That Satan deceived Adam and Eve through a talking snake is what I've been taught by Christians.
Yes, as I said in my post, that version of Satan is a Christian invention. As far as Chrisitans are concerned, "The Bible" is both Testaments. Some
of the epistles in the New Testament include allusions to the Eden story. These variously imply intentional misconduct by a "Devil" figure. You'd
have to ask your Christian teachers which verses they personally relied upon to tell you about this, and how they would reconcile their chosen verses
with the black letter text of Genesis
2-3. Fortunately, we still have the black-letter story available to read.
If it wasn't Satan who deceived Adam and Eve, then who was it, according to you? Some snake in the garden?
"Some snake in the garden" is what's in the text. He is an instance of the character Serpent, who appears throughout world traditional literature.
He is a "stock character," found in many a myth. Also, I don't think anybody "deceived" the Woman. The whole truth emerged in two parts: God's
take on it and Serpent's take on it. Neither source lied exactly, but neither source told the whole truth, either. "Deceived" is from the Woman's
speech. It is her reaction to Adam's betrayal. Serpent had indeed omitted to mention what a crappy god Adam would turn out to be.
then the idea of a virgin giving birth to it should appear silly as well.
The fact remains, however, that the talking baby derives from a source who, so far as anybody can tell, proposed it for wholesome entertainment.
Personally, I don't have a dog in the fight over Mary's sex life, who the father of Jesus was, if anybody, whether Mary ever had sex after Jesus was
born, etc. Obviously, many other people do have opinions about all those things.
Some people seem to be picking and choosing the accounts that sit well with them.
As opposed to what? The accounts are incompatible. You can believe neither, or the one, or the other, but not both, because they can't both be
A "western" scholar can merely give an opinion on something that is alien to his own culture. His scholarship does not turn opinion into
fact, as some posters here seem to think so.
The original comment about "Western" wasn't mine. As I've already said, I didn't interpret the poster's remark the way you did, or even anything
close to you. The observation in question is simply and obviously a fact. Whose opinion does or doesn't faithfully reflect the fact doesn't matter
to me. Why a Westerner in the West is free to speak her mind about facts, while others elsewhere aren't free to do that, does matter to me.
As for antecedents of Koranic stories, there are plenty of those in the Bible.
OK, I think we're in agreement there.
Muslims understand that most of the Koran repeats Biblical tales.
Well, "repeat" is a little misleading, since, for example, a Crucifixion in which Jesus doesn't die can hardly be said to "repeat" the Biblical
Passion. Rather, the Koran often combines Biblical material with non-canonical (and in this case, obviously heretical) Christian (and other times,
Either way, a lot of the Koran is recycled tales of the ancients. Some people try to pursue scholarship under circumstances where they couldn't say
that aloud, even if most everybody, including Muslims, would know what they're talking about, and, I'd bet, give some weight to the idea that what
they're saying is the truth.
according to what/which source/scholar is character of iblis central to Islam?? 'Sheikh eightbits'?
Sheikh Scorpion, you mean? Have you read the OP? I have no idea whether Scorpie is qualified to teach Muslims or not. However, he says he is a Muslim,
and I take him at his word.
Islam is based on a simple and stupid to disagree idea of One God.
As it happens, I was aware that Islam is a monotheistic religion. Since you pretend this would be news to me, and then call my ideas stupid, I'll end
our conversation here. Feel free to U2U me when you're prepared to have a serious conversation without cheap shots and name calling.