Talk:Devil/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Different main picture?

The first image of the devil on the page is very uncharacteristic of images of the devil (he is portrayed as a handsome, nude human Adonis, as opposed to an ugly, red, horned demon). This article would probably be better if the first image on the page was a more typical portrayal of the devil.

Reference title incorrect

Hi, I don't have editing rights, but notice that the title of reference 18 is incorrect. It currently reads "Do You Believe in a Devil? He is a saint." This appears to have been vandalised. The correct title is simply, "Do You Believe in a Devil?" and the link leads directly to an electronic version of a booklet with this title. Christadelphians do NOT believe that the devil is a saint. The booklet was never entitled this, and does not say anything remotely like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.194.102 (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sup with that Mayor Hall picture?

What's the story behind that? I hate articles that have photos with no explanation and what's going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.208.218 (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Who is Mayor Hall? Overall this article is lacking. 77Mike77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Readability

Horus is victorious over Set and Ausar, being brought back from the dead becomes lord of the underworld.

should read:

Horus is victorious over Set; and Ausar (being brought back from the dead) becomes lord of the underworld.

The difference is that it is not one sentence, but two separate sentences connected by a common thought, thus the semi-colon, and the parenthesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.18.19 (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is horrible and extremely misleading! It appears to be written by someone who hates Christianity. Please take this article down and get someone who is not such a bigot against Christianity to write about Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.5.65 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Supernatural or superhuman?

I propose to change the adjective "supernatural" in the first rows with the adjective "superhuman". See the talk page of the article Deity for the matter. I paste that here:

“01:02, 11 June 2011 Mann jess (talk | contribs) (17,010 bytes) (Undid revision 433634278 by 87.19.60.51 (talk) No. Lots of things are "superhuman". This is explicitly "supernatural". Please don't [[WP:EW discuss on talk.) (undo)”

Supernatural means over-the-nature and more specifically *not part of the nature*. Let me quote the article:

“natural phenomena as lightning, floods, storms, other 'acts of God', and miracles are attributed to them”

Miracles are things unexplicated by science (ethimologically it is synonym of wonder). Admitting deities, angels and so on exist, are these beings out-of-our-comprehension (in their particular conformation) or *not part of nature*? (note 1)

We must free the field from a "neo-positivistic" vision of nature. What is out-of-our-comprehension is not unnatural, and even if it should refer to other-than-human beings, it does not mean they are less *part of nature* than us.

About the other part it explains by itself. It says about ruling on natural phenomena, they are a deep inside *part of nature*. I shall be more clear. Juppiter rules on thunders and so on, Thanatos on death, Dike on justice, Robigus on rust, they have power on these things but it means their abilities and their specific nature are over-human-abilities and over-human-nature (superhuman - and also -maybe not forever- out-of-our-comprehension), not they are not *part of nature* like us.

Ultimately the whole concept of the so called "supernatural" must be revised. note 1: Semele, mother of Dionisus, asked to Juppiter to let her see him in his deity form. The myth tells she was disintegrated.

Mormegil 87.19.77.115 (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi 87.19. We've been using this definition for a while, and we'd need sources to modify our fundamental definition. Generally speaking, I'm not sure that changing "supernatural" to "superhuman" is an improvement in describing the term, in part because lots of things are "superhuman"; Indeed, anything with abilities 'above' that of humans could be seen as such. Biological enhancements are one example, which clearly don't qualify as a "Diety". Supernatural, on the other hand, implies that a Diety is beyond nature itself, unlike the everyday things we encounter. Personally, I find this to be a more compelling definition. If you can find a source which supports your proposal, however, we would be able to discuss such a change to the lead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A source? Dictionary?

"superhuman

–adjective

1. above or beyond what is human; having a higher nature or greater powers than humans have: a superhuman being.

2. exceeding ordinary human power, achievement, experience, etc.: a superhuman effort."

www.dictionary.com

The 1st definition is (also) a deity. The 2nd, regarding deities, is what a deity can do.

Bye, Mormegil 87.19.77.115 (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No, we need a source for "Diety". Not a source for "superhuman".   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

God

noun

1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2 - (god)(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:a moon god, the Hindu god Vishnu

- an image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god.

- used as a conventional personification of fate:he dialled the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once

excerpt from http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/God

see the link for deepening (I stripped just the first two definitions, bold highlighting is mine).

Bye, Mormegil 87.18.196.100 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has not anything to reply, I shall procede with the below amendetion in a week or a little more:

"A deity is a recognized preternatural or superhuman immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often religiously referred to as a god.

The demi-urges are considered by Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 50 Case 6 as being something of a halfway house, neither fully divine nor fully human, and, moreover, heirarchised within that structure. His argument fails to reconcile the ostensible contradiction, in that being spiritual beings they have no scope for upping their game, but not being God they have infinite scope for improvement. That then opens the door to the concept of the fallen angel, with the distinction that the doctrine of salvation is for men, whose Original Sin was second-hand/indirect, being mediated by Satan, unlike the demons, whose sin was overt rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.13.121 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Deities are depicted in a variety of forms, but are also frequently expressed as having human form. Some faiths and traditions consider it blasphemous to imagine or depict the deity as having any concrete form. They are usually immortal, and are commonly assumed to have personalities and to possess consciousness, intellects, desires, and emotions similar to those of humans.

They have power over one or more aspects of nature and/or human fortunes. Such natural phenomena as lightning, floods, storms, other 'acts of God', and miracles are attributed to them, and they may be thought to be the authorities or controllers of various aspects of human life (such as birth or the afterlife). Some deities are asserted to be the directors of time and fate itself, to be the givers of human law and morality, to be the ultimate judges of human worth and behavior, and to be the designers and creators of the Earth or the universe."

Bold highlightins are the amendations. Maybe I shall do further wiki formatting like links and others.

Bye, Mormegil 87.19.76.137 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about Deities, but the dichotomy supernatural/superhuman is the same.

Mormegil 87.19.77.127 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's worth examining Aquinas in detail, as he brings together the often contentious early fathers' theology with Aristotelianism, building the baseline off which everything else works. He considers the demi-urges (Summa Theologiae, 50 Case 6) as being something of a halfway house, neither fully divine nor fully human, and, moreover, heirarchised within that structure. His argument fails to reconcile the ostensible contradiction, in that being spiritual beings they have no scope for upping their game, but not being God they have infinite scope for improvement, but plumps for the latter. That then opens the door to the concept of the fallen angel, with the distinction that the doctrine of salvation is for men, whose Original Sin was second-hand/indirect, being mediated by Satan, unlike the demons, whose sin was overt rebellion - therefore, they may be the worst case of all, neither empowered (the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell - again a needful link) nor capable of fulfillling any potential. He continues in the specific case of the diabolical (Summa 80 onwards).

The second point to bring out is that none the less there is very little applied demonology until an understanding was needed for the medical catastrophes of the second half of the fourteenth century, which came within a gnat's whisker of reducing civilisation to the stone age - indeed, it did in some areas. From then on in we get the Totentanz culture exploding, from Bosch to the early puritans, and the later witch crises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.13.121 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see that the above weird use of "superhuman" wasn't used after all. An ET with a higher IQ and better tech would be "superhuman". "Supernatural" is the right word for this article. 77Mike77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Mushyhuz, 13 September 2011

Resolved

Under the Title "Islam" the third line has the following sentence "According to Muslim theology, Iblis was expelled from the grace of God when he disobeyed God by choosing not to pay homage to Adam, the father of all mankind."

Kindly Change the part the father of all mankind to the creator of all mankind. As per Islamic belief God is not the "father" but "creator" of mankind

Mushyhuz (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologise if I'm mistaken, but I believe you're misreading the line. It is Adam, not God, who is being referred to as the father of all mankind. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Mushyhuz (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Oh yes! you're right! sorry I didn't get that.

No worries, easily done. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from TheSpoilerCeaseth, 29 September 2011

Much "Satanic" lore does not originate from actual Satanists, but from Christians. Best-known would be the medieval folklore and theology surrounding demons and witches. A more recent example is the Satanic ritual abuse scare of the 1980s – beginning with the memoir Michelle Remembers – which depicts Satanism as a vast (and unsubstantiated) conspiracy of elites with a predilection for child abuse and human sacrifice. This genre regularly describes Satan as actually appearing in person in order to receive worship.<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm</ref>

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO THE FOLLOWING:

"Satanic lore" originates from those who state that they worship him, and their teachers. Best-known would be the folklore, and said theology surrounding demons and witches. A more recent example is the Satanic ritual abuse scare of the 1980s – beginning with the Victoria, British Columbia, Canada memoir Michelle Remembers – which depicts Satanism as a vast conspiracy of elites with a predilection for child abuse and human sacrifice. This genre could describe Satan as actually appearing in person, or spirit, in order to receive worship or voice, etc.<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm</ref> The person of God, is, at times, depicted alongside these stories as the the final inquisitor, or as the devil himself behind the horror.

Michael Anthony Furtado (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Changing Much "Satanic" lore does not originate from actual Satanists, but from Christians. to "Satanic lore" originates from those who state that they worship him, and their teachers. would be inaccurate. --Jean Calleo (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Please substantiate with references. OTO and their ilk have done more than a certain amount to build the Wheatley-Hammer imagery of the 1960s onwards by publishing Crowley's works. Wheatley knew that circle (indeed lunched with Crowley), so that correction is sui generis indefensible. This angle should include the alchemical "Massacre of the innocents" which includes Dutroux (a snitch managed by members of OTO's Abraxas sect), Gilles de Rais (who explained it), and Ian Huntley, who tried to study the subject in prison.

2. On the other hand, there is the well-documented contretemps that much paedophilia stems from within the Church itself, and would be instantly denied as the work of the Devil by the said body, and that the terms of reference were pretty much defined by the Christian fundamentalist wing, as you suggest. Given that the meme's reference is saliently defined by that, it becomes hard to deny the likely need to have a dualist reply covering both angles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.13.121 (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Satan in Hinduism

Hinduism has also got the concept of Satan.Many people say that Hinduism is a religion without the concept of Saitan.Every religion says the one and the same but in different manner.Hinduism says that there is existence of two things in this world.The GOOD and the EVIL.Sree Devi is a goddess in Hinduism,Where as Mu Devi is regarded as the Goddess of evil(Satan) in Hinduism.Mu Devi was once a God who became Satan later on.This Mu Devi misguides people to do ill things.Mu Devi wants people to worship her instead of worshipping God... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.40.22 (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hasty generalizations about religions aren't acceptable. Also, Satan is a Jewish and Christian figure. He isn't in Hinduism, but he would be in other religions which borrow from Christianity, just as Christianity borrowed from Judaism. Oct13 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please edit the Dvaita part, where "Satan" does exist. Kali Purusha (ruler of Kali yuga) is a central satanic figure. Kali Purusha's wife Alakshmi (referred to in Sri Sukta of Rig Veda and also referred as Mudevi by above writer) is also a cause of all evil only next to her husband, Kali Purusha. In Mahabharatha Kali Purusha takes an avatara as Duryodhana along with his evil followers (as brothers and uncles) to fight against Shri Vishnu (Shri Krishna), Vayu (Bheema) and rest of the devatas (good side).

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m15/m15031.htm

Know that Duryodhana was Kali, and Sakuni was Dwapara. O thou of good features, know that Dussasana and others were all Rakshasas.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01068.htm

The evil-minded and wicked king Duryodhana, the destroyer of the fair fame of the Kurus, was born of a portion of Kali on earth. He it was who caused all creatures to be slain and the earth to be wasted; and he it was who fanned the flame of hostility that ultimately consumed all. They who had been the sons of Pulastya (the Rakshasas) were born on earth among men of Duryodhana's brothers, that century of wicked individuals commencing with Duhasasana as their first.

Madhvacharya, the founder of Dvaita school (where panchabheda or five fold differences is considered eternal) recognizes (1.) hierarchy of demons or daityas and also (2.) that daityas are intrinsically evil. Kali purusha is the leader of these intrinsically evil daityas. Refer the following books.

Sharma, B. N. Krishnamurti (1962). Philosophy of Śrī Madhvācārya. Motilal Banarsidass (2014 Reprint). ISBN 978-8120800687. Sharma, B. N. Krishnamurti (2000). A History of the Dvaita School of Vedānta and Its Literature, 3rd Edition. Motilal Banarsidass (2008 Reprint). ISBN 978-8120815759.

Garuda Purana mentions the hierarchy of demons who go to eternal hell and mentions Kali Purusha as the worst among all asuras. Translation from The Garuda Purana, Part III, Motilal Banarasidass Publishers

Hardcover: 1223 pages Publisher: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd.; 1ST edition (2014) Language: English ISBN-10: 8120838211 ISBN-13: 978-8120838215

http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/1_sanskr/3_purana/garup3_u.htm

asmacchatāyuḥ paryantameka eva kaliḥ smṛtaḥ // GarP_3,12.76 //

Full one hundred years of my (Brahma) life constitute an age of Kali (Kali Purusha).

kalau saṃti kalpamānaṃ kalerante saṃti ca / tasmindine brahmarūpe gacchanti ca tamontikam // GarP_3,12.77 //

The period of Kali is counted by kalpas. Life exists though Kali expires. During the day of BrahmA, the sinners who have strayed from the path of virtue go to the dark regions (tamo means one of the hells).

tatra sthitvā lokamārgaṃ pratīkṣante na saṃśayaḥ / sādhakairviṣṇukāryāṇāṃ vāyudāsaiḥ prapīḍitāḥ // GarP_3,12.78 //

While staying there, they wait for the turn of their destiny while the attendants of vAyu carryout th eorders of the Lord (Shri Vushnu) and torture them severely.

śatavarṣānantaraṃ ca sarveṣāṃ kalinā saha / vāyorgadāprahāreṇa liṅgabhaṅgo bhaviṣyati // GarP_3,12.79 //

After the lapse of one hundred years, the living beings (sinners) together with Kali will have their subtle bodies (linga deha) smashed (bhanga) with the thrust of the club (gada) of vAyu.

tamondhaṃ praviśantyete tāratamyena sarvaśaḥ / tamasyandhepi saṃsāre nātra kāryā vicāraṇā // GarP_3,12.80 //

Since the translation is NOT provided for this verse properly, I will provide one.

All these enter blinding darkness as per their gradation in every direction. After entering blinding darkness (eternal hell), there is no thinking of returning to samsara (this world).

sarveṣāmuttamonte yaḥ kalireva na saṃśayaḥ / dūṣako viṣṇubhaktānāṃ tatsamo nāsti sarvadā // GarP_3,12.81 //

Of all ages, Kali comes at the end. Kali is the foremost of those who slander the devotees of Vishnu.

saṃsāre vāndhatamasi sarvatra haridūṣakaḥ / mithyādāne jñānabuddhirduḥ khe ca sukhabuddhimān // GarP_3,12.82 // tasmātkalisamo loke śivabhakto na kutracit / duryodhanaḥ sa evokto duḥ khānantyasvarūpavān // GarP_3,12.83 //

In the world of mortals and the world of blinding darkness, there is none equal to Kali who slanders the Lord, among the devotees of Shiva who finds pleasure in ignorance and aversion to knowledge. Kali is known as Duryodhana, the endless pain incarnate.

tasmācchataguṇāṃśena kalibhāryā tu sarvadā / alakṣmīriti vikhyātā sā loke mantharā smṛtā // GarP_3,12.84 //

The wife of Kali, whose qualities (evil qualities) are one-hundredth that of Kali, is known as Alakshmi, popularly known as MantharA.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.223.227 (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Those sources are primary sources, you need non-primary sources. Even if those sources were not primary sources, they do not mention Satan at all. You're confusing the specific character of Satan with a general devil archetype. Satan is a type of devil, and the figures you mention could be described as fitting the devil archetype by some people, but that does not mean they are the same figure.

Socrates was mortal. Cats are mortal. Does this mean that Socrates was a cat? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It is beyond ridiculous to expect literally the mention of the word "Satan" in Hinduism. Hinduism obviously does not follow Christianity or Islam in language or theology. However, Kali Purusha is satanic figure within Hinduism and especially within Dvaita school of Hinduism. Kali Purusha is considered intrinsically evil. He is the source of all evil here. He causes all unrighteousness and evil in all other beings. He is the leader of all demons who obey Kali. The evil nature of Kali Purusha is not due to external things, but is intrinsic to Kali Purusha, which means Kali Purusha is the personification of evil and not an archetype as you imagine. In this way Kali Purusha is equal to the concept of devil or satan and is a Universal symbol of evil in Hindu scriptures and Dvaita school. I am sure you do not understand anything about the significance of primary text, Garuda Purana, I have quoted. I also understand your statement that this figure Kali Purusha is not identical to the character "Satan" of christianity or Islam, which is fairly obvious and one should not expect such things from theologically different religions with no connection. However, you can at the least mention this figure within the context of Dvaita school and Hinduism, just as you did for Ayyavazhli school.

I will give secondary source here.

http://michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Philosophy-of-Sri-Madhvacharya.pdf

page 322

″The theory of tripartite classification of souls as proposed by Madhva has to be judged on its own merits and evidences, as a broad hypothesis of human nature and destiny. No useful purpose will be served by importing unnecessary sentiment into the discussion of the problem. Madhva and his commentators have put forward what they consider to be adequate grounds and textual authority in support of the theory. Kali and Vanisvara (i.e.Brahmadeva) as Madhva says, represent the two poles of evil and goodness. They must have their reward. The doctrine of Traividhya is thus a corollary of Anadiyogyata (beginningless fitness) which seems to be the ultimate explanation of diversity of natures, propensities and opportunities, going beyond all other explanations offered by the hypothesis of Karmabheda (differentiation by Karma) and every other explanation including free will. ″

page 323

″An intrinsic divergence of nature and faith into sattvika, rajasa and tamasa which is rooted in the core of individual nature (dehinam, svabhavaja) as stated in the Gita, is the ultimate basis of this theory according to Madhva. What is thus ultimately traced to the essential nature (svabhava) of the selves must indeed be unalterable.″

Please see the mention of two poles of good and evil above. Also see the mention of the classification of beginning-less (Anadiyogyata) selves (jiva or souls) having essential nature (intrinsic nature) as sattvika (good), rajasa (mixed) and tamasa (evil). Kali is worst of evil souls and BrahmA is mentioned as the best of good souls, thus giving two poles of good and evil, each deriving their qualities from their essential natures. This also puts the locus of evil squarely on evil Kali and thus answers the problem of evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.223.227 (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, too long, didn't read. Your exact words were Please edit the Dvaita part, where "Satan" does exist. Kali Purusha (ruler of Kali yuga) is a central satanic figure. It is ridiculous that you think it's ridiculous that I expect your sources to mention Satan when you describe them as mentioning Satan. Per our policy WP:No original research, we do not accept ramblings as a source. Your source has to mention Satan in a Hindu setting or it doesn't count. Furthermore, the source really needs to be a non-primary source, such as a critical academic commentary on a religious work -- not personal interpretation of a religious work. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sharma, B. N. Krishnamurti (1962). Philosophy of Śrī Madhvācārya. Motilal Banarsidass (2014 Reprint). ISBN 978-8120800687.

The above book (provided as reference in other wiki sources) is available as PDF in the following link.

http://michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Philosophy-of-Sri-Madhvacharya.pdf

quote from page 322

″The theory of tripartite classification of souls as proposed by Madhva has to be judged on its own merits and evidences, as a broad hypothesis of human nature and destiny. No useful purpose will be served by importing unnecessary sentiment into the discussion of the problem. Madhva and his commentators have put forward what they consider to be adequate grounds and textual authority in support of the theory. Kali and Vanisvara (i.e.Brahmadeva) as Madhva says, represent the two poles of evil and goodness. They must have their reward. The doctrine of Traividhya is thus a corollary of Anadiyogyata (beginningless fitness) which seems to be the ultimate explanation of diversity of natures, propensities and opportunities, going beyond all other explanations offered by the hypothesis of Karmabheda (differentiation by Karma) and every other explanation including free will. ″

quote from page 323

″An intrinsic divergence of nature and faith into sattvika, rajasa and tamasa which is rooted in the core of individual nature (dehinam, svabhavaja) as stated in the Gita, is the ultimate basis of this theory according to Madhva. What is thus ultimately traced to the essential nature (svabhava) of the selves must indeed be unalterable.″

quote from page 390

CHAPTER XLIV PROBLEM OF EVIL IN RELATION TO ETHICAL ADVANCEMENT

"THE problem of Evil and suffering in the world is the most difficult one in Theism. We have explained Madhva's attitude to the allied problem of freedom and freewill on the basis of the doctrine of natural selection (anadisvarupayogyata) of good or bad and of the tripartite classification of souls. It is not, therefore, necessary for Madhva to answer the question of the compatibility of evil with Divine goodness.

There are many worshippers of Satan and his ways and they have no moral code or spiritual values. They are unmitigatedly anti-social in their outlook. Their type is outlined in the Scriptures."

I have quoted from the same book. It would help if you read through my post instead of being one lazy fellow. There is th emention of satan in the above quote for you.

Second my mention of "satan" within quotes was meant as a central figure or a source of all evil, a Hindu satanic figure. Hinduism does not and cannot mention the word "Satan" itself. It is ridiculous for you to expect such things from Hindu sources.

It is sad that wikipedia employs unqualified people (one who does not have any knowledge about this field) as yourselves controlling what should be posted or should not be posted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.223.227 (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Joke's on you, I'm not an employee. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I am dealing with not only an ignoramus but also an adolescent here. When you decide to act with maturity, let me know.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.223.227 (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Satan as the serpent of Eden

“Satan is often identified as the serpent who convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit; thus, Satan has often been depicted as a serpent. Though this identification is not present in the Adam and Eve narrative, this interpretation goes back at least as far as the time of the writing of the book of Revelation, which specifically identifies Satan as being the serpent (Rev. 20:2).”

Strictly speaking, is this true? As far as I can tell, Revelation doesn’t specifically identify Satan as being the same serpent who spoke to Eve in the Garden of Eden, certainly not in any translation that I’ve ever come across. Revelation could well be alluding to the serpent from Genesis but it doesn’t specifically identify Satan as being that same serpent.

Some examples of the verse in question:

“And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, who is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.”

“He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.”

“He seized the dragon, the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,”

I think that something like this would be more appropriate: Satan is often identified as the serpent who convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit; thus, Satan has often been depicted as a serpent. Though this identification is not present in the Adam and Eve narrative, this interpretation goes back at least as far as the time of Justin Martyr, who, in his Dialogue with Trypho, specifically identified Satan as being the serpent of Eden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.156.230 (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Devils, plural

This article leaves no scope for plural "devils". It's monodiabolic as God merely tends toward monotheistic (because the latter includes much discussion of gods).

Devils does not redirect here and the only plural "See also", Hierarchy of devils does redirect to Classification of demons. So the second illustration with its fitting caption "Devils - a fresco detail from the Rila Monastery" is inappropriate for the article. --P64 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The line between demons and devils is blurry, so there's bound to be some overlap. This article concerns the concept of an evil antagonist to god(s), and there can be more than one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The article needs some rewrite in order to fit plural lowercase "devils". For example, see God. --P64 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Opposite of devil

1. what is the antonym of devil ? 2. if devils are bad then who is good ? 3. Are human beings devil ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilakantha08 (talk • contribs)

The answers to those questions depends entirely on which religious tradition you're discussing. There are different views, even within the same religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

link to Persian

please add this http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/شیطان fa:شیطان

Belal.taheri (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for sharing the link. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

That sentence "Many of the authors have been severely chastised for their writings, and their followers killed." Should most DEFINATELY be taken out. 69.127.64.123 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Good catch! Taken care of it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Neopaganism section is biased and inaccurate

It says, 'Few neopagan reconstructionist traditions recognize Satan or the Devil outright. However, many neopagan groups worship some sort of Horned God,' The Horned God of these religions has nothing to do with the devil. There are horned gods that predate Christianity, some of whom were used to create the modern image of Satan. To imply that neopagans have any connection with Satan is wrong, and this, as it is currently written, implies just that.--Jcvamp (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC) The neopaganism section should make it clear that neopagans do not recognise Satan or the Devil, regarding it as a Christian concept. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The devil was unknown to the pagans of the Roman Empire. According to Robin Lane Fox: "Pagan society knew no "Devil" with whom individuals could make a pact, and thus no torture and persecutions of "false" prophets and prophetesses. These features were a consequence of Christianity."

Is that were this BS comes from? "The devil was unknown to the pagans of the Roman Empire. According to Robin Lane Fox: "Pagan society knew no "Devil" with whom individuals could make a pact, and thus no torture and persecutions of "false" prophets and prophetesses. These features were a consequence of Christianity."" --- Because, this isn't really true, since there were equivalents of what we call the devil. And yes the persecution of "false prophets" "witches" was common practice in paganism, which lessened with Christianization and turned up it's head in the later middle ages / early modern era. --41.151.36.23 (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The devil is an allegory for what?

Second paragraph of the text, lines 4-5: "As such, the Devil is seen as an allegory that represents a crisis of faith, individualism, free will, wisdom and enlightenment." The quoted text does not mention who views (or viewed) the devil as an allegory for each of the mentioned abstract ideas nor does it cite any sources.MHortulanus (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 June 2013

Devil or Sahitan is misunderstood due to religious that they consider it evil force but Devil is only heat. Devil is the smokeless fire means heat. It has no shape like humans or animals it is a heat that we use to heat up to get help to melt the metals and heat is inside our body and inside the earth. Quran also mentions Shaitan is made from smokeless fire means heat. Most religions still they do not think about it. It is misleading us. Heat is the enemy of human beings that Quran also mentions that Shaitan means heat is your enemy. Fakeer.miskeen (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use original research, requires reliable sources for all additions, and only states what common doctrines are instead of commenting on them. Your personal interpretation will not be added to the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2013

Of course the Devil is an interesting topic. But I've always thought of it like this. What can challenge God's Will? Nothing. The Devil was created because it had to be. Every good story needs a heel. And the Devil is the greatest heel ever. If the Devil did rebel, it is only because it was designed to do so. But to think that the Devil rebelled against God because it wanted to is a much better story. MOPOP69 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. An edit request should be "a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it". This appears to just be your personal take on the story of the Devil. --McGeddon (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for edit in the Diablo mention

It mentions that the game Diablo was created "in honor" of the Devil. I don't think the game is honoring the Devil, so could that be worded differently?

Theyongary (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

To remove

As such, the Devil is seen as an allegory that represents a crisis of faith, individualism, free will, wisdom and enlightenment. These bold words need clarifying or removing. Preferably by a religous scholar they contradict my understanding.

46.208.157.54 (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2014

Please remove "myth" as this word means: NOT REAL. United States was founded by God by our ancestors. Why else would our currency say: "In God We Trust." Just because a lot of people have chosen to stop believing in God that doesn't mean that we all have stop believing.

Gee whiz, I didn't think I have to put this on a talk page to be approved. I don't want to argue with unbelievers. I know God's REAL because I seen the miracles! Men hooked on heroin, coke, alcohol, cigarettes addictions, and these addicts were all healed by the hand of God. No rehabs could cure these individuals but only the hand of God freed them. A few miracles, I saw with my own eyes. The poor became comfortably well-off and lack for nothing. Many generous gifts (blessings from God) because God provides for his children. Faith comes from something you don't see. Hebrews 11:1 Be saved and receive the Holy Spirit. You can't get into Heaven without the Holy Spirit. That is not my opinion but a true fact. It will be easier to be saved now then after the rapture. A good website to know God is here: spamlink removed

Thewaythelightthetrue3038 (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No. "Myth" is used by academics (which Wikipedia sides with instead of philistine colloquialisms) to refer to religious stories, without judgement as to their veracity.

You seem to have piety and academic quality confused. Those are considered different things on Wikipedia. They may overlap at points, but they are nonetheless distinct. Personal experiences are right out for sourcing as well. And this is not an attempt to suppress your beliefs, believe as you will -- but do not confuse personal subjective belief for collected observations by multiple persons aiming to be objective.

And with regards to your non-sequitur arguments about "In God We Trust": Wikipedia is not America. It has American editors, but it also has British editors, Australian editors, Indian editors... Furthermore, "In God We Trust" was added to money during the Cold War -- Not by the founding fathers, who had deists such as Franklin and Jefferson among their number. Appeals to patriotism, like appeals to piety, are in no way legitimate arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for edit: Devil is not an Angel but a Jinn

I just wanted to inform the editors of this page that there is an error in the 2nd paragraph.

"While mainstream Judaism contains no overt concept of a devil, Christianity and Islam have variously regarded the Devil as a rebellious fallen angel that tempts humans to sin, if not committing evil deeds himself."

In Islam, it is believed that the Devil is a Jinn who disobeyed Allah. The Islamic belief is that Angels have no free will and therefore cannot disobey Commands from Allah (while humans and jinns have free will). Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.74.244 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 July 2014‎

 Done, have added the words "or jinn" to reflect the article body. --McGeddon (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2014

"In mainstream Islam and Christianity, God and the Devil are usually portrayed as fighting over the souls of humans." This is not true. In Christianity, The Devil Fights for the souls that God created. God gave us free will to choose to follow him or to follow The Devil. The Devil (Satan) is the only one of the two fighting for souls. IAmTheRingleader (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That's splitting hairs, and assuming that all of Islam and Christianity are firmly on the free-will side of things. While belief in free-will is perfectly compatible with those religions (and even though I personally am firmly in the "free will" camp), there is also belief in Predestination in Islam and also in Christianity. Whether God is merely betting on humanity to choose Him, or instituting some cosmic laws to bring people to Him, there is action on God's side to oppose that of the Devil's. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

the correct phrasing for this edit request would have been: "In mainstream Islam and Christianity, God and the Devil are usually portrayed as fighting over the souls of humans." — this is completely unreferenced, please remove unreferenced material from this page. Also, got to love the next sentence "The devil commands a force of evil spirits, commonly known as demons", referenced to Revelations 12:9. Look, I just checked this "reference", and it has nothing on terminology equating evil spirits of some class or other with demons. The Revelations verse says that the "dragon" (δρακων) who is also known as Satan (σατανας) the slanderer (ο διαβολος) was thrown out (εβληθη) with his angels (αγγελοι αυτου). Perhaps we can try to base a topic like this on actual secondary literature? Scholarly? Or else WP:TNT this and disambiguate/redirect it? --dab (𒁳) 15:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Diavolo

The usage and primary topic of Diavolo is under discussion, see talk:Diavolo Dance Theater -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Satan

The two article pretty much cover all the same information. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. It seems that "Satan" comes from Hebrew, wich was loan-translated to "Diabolos" in Greek Septuagint, leading to English "Devil". Thus, the meaning seems to be the same both conceptually, etymologically and practically (the content of the articles). Merge! –St.nerol (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Merging would be rather short-sighted decision. The Satan's article is about the Abrahamic devil, and the Devil's article is about the concept. Merging these would be like merging Mary (mother of Jesus) (Mary as a person) with Blessed Virgin Mary (Mary as a saint). Sometimes the religious viewpoint is better as a separate article, and these articles are also too long to be merged conveniently. Ceosad (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

They are both about the Abrahamic devil. This article discusses "similar concepts". But that's all they are. Their is no evidence that there is such a thing as "the devil as a concept". The name devil either refers to Satan or is used as a synonym for demon. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

With no consensus after several months, I'm now declaring this discussion closed and removing the notice from the article. -- The Anome (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2015

category:supernatural legends 76.88.98.65 (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The article describes devil as more of a figure in religion - the archenemy of God. This is distinct from say, a demon, which is listed under your proposed category. Cannolis (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say, the article doesn't know what it is describing, it is a garbled mess of material people have dumped here over the years; WP:TNT or merge into Satan as suggested. --dab (𒁳) 15:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Dubious

The final sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is unsourced and is very dubious and unlikely. If the Devil is associated with heretics and unbelievers, religious people would definitely not associate the devil with enlightenment, since they use "enlightenment" to refer to spiritual awareness and "knowledge". It also seems to have been here for seriously far too long (two years or more) and is also very POV pushing, so unless there are any objections, I'll remove it after five hours. Any objections?Gonzales John (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, since there are no objections, I'll remove it. Gonzales John (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are talking about this: "As such, the devil is seen as an allegory that represents a crisis of faith, individualism, free will, wisdom and enlightenment", it is problematic in other ways. Christians at least have had a long history of demonizing opponents, so the Devil has been associated with whoever was the opponent of the day: pagans, Christians with opposing beliefs, Jews, Muslims, colonial people seen as savages, sinners and free thinkers, freemasons, republicans, revolutionaries, capitalists, socialists, communists, atheists, and secularists. When divorced from historical context, it is hard to determine what the devil stands for in the eyes of Christians. In this case, the sentence reeks of original research.

For what is worth, I am going to check what parts of the article still lack sources. Dimadick (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it fine to remove it now? As I said above, that sentence has been here for far longer than it should have. Gonzales John (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Remove it. Whatever is not sourced in an article can be challenged and removed. Dimadick (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Devil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120104232357/http://www.c-span.org/Events/American-Artifacts-Inside-the-Archivists-Office/10737423396/ to http://www.c-span.org/Events/American-Artifacts-Inside-the-Archivists-Office/10737423396/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016

Add to references:

Philip C. Almond, The Devil: A New Biography (London and Ithaca, N.Y.: I B Tauris and Cornell University Press, 2015). Repalmon (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done-We don't add every book published on the subject in the reference section.Show notability of the book and the rationale of using it as a refernce in the article.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 06:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Devil in Islam and his essence

Some scholars argued, that Iblis was not created from the same fire than the other Jinn. While the common jinn were created out of smokeless fire, Iblis shoud be created out of a "scorching fire" and is either the leader of a special tribe of heavenly Jinn oder an angel made out of special fire, who just acted like a Jinn. Maybe we should change the line According to the Quran, God created Iblis, along with all of the other jinn, out of "smokeless fire". to simple According to the Quran, God created Iblis, out of fire. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Devil (also see demon).

Devil, is france, de ville (from the village). Demon, is france, de mon (from man).

Devil is usually female, demon, well, usually male.

A girl went to the city to take the farms produce to market.

All asked, from wence did that come? And the reply: de ville (from the village).

After many a trip, months later, she placed the farms produce in the village market, the trip having become a tad too ardeous, her belly clearly showing.

All asked, from wence did that come? And the reply: de mon (from man).

Clearly, this is real, there being quite a few france speakers in the middle east to acknowledge the defacto. A bit of reality ladies and gentlemen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.74.111 (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use original research, especially when it's just plain wrong. See the etymology sections for Devil, wikt:devil, Demon and wikt:demon for why. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Devil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227055439/http://www.usc.edu/dept/elab/anth/FacultyPages/williams.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/elab/anth/FacultyPages/williams.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Devil/Demon

True definition: devil is lived spelled backwards, meaning a living spirit that is no longer residing in a body. Hence the term "catch you on the flip side." Devil has no affiliation with Lucifer. Demon means of (de) man (mon) referencing thoughts or fearful thoughts formed by man. Error Corrector (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The Devil in Judaism

You write "In mainstream Judaism, there is no concept of a devil as there is in mainstream Christianity and Islam." Then you direct us to an article that has a lot to say about the devil in Rabbinical Judaism. What gives? "Mainstream Judaism" would have to include more than just the Bible. It would have to include medieval and post medieval Judaism, in which (as your own article says) there very much was a concept of the devil or Satan. This article and the other shouldn't contradict each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.174.225 (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The Christian Bible itself is not at all an accurate translation of the Jewish version. Devil is the word lived spelled backwards. Evil is the word live spelled backwards. Error Corrector (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The Christian Bible is a completely nonacurately translated version of the Jewish spiritual text. Also, devil is the word lived, only spelled backwards. Furthermore, evil is the word lived, only spelled backwards. Error Corrector (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2017

Alamo58 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.Crboyer (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There are gramatical errors, spelling errors and misinformation in this article. Also, devil is a semordnilap for the word lived; as is the word evil which is the word live spelled backwards. So devil and evil are 2 negative concepts created under false pretences from 2 positive concepts. Error Corrector (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2018

change scorpians to scorpions 76.249.227.56 (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing that out. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2018

I would like to change the second paragraph to the following:

"In religious history, often a set of gods become deposed by a younger generation of deities, and later become considered evil. Titans were replaced by the Olympic gods, Teutonic gods demonized the Giants, Roman and Greek deities became devils in Christianity, and in Islam, the pre-Islamic status of Jinn as tutelary deities were reduced to beings subject to the judgment of the Islamic deity and if they do not submit to His law, are regarded as demons.[8]"

This just sounds more grammatically correct to me. 2600:1700:B050:8180:D1D2:5EC6:FEC4:BDA1 (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was not a very well-written paragraph. Should be  Done, feel free to poke me if I got any of the wikilinks wrong. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

God vs Allah

MOS:ALLAH states, "'Allah' should be replaced with its translation, 'God', unless used as part of an English-language quote". Wikiprojects consensus are internal to the wikiprojects and need to seek consensus in the article itself with other editors who are not in the wikiproject though. Thinker78 (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Content fork for Satan?

Hello! I may be opening a can of worms here, but I have been thinking about this for a long time and I think that this article is, under its current title, essentially a content fork for our article Satan, which is much better cited, much better written, and is currently listed as a "Good Article." I know that the reason why these two articles are separate is because the article Satan is supposed to deal specifically with the Abrahamic Devil and this article is supposed to deal with other Devil-like figures from various religious traditions across the globe. The problem is that, as far as I can tell, the rather arbitrary distinction between the definitions of the two words is essentially our own invention here at Wikipedia. The word "Devil" originates from a Greek calque (διάβολος) of the Hebrew word sâtan (שָּׂטָן), meaning "accuser" or "adversary." In terms of their origins, etymologies, and historical definitions, the two words are complete synonyms, referring to the same entity.

Furthermore, even in modern everyday usage, the word "Devil" virtually always refers to Satan, the "Abrahamic Devil" as our article would have it. I strongly suspect that the overwhelming majority of the people coming to this article are probably actually looking for the article Satan. I even seriously question how accurate it is to classify some of the figures on this page, such as Set, as a "Devil," since Set also had an important positive role in the Egyptian pantheon, particularly as the protector of the sun-god Ra, and, as far as I am aware, he was never thought of as a source of temptation or sin, which is the Devil's primary characteristic in the Abrahamic religions. Nonetheless, I do think that Devil archetypes and Devil-like figures are an encyclopedically notable subject. (Certainly, Angra Mainyu can be considered a "Devil-like figure" at least; I am sure there are probably at least a few others with legitimate parallels.) However, I think that, to make the subject of this article clear, it should be moved to a more transparent title, like "Devil archetype" or "Devil-like figure" or even just "Devil figure." Then, Devil can be turned into a redirect to Satan, which already lists "Devil" in the first line as a common alternative name. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"The word "Devil" originates from a Greek calque (διάβολος)"

διάβολος as a term predates contact with Christians. The Liddell-Scott lexicon cites use of the term in The Knights (424 BC) by Aristophanes, and "On His Return" by Andocides. Dimadick (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Yes, I am aware that the word διάβολος itself predates Greek contact with the Hebrews, but it was a generic noun meaning "slanderer" or "accuser"; it did not refer to a specific metaphysical entity, least of all one resembling the Christian Devil. A calque is a term that has been borrowed through literal translation and, obviously, that cannot happen unless you have a word with the same literal meaning as the term you are borrowing. The pre-Christian use of the word διάβολος as a general word for "slanderer" has no relevance to this discussion, unless you have convincing evidence that the ancient Greeks also applied the word to some kind of Devil-like figure. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

How can it be a loan word if it predates contact? The Hebrews/Christians simply repurposed an extant term. Dimadick (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dimadick: It is not a "loan word" proper; it is a calque, which is the literal translation of a foreign word or phrase using native vocabulary to create a meaning not found in the native language. A calque is a "loan translation," not a "loan word." For instance, the phrase "Devil's advocate" uses solely English vocabulary, but it is a calque of the phrase advocātus diabolī in ecclesiastical Latin. The words "Devil" and "advocate" both existed in English before this phrase was coined, but the meaning of the phrase is imported from Latin. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree to move this article to something like "Devil archetype". I was trying to find sources for non-abrahamic "devil"-concepts and ended up by archetypes and added some information about the devil as "Abstract principle" (it seems that other wikipedians agreed, since nobody objected the added stuff) such as cosmological viewpoints. However many "devil-like creatures" seem to be misplaced, especially since the lines of dualism are blurred in other religions. Many religions, for example Hinduism, have no devil. The only religion with "devils" are Christianity, some Gnostics (such as Mandaean), Manichaeism and Zoroastrism. Judaism and Islam only have the devil as a related figure (Ha-Satan, Samael, Azazil, Iblis ... ), but it is still God, who is the originator of both good and evil. Further in Islam other concepts could be considered as "devil" in the meaning of archtype, such as "Nafs", "the Pharao" (in some works he is equal in evil with Iblis and symbolizes a type of hybris apart from Iblis' hybris), and in more political focused denominations, deities or anti-islamic societies. However, I noticed, that "devil" is sometimes also used in the context of "demons", an evil entity that can also exist in plural. I would like to use this oppoturnity to ask "What is the difference between "devils" and "demons"? I thought it is related to translation (Arabic or Hebrew "Shayatin" translated into "devils" albeit "demons" has the same meaning) If there is a significant difference, the article couls also encompass the "devils" as whole and not just "Satan". If not, I would also agree, that it should move to something like "archtype" especially since 'Devil' suggests that it is synonymous with Satan but still more vague defined.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: While the word "Devil" comes from ancient Greek διάβολος (diabolos), the word demon comes from Greek δαιμόνιον (daimonion), which, in the context of the New Testament, means "evil spirit." In the Greek New Testament, διάβολος refers specifically to Satan; whereas daimonion can refer to any evil spirit. Some older English translations of the Bible, such as the King James Version, translated δαιμόνιον as "devil" and διάβολος as "Devil," but most Bible translations made since the beginning of the twentieth century consistently render δαιμόνιον as "demon" and διάβολος as "devil." Devil is sometimes used in English to refer to demons, but it is generally an archaism. If you would like, we could move this article to Devil figure and make Devil a disambiguation page, listing Satan, Devil figure, and Demon as the main subjects the word can refer to. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don’t see any reason that Wikipedia can’t have both articles. The definitions, according to both, are vastly different. The definition of Devil (in its article) is “personification of evil.” The definition of Satan (in its article) is specifically the Abrahamic entity that “seduces humans.” If scholars use the word Devil as a personification of evil, without meaning the specific Abrahamic entity, and if they then write about it in books, as they do, Wikipedia should maintain that article, which those sources support. The linguistic argument on this talk page regarding the two words, is interesting and valid, and it could exist in sections titled “Linguistics” in both articles. The definition of Devil (in its article) seems to depend on a definition of Evil — a door that leads to all kinds of ideas. The definition of Satan (in its article) is so specific that when it starts describing the many various incarnations of Satan it seems to contradict the specificity of that article’s own first sentence. The problem is that when some Brainy Wikipedia Editor dreams up some kind of absolutist construct, and then tries to shoehorn it into the less-absolute and more democratic Wikipedia, it may not fit. Madisonesque (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Madisonesque: We currently have no evidence that scholarly sources define the words Devil and Satan differently. In your paragraph above, you cited the definitions given in the Wikipedia articles "Satan" and "Devil." The problem is that the sources used in both of these articles do not appear to support the distinction that the articles are attempting to make between the two. The source cited in the first sentence of this paragraph is Jeffrey Burton Russell, who, for the most part, uses the names "Devil" and "Satan" interchangeably. If you look at the history of this article, you will see that splitting the definitions of "Satan" and "Devil" was essentially just an editorial decision. This article was originally just a redirect to Satan when it was first created on 28 September 2001, but, then, on 24 January 2003, another editor came along and, without citing any sources whatsoever, created a new article which began "The Devil is the name given to a supernatural entity who, in most Western religions, is the central embodiment of evil. This entity is also commonly referred to as Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, and Mephistopheles." That definition is not very accurate and it is not based on sources, but that is more-or-less the same definition that this article is still using.

Furthermore, the reason why the article Satan defines Satan as "an entity in the Abrahamic religions that seduces humans into sin or falsehood" is because, while Satan many Christians regard Satan as the personification of all evil, in Islam, he is only considered a figure who incites and induces humans to sin. In Judaism, Satan generally plays little role and is usually considered either a metaphor for the human inclination towards evil or as a minor tempter figure. Christianity is the only Abrahamic religion that almost uniformly sees Satan as the personification of evil. If we define the Devil strictly as "the personification and archetype of evil in various religious traditions" that would actually exclude both the Islamic and Jewish conceptions of the Devil. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not acquainted well with Islam thought so I couldn't say about Satan in Islam but if the "Devil" definition as the archetype of evil doesn't fit the definitions in Judaism and Islam of Satan, well, then I guess those entries don't belong in the "Devil" article. Thinker78 (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Madisonesque: @Thinker78: Both of you took the definition given at the beginning of this article of the Devil as "the personification and archetype of evil in various religious traditions" as accurate, but the whole point of my comments here is that I do not think that definition, or the attempted distinction between "Satan" and "Devil" implied by it, is accurate. Now, in my comments above, I expressed doubt that the definition given in this article or the distinction between the words "Devil" and "Satan" was supported by sources. However, I consulted the page of the source cited to support the definition at the beginning of this article, page 34 of Jeffrey Burton Russell's book The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity (1987). This is what Russell says on that page: "I use the term "Devil," as opposed to Satan, to designate the personification of evil found in a variety of cultures... The Devil is the hypostasis, the apotheosis, the objectification of a hostile force or forces perceived as external to our consciousnesses." I was previously familiar with Russell from his book Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages (1984), which I used as a source when working on the article Satan and, in that book, he (at least to my mind at the time) seemed to be using both the words "Devil" and "Satan" in reference to the same entity.

Now that I have read this passage, however, it does appear that the source cited does indeed support the definition given at the beginning of this article. However, Russell's definition of the word "Devil" as applying to many different cultures and the word "Satan" as only applying to the Abrahamic figure is highly idiosyncratic, does not align with common usage (in which the two words are almost invariably synonyms), and is far from universally accepted among scholars. In fact, Henry Ansgar Kelly criticizes Russell's approach to the Devil on pages 3–4 of the introduction to his book Satan: A Biography, a 328-page scholarly monograph on the history of the concept of the Devil published by Cambridge University Press, writing that what Russell has really identified are "devil-analogues" and "Satan-look-a-likes." Kelly continues, "To me, the only true devil is the Christian devil, that is Devil in all his various evolutions." So, even though Russell does support the distinction here, something which I originally doubted, I would still strongly support moving this article to "Devil figure" and turning "Devil" into a disambiguation page, because we cannot expect the average reader to be aware of Russell's distinction, and it is a definition (or rather re-definition) that is not universally accepted, even among scholars. The two words originally meant exactly the same thing and what Russell has essentially done is artificially broadened the meaning of one word while leaving the meaning of the other intact. By moving this page to "Devil figure," we can clear up any ambiguity and make the subject of this article more clear. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Prove WP:COMMONNAME. Thinker78 (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I agree with you and thank for clearing me up. I would support moving this page to something like "devil archtype" or "devilish figures", since most readers regard "devil" and "Satan" interchangeable and the idea of "devil" is mainly a Christian idea (that means, the Christian Satan). As archetype however, "devil" can also be adapted to Yetzer Hara (Judaism), Nafs and "Shaitan" (the concept not the alternative name for "Iblis") (Islam), Ahriman (Zoroastrism) and even the gnostic notion of the Creator-Deity as "devil" (or embodiment of evil). Further we can add psychological apporaches of the "devil-figure". If not used interreligious, it would be equal to the Satan article. (Before the Satan article became GA, they were both almost equal).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Katolopyromai, I need to correct you: I did not say that I take the definition as accurate, as you claim I did — I didn’t weigh in one way or the other. I took the definition as “supported”, which it is. Changing the title of this article from “Devil” to “Devil figure” would be opposed by two Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:NAMECHANGES and Wikipedia:UCRN. “Devil Figure” is an obscure expression. A change to that wouldn’t contribute anything, but would muddy the waters. To change a title, and give an article a different meaning seems disrespectful at best to editors who have already contributed here. It would make their past contributions look foolish — as if they didn’t know the topic they were contributing to. The ideas that you have on this topic can probably be added to this article — as long as you find reliable sources and report them accurately.Madisonesque (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Merriam-Webster lists the very first definition of the word "Devil" as "the personal supreme spirit of evil often represented in Christian belief as the tempter of humankind, the leader of all apostate angels, and the ruler of hell —usually used with the —often used as an interjection, an intensive, or a generalized term of abuse." This entry does not use the word "Satan," but it is obvious here that that is the entity it is describing, by the references to "Christianity," "apostate angels," and "Hell." Dictionary.com gives the first definition of the word "Devil" as "the supreme spirit of evil; Satan." They literally define the "Devil" as "Satan"! I think that these, combined with the quotation above from Kelly's Satan: A Biography, amply demonstrate that, in popular usage and in scholarly usage outside of Russell, the words "Devil" and "Satan" are synonyms. Sure, maybe a few people who have already read Russell's book will search for the word "Devil" expecting to find an article about Devil figures around the world, but that is precisely the reason why I am proposing that Devil be a disambiguation page, which would list Satan, Devil figure, and Demon as the three primary definitions. It is a solution that rules out any possibility of ambiguity.

As for @Madisonesque:, I do not see how changing the title of the article to a less ambiguous title that more accurately describes the current contents of the article would in any way be "disrespectful" to the users who have previously edited this page in the slightest, nor would it imply that those users' contributions are in any way "foolish." We change titles of article to more accurately reflect their contents all the time. In fact, not too long ago, I myself proposed a name change to an article for which I was the primary contributor after another user Intro sentence|made me realize that a different title would be more accurate given the content of the article. Indeed, it is worth pointing out that one of the main contributors to this article, VenusFeuerFalle, has already voiced support for my proposal. The purpose of my proposal is not to "muddy the waters" as you have asserted above, but rather for precisely the opposite reason: to prevent confusion, since, as the passages and definition I have quoted above indicate, Russell's distinction between "Devil" and "Satan" as having two distinct meanings is not widely accepted among laypersons nor among scholars.

As for the two policies you cite, neither of them support what you are arguing. WP:NAMECHANGES is about when a country, organization, or individual changes its name to something different, then the article about that country, organization, or individual should only change if the new name becomes more commonly used than the original in reliable sources written after the name change. In this case, however, the names "Devil" and "Satan" have both existed concurrently for over two millennia, so this clearly is not a case of a "name change," but rather two different names existing concurrently. As for WP:UCRN, that policy actually supports my proposal, because it states that "an article title is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article" and "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." The word "Devil" is ambiguous, as evidenced by the fact that Russell's definition for it is completely different from Kelly's, or Merriam-Webster's, or Dictionary.com's. It makes most logical sense to have "Devil" be a disambiguation page to clear up possible confusion and make sure that readers find the article they are looking for. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Katolopyromai, you don’t agree with the reliable sources, and you don’t agree with the content of the articles as they stand now, so it’s not certain what the article you are imagining might look like. But if a person is researching the topic “devil”, then that person would search for “devil”. That is why the title it has now is best. On the page that I linked to (Wikipedia:Article titles) it says: that a good Wikipedia article title should have recognizability, the title should be a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with will recognize. “Devil” makes sense. “Devil figure” is an obscure phrase, and it is not clear what it refers to. It could be anything from a the number 666 to professional wrestling move. The title should be one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. “Devil” makes sense; your phrase, being obscure fails in this way. The title should unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. It does not do this either. No one would predict what exactly it means. The title you are suggesting is vague and obscure and is completely different and does not identify the topic. It should have conciseness and identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. It fails here, also, because it is a change in subject, and it has gone away from the meaning. It should be consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Your suggestion is not consistent. Your suggesting fails all of those criteria, and a good title, according to the policy I linked to, should achieve all of them. All five. On the same page it says, the title should be a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article: as such the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. Your suggestion fails here also, if a person is researching the topic “Devil” then they will probably want to find an article with that title. All of that is from the page that I linked to.Madisonesque (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Madisonesque: Did you read anything that I wrote above? The word "Devil" originally and primarily refers to Satan, but Russell, and consequently this article, have taken it to refer to any personification of evil in any culture around the world. The problem with this definition is that it is not what a person is likely to be looking for when searching for the word "Devil" because it is not a commonly used definition of that word. As for your assertion that I "don't agree with the reliable sources," that is not true. I am merely saying that we should not use an obscure and idiosyncratic definition of the word adopted by a single author, when the term clearly is not commonly used in that way and other reliable sources, such as Kelly, do not use it that way at all. Your primary objection the use of the term "Devil figure" is that it is "obscure"; the problem is that there is not a less obscure phrase we could use that would still accurately describe the subject of the article in a way that would not lead to confusion. (Remember: WP:UCRN states, ""Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.") The term "Devil," as I have already shown using multiple sources, has several possible definitions, which are all very different from each other. It primarily and originally refers to Satan, but it can also be used as a somewhat archaic word for "demon" or, as Russell uses it, as a word for any personification of evil in any culture around the world. The title of "Devil" for this article fails the criteria of "Naturalness" and "Precision," because the article is not about the figure that its title is most commonly applied to and the same title could be applied to a variety of different articles with very different subjects.

The definition of "Devil figure," by contrast, is not obscure or confusing; it is self-evident from the name: "a figure that is like the Devil (i.e. Satan)." This is also the most concise and accurate description of what this article currently talks about: figures in cultures around the world that are like the Devil (Satan). I am not really objecting to the content of this article, but rather the article's title, which is not a clear or accurate description of what the article is about. Your assertions that "Devil figure" could also apply to "the number 666 [or] to [a] professional wrestling move" is completely unsupported and, in my view, ridiculous. If you are going to make claims like this, please provide reliably sourced evidence that the term "Devil figure" has ever been applied to anything other than a "figure that is like the Devil (i.e. Satan)." Despite your apparent insinuations to the contrary, I certainly have no objections against the title or content of the article Satan in any way and I am, in fact, the primary author of that article. The ambiguity of the title of this article (i.e. Devil), however, is something that has bothered me considerably for a long time and that is the reason why I am making this proposal now. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyroma, when you misrepresent what a reliable source is saying, which I assume you did with what you considered good intentions, and it was good of you to admit the misrepresentation after it was pointed out; and when, in that case, you are by inference also advancing a falsely-based criticism of the article itself, and of your fellow editors, it diminishes the discussion to have all that “falsely based” stuff cluttering it up, and it makes it less interesting to carry on. But since I was the one that pointed out your misstatement you can’t really claim that I didn’t read what you said. So now you’re suggesting that you want me to go find some reliable sources to support what is in fact my own opinion? I suspect you say such a funny thing to liven this page up with a bit of humor. Much appreciated. Madisonesque (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with that "Devil-like figures" would be too vague and give too much space for arbitrary deities and demons. But I think a name such as "Devil (archetype) would be suitable. Otherwise, if we just mean "Teh Devil" as "The Satan" it would be merely a fork of the "Satan" article. It is just NOT a fork because it is more about the Archetype. For example in Islam-section. It is not limited to Satan (Iblis) but deals witht he subject of "evil" itselves (nafs, shaitan, Iblis, probably we can later add the "pharao", if we change it to "archetype", since, unlike Iblis, the pharao represtens (according to a source I found but didn't added here first) haughtiness in ones ego, while Iblis represtens the haudghtiness of someone who "knows God" (or something of the like I remember). And as I mentioned, we could add psychological explanations, gnostic vies (especially impirtant to clear the "god as the devil-section", now it looks like a blog-entry).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

This article doesn’t really qualify as a “fork” of any other article. For example, this article and the one on Satan each have different meanings, which is shown by the first sentences and the leads of each. It’s not wrong to have to articles that overlap, Wikipedia can have an article on both hammer and mallet. I think that editors should try to make each article the best it can be. A “devil archetype” has a specific meaning in Jungian psychology, and probably should have an article of it’s own, and perhaps a subheading in this article. To use it here would cause confusion with the Jungian meaning, and would not match the meaning contained in this article. This article is important and interesting. The title we have for it, Devil, is a good title. It achieves the all of the five criteria mentioned in the article Wikipedia:Article titles. Those criteria I think should be understood and respected. I think that every decent encyclopedia has an article on this topic; The Encyclopedia Brittanica, the Columbia Desk Encyclopedia, and The World Book Encyclopedia all do. For Wikipedia to be the only encyclopedia not to have such an article seems wrong. People certainly come to Wikipedia and search for this article and want to find it. Madisonesque (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Although I am aware of the existance of Jungian archetyp, I didn't now that it is a specific term already in use. Therefore, I would withdraw my support until we find a better article name. Or otherwise, if "devil" is clear for "evil" in general, we could keep it thatway. (But I am still open minded to alternative names, since I think most people would use "devil" as synonym for Satan)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

"as a word for any personification of evil in any culture around the world" Something similar to Ahriman, the fictional demon from Highlander: The Series? In his speech he claims to have many names and to personify evil:

• "I am Set!"/"I am Ahriman!"
• "I am everything your people call demons and devils."
• "I am anger I am the dark!!"/"I bring chaos and fear. Doubt and anarchy."
• "I existed before time began and I will exist when time has ended."
• "For you, all that matters is that you cannot stop me."
• "I'm your friend. I'm not your friend."

"I'm the man you can't kill." Dimadick (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2018

Change the first word from "A" to "The", the title of the book referenced is "The' Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity Satans Botty (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Why does it matter? The article doesn't have to copy or repeat a source title word for word, does it? Inside the source book it uses the "a" on page 22 and page 26 and other pages. Ykemp (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I have never read or heard a claim that there would be several devils. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

And I've reversed that, as this page isn't specifically about one figure (The Devil), but about devil figures throughout multiple religions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)