Talk:Satan/Archive 4

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

Archive 6

InterWiki

Please add vi:Satan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.154.152 (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha-satan

I am working on updating the section labeled In the Hebrew Bible. I have currently finished up to my knowledge at this point in my Old Testament class at seminary. As I delve more into the Hebrew Bible I plan to add more information about the ideas of Ha-satan and of satan in both the noun form and the verb form.

If you have any comments fell free to contact me. Mo1nathan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Fallen angel

the bible did say that satan is a fallen angel. How ever I can not recall any where in the bible which states that Satan refused to bow while the other angels bow.

Actually, it's interpretation to say that the Bible says Satan is a fallen angel. It's a commonly accepted interpretation, but it is still an interpretation. I do not believe the article says anything about the Bible telling the story where Satan refuses to bow. If I'm not mistaken the Quran does tell that story, although that story was told before then. Also, please sign your posts with four tidles (~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you identify the fallen "son of the dawn" of Isaiah 14:12 with the "accuser" of other passages in the Old Testament (as mentioned in the article), then it's a reasonable conclusion to say that the Bible says that Satan is a fallen spirit of some kind (an angel if the words of Numbers 22:22 are interpreted literally). If you don't, then probably not. AnonMoos (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In the Gospel of Bartholomew this is all mentioned. However, the Wikipedia editors who suffer from extreme religious bias are not authorizing its add. You may also refer to the audio version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLO9EMiGsDI Twillisjr (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained to you repeatedly:

WP:Assume good faith from other editors,
Wikipedia does not accept youtube as a source,
Wikipedia uses secondary sources.

Only a tendentious editor would continue to stick their fingers in their ears and scream "I didn't hear that!" It's honestly rude and immature to continue to ignore the advice of others. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

merge with devil

I know this was suggested before but given that Devil, Satan and Shaitan are translations of the some words (adversary/slander/accuser) they are pretty much the some concepts, unless you mean the use of the term "devil" in plural. However the concept of the Devil is identical to Satan. 174.124.182.76 (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In English usage, "Devil" is as often a generic word as it is any kind of personal name (and is not always strictly tied to Judeo-Christian religious concepts), while Satan is always a name. In the Greek New Testament, both the words diabolos and Satanas occur. In short, it sounds like a nice simplification in theory, but I don't know whether it would really clarify things in practice. This article is fairly closely tied to the Bible and traditional theology, while the "Devil" article is more free-roaming... AnonMoos (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

2013

Is call god to many people. The religion is called Satanism. It is frowned upon in many country's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killer kittens (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Unrepresented Satanic Groups

Whilst this article addresses in short detail a few theistic Satanic groups, it does not mention Spiritual Satanism. This group is often under represented in similar articles as their beliefs conflict with the Abrahmic views of Satan. I don't think it is necessary to go into large amounts of detail about the group in this particular forum however I might point out a few key differences from other more well represented Satanic groups.

Namely the largest stand out difference is Spiritual Satanism's non-conformance to Christian and Abrahmic views and doctrines about Satan (or the Devil). They do not believe him to be malignant, malevolent and inferior to any other God, nor condoning of the blood sacrifice, murder and pedophilia that has been otherwise ascribed.

Spiritual Satanists are involved in occult knowledge and oppose not authority but oppression of basic human rights such as freedom to do sexual acts and freedom to pursue magic and practice their religion without being harassed for it. They do have somewhat of an anti-semitic view as a whole however this is not necessarily encouraged or necessary in all parts of the group the world over, most of which is internet based at the current time.

I think to complete this article, all Satanic groups should be recognized just as the many sects of Christianity are represented elsewhere in wikipedia. There is a link where more information can be found and its addition to the main, locked page should be made. <editsemiprotected> www.joyofsatan.com <editsemiprotected>

If what you proport about these Spiritual Satanists is true, one would think that they worship a seperate entity that just happens to share the same name as the Abrahamic Satan, rather than the incarnation of evil outlined in the Bible and similar texts. 173.180.74.39 (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Many may be evil perverts who conceal grave crimes as part of their initiation rites or ultimate practices. No sane person would worship the Evil One, the Destroyer (Apollon), the Enemy of Mankind, the Accuser and Liar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.19.118 (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A god?

The Bible and other Abrahamic tomes do not call Satan a god, in part because they claim there is only one god. If anything, they present him as being the antithesis of a god, a depraved lesser spirit driven mad with jealousy and hatred who attempts to usurp his master's place and is exiled as a result. Nowhere, Satanism nonwithstanding, refers to the Devil as a god, so I suggest a review of his classification as such be conducted. 173.180.74.39 (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Satan" doesn't exist in religion

Although it may sound unlogical, there doesn't exist an antagonist to God in the official religious scriptures of the Abrahamic religions. "Satan" was badly translated as being a single person, but was actually simply a person that acted as an accuser or adversary. See Henry Ansgar Kelly's Satan. A biography.^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.95.46 (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't exist an equal antagonist (that would be dualism or Manichaeism), but there are antagonists, and generally also one principle antagonist. This last idea is only partially developed or revealed within the canon of the Hebrew scriptures, but emerges fully in other ancient Jewish writings, as well as the New Testament. AnonMoos (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

God?

Satan is a supernatural being, but by no means a 'God'; he would more accurately be called a 'Demon'. As Satan exists in the three main monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), it is innacurate to call him a 'God'. Toa Nidhiki05 20:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Church's teaching The Catholic Church does not seem to ave an official doctrine on this but has however, through sermons announced the futility of helping one who is blow God and will be defeated and has also alerted it's believers to accepting his presence so that he does not use this to enter thier lives, thus by accepting his existanc they come closer to God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick 999777 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite what he was talking about, Catholicism does have the stance that God is the only God, and would deny that Satan is a god. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

All current christian religions, judaism, and islam, follow the belief that there is only one true god and all would say that satan is not a god however none would say that he is a demon either. satan himself would be in his own catagory, with the demons yes, but a leader of them and not a demon himself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.101.75 (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Satan has never been put in his own category. He is usually classified as an angel, either acting as a prosecuting attorney against humanity in the court of heaven (as in the book of Job), or outright fallen (in the Quran and the Christian bible). Fallen angels in turn are often classified as demons. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

i believe each branch of christians teach it diffrently as i was taught that while satan was a demonic entity and he is a god. the lord is the god of light and kindness where as satan is the god of darkness and evil who is always opposing the LORD. it is why they lord is is almight and all forgiving can not save us from hell as satan is a god on equal par with him. again though i suspect this teaching alters between curches and locations152.91.9.153 (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be "Dualism" or "Manicheanism", which has been rejected by traditional mainstream "orthodox" Christianity... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible

In this section it was stated originally that satan with the definite article was used in three places, indicating 1 Chronicles 21:1 as one such instance. I removed this, as 1 Chr 21:1 does not have satan with the definite article.

Yaaqov ben Yisrael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.253.156.90 (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal understanding is not accepted as a source. Most translations go with "Satan," so we include it. If you have a book or magazine article or something to cite that says "this is not a reference to Satan," we could include a note next to it saying "although some scholars contest this, stating it does not use the definite article." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he's saying that the original Hebrew text of verse 1 Chronicles 21:1 has basic śaṭan שטן instead of special prefixed haś-śaṭan השטן , which seems to be supported by the sources available to me. It wouldn't make any real difference to the English translation either way. Mandelkern's Concordance shows a number of occurrences of haś-śaṭan (more than three), all in the books of Zechariah and Job... AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This really should be changed. The article currently states that śaṭan שטן occurs with a definite article in Chronicles 21:1, but this is simply incorrect. I have checked the Hebrew Masoretic Text (and a number of others), and I have not found any variants that include the definite article here. There is no consensus on whether Chronicles 21:1 actually refers to a cosmic Satan, so I will not complain that the article cites this text as a reference to Satan. But stating that "satan" takes a definite article is a clear-cut factual error.--Iwb86 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, 206.253.156.90 is correct. BTW fairly easy to ref these, and listed out the other 8x as well, also easy to ref but I just refed the main ones. Evidently (looking at English language commentaries/refs) theres disagreement on 1Ch21:1/Ps109:6b as to whether the KJV is right, but there's no question on what the Hebrew MT says.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Satan's Identity Consistent In All Three Religions

The opening of this article implies that the concept of Satan as Lucifer, leader of the rebellion and of the fallen angels, does not come directly from Judaism but rather from the later Abrahamic faiths. This is misleading. Whatever concept of Satan Christianity understands is derived from the Jewish scriptures (the traditions of Europe notwithstanding). The same may be said of Islam's understanding of the Devil. In Judaism, "Satan" is not merely a term used to describe a generic tempter of men's faith, as this article implies; Satan is the same Devil in Jewish theology as this concept transfers unmodified into Christianity and Islam. I would revise this article, but there is always a moderator who undoes what I edit, so I won't bother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.33.142 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for this? It doesn't line up with what I learned but maybe you have sources I don't. thx1138 (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The concept of Lucifer as Satan does not appear in any Jewish writings, it's only later Christian commentators, like Origen. Before some late antiquity Christian writers came up with that interpretation, people actually read all of that chapter of Isaiah as a whole and understood that "Lucifer" refers to a pompous Mesopotamian king that liked to call himself the morning star. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello 67.243.33.142, it's be convenient if anything was consistent inside any of the 3 Abr. religions, let alone across all three. Wikipedia doesn't exclude as you say - But you may want to (1) register for Wikipedia, (2) build up some edit history, (3) find a copy of Wray & Mobley - The Birth of Satan.pdf (etc.) on the web and do some reading on this subject, (4) come back and contribute. Cheers! In ictu oculi (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a dangerous simplification to assume that the negative God/demon in one religion will be directly the same transposed to others. A good example of this is the assumption made by some Satanists that the Egyptian god Set is associated with Satan. - Apply a little bit of logic and if you can draw an analogy Set is more likely to be Jehovah - the evil snake that came in and attacked the Egyptian people and Gods with plagues and disasters. (how literally or not you read the tales is irrelevant) This universalising of Gods and demons across religions is just a more subtle form of indoctrination fascism - sneaking the conclusion cart of monotheism before the horse of truth or tested fact. (sorry for the metaphor there.) Lucien86 (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Iblis (Lucifer)?

Iblis is not Lucifer. he is a Jinn. Lucifer is referred to as a fallen angel by Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abir123 c (talk • contribs) 13:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Iblis is refered to as Shaitan in some sources, and Satan is just the Anglicized version of the Hebrew Shaitan, the Hebrew cognate for the Arabic Shaitan. Lucifer features in Christianity, but not in Islam; Iblis features in Islam, but not in Christianity. There is no contradiction. The Islamic version of Satan, Iblis, is a jinn; while the Christian version of Satan, Lucifer, is a fallen angel. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Typo (Num 22.23)

Thought I'd mention the typo in the section listing the noun "satan" used in MT. The list has Num 22.22,23, but should be Num 22.22,32.

Also, use of the term in verse 32 might be better clarified with another translation. Rather than KJV translation: "behold, I went out to withstand thee," to KJV translation note: {to...: Heb. to "be an adversary unto thee"}. Just a suggestion, thx!

Satan in Religions other than the Abrahamic

Satan is known in several indigenous religions as not only the accuser and tempter, but also as the trickster. The most remarkable notion that separates the imperial Abrahamic traditions and most Native traditions that include fallen identities, is the ability of the devil to cause harm or human era that affect humanity directly. It should be noted that all Christian, Islam, and Jewish text sited by the author of this article lead to a predestine state of humanity where all are guilty or to blame for the actions taken in relating to Satan. This point grossly misleads people to believe that Satan or the Devil cause no physical harm therefore there is no fault in listening to the devil. There are a thousand stories by the Algonquin Indians that explicitly explain that Satan and the Devil eat human flesh, pull hair while sleeping, and try to cause bodily harm or death. The Buddha's experiences with the demon God Mara exhibit a devil that has demons that hit the flesh and soul like arrows made of flowers that perplex the individual's sense of righteousness. The Talmudic references and Zohar references are not clearly presented in this article. Satan's ability to harm others and accuse the innocent so that he can persecute and isolate them is clearly missing. In fact this article should be taken down and completely rewritten by someone who actually knows what they're talking about. You are doing the world a disservice by keeping this article up as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.53.119 (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if there were any mention of an entity called Satan or equivalent to Satan in Algonquin mythology. thx1138 (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Satan is strictly an Abrahamic figure. Trickster gods & malevolent/benign spirits of other cultures are NOT the same. 99.54.188.176 (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Glooskap Alogonquin Legends

Glooskap, the main protagonist in Alogonquin religion and known namely as the creator, has many dealings with a Sinful Serpent, a Mischief-Maker and namely a character named Lox who has been interpreted as the devil that has risen from the dead. Many of these stories include encounters with the mischief-maker where he camouflages himself, and meddles with everyday life dealings so that friends, family and neighbors become suspicious of each other. See: ALOGONQUIN LEGENDS Charles G. Leland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.53.119 (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't sound much like the Satan described in any of the Abrahamic religions. Do you have any reliable sources the support such a connection? thx1138 (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

semi-protect?

A quick stroll through the article's history shows that it quite a target for vamdals. Perhaps it is time for a semi-protect? Wickedjacob (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You can go ahead an request page protection, but usually unless there's a constant drumbeat of vandalism the request will probably be denied. I do agree that it is a habitual target for vandals. Shearonink (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Job

Recent edits replace a not very well sourced Coogan, Michael D.; ‘’A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible in its context’’ with WP:OR, please see WP:PSTS. Needs improving but this isn't the way. Reverted. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Milton

Why is Milton not mentioned in this article? In the English-speaking world, at least, Milton's version of Satan is probably the most famous and influential. It deserves a paragraph somewhere, and probably other influential literary depictions are worth noting. john k (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

^ Kijk magzine, nr 10, 2010

[1] Kijk magzine, nr 10, 2010

[1]