• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Sex in different religions' heavens (not in Christianity)

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Matthew 22:30
"At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

It seems to be saying that in Heaven there will be no marriage and therefore no sex....

BTW in Genesis 6 does it say something about angels having sex with humans? ("sons of God")

The Mormons believe in marriage and sex in Heaven - and men can have multiple wives.

Apparently Muslims can believe that you can have 72 virgins (not sure if only certain people get that).

I guess in Christianity you'd still be perfectly happy without sex though....
 
Last edited:

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,155
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Matthew 22:30
"At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

It seems to be saying that in Heaven there will be no marriage and therefore no sex....

BTW in Genesis does it say something about angels having sex with humans?

The Mormons believe in marriage and sex in Heaven - and men can have multiple wives.

Apparently Muslims can believe that you can have 72 virgins (not sure if only certain people get that).

I guess in Christianity you'd still be perfectly happy without sex though....

I think it's anyone's guess what is meant by any of this. The various visions of heaven have varied wildly over the years.

The angels in the old testament is a mish mash of Zoroastrian and pagan ideas. Them having sex with people is the sort of thing pagan dieties do. It can mean any number of things. Since the pagan concept of what gods and the divinity is, is so radically different than what the Jewish (and Christian) or Zoroastrian concept of divinity is, this mish mash of these disparate ideas can mean anything. It's not even certain the authors of it truly knew what they had in mind.

The "virgins" in the Quran is a translation of the Arabic word "houri", which can be translated as virgin. It can also be translated as anything good, great and beautiful. It's a quite vague term. And, incidentally, exactly identical to the Christian concept of Heaven that it's based on.

And both formulations of Heaven is basically on the line of "trust me, it'll be awesome. Whatever thing you want it to be, it'll be that... but more awesome". It's just hyperbole. A sales pitch.

Since it's only your soul that makes it to heaven, and sex is a bodily urge and animalistic drive, then perhaps there will be no sex in heaven because in heaven we might not have the need for sex or want it? I seriously doubt those who came up with these ideas had thought them through much. It has parallels to ancient stories of "the blessed land" which were intended to be mythic, ie it's just a story. How this ended up becoming something Christians actually thought they'd end up going to, can't be anything but wishful thinking.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
.....Since it's only your soul that makes it to heaven, and sex is a bodily urge and animalistic drive, then perhaps there will be no sex in heaven because in heaven we might not have the need for sex or want it? I seriously doubt those who came up with these ideas had thought them through much....
I think Jesus' answer to the Sadducees in Matthew 22 was very clever. He resolved their questions about how marriage would work in Heaven and it also means that there won't be population problems in the future... on the other hand there would be a population problem in the Mormon afterlife

5:48
those Mormons who were sealed in the​
eternal marriage ceremony expect to​
become polygamists gods in the celestial​
kingdom rule over other planets and​
spawn new families throughout eternity

What if the paradise of Eden (a form of Heaven) lasted forever....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_a6RjR_AHY

The "multiply and fill the earth" would involve the earth becoming literally full...
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,155
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
.....Since it's only your soul that makes it to heaven, and sex is a bodily urge and animalistic drive, then perhaps there will be no sex in heaven because in heaven we might not have the need for sex or want it? I seriously doubt those who came up with these ideas had thought them through much....
I think Jesus' answer to the Sadducees in Matthew 22 was very clever. He resolved their questions about how marriage would work in Heaven and it also means that there won't be population problems in the future... on the other hand there would be a population problem in the Mormon afterlife

5:48
those Mormons who were sealed in the​
eternal marriage ceremony expect to​
become polygamists gods in the celestial​
kingdom rule over other planets and​
spawn new families throughout eternity

What if the paradise of Eden (a form of Heaven) lasted forever....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_a6RjR_AHY

The "multiply and fill the earth" would involve the earth becoming literally full...


I can't follow the logic. What's clever about it? "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." That's a non-answer.

This is also before Christianity believed we go to heaven. This is a reference to resurrection on Earth, Egyptian style. It's never explained how that would work out.

It assumes it's obvious to the reader that they know what an angel is and how they work. This is never explained in the Bible, and we know they were introduced into Judaism from Zoroastrianism and underwent an evolution over time. If we'd bring all the leading Biblical scholars into a room together I'm pretty sure they'd argue into infinity over what is meant here.

My money is on that Jesus is dodging the question. He's basically saying that "Angels are cooler than you and one day you will understand. Until then, trust me".
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
I can't follow the logic. What's clever about it? "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." That's a non-answer.
The Sadducees asked who would be married to who in a tricky question. Jesus solves this problem by there being no marriage. It also makes sense that the resurrected people would be similar to the other beings who live in Heaven, the angels.
This is also before Christianity believed we go to heaven
I thought there were a lot of verses in the New Testament that talk about people going to Heaven.... what is odd though is that the Sadducees are asking Jesus about the resurrection even though they don't believe in the resurrection.... (Matthew 22:23)
My money is on that Jesus is dodging the question.
I think saying there is no marriage in Heaven is a solution to the problem. Do you think Jesus had to think up a solution to their question while having some form of marriage in Heaven? BTW marriage implies sex and sex can imply children (including in Mormonism).
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,155
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The Sadducees asked who would be married to who in a tricky question. Jesus solves this problem by there being no marriage. It also makes sense that the resurrected people would be similar to the other beings who live in Heaven, the angels.

Marriage is not just sex. A bunch of things can follow from this statement. Who knows what is meant by this? I think something is implied that assumes knowing the context. Do Angels have sex? From other sources, sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

I thought there were a lot of verses in the New Testament that talk about people going to Heaven.... what is odd though is that the Sadducees are asking Jesus about the resurrection even though they don't believe in the resurrection.... (Matthew 22:23)

Don't forget that this text is in the Bible. It's supposed to be a theological slam dunk for Jesus, and the Sadducees looking like idiots. So words have been put in the Sadducees mouth, they may or may not have said.

That said, within Judaism exegetic debates, and arguing about Biblical interpretation is encouraged and part of the religion. Which sets it apart from Christianity. So for all we know the Sadducees weren't agreeing that we go to heaven. They might just be arguing hypotheticals or playing the devils advocate.

Fun fact, within Judaism, this is what Satan is. He's the devils advocate who asks the faithful probing questions and tests their theology. Satan in Judaism isn't a bad person. It's a role. Anybody can play the role of Satan in a debate. It's a morally neutral position. It was only much later transformed into an evil force. But I digress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_in_Christianity

The Bible is all over the place on what happens after we die.

Judaism was undergoing a transformation during this period. This movement of transformation is what created Christianity.

The Sadducees represent the old and traditional Judaism. They were the priestly class, so temple Rabbis.

They did not believe in Heaven. They did believe in the afterlife, in Sheol. Which is the same idea as we find in Pagan Greek or Roman religion. It's a ghostly dull existence. It's also a place you go no matter if you were a good person or not. No sex and no fun.

To the Sadducees and traditional Judaism (ie the Old Testament) our life on Earth is the main event.

The Pharisees and Christians (and Essenes) are a break with this. They do argue for a life after death.

This idea that good people go to Heaven and bad to Hell (Sheol) is not an original Christian belief. That comes much later.

Strictly speaking it's a theological confused mess. If anybody at all goes to Hell, that means that the Sadducees were right, and nobody goes to Heaven. If anybody goes to Heaven that means the Pharisees were right, and nobody goes to Hell. Jesus in the Bible slides back and forward between these, and also the third option, Eternal Life on Earth. So nobody goes to either Heaven or Hell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell

The Bible contains all of these beliefs side by side.

My money is on that Jesus is dodging the question.
I think saying there is no marriage in Heaven is a solution to the problem. Do you think Jesus had to think up a solution to their question while having some form of marriage in Heaven? BTW marriage implies sex and sex can imply children (including in Mormonism).

I think we're missing some critical context. I don't think anybody knows.

For Biblical scholars these passages in the Bible are interesting in that they are found in the Bible at all. It means it wasn't settled at that time. This is religion evolving on the page. That's cool!
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
All of which defines religion as cotton candy, fanciful, attractive, but insubstantial and ultimately not sufficient for our needs. If you want more nourishing fare, you've got to seek elsewhere.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,140
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
"At the Resurrection" is not necessarily the same thing as "In Heaven"; I don't think Jesus believed in Heaven the same way modern Christians do, owing to the fact that he clearly believed the entire planet was about to end and be replaced with a new one.

And marriage is not, if I may point this out, necessarily the only context in which to have sexual relations. If all human institutions have been cast down and our original stainless innocence restored, one can see where that might include overly legalistic conceptions of marriage and sexist control of one human "dominating" their neighbor after the fashion of the ancient Near East marriage (barely distinguishable from slavery from the woman's perspective, not a position one angel would desire to place another angel under). I note that unless you believe certain conspiracy theories concerning the Magdalene, Jesus neither married nor ever sought to marry. But he pointedly had no objection to letting prostitutes wash his feet.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
"At the Resurrection" is not necessarily the same thing as "In Heaven"; I don't think Jesus believed in Heaven the same way modern Christians do, owing to the fact that he clearly believed the entire planet was about to end and be replaced with a new one.
Well it might still be a kind of paradise....
And marriage is not, if I may point this out, necessarily the only context in which to have sexual relations.
That would mean sex outside of marriage in the afterlife....
If all human institutions have been cast down and our original stainless innocence restored, one can see where that might include overly legalistic conceptions of marriage and sexist control of one human "dominating" their neighbor after the fashion of the ancient Near East marriage....
In Mark 10 it seems to be saying that Adam and Eve were married....
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
......Strictly speaking it's a theological confused mess. If anybody at all goes to Hell, that means that the Sadducees were right, and nobody goes to Heaven. If anybody goes to Heaven that means the Pharisees were right, and nobody goes to Hell. Jesus in the Bible slides back and forward between these, and also the third option, Eternal Life on Earth. So nobody goes to either Heaven or Hell.....
Can't some people go to Heaven and some go to Hell? In Matthew 25 it talks about sheep and goats going to eternal life or eternal punishment....
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,155
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
......Strictly speaking it's a theological confused mess. If anybody at all goes to Hell, that means that the Sadducees were right, and nobody goes to Heaven. If anybody goes to Heaven that means the Pharisees were right, and nobody goes to Hell. Jesus in the Bible slides back and forward between these, and also the third option, Eternal Life on Earth. So nobody goes to either Heaven or Hell.....
Can't some people go to Heaven and some go to Hell? In Matthew 25 it talks about sheep and goats going to eternal life or eternal punishment....

Matthew 25 refers to Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. So this is neither life in Heaven nor Hell.

From what I've read my money is on that the author of this didn't know himself what was official Christian doctrine. So he fudged it, made it vague, so it would work, no matter what theological team would win the debate. But that's just a guess.

It is also possible that this author meant something completely different that is now lost in history.

Matthew is the oldest New Testament text, and as such written in a time when Christianity was evolving and changing the most. But at the time they did not believe we go to Heaven. That's a later development
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
......Matthew is the oldest New Testament text, and as such written in a time when Christianity was evolving and changing the most. But at the time they did not believe we go to Heaven. That's a later development
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
According to that, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, etc, were written around 50-60. It says the Gospel of Mark was 65-80, and the Gospel of Matthew was 80-100.... so according to that site, there were older New Testament texts than Matthew....
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,155
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
......Matthew is the oldest New Testament text, and as such written in a time when Christianity was evolving and changing the most. But at the time they did not believe we go to Heaven. That's a later development
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
According to that, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, etc, were written around 50-60. It says the Gospel of Mark was 65-80, and the Gospel of Matthew was 80-100.... so according to that site, there were older New Testament texts than Matthew....

Dammit. My bad. You are correct. I got Mark confused with Matthew. Not the content. But the chronology.

Mea culpa. I apologise most sincerely for this mistake.

And the timeline matters. As the gospels were written, Paul was off on his own promoting radical ideas around the Mediterranean that the Christian Jews of Palestine were not on board with. The popularity of Paul's version of Christianity outside Palestine would eventually outgrow the numbers of very very Jewish Christians of Palestine. This would eventually shift the Christian theology of Palestine to that of Paul. But Palestine was still seen as the origin. The debates in Palestine itself were seen as the most important. It's in these debates the people who had actually known the original apostles personally would show up. That carried a lot of weight for the shaping of the Bible. These debates are actually found in the Bible. For example, Acts 15:1-41

The fact that these discussions are in the Bible at all is super cool. It shows us how Christians disagreed on what Jesus had said and how various camps argued about it. At this point it's not a done deal.

In these years 50 - 100 AD Christianity evolved and changed fast. So me getting Mark mixed up with Matthew is not a small fuck up. They describe two quite different Christianties.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,140
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
......Matthew is the oldest New Testament text, and as such written in a time when Christianity was evolving and changing the most. But at the time they did not believe we go to Heaven. That's a later development
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
According to that, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, etc, were written around 50-60. It says the Gospel of Mark was 65-80, and the Gospel of Matthew was 80-100.... so according to that site, there were older New Testament texts than Matthew....

Dammit. My bad. You are correct. I got Mark confused with Matthew. Not the content. But the chronology.

Mea culpa. I apologise most sincerely for this mistake.

And the timeline matters. As the gospels were written, Paul was off on his own promoting radical ideas around the Mediterranean that the Christian Jews of Palestine were not on board with. The popularity of Paul's version of Christianity outside Palestine would eventually outgrow the numbers of very very Jewish Christians of Palestine. This would eventually shift the Christian theology of Palestine to that of Paul. But Palestine was still seen as the origin. The debates in Palestine itself were seen as the most important. It's in these debates the people who had actually known the original apostles personally would show up. That carried a lot of weight for the shaping of the Bible. These debates are actually found in the Bible. For example, Acts 15:1-41

The fact that these discussions are in the Bible at all is super cool. It shows us how Christians disagreed on what Jesus had said and how various camps argued about it. At this point it's not a done deal.

In these years 50 - 100 AD Christianity evolved and changed fast. So me getting Mark mixed up with Matthew is not a small fuck up. They describe two quite different Christianties.
You're still wrong; the genuine Pauline letters, at least, all well predated the Gospels, both in date of composition and in terms of circulation.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Dammit. My bad. You are correct. I got Mark confused with Matthew. Not the content. But the chronology.

Mea culpa. I apologise most sincerely for this mistake.
No worries.... Well Matthew is the first book that appears in the New Testament....
....It's in these debates the people who had actually known the original apostles personally would show up. That carried a lot of weight for the shaping of the Bible. These debates are actually found in the Bible. For example, Acts 15:1-41

The fact that these discussions are in the Bible at all is super cool. It shows us how Christians disagreed on what Jesus had said and how various camps argued about it. At this point it's not a done deal....
It's interesting that even from the start Christians were disagreeing... and how it changed so it would be more popular with the Romans....
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,155
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Dammit. My bad. You are correct. I got Mark confused with Matthew. Not the content. But the chronology.

Mea culpa. I apologise most sincerely for this mistake.

And the timeline matters. As the gospels were written, Paul was off on his own promoting radical ideas around the Mediterranean that the Christian Jews of Palestine were not on board with. The popularity of Paul's version of Christianity outside Palestine would eventually outgrow the numbers of very very Jewish Christians of Palestine. This would eventually shift the Christian theology of Palestine to that of Paul. But Palestine was still seen as the origin. The debates in Palestine itself were seen as the most important. It's in these debates the people who had actually known the original apostles personally would show up. That carried a lot of weight for the shaping of the Bible. These debates are actually found in the Bible. For example, Acts 15:1-41

The fact that these discussions are in the Bible at all is super cool. It shows us how Christians disagreed on what Jesus had said and how various camps argued about it. At this point it's not a done deal.

In these years 50 - 100 AD Christianity evolved and changed fast. So me getting Mark mixed up with Matthew is not a small fuck up. They describe two quite different Christianties.
You're still wrong; the genuine Pauline letters, at least, all well predated the Gospels, both in date of composition and in terms of circulation.

In the early church Paul was a maverick and not in line with mainstream Christianity. Over time Christianity adapted towards Paul's teachings. The fact that the authentic Pauline epistles predates Mark doesn't mean that Mark contains Paul's version of Christianity.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,140
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Dammit. My bad. You are correct. I got Mark confused with Matthew. Not the content. But the chronology.

Mea culpa. I apologise most sincerely for this mistake.

And the timeline matters. As the gospels were written, Paul was off on his own promoting radical ideas around the Mediterranean that the Christian Jews of Palestine were not on board with. The popularity of Paul's version of Christianity outside Palestine would eventually outgrow the numbers of very very Jewish Christians of Palestine. This would eventually shift the Christian theology of Palestine to that of Paul. But Palestine was still seen as the origin. The debates in Palestine itself were seen as the most important. It's in these debates the people who had actually known the original apostles personally would show up. That carried a lot of weight for the shaping of the Bible. These debates are actually found in the Bible. For example, Acts 15:1-41

The fact that these discussions are in the Bible at all is super cool. It shows us how Christians disagreed on what Jesus had said and how various camps argued about it. At this point it's not a done deal.

In these years 50 - 100 AD Christianity evolved and changed fast. So me getting Mark mixed up with Matthew is not a small fuck up. They describe two quite different Christianties.
You're still wrong; the genuine Pauline letters, at least, all well predated the Gospels, both in date of composition and in terms of circulation.

In the early church Paul was a maverick and not in line with mainstream Christianity. Over time Christianity adapted towards Paul's teachings. The fact that the authentic Pauline epistles predates Mark doesn't mean that Mark contains Paul's version of Christianity.

There was no "mainstream" to early Christianity; by all we can deduce, in Paul's time it was a very loosely connected network of house churches teaching some pretty wild variants of Judaism, a situation his own letters seem to strongly suggest.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,155
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
In the early church Paul was a maverick and not in line with mainstream Christianity. Over time Christianity adapted towards Paul's teachings. The fact that the authentic Pauline epistles predates Mark doesn't mean that Mark contains Paul's version of Christianity.

There was no "mainstream" to early Christianity; by all we can deduce, in Paul's time it was a very loosely connected network of house churches teaching some pretty wild variants of Judaism, a situation his own letters seem to strongly suggest.

Are you thinking about some sort of mythical pure teaching of Jesus? I'm not. Early Christianity wasn't Christian at all. It was Jewish. Christianity emerged in a movement centered around cutting down the list of compulsory commandments to follow. These were anachronistic and not relevant to the modern Jew. But they were still Jews. Proudly not gentiles.

The branch of Jewish thought the Jesus movement came out of (Pharisee, Essenes) was nationalistic, conservative and against gentile influence. But they were very confused about what ye' olden days Judaism was. They wanted to harken back to a golden age of Judaism that was mostly fantasy. They disagreed about how Judaism in that golden age was like. I'm simplifying to an extreme degree here. Paul basically said "fuck that shit", left the discussion and went off on his own little adventure across the Mediterranean. I think everybody in these discussions wanted to perpetuate Jesus' vision. Including Paul.

But they interpreted the teachings of Jesus very differently. This was even just one generation away from Jesus. It makes me think that I highly doubt Jesus himself knew what he wanted and where his movement he was leading was going. I somehow doubt he had any kind of grand plan other than to reduce the power of the liberal (and according to Jesus) corrupt (Sadducee) rabbis controlling the Temple of Jerusalem (and getting rich as a result).

I'm aware the evidence for my theory is very light. But I get the impression that this was the movement Jesus was leading. Rather than an attempt to create a new religion. It's not my theory. It's Bart Ehrman's. He too acknowledges that it's very speculative. We just don't know.

But that would explain how come Christianity so fast could get so different. The apostles wasn't spreading the fully formed teachings of Jesus. They were trying to catch and perpetuate a vague kind of vibe Jesus had about it, and they discussed how this best could be achieved. That's the impression I get anyway.

Bart Ehrman also thinks Jesus was a rabbi. Ie, very different than the Jesus character in the Bible. For various equally hard to prove reasons.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,010
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The X-RATED PARADISE OF ISLAM
Quoting the Koran about how men will have harems of lovely ladies in the Islamic Paradise.
  • Koran 78:31: As for the righteous, they shall surely triumph. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high- bosomed virgins for companions: a truly overflowing cup.
  • Koran 37:40-48: ...They will sit with bashful, dark-eyed virgins, as chaste as the sheltered eggs of ostriches.
  • Koran 44:51-55: ...Yes and We shall wed them to dark-eyed houris. (beautiful virgins)
  • Koran 52:17-20: ...They shall recline on couches ranged in rows. To dark-eyed houris (virgins) we shall wed them...
  • Koran 55:56-57: In them will be bashful virgins neither man nor Jinn will have touched before.Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny ?"
  • Koran 55:57-58: Virgins as fair as corals and rubies. Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny ?"
  • Koran 56:7-40: ...We created the houris (the beautiful women) and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand.. "
  • Koran 55:70-77: "In each there shall be virgins chaste and fair... Dark eyed virgins sheltered in their tents whom neither man nor Jin will have touched before..
If you like the male sex, there are some goodies for you also.
  • Koran 52:24: Round about them will serve, to them, boys (handsome) as pearls well-guarded.
  • Koran 56:17: Round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness.
  • Koran 76:19: And round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls.
Needless to say, the Islamic Paradise has plenty of other goodies:
WATER
  • Koran 13:35: This is the paradise which the righteous have been promised: it is watered by running streams..
  • Koran 3:198: As for those that fear their Lord, theirs shall be gardens watered by running streams in which they will abide for ever, and a goodly welcome from God...
  • Koran 3:136: ...These shall be rewarded with forgiveness from their Lord and with gardens watered by running streams, where they shall dwell forever. Blessed is the reward of those who do good works..
  • Koran 15:45: The righteous (will be) amid gardens and fountains (of clear flowing water)
  • Koran 22:23: As for those who have faith and who do good work, God will admit them to gardens watered by running streams..
  • Koran 47:15: Here is a Parable Of the Garden which the righteneous are promised: In it are rivers of water incorruptible;
  • Koran 55:50-51: In them each will be two springs flowing free; Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny ?
  • Koran 55:66-67: In them will be Two Springs pouring forth water in continuous abundance:Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny ?
  • Koran 44:51-55: As for the righteous, they shall be lodged in peace together amidst gardens and fountains...
  • Koran 56:7-40: ...They shall recline on couches raised on high in the shade of thornless Lote trees and talhs; amidst gushing water...
WINE
  • Koran 47:15: Here is a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised. In it are...rivers of wine...
  • Koran 37:40-48: But the true servants of God shall be well provided for,...they shall be served with goblet filled at a gushing fountain, white and delicious to those who drink it. It will neither dull their senses nor befuddle them.
  • Koran 56:7-40: They shall recline on jewelled couches face to face, and there shalt wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine:
  • Koran 83:23-26: The righteous will surely dwell in bliss. Reclining upon soft couches they will gaze around them: and in their faces you shall mark the glow of joy. They shall be given a pure wine to drink, securely sealed, whose very dregs are musk...
FRUITS
  • Koran 13:35: This is the paradise which the righteous have been promised.. eternal are its fruits, and eternal are its shades..
  • Koran 37:40-48: But the true servants of God shall be well provided for, festing on fruit and honoured in the gardens of delight...
  • Koran 43:68-73: ...Such will be the garden of which ye are made heirs for your deeds. Ye shall have therein abundance of fruit, from which ye shall have satisfaction.
  • Koran 47:15: Here is a Parable Of the Garden which the righteneous are promised: ...In it are rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; And rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; And grace from their Lord..
  • Koran 55:47-49: Containing all kinds of trees and delights.Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny ?
  • Koran 55:52-53: In them there will be fruits of every kind, two and two. Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny ?
  • Koran 55:54-55: ...The fruit of the gardens will be near and easy to reach. Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny ?
  • Koran 55:68-69: In them will be Fruits, And dates and pomegranates: Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny ?
  • Koran 44:51-55: ...Secure against all ills, they shall call for every kind of fruit..
  • Koran 56:7-40: They shall recline on jewelled couches face to face, and there shalt wait on them immortal youths with ...fruits of their own choices and flesh of fowls that they relish..
  • Koran 76:13-21: ...Reclining there upon soft couches, they shall feel neither the scorching heat nor the biting cold. Trees will spread their shade around them, and fruits will hang in clusters over them...
WEALTH
  • Koran 22:23: As for those who have faith and who do good work, God will admit them to gardens watered by running streams. They shall be decked with pearls and bracelets of gold, and arrayed in garments of silk.
  • Koran 43:68-73: Enter ye the Garden, Ye and your wives, in beauty and rejoicing. To them will be passed round, dishes and goblets of gold: there will be there all that soul could desire, all that the eyes could delight in: and ye shall abide there in..
  • Koran 55:70-77: ..They shall recline on green cushions and fine carpets. Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny ?
  • Koran 44:51-55: As for the righteous, they shall be lodged in peace together amidst gardens and fountains, arrayed in rich silks and fine brocade...
  • Koran 55:54-55: They will recline on carpets, whose inner linings will be of rich brocade...
  • Koran 56:7-40: They shall recline on jewelled couches..
  • Koran 76:13-21: ..They shall be arrayed in garments of fine green silk and rich brocade, and adorned with bracelets of silver..
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,010
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
That "72 virgins" bit is not in the Koran itself but in the Hadiths, a huge collection of sayings about Mohammed and his companions.  Houri mentions
The Sunni hadith scholar Tirmidhi quotes the prophet Muhammad as having said:

The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and seventy-two houri, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a.[51][52]

However, others object that the narration granting all men seventy-two wives has a weak chain of narrators.[53]

Another hadith, also in Jami` at-Tirmidhi and deemed "good and sound" (hasan sahih) gives this reward specifically for the martyr:

There are six things with Allah for the martyr. He is forgiven with the first flow of blood (he suffers), he is shown his place in Paradise, he is protected from punishment in the grave, secured from the greatest terror, the crown of dignity is placed upon his head—and its gems are better than the world and what is in it—he is married to seventy-two wives among the wide-eyed houris (Ar. اثْنَتَيْنِ وَسَبْعِينَ زَوْجَةً مِنَ الْحُورِ الْعِينِ) of Paradise, and he may intercede for seventy of his close relatives.[54]

Also in the Hadiths is when Mohammed married  Aisha. More specifically, Sahih al-Bukhari 7:62:64
Aisha's age at the time of her marriage is frequently mentioned in Islamic literature.[16] According to John Esposito, Aisha was married to Muhammad in Mecca in 624 CE, after Hegira to Medina and the Battle of Badr.[30] Several scholars interpret this to indicate that she reached puberty at this age,[15][16][31][32] although her age at the time is the subject of dispute. Al-Tabari says she was nine at the time her marriage was consummated.[33] Sahih al-Bukhari's hadith says "that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old."[34] Other sources differ on the age of marriage, but agree that the marriage was not consummated at the time of the marriage contract.[35] All biographical information on Muhammad and his companions was first recorded over a century after his death,[36] but the ahadith[37] and sīra (traditional Islamic biographies of Muhammad) provide records of early Islam through an unbroken chain of transmission. Various ahadith stating that Aisha was either nine or ten at the time of her consummation come from collections with sahih status, meaning they are regarded as reputable by most Sunni Muslims.[34][38] Other traditional sources also mention Aisha's age. The sīra of Ibn Ishaq edited by Ibn Hisham states that she was nine or ten years old at the consummation.[39] The historian al-Tabari also states that she was nine.[40] Marriage at a young age was not unheard of at the time, and Aisha's marriage to Muhammad may have had a political connotation, as her father Abu Bakr was an influential man in the community.[41] Abu Bakr, on his part, may have sought to further the bond of kinship between Muhammad and himself by joining their families together in marriage via Aisha. Leila Ahmed notes that Aisha's betrothal and marriage to Muhammad are presented as ordinary in Islamic literature, and may indicate that it was not unusual for children to be married to their elders in that era.[42]
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,155
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The main problem with the Quran is that it's in verse. So words are picked based on metre, rather than being the best terms. This adds a lot of vagueness to the Quran.

There's a couple of popular English translations of the Quran. You can buy Qurans with the top translations side-by-side. I read one of these. What's striking is how wildly different they are. My take from this is that the Quran is pretty much open to any interpretation.

When Arabs say that the Quran needs to be read in the original Arabic. I'm convinced that this is the reason. Rather than that Arabic being some magical language. You need to read it in the original to understand just how vague this book is. I think that's what they're saying without saying it straight out.
 
Top Bottom