Satan section, we should include traditional Christian views, modern Christian views, mythological views, demonological views and Satanistic views, to show the different views and the different feelings on the matter of Satan. We should also include symbolism and metaphorism and allegories.
We can look at various texts to see if there's something that's important, I suggest we look at the Apocrypha, Talmud, the Book of Enoch, the Bible, specifically Job, Satan's tempting of Jesus, Jesus's trial and Revelation.
We can also look at the "Testament of Solomon", "The Book of Adam and Eve", the "Apocalypse of Abraham", the Acts of Pilate, the Gospel of Bartholomew and "The Admirable History" by Father Sebastian Michaelis. Also look at Jerome, Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, Ambrosiaster, Gregory the Great and Thomas Aquinas.
We should look at the theology and philosophy of the Gnostics, Cathars and Ophites.
As for literature, we should look at Dante's The Divine Comedy, Milton's Paradise Lost, Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress, at Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger, and also at Faust.
Demonological works and grimoires that may help are The Sworn Book of Honorius, The Book of the Sacred Magic of Abra-Melin the Mage, The Black Pullet, The Greater Key of Solomon, Pseudomonarchia Daemonum and Dictionnaire Infernal.
It may also help if someone is in possession of Gustav Davidson's "Dictionary of Angels", and Elaine Pagels's "The Origin of Satan".
Also, avoid using Isaiah and Ezekiel to specifically refer to Satan, as those books do really not refer to him. And all OT accounts on Satan refer to him as an angel, not-yet-fallen.
If someone were to begin such a work, then I believe this article will really shine in the end, and if we make it really good, I'm sure that we can make this a feature article as well.
Come on people, chop chop. Satanael 19:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm still researching some old Hebrew and Jewish apocryphal texts as well as the dead sea texts, nag hamadi, etc. I need a few more days on this, as something doesn't sit right with me in the Hebrew as compared to English of your translation. You may want to read some of Margaret Barker's works as well. -Visorstuff 22:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, though it's a shame that no one else is interested in seriously improving this article. I wish an expert would pop in and add his/her knowledge, as we can't do this on our own. Satanael 19:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


"An expert" could, but then there might be a debate on whether or not he or she were "an expert." Joking (did you laugh?). Because the pages of Wikipedia are supposed to accurately portray all views, it is good that someone is making sure that not just one view is being pushed as fact. But I understand as I would push for the Bible text to be factual (read next sentence). The view of Satan as seen through the belief that the Bible text is factual has its place under the [traditional?] Christian view, which should also be accurately represented in Wikipedia along with secular and other views of Satan. Speaking of which, I completely agree to the notion that Satan's description having characteristics of Pan and his alleged ruling in hell, or the underworld, to be mythos or otherwise false, as both of these are not found in the Bible text. Due to this it is definately factual to say these "popular" beliefs (I believe most Americans/Westerners hold to these as true) are derived from non-Biblical sources, especially other religions or Gnostic backgrounds. I'd like to help with adding or editting any information pertaining to Satan/Lucifer under the [traditional?] Christian view (as according to the Bible) on the page. I may not be helpful in other areas, despite some research I have already done. My [continuing] college education is actually in Biblical knowledge (but I'm not trying to advertise myself, so let's continue). At any rate, I was going to mention some edits or additions I have made, but also note that I may change them. However, I am not certain that this is the correct section on the talk-page to list that, so I will look to post elsewhere. Cartoonist Will 08:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

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)

It's there because it presents JWs' general view on Satan. The thing is that it is very difficult to present every Christian denomination's view on Satan, because not every is interested in presenting it. Most Christian denominations do not have that much of a different view on Satan. Some do have a different view, but are so minor that it makes it near impossible to present every view possible.

This article after all is supposed to separate Satan from The Devil, Lucifer, Iblis, Beelzebub, Samael, Abaddon, Asmodeus, etc. That makes it somewhat difficult to have a large number of entries, as this article focuses primarily on the name Satan, and separates the archetypes, views and "nicknames", and focuses on those in a secondary fashion. But if you can provide entries from other Christian denominations that are about "Satan", the name, primarily, then on the figure, secondarily, then please feel free to add it. Satanael 13:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

I've read it, though I don't see where you are going with this. Please elaborate, and if you have something to add to the article, then go ahead. Satanael 19:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Should this section be changed to a basic belief of who Satan is according to most forms of Christianity, while mentioning any differences between this basic mold and what certain forms of christianity may claim (like J.W.'s)? It appeared to be as if it were more of an advertisement for the J.W.'s to me, since it seemed to stick out like that. This J.W. view doesn't seem to be any different than the widely accepted view, even among Independent Fundamental Baptists, whose beliefs are vastly different than the J.W.'s. Cartoonist Will 09:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Did Satan Lie?

I don't think the JW portion of this article is accurate. It says:

"So, Satan's approach was a dual deception: First, that God was withholding good from them and second that he was lying in the process."

What did Satan lie about? God said Adam would die in that day if he ate from the tree (he did not). Satan simply said that you will not die and that you will gain knowledge. Satan's statement was accurate, God's was not. 208.49.247.227 15:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is easily explained. One view is that Adam and Eve did not naturally age since God made the original world perfect, thus they could not die from natural causes (including disease which would not have existed). Another view is that God did not mean Adam and Eve would die physically, but spiritually (Eph 2:1). To sin is to disobey God. Because the command to abstain from eating "the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was the only command God had given Adam and Eve, then there was no way for them to sin otherwise. The Bible states that sin seperates God from man (Isa 59:2), thus practically killing man's relationship with God. The Bible text says in Gen 3:8 that God walked in the garden of Eden during "the cool of the day." Giving an exact time may suggest that perhaps God's visiting them at this time was normal before they ate the fruit. The restoration of this relationship is the purpose of Christ's death. An example of how great sin destroys a relationship with God, is what happened when Christ died to pay man's sin debt. According to 2Cor 5:21, Christ was "made sin" for us, although He had never sinned Himself. It is believed that Christ's question, "My God! My God! Why have you forsaken Me?" in Mat 27:46 is because at this time, due to Christ's being "made sin" for us, God was actually separated from God for a short time (which is in itself too much for a man to fathom how such is possible). It is also believed that God's killing of the animal to make the skins used for clothing in Gen 3:21 was the first sacrifice for sins (the animal(s) died in their place), which sacrifices are repeated through out the Tanakh/Old Testament as a covering for sin, leading to the final and cleansing sacrifice, the God-Man Christ Jesus. (See also Rom 5:12; Rom 6:23). The conclusion is that Satan had lied when he claimed that Adam and Eve would not surely die. Adam and Eve did gain knowledge however (meaning Satan told the truth at this point), but humans could never truly become like gods despite that knowledge. It stands to reason that the world would have been a better place had not Adam and Eve sinned. Cartoonist Will 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... this would mean before they ate the fruit, they aren't good nor evil. Also, since God made man mirroring himself, this would mean god isn't good or evil as well? But, then again, "the fruit of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil" would mean that after eating it, adam and eve will recognize what's good and evil. This would imply that if you don't know what's good or evil and you commit sins, you can't be held accountable for the sin by god? -XR, Mar 28,2006

Merge

Why it shouldn't be merged with Devil? Brandmeister 16:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Simple, because the character of Satan, and the idea of the Devil aren't fully synonymous. Some are of the opinion that Satan is not the Devil, that they are two fully separate entities.
I've adressed this question earlier, as well as better, a little more up in this page, so read what I said there. Satanael 18:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is also true that if the term "devil" is to be taken as simply a fallen angel or another term for "demon," it does not fit the actual individual person known as "Satan." It is in the same way that one would not merge "Joe Smith" and "man" together. Even that Joe is a man, he is only one man and his name helps him to stick out as an individual. Cartoonist Will 08:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

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)

If no one else gets around to correcting this before I do, I shall be taking the time to identify the source of these quotes, in order to lift the standard of this article closer to something academically respectable. Taiwan boi 16:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now edited the section entitled 'Satan as an accuser'. It was almost a direct quote from the Jewish Encyclopaedia, with little effort to alter the text, and no creditation to the source whatsoever. I have simply included the entire reference from the Jewish Encyclopaedia, together with a link to the source.

The sections 'In Rabbinic literature' and 'In the Hebrew Apocrypha' also contain large amounts of text which have been lifted freely from the Jewish Encyclopaedia with almost no effort to alter them, and certainly no reference to the source at all. I intend to edit these in like manner. Taiwan boi 11:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Lucifer

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)

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)

Influence of Persian beliefs on Hebrew bible

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)

Citations Needed

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)

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)

Lucifer, Satan and Isa. 14

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)

he talks to me through my TV set

and he tries to make me believe in global warming and dentistryPeter cotton tail 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

June 6, 2006... 06/06/06

Comming soon...סרגון יוחנא

Vandalism

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)

Satan in the Tanakh

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)

point to "Devil"

Some folks obviously want to use this page as a place to take about Satan, the Prince of Darkness, rather than about "Satan," the term that gets used in a variety of ways. But Devil is the general-purpose article that serves this purpose, not "Satan." Is there an easy way to point people to Devil so that if that's what they're looking for they can find it? Jonathan Tweet 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Satan is pretty much perceived as equivalent to devil in common use - what "non-diabolic" variety of ways is "Satan" supposed to be used?
The easy answer to your question is that the term "satan" is sometimes used in the OT in a "non-daibolic" sense as an adversary of some type (but not the Prince of Darkness). The hard answer is that I don't know how the various articles about Satan/Lucifer/the Devil should interrelate. For instance, consider the section on Satan in the New Age movement. Does that properly belong in Satan (where it is now), in Lucifer (where it could just as logically reside), or in Devil? Where does one go for the most general treatment of this entity, and which articles are intended as more specific treatments that deal with particular terms? Is the Satan article the article about "Satan as understood by Christians"? Or is the Satan article about "the term Satan as it has variously been used in history"?
I'd cut it up this way: "Devil" is a general article about the Prince of Darkness (whatever one might call him). "Satan" and "Lucifer" are more specific articles about those names for the Devil, how they originated, and how they've been used. An alternative scheme is for "Devil" to be a general-purpose article with "Satan" or "Lucifer" as the article about "the Devil as understood by Christians (and not Zoroastrians or Muslims, etc.)." Currently, the material in these three articles (Satan, Lucifer, Devil) follows neither scheme consistently. The inconsistent treatment leads to redundancy.
When the articles in question are not clearly delineated, how do we even resolve questions as to how to divvy up the information? Jonathan Tweet 01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of redundancy - I moved all the names for devil to the devil article (before I just copied the list - one here and the other there - which is worst redundancy ever) I figured Satan only a specific name (assoc. w. Christianity) and devil is the more general and less ambiguous term (more like a class). Beside the fact that satan is used in different contexts, Satan (the devil) is actually a dark angel as opposed to some other diabolic creature or demon of hell. -- Iancarter 04:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, after thinking about this on and off for two weeks and seeing how Wikipedia breaks up parallel topics that relate to more than one religion, here's how I think these articles should break out.

The Devil = general purpose Devil article, with "the Devil" as he appears in various religions, traditions, etc. Includes etymology of the word "Devil." Bascially the current Devil article.

The Devil in Christianity/Islam/Judaism/etc. = more specific articles about the Devil as he has appeared and is understood in various religions. The "Devil in Christianity" article will have a lot of material that's currently in the Satan article.

Satan = the specific term "Satan," its etymology and use

Lucifer = the specific term "Lucifer," its etymology and use

Shaitan = the specific term "Shaitan," its etymology and use

etc.

Since "Satan" appears in more than one religion, it doesn't make sense for the "Satan" article to be about the Christian devil, as stated in the intro on the Devil page.

What do folks think about this proposed structure? Jonathan Tweet 01:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You can look at Devil in Christianity to see that page, which is currently under construction. Jonathan Tweet 02:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got the Devil in Christianity page to the point at which it's ready. My next step is going to be changing links that used to point to Satan and have them point to Devil n Christianity. Then I'll start removing redundant material from this page. Jonathan Tweet 16:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Devil in Christianity is now live. (Thanks Shimirel.) I'm starting to port material from Satan to Devil when the material is about the Devil in general instead of Satan in particular. First I moved the Polytheist material, which belongs in the more general-purpose page: Devil. Some real work might need to be done with the Satan/Devil in Literature material. This should all be on the Devil page, but the format on the Satan page is different from the format on the Devil page. Jonathan Tweet 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your very welcome glad to help out, best of luck moving the content around, Its good to see that someone is going to make the pages work well together. -- Shimirel (Talk) 21:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Serpent and Satan

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)

Etymology and other names

  • 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)
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)

Links between old Egyptian and semitic items

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)

just a comment

What we can really do is to abolish Egyptian civilization from the map of Near East studies and everything will go alright as hebrews and their cousins Arabs do everything so what a stupidity if one states a definitive relation between Set and Satan or say that virgin Mary is just a representation of Isis or crucification of Jesus is just a modification of Osiris pain or illustrations of paradise and hell are written in Pertemhru book known as book of dead and moreover hundreds of arabic words are derived from old Egyptian.What can I say ? of course ,Nothing ! Dr Philip Attiya

I'm guessing English is not your first language. I'm again failing to understand what your point is. You seem to be suggesting that we should ignore Egypt in studies of the Middle-East, but I can't see why you're saying this. I can't make sense of what you're trying to say. I suspect that perhaps you are trying to be ironic about something, but I don't understand it. Irony requires good English to work; I can't tell if you are being ironic, or if so, what that irony is about. May I suggest that you make simple straight-forward statements instead... I just can't understand you. Sorry... Fuzzypeg☻ 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fuzzypeg, what he's saying is that he feels that Egyptian religious beliefs and history are being ignored in this and other articles. That the various world religions would like us to conveniantly forget that the Egyptians had religion long before they came into being. He’s saying that Satan could be based on Set, Mary is Isis and the crucifixion of Jesus is another way of telling the story of Osiris pain etc etc. Its not the first time that its been put forward that different religions are simply rehashed versions of older religions or that they all come from an original far older religion. I don't believe any kind of conspiracy trying to cover up all that the Egyptians have given us in religion or anything else. Its just very few people know a great deal about their deities and even fewer come on wikipedia.
I'm not sure about his idea on Jesus crucifixion as there is factual evidence (he's mentioned in a roman document) that Jesus was a real person and existed and was crucified. I'm also not sure that Arabic words being derived from Egyptian words proves anything either; lets face it huge numbers of words are shared between different languages. Russia using Greek words or (American/British) English words being based on French it’s just a natural language progression. But it might be worth adding something to the article about Set and anything that is common between him and Satan to make the article more complete? I can honestly say I don't know anything about Set so can't write anything perhaps Philip has some ideas for a 'Satan in Ancient Egyptian' section, but a few full stops would be nice! Best Regards -- Shimirel (Talk) 10:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow! You have demonstrated one can write extraordinarily long sentences without any of these: (, ; .). You obviously know what you are talking about, even if I don't. So good work! We just need to be able to think like you to better understand this incredible writing. Rintrah 16:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, funs over.

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)

Why worship satan?

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)

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)
  • Cuz bein different is teh k00lzors etc. :/ Danny Lilithborne 01:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

By and large, Satanists do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God. As you state, Carr, if one does believe in an all-powerful god, it would be rather absurd to worship that god's enemy. However, since that isn't the view of Satanists, no contradiction exists. --FOo 05:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

At my current level of knowledge I do not feel ready to make a decision on the matter. But if i was to choose a side, I would have to back Satan, even if God is more powerfull, from what I have read, God is not what I consider good, not that Satan is, I feel that both sides are imperfect, I look at this more as neutral, but I would back Satan because for me, he represents a change. Also if one were to worship God because he is the more powerfull side then surely you will go to hell. I would rather go to hell knowing it was for what I believe in, but as I said earlier I'm not ready to make that decision. --Crabid 12:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

The gender of Satan

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)

Simplified Chinese

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)

My many years of taking Japanese led me to read the same thing. Just to be sure, I busted out my big book of kanji to make sure. Methinks someone vandalised the page in a subtle way that not many people would pick up on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.198.206 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you are correct. I've removed the slanderous vandalism. --BorgQueen 23:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparent Silliness

Has someone vandalised this page? Some of the sentences are very silly. (I have amended some). Consider The nominative satan (meaning "adversary" or "accuser"), and the Arabic shaitan, derives from a Northwest Semitic root šṭn, meaning "to be hostile", "to accuse". Surely what is meant is name, unless I am missing the point that there is an accusative "satam", and maybe an ablative "satak".

In the Book of Job, ha-satan("the adversary") is a prosecuting attorney against mankind in the heavenly court of God. This must be vandalism. Surely the events of the Bible are not part of episodes of Law and Order.

I give up. This article is mocking me too much. Maybe Satan himself wrote it as a joke. Someone needs to undo the vandalism. Get behind me Satan!

Imagine the typical reader: after having finished Paradise Lost, he reads the article and finds it full of drug addled statements written in terrible prose. Rintrah 15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The "prosecuting attorney" thing actually rings a bell: this analogy has been knocking around the internet for a while, possibly originating with a ceremonial magician who was influential here in NZ in the 80s and 90s and spent a bit of time on the newsgroups too. He also likened Satan to a cosmic building inspector who puts his boot through a shoddily built wall! Fuzzypeg☻ 06:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"This must be vandalism. Surely the events of the Bible are not part of episodes of Law and Order."
roflmao, its not really the way I would describe the story in the 'book of job' but its not vandalism. [1] I would describe it as another story of Satan tries to make a human perform ill deeds and fails miserably. All he does is make Job shine brighter. -- Shimirel (Talk) 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Rusbel

Rusbel redirects here, but no mention of this name is made in the article. --NEMT 04:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

CjayC

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)