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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because
False Prophet 01:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Reason three not a reason to remove as many articles are subject to vandalism, everything else is worriesome, endorse removal Jaranda wat's sup 02:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand how anybody could put up such an article and present only one or two oppinions and whats more state them as facts and somehow think its a good article. If you put one oppinion then you must put the other. Otherwise you have created a biased article that doesn't represent the views of people.
I am of the opinion that the whole article should be taken off viewing until such a time as we can come up with a balanced article.
The bible itself cannot be used as a definition alone because there are on controversial issues like this at least two interpretations.
I think in this article the atheist should be represented and also christians who do not believe in a supernatural evil being.
The Jewsih section should be shortened. Although views of Jews in different era's could be added. But even this should be brief.
The catholics and other christians that believe in a supernatural being could be larger then the others but again look at the history of the belief.
some short scriptural evidence say 2 or 3 quotes could be included from the bible.
For further information links to other articles would be beneficial.
--Rainbow Warrior 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This is not a GA, there is a cleanup tag on the page, and just reading the intro, which has 5 citations neededs, I am going to delist this. False Prophet 01:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
One more note, at least the last 250 edits have been in the last 10 days, 100 of which were either vandalism or reverting vandalism. False Prophet 01:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It's good that you have added references. However, still major flaws.
Too much trivia and Wikipedia:Original research. I'd really like to see the footnotes being based on the reference literature -- such as Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan (1995), I've heard that book is very well-written -- instead of personal interpretation of Genesis, Talmud, and other Biblical texts.
That is the most important concern. There are also some other points.
You can see the GA criterias here: Wikipedia:What is a good article?.
Fred-Chess 14:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The lists in References in films and References in television will probably grow like tumors as drive-by editors append their favorites. This should be handled differently. Perhaps just delete the section in favor of See also links.
I'd do this myself, but would rather see how others feel about this. Alternatively, does anyone feel up to replacing the list with a (non list-based) essay?
Also, the People linked with Satan list will have about 100 heavy metal singers unless the title is made more specific. — edgarde 05:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia policies for articles protection, so here I come asking for your advice: would this article not qualify as a good candidate for semi-protection? My main concern is that while blatant vandalism is usually reverted within a few minutes, punctual bad-faith edits may escape the attention of recent changes patrollers and eventually disappear from the first page of the edits history.
For example, I noticed recently a suspicious name change from "belzeboub" to "belzeboob" by 128.61.66.118 which had managed to endure through several reverts and which I'm convinced was indeed vandalism after googling the name in its context and looking at the changelog for this IP. Orphu of Io 09:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm just sort of drifting by this article but was wondering where there'd be room for the notion that Satan(ism) is regarded by many as pretty ridiculous. This may be difficult to cite, but I was looking at for example a transcription of Devil Worship in France by A.E. Waite (1896) which sarcastically debunks reports of "Devil worship" in 19th century France
You know, stuff like that. Hakluyt bean 13:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your concern. Maybe the question revolves a little around whether common sense is 'some sentiment' or something else. In any case, despite my concerns that it would be difficult, I cited a published book. Probably this comes under the heading criticism of topic or maybe other views. Cited naturally :) Separately, according to that citation, modern 'Satanism' has maybe clearer roots than the article suggests. I'm not sure satanism in its modern sense has been around that long. Hakluyt bean 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thx for the advice, and I agree with you. Hakluyt bean 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The nominative satan — is "nominative" there to distinguish it from genitive or ablative? "Satan", as I understand the word, does not transform with case. Rintrah 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Isaiah 14:12-16
I believe that Isaiah 14:12-16 refers to the attempted taking of Jehovah's throne by the original king of Babylon, Nimrod. You will find this recorded wn in the book of Jasher chapter 9; a book refered to twice by the Old Testament (Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18) yet thrown out by the Church.
Compare:
Jasher 9:26 - ...and whilst they were building (the tower of Babel) against the Lord God of heaven, they imagined in their hearts to war against him and to ascend into heaven.
Isaiah 14:13 - You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God;...
Net sources:
Jasher 9 sounding very similar to Isaiah 14: http://www.earth-history.com/Pseudepigrapha/Jas/jasher-09.htm
Josephus' account of Nimrod's ambition: http://www.godrules.net/library/flavius/flaviusb1c4.htm
I deleted the word nominative, as it seemed like the author really meant "proper noun"... Hebrew doesn't have a case system anyway, so it's use was inappropriate.
I also changed a little bit of the arabic to make more sense. At one point the Arabic word "Ibliis" was transliterated "Shaytan". 68.51.219.91 23:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The Persian Is Currently written "Ahriman" in the Arabic script --72.218.184.248 (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
satan is cool
After their creation, Adam and Hawwa' (حواء, Adam and Eve) dwelt in Paradise (الجنة, AlJannah), where Allah forbade them to go near the cursed tree. "The Satan" (or al-Shaitan in Arabic), tricked Adam and Hawwa' into eating from the tree. Allah then expelled both of them from Heaven and onto Earth, to wander about not as a punishment. In Islam, Allah created humans to send them on to Earth, which he created for them. He was just to see how long the humans, Adam and Hawwa could stay in heaven or paradise.
Actually Allah just want them to learn some important things about life before they can be sent to Earth. Since they’re still newly created, they have less experience. It's all about obeying Allah and to know that Satan is their real enemy. It's the basic meaning of life. They've learned this lesson and understood this after being fooled by Iblis. It's like 'a knock on the head become a lesson ahead'. As for Iblis, Allah has granted his wish to astray all human being and so He let Iblis to trick Adam and Hawwa' althought Allah can 'zap' satan into ashes before he tried to fool them. Allah actually want Iblis to know for himself how far he dares to be. So it's not about He want to see how long can human stay in the Paradise because Allah already knew how long they will stay and when came the time they are ready to be sent to earth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.186.90.6 (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
This page is inaccuate. It should be replaced by Conservapedias page on Jesus. Much better
In the introduction this sentence leaps out without explanation: Ha-Satan is the accuser, a member of the divine council, who challenged the religious faith of humans, especially in the books of Job and Zechariah.
Is Ha-Satan an angel? Who employs him? What is the divine council? How does he challenge the religious faith? Some kind of transition is obviously needed. Meep 10:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Why does a so well known mythological figure only have a B-class article? Meep 10:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess because when you have a controversial topic (tons of heat here between faiths, as well as within them) it makes it very difficult to add or remove anything significant without drawing fire from a christian/pagan/(insert believer in another faith concerned with Satan here) who disagrees with you. Add to that the fact that you can't really cite a reputable source when it comes to Satan, as anyone writing about him clearly has some strong viewpoint on the subject, and is therefor not neutral. --Munkel (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The reference to the lake of fire in revelation is oncorrect - he is in fact only thrown in in chapter 20 verse 20 rather than verse 10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acgs1 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The scripture verses given for referencing satan being referred to as the prince of this world and the god of this world are incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.177.127 (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
The Satanism section seems mainly concerned with Satan and less concerned with Satan's role in said religion and I would suggest clean up to focus more on what he means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.5.145.74 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
Fixed, though I have to add references. WerewolfSatanist 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the statements saying that Satan was one of the highest, or the highest of the angels, need a citation. I believe some protestant traditions hold that his rank was that of an Arch Angel. I'll try find a cross reference for hierarchies of angels, unless someone is worthier than I. Aestiva 05:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The two articles "Devil" and "Satan" are covering mainly the same item and show nearly same content. Intention? Pluralism? --charlandes 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Article was replaced with an article on jesus. i reverted to the pervious version Narmical 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I can not work out what is meant by the sentence "An "argumentum a silentio" can not, therefore, be adduced as proof that concepts of Satan were not wide-spread; but if Satan is true it must rather be that reference to him and his realm is often implied in the mention of evil spirits."
I can't make sense of "if Satan is true" -- does this mean "if Satan was truly mentioned" or some such? Andrew K Robinson 12:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
"Lucifer is sometimes used in Christian theology to refer to Satan, from a mistaking of the Latinized Hebrew word Hillel, meaning shining one, a reference to the planet Venus, the bright morning star, as a reference to the king of Babylon's spiritual backer. Isaiah 14:12-14.[citation needed]"
Yes, that's what Judaism believes but not what Christianity believes. I think someone should clarify that.
Same with this one: "In Greek, the term diabolos (Διάβολος, 'slanderer'), carries more negative connotations than the Hebrew ha-satan (שָׂטָן, 'accuser', 'obstructer', 'adversary') which possesses no demonic qualities in the Torah writings and is believed by many to be a great and glorious Angel who was created on the sixth day of creation.[original research?]" Sion 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
In '5.2 In Satanism', 'child-molesting' links to the aritcle on pedophilia, a subject which isn't necessarily related. It should link to the article on child sexual abuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.100.195.12 (talk) 03:17, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
I'm in the process of removing a fair amount of the pro-Christian theological bias from this article. Much of it makes theological implications that involve a fair amount of original research. I think if the article hopes to see good article status again, it should be written from a neutral perspective, not a Christian one. Drumpler 15:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think so. Thanks. Drumpler 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, when did the article have "good article" status? Might help to know that. Drumpler 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, LaVey wrote a book titled "The Satanic Rituals" which actually included *his version* of a classic Black Mass, so this statement is misleading and should probably be revised. Church of Satan members, including current CoS High Priest Peter Gilmore have performed mock Black Masses for the media.
It would be more appropriate to just leave the part about the black mass out, since explaining the differences between the folklore black mass and LaVey's presentation of the ritual would be beyond the scopeof this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.174.151 (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible 75.15.207.103 18:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hes basically a unamed angel. Last time I checked angels weren't exactly "deities". Xuchilbara 03:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Jewish Encyclopedia: Satan: "Such a view [Satan as a distinct being] is found, however, in the prologue to the Book of Job, where Satan appears, together with other celestial beings or "sons of God," before the Deity, replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come, with the words: "From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it" (Job i. 7). Both question and answer, as well as the dialogue which follows, characterize Satan as that member of the divine council who watches over human activity, but with the evil purpose of searching out men's sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor, who sees only iniquity; for he persists in his evil opinion of Job even after the man of Uz has passed successfully through his first trial by surrendering to the will of God, whereupon Satan demands another test through physical suffering (ib. ii. 3-5)." 75.14.214.102 05:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Brown Driver Briggs uses the term superhuman adversary. 75.14.214.102 06:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This article itself in the intro uses the term minor god. 75.14.214.102 06:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like a proper source on where Satan himself is considered a deity. I know theres Caananite and other influences on, including deities, Satan, but where does it say he is specifically a deity in hiw own right?
Xuchilbara 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"One day the divine beings presented themselves before the LORD, and the Adversary [note: Heb. ha-satan] came along with them." Job 1:6 New Jewish Publication Society of America Version 75.0.3.63 00:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh Lucifer is in the bible cat of deities, but hes not really a "biblical deity", the translation is a bit off there. Maybe the association w/ lu is why someone decided to add Satan. Xuchilbara 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
What are you proposing? Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible according to Judaism, Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible according to Roman Catholicism, Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible according to Neo-Paganism, Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible according to Canaanite scholars, Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible according to secular scholars, Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible according to Biblical critics ... ? 75.15.207.148 20:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
"Lucifer" is a Roman poetic name for the morningstar = Venus (the planet). The way by KJV is not a mistransaltion per se, but it resulted in a misinterpetation. There is no Lucifer in the Hebrew bible because it was impossible for him to appear of such, given thet the Hebrews had no contact w/ the Romans at the time it was written. But there is an deity mentioned in that same passage; Babylonian/Caananite Shahar. Ironically, whoever compilled the list missed that. And no Satan still does not belong on that list. Xuchilbara 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose another possibility would be Category:Pagan deities in the Hebrew Bible. Would that make everyone happy? As a side note, Lucifer is from the Vulgate (Isa 14:12). 75.15.207.148 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
More on Lucifer: Strong's H7837 75.15.207.148 21:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That cat would make more sense, imo. But Satan should be excluded from it. I won't deny Satan didn't have pagan influence, just that he is not really a deity of any sort. Unless, you count in the modern times. Xuchilbara 21:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you consider Satan a Demigod? 75.15.207.148 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Those who claim that he is don't study the Hebrew bible. He is an accusing angel that is in favor of strict justice but he has no powers of his own. The way Christianity tries to make Satan into a separate power is idolotrous. -- 07:57, 8 November 2007 User:Grafix1
He is immortal and he has supernatural power. Is that not a deity? 24.136.144.118 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This article has an error in it. It says "In the Bahá'í faith
In the Bahá'í Faith, 'Satan' is not an independent evil power as he is in the Abrahamic faiths, but signifies the "base nature" of humans."
Satan is not an independent evil power under Judaism! Satan is the accusing angel and is not evil or a separate power from the Lord. The Satan has no power of his own and is only an angel. The way Christianity separates G0D and the devil is almost like they are saying that there is more than one creator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grafix1 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
In Judiasm, Satan is an angel and he does have powers, he cannot work w/out God's premission though. (If he didn't have powers, he would not have been able to do what he did to Job now would he?) Later, he became indientified with the Jewish angel of death, Samael. Satan, is actually just a title and according to the Hebrew bible, hes unamed. Hes considered to be a "enemy of mankind", but he is not an enemy of God in Jewish traditions as Christian traditions paint. The Christian tradition was heavily influence by Zoarastrianism, so was Judiasm, however, the effect is really seen with Christianity.
Xuchilbara 17:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
While this discussion waxes on with no proposed solutions, it should be noted that the statement and notion comes from the quoted source (Abdul'-Baha). No matter what anyone (scholar or not) thinks about its validity, its a WP:V statement. That will suffice for its inclusion. Unless a qualifier of an opposing *verifiable* opinion is provided, this verifiable statement can stand as it is for its source is cited. Jeff 08:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Bahai faith seems somewhat eclectic, I think we could do w/out the Abrahamic comparison. Xuchilbara 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL. No I was commenting on things like "Bahá'u'lláh is regarded as the most recent, but not final, in a line of messengers that includes Abraham, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad and others" and the influence of Indian, Abrahamic, and Zoroastrianism etc.
Sorry if my comment sounded offensive, (and I acknowledge my assumption may be wrong.) my knowledge is very limited on Bahai. ;) Xuchilbara 02:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Or just composed of elements from various sources. Obviously Satan is from one of those various sources, which is why imo the Abrahamic mention may not be needed. Xuchilbara 17:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Look under "Satan in Christianity." It refers to the Leviathan in the bottom bullet as an "angel." The Leviathan is a sea monster, not an angel! Who wrote that? Zillakilla (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This section remains in the article for reasons I do not understand. Not only is it poorly written and largely unreferenced in the first place, but it is also misplaced. The information detailed in the paragraph is really too specific to be relevant to an article on the general concept of Satan.
In comparing the sections on Christianity and Islam, it's clear to see that the Islam section handles the topic poorly, suddenly moving from an introduction to a pointless narrative that really just wasted space. It does nothing to elucidate on the concept itself.
The story is relevant to the concept, but it shouldn't be placed here. As it is, the narrative is already covered extensively on Iblis, which the section refers to at the end in a somewhat corny manner, in my opinion. I think that this section should be deleted; at most, the information within this body should be condensed to no more than 2-3 sentences. Is there a good argument for the inclusion of this extensive narrative?
For now, I am deleting the section for the many reasons mentioned above. If anyone somehow prefers that version, revert me, but I'm fairly confident that most will agree that a better replacement would be a general overview with a short mention of the relevant narrative.--C.Logan (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
What is this? I've never heard of this before in my entire life: "Natalie Pavlatos (شيطان) is the equivalent of Satan in Islam." Yaye (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Related: "اهریمن Satanás in Persian" - اهریمن is Ahriman, not Satanás. Ahriman is the Middle Persian equivalent of Angra Mainyu, who could arguably be said to be the Zoroastrian equivalent of Satan. But I don't know, maybe the person who wrote this had some divine plan or something, so I'l leave it be for some registerd person to change...
This is funny.... the article on Satan has been replaced with an article about Barak Obama... so funny! But it does need to be fixed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.54.182 (talk • contribs) 19:41, March 4, 2008
Removed this
"SATAN IS THE MOST GLORIUOS GOD IN THE WORLD.HE SMALL SMITE GOD AND HIS DISGUSTING ANGELS. ALL WORSHIP SATAN.g"
from the paragraph abuot Etymology. 121.247.68.245 (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Another act of vandalism: "Satan was has been spotted boostcruising forum in search of boostbabes for easy access to there turbo excels, Many of them give in and become apart of his possy." in Section "International affairs". I deleted it - 217.236.30.210 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are the old attributed arms of Satan, if it's of interest... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This heraldic emblem Image:Satan-traditional-arms.svg is perhaps not all that important in the grand scheme of things, but it is probably older and more authentic to the Christian Satan than most other "Satanic symbols" that are out there (including the goat of Baphomet etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've asked some friends if Satan had a son according to the Bible, they said yes, and his name was Mammon, I've searched the Mammon article and can't see a link and I was wondering if anyone knows more details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghyslyn (talk • contribs) 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
much trimming would be required and I estimated that I wwould take such responsibilites --Imagemonth (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea of Satan isn't an invention by the "Abrahamic" faiths. The word may be Semitic (or at least an early borrowing into a Semitic language), but the concept is not. Zoroastrianism is based on the duality of good and evil and predates the Abraham stuff. The Yezidi sometimes get called Satanists in Islam because Zoroaster basically abolished their old Indo-European deities and lumped them under the evil power. That's how Satan traditionally functions in religion: the older faith is undermined by a newer one, the old religion becomes the dark side of the new one. I'll check back when the revert wars end and maybe add something. Hypatea (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The graphic of Satan appearing in the "Images of Satan" section has a caption that reads, "Jesus christ of the holy bible." I'm guessing this is vandalism? 69.68.18.13 (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who has played the Ghosts N Goblins video game knows Satan is depicted with a second face on his stomach. But I swear I've seen this on historical art pieces before, I recall seeing something that may have been a medeival illuminated manuscript or something depicting Satan or some demon with a face on his stomach.
Anyway I'm just wondering if anyone knows anything about this depiction of the devil, what cultures used it, what it might signify, where the video game creators may have gotten it from, etc.VatoFirme (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
[3] The books say there are carvings of it in some cathedrals, and I also read some sets of tarot used to show Him that way. Sticky Parkin 23:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)