I. The Birth of the Devil

The evil deity known as the Devil is not universal, but certain characteristics of his can be found in the gods of every religion. Some of these are iconographic similarities, others relate to the god's function within the mythos. To understand the emergence of the Devil as the personification of evil, it is necessary to consider the divine personages in world religions who prefigured him.

Most gods in so-called "primitive" religions are morally neutral manifestations of Ultimate Reality. In polytheistic systems, even the most powerful, "king" gods are subordinate to the single, impersonal divine principle. There is often little or no differentiation among the gods along the lines of good and evil; rather, each divinity is capable of either good or bad, as the moods takes him. This moral ambivalence explains the existence of good and evil without resorting to a heavenly schism, in which each individual god takes a character of good or evil. When these lines of demarcation were made, they were usually the result of political upheaval, as Margaret Murray explains:

The idea of dividing the Power Beyond into two, one good and one evil, belongs to an advanced and sophisticated religion. In the more primitive cults the deity is in himself the author of all, whether good or bad. The monotheism of early religions is very marked, each little settlement or group of settlements having its one deity, male or female, whose power was co-terminous with that of its worshippers. Polytheism appears to have arisen with the amalgamation of tribes, each with its own deity. When a tribe whose deity was male coalesced with a tribe whose deity was female, the union of the peoples was symbolized by the marriage of their gods. When by peaceful infiltration a new god ousted an old one, he was said to be the son of his predecessor. But when the invasion was warlike the conquering deity was invested with all good attributes while the god of the vanquished took a lower place and was regarded by the conquerors as the producer of evil, and was consequently often more feared than their own legitimate deity. In ancient Egypt the fall from the position of a high god to that of a "devil" is well exemplified in the god Setekh [Seth or Set], who in early times was as much a giver of all good as Osiris, but later was so execrated that, except in the city of his special cult, his name and image were rigorously destroyed.(1)

Even as Seth became identified with evil, he remained a representation of the monistic divine principle. As the peoples of the arid Upper Egypt, worshippers of Seth, were united with the Nile-dwelling adherents to Osiris and Horus, it was necessary for some resolution of the religious conflict to take place. In some places, the divine twins Horus and Seth were worshipped together as one god with two heads. However, Seth eventually came to be regarded as inferior and evil. The latter solution better explained the continual conflict between the forces of good and evil, and so foreshadowed later dualistic religious systems.

The principles of good and evil were brought into full-blown opposition with the revolutionary theology of Zoroaster, the Persian prophet who probably lived in the 12th century before Christ. It was he who first introduced a clearly-defined Devil as the sole author of evil. His mythological system was based on the Persian worship of the ahuras, good deities eternally at war with the evil daevas. This faith was a fine example of a socio-political schism in heaven. It is interesting to note that, in Hindu religion, the devas (daevas) became the good gods, while the asuras (ahuras) became demons. Both religions sprang from a common source.

True religious dualism posits the existence of two absolute cosmic principles, wholly independent of one another. They are nearly always antithetical, and are often of separate or unknown origin. Neither can be omnipotent, since they must by definition limit one another. In absolute dualism, there can be no single, ultimate divine principle.

The novelty of Zoroaster's system is that it does away with the morally indefinable conception of the single divine principle in favor of a cosmic struggle between the good Lord, Ahura Mazda (or Ormzad) and the inferior Devil, Angra Mainyu (or Ahriman). Zoroaster preached devotion to the absolute good, and prophesied that, in the fullness of time, evil would be utterly destroyed by the Lord.

While Zoroaster and his Mazdaist followers are the first to have embodied the principle of evil within one personality, the concept of the Devil as it has been commonly known is of definite Hebrew origin. As always, the Devil is a figure who actively creates suffering and pursues wholesale destruction for its own sake. The persecution of the Jews confronted them with evil in a new, more powerful way, and the existence of the Devil made their suffering more explicable.

Early Judaism was, of course, utterly monistic. The god Yahweh encompassed both good and evil, mercy and justice, yet could not be assigned a specific moral character. As in Zoroastrianism, however, the evil in the god's nature was eventually differentiated from him and ascribed to a malignant spirit. Unfortunately, the implicit dualism of this alternative could never be reconciled with monotheism. The Lord was infinitely good; evil had its source outside of him. Yet he was the author of all things, and ultimately responsible for the cosmos. How could he permit evil to exist?
(Continued)

The horns and hooves of the christian devil are derived from from the universal wild horn gods of Europe. Namely Pan, but also Cerenous and Hern the Hunter.
Good thread Imaginary Friend!

Leviathan113 is right in that the imagery of the devil with the cloven hooves and horns derives from Pan and other similar pagan figures. Prior to that incorporation of images, the devil was an angel figure.

I think that any god/goddess character is shaped by our own human personalities - we anthropomorphasize (spelling?) things and project ourselves onto them, give them human characteristics and personalities.

The only exception to this that I can think of here is the Native American Indian's belief in the 'Great Spirit', which is in all things and is both positive & negative but without any humanistic personality.

Indeed , as another article on board describes, that is known as: Pantheism, aka/"Animism".
And I think, with respect to other religions, your observations are also spot on. A tendency toward anthropomorphism exists in all religious iconography wherein we have to put a subjective "face" or image upon the unseen, so as to better relate to that which we aspire to or worship, in faith that it's there at all.

As someone said in another thread about the god subject, it's all in our head. Of course! Because we've tried to understand what exists before us since we've been able to make the judgement that we are seemingly superior to all that exists because we can label and define within our understanding, all that exists and that we imagine is inferior to our intellect because we possess that predilection.

I wonder if the howler monkeys of the Amazon rainforest sit perched in that green canopy and watch bulldozers clear yet another acre for some capitalist enterprise like McDonald's (One of the largest corporate contributors to the decimation of the RF, because it's cheaper land for cattle grazing. Love those Big Mac's. They only cost 99 cents and a few thousand acres of Rainforest! Yay!), and think to themselves; "Oh god, there they go again!"