A Bit of Comic Relief From Official Saudi Television: An Important Sheikh Describes the Virgins of Paradise. And How Does He Know?

Again, Marty broaches this as though the fundamentalists of any faith today don't also espouse ridiculous fairy-tales about what it's like up in Paradise.

Indeed, why doesn't he offer some speculations about what will happen to His People after Judgment Day?

To witless:

How does sex work up there for Jews and Christians...for Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Evangelicals, Amish?

No STDs? No need for condoms? No unwanted pregnancies? No gays?

Or, perhaps, no sex at all?

How about the role of women? How do women fare in your Paradise? Ful equality with men?

It's easy enough to ridicule the religion of others, of course. Especially of those you have nothing but contempt for on this side of Salvation.

But then Reverend Deardorf used to always tell us, "That's not very Christian, though".

Maybe. But, apparently, he didn't read the same Old Testament that I did. Mine seemed endlessly marbled with injustice, brutality, savagery, bloodbaths, pogroms and the like.

How about yours?

george

The Islamic paradise is a place where sin does not exist. Its 72 virgins and 28 handsome young men, btw. And wine is allowed. Things for which Muslim earthlings might get executed if indulged, are allowed in Paradise.

It is a man's paradise. Women do not get the same access to guiltless sin. They sit next to their husbands and are waited upon by their husband's virgins. If a woman was married more than once she gets to choose her favourite husband to spend eternity with.

The Jewish Paradise, from this website, emerges as a sort of Ivy league university, specializing in the Law. The greater the virtue, the higher you get in the eternal university, having access to ever wiser and more knowledgeable professors. Amen.

"In the Middle Ages, however, most of the people and many rabbis failed to grasp the spiritual meaning of paradise, and accepted all haggadic references in a literal sense. Maimonides was probably the first authority to strike a blow at this literalness, by asserting in unmistakable terms the fallacy of such a belief. "To believe so," he says, "is to be a schoolboy who expects nuts and sweetmeats as compensation for his studies. Celestial pleasures can be neither measured nor comprehended by a mortal being, any more than the blind can distinguish colors or the deaf appreciate music." Maimonides maintains that the Gan 'Eden is terrestrial, and will be discovered at the millennium (Maimonides, Commentary on Sanh. x.). This view evoked considerable opposition from the contemporary French rabbis; but the Spanish rabbis, especially Naḥmanides, defended Maimonides except as regards his theory of punishment after death."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=65&letter=P

Marty,

If you take a broad view of the definition of "spam", you would note that its essence consists of prepackaged messages that are sent, reflexively, to an e-mail or I.P. address when a user declares his/her presence on the web. Because of the preponderance of "spam", web engineers are charged with creating "spam filters" or "spam blockers" to ensure that false (and sometimes loaded) messages are not taken for being authentic. Google does it. Facebook does it. Craigslist does it.

Perhaps TNR can employ such a rhetorical spam blocker for particular sources that, it should be clear by now, bombard these comment threads with prepackaged messages. Reflexively.

Something to consider.

Dylanposer,

I assume your comment invoking spam refers to George Walton's posts. This is a public forum, so I think I am entitled to comment on your suggestion -- even though surely meant to be tongue-in-cheek -- that George's posts be blocked from the forum. George's posts on TNR are indeed ubiquitous. You would think posting on TNR is a full-time job for him. I find that his posts often are opague and nihilist, and I don't read all of them, or even a majority of them, because, in my view, they often do not address the issue at hand in any practical way. On the other hand, a good number of his posts have merit or are at least worthy of consideration. His post here is, in my view, spot on. We should look at our own religious beliefs about paradise before ridiculing the beliefs of others. If there are prepackaged posts on this site, they are those that reflexively respond to George's posts with non-substantive ad hominem attacks.

George's great and by now clearly insoluble problem is that he hasn't learned that words on a page don't automatically mean that communication is taking place. His belief that only he, uniquely among us, has discovered the ambiguity of language and the nature of subjectivity is embarrassing, nay painful to watch in action. His watertight self-regard and his inability to engage with others (whether in agreement or not) are intensified by the fact that he doesn't seem to even realize that these problems exist. Nevertheless I'd be against censoring him, especially as more objectionable posters like jacobtl were allowed free access to directly insult others.

I don't know George other than through his posts, but I suspect a lot of what he says is simply meant to pull people's chains. And some people here play right into his hands.

"In Paradise, The Women "Are Restricted to Tents, Locked Up for the Husband – There Is No Such Thing as Going Out""

In other words, paradise is just like Saudi Arabia only more so.

"I am Ignorant" George loony Waltunes shows again that he posts because he can't help it.

This place assuages his loneliness. He is a three hundred pound shut in with no one to talk to.

"Indeed, why doesn't he offer some speculations about what will happen to His People after Judgment Day?"

Heaven is a place where George Walton and his ilk will not be able to post on blogs.

noga:

The Jewish Paradise, from this website, emerges as a sort of Ivy league university, specializing in the Law. The greater the virtue, the higher you get in the eternal university, having access to ever wiser and more knowledgeable professors. Amen.

george:

Oh, thanks for clearing that up for us. But what are the references you can cite to confirm it? Surely, "the website" isn't just making it up out of the blue is it?

Can you cite Bible passages [or passages from other Judaic historiographies] that might give us a more revelatory peek into the other side?

Otherwise, aren't we back to competing fairy-tales?

I can well understand though [as did, say, Kant] why accummulating "rewards" might be a rather shallow manner in which to approach Salvation. After all, that would basically reduce Paradise down to a kid being good for Santa now in order to get lots of presents later.

Yuck. The spirirual is important too, surely. But the spiritual is rather inchoate, isn't it? Isn't there anything more substantial you can point out as well?

Especially a list of things that might persuade someone to chuck Christianity and Islam and take their chances with your G-d instead. Call it, say, "Pascal's Wager--2009"

george

dylan:

If there are prepackaged posts on this site, they are those that reflexively respond to George's posts with non-substantive ad hominem attacks.

george:

You'll burn in hell for this of course, but thanks.

I have explained any number of times in any number of ways how I came to TNR, why I read the publication [especially the magazine, especially the arts section], what motivates me to post, the many hats I doff for the many personas I engage and how my own numerous inflection points are anything but "prepackaged messages".

I have always been completely open and honest about my presense here.

Besides, I often employ both humor and entertainment in my comments. And irony. Lots and lots of irony.

To hear The Whiners [and, gee, they always seem to be those who despise my moral and political values] you'd think I posted thousands of times a day. Like they had to wade through hundreds of consecutive posts to find one that wasn't mine.

We know what's going on here. They want me censored [or outright banned] because they simply don't want to be confronted [at all!] with nihilism...an existential perspective on identity, values, God, political economy, the mainstream media and the like.

Nihilism is a time honored tradition in the discipline of philosophy. Nothing at all like the vox populi mentality most people bring to it: Hell's Angels, nazis, Mickey and Mallory....Natural Born Killers. I just try to introduce it into the evaluation of "the news"

And again and again and again: not one of them is forced to read my stuff. Not a single one. Right?

As far as I'm concerned they are the intellectual equivalent of mice: Marty! Marty! Marty! Please save us from him!!

Unbelievable.

george

jd:

This place assuages his loneliness. He is a three hundred pound shut in with no one to talk to.

george:

See what I mean? No one....NO ONE....stalks me around here more than JD. He knows nothing about me other than the arguments I make he has nary a clue as to how to parry.

So he [like all the others] make me the argument, instead.

I become the ubiquitous Jew-hating Nazi poster who must be, how shall I say this, liqudated from here?

Dangerous tripe like this is the staple ingredient of the authoritarian personality.

Thus an aside to JD,

Actaully READ the pre-orgonomic Wilhelm Reich. He links the authoritarian personality to sexual repression, doesn't he? Is THAT the start of your problem with me?

Oh, yeah, and now that you and your ilk have succeeded in making ME the topic of discussion again, you can use all the posts of mine above [the ones I submitted to defend myself] to confirm all the more how my pathological spam is destroying The Spine.

george

"On the other hand, a good number of his posts have merit or are at least worthy of consideration. His post here is, in my view, spot on."

If Hurtado really believes that then he is as big a jerk as loony George.

How is this comment by the bigot George Walton "spot on?'

"Indeed, why doesn't he offer some speculations about what will happen to His People after Judgment Day?"

Perhaps in the antisemitic endroit that they both share this would be pertinent, but not as a comments on Marty's post.

iambiguous

"loony george:

See what I mean?"

Does loony George "see" what he means? Does he understand what he posts?

somebody told the three hundred pound loser that trying to "be ambiguous" would make him seem "intelligent" and he believed them.

This is why the tub of lard calls himself "i am ambiguous."

There is nothing ambiguous about a man a housebound tub of lard imprisoned in his own 300 pound flesh as he is in his mind.

PATHETIC!

Irony:

George's great and by now clearly insoluble problem is that he hasn't learned that words on a page don't automatically mean that communication is taking place.

george:

That depends on who you are communicating with...and what you are trying to communicate. We've been over this before, haven't we?

With respect to Marty's original bit of "comic relief" above what was he trying to communicate to us in your view? Did he succeed? Did I not succeed in rebutting him? No? Why not?

Instead, this Freudian slip:

His belief that only he, uniquely among us, has discovered the ambiguity of language and the nature of subjectivity is embarrassing, nay painful to watch in action.

george:

How embarassing and painful can this really be if you feel compelled to pop in from time to time to point it out? True, I don't respond in the traditional collegial manner. That's not how I trained myself to respond to others [as a polemist] in philosophy venues. And to do it your way means to approach political discourse in a way that basically accepts the Liberal-Conservative consensus and the op-ed mentality of the punditocracy. Instead, I'm a huge follower of Maureen Dowd. SHE is the fucking genius when it comes to communicating as far as I am concerned. She's like a great political cartoonist who buries the hatchet over and again in the bullshit that often passes for political discourse in the mainstream media. Why should I be expected to fit snuggly into this mold here? Why shouldn't others try to break out of it more instead? Maybe I'm the "fosbury flop" this crowd needs.

And I don't insult others; not unless they are intellectually insecure enough to feel insulted. Do you grasp this cruical distinction? If not then just throw in the towel, give up on me, and communicate in the more accepted way with others, instead.

He said, with a particularly delectible dose of irony.

And speaking of irony, why do you suppose I like Marty's posts so much? Because he is also willing to drop the "scholastic" pose from time to time and pop apoplectically. He actually reveals his roiling emotional and psychological reactions to a world that can be brutal as hell to endure.

george walton
d/a

How embarassing and painful can this really be if you feel compelled to pop in from time to time to point it out?

Not very. I was being somewhat hyperbolic for rhetorical purposes. "Polemism," as you say.

"Otherwise, aren't we back to competing fairy-tales?" asks george, ponderously.

Otherwise to what?

That's like saying: george is a putz. Otherwise, he is quite insufferable.

The only thing I don't get is how can anyone live in a society and retain all these behavioral flaws, intact. There are certain mental disorders that may account for such resistence. I however suspect he is just a pathologically tiresome old bore who is excited by whatever attention he gets here. Any attention, even that of abuse and insults, is better than utter loneliness. I have no reason to believe that george behaves differently in real life so one can only imagine what his daily routine looks like, and how people react to him.

BTW, I noted that george, never at a loss for words, remained totally silent in this thread:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/one-more-egypt-israels-peace-partner#c...

Gee, I wonder why.

Obsessive George Waltunes:

"Actaully READ the pre-orgonomic Wilhelm Reich. He links the authoritarian personality to sexual repression, doesn't he? Is THAT the start of your problem with me?"

So the loony googled Reich. He got him wrong too. There is no "pre Orgonomic" Reich. his later work is an extension of his earlier one. Moreover his vew of the "authoritarian personality" was meant to explain the kind of obsessive antisemitism one finds in Walton's posts.

And yes, I have a repressed desire to fuck a tub of lard. I always wanted to fuck pigs and when I get to paradise that's what I will do.

Loony George is full of self pity too:

"I become the ubiquitous Jew-hating Nazi poster who must be, how shall I say this, liqudated from here?"

No, you didn't become one, you were one from the start.

As for "liquidating you," I wish I could turn you into liquid. Unfortunately it aint' possible to get liquid from a stone Wal-ton.

Jackson asks: "How is this comment by the bigot George Walton "spot on?'" George's initial comment makes the point that it is hypocritical for adherents of Christianity or Judaism to ridicule Islamic beliefs about the afterlife. I agree.

By the way, Jackson, your personal insults of George Walton on this thread are beyond the pale. If TNR actually had a policy and practice of screening the posts, which it apparently does not, it would be completely justified in blocking those posts.

dhurtado

"By the way, Jackson, your personal insults of George Walton on this thread are beyond the pale. If TNR actually had a policy and practice of screening the posts, which it apparently does not, it would be completely justified in blocking those posts."

Yes, beyond the pale, that's me.

When it comes to the nutterings pretentious antisemitic fools like George Walton I will always be beyond the pale.

dhurtado, noga is right, walton is insufferable, a raging egomaniac with nothing real to say. I am a Univesity Professor who teaches language. My job is effective communication. I stick to the topic at hand but try to maintain a relaxed environment. My class is pretty popular and I have tenure. I have known people like Walton, their classes are invariably disasters and they never last. I once had a class on the History of Philosophy years back, I don't think teacher ever got around to the history at all, instead he just pompously exclaimed on whatever matter flitted through his mind. The class was an easy A so I didn't complain then but it was an utter waste of time. I remember once, this is many, many years ago, how he expounded on how when he did the dishes, he truly did the dishes, focusing all his attention on it, and he said it in such a way as that he believe he was transcendent. I was 19 and knew he was utterly full of shit.

Hey Walton, why don't you lay out your biography here. Where are your great philosophical treatises? I am far, far more honest than you. Pretty much everyone here knows where I live, and my own history, and how it colors my judgment. So, for once, how about some honesty from you? Does your life have any interesting story to tell?

Here's the thing: there is never any room in a policy discussion for ad hominem attacks. Jackson, look for failures in the logic of those to whom you respond, not assumptions about their bodily composition.

And George. George. Here is the thing about viewing policy through such abstract philosophical perspectives that the discussion drifts away from the real: the 'intellectual' yammering goes so far above the heads of those affected by policy conflicts, it renders discussion meaningless. What is the point of philosophy or intellectualism if it fails to find solutions to what are very real problems? I'm not saying that philosophies should be checked at the door; obviously, a defined philosophy toward finding solutions keeps an analysis of issues tight, keeps them coherent. But it fails to get to real, workable solutions. Intellect should not be so abstract.

And anyway, philosophy is complex and time-intensive, yet you sometimes have responded to bloggers so immediately upon publication of their material, and with such long, sprawling--sometimes longer than the actual blog post--responses, it makes me wonder if you really have considered the material to which you are responding. Your responses sometimes read like madlibs lifted from Austin Powers or Inspector Gadget or Zoro scripts, but with the original adversary's name taken out and replaced with (_______ name your pundit of the day here). You are certainly in the right to repsond to blog posts by TNR's writers that come off as visceral and unfounded, but there is no need to hijack as much response space as you do. If you are going to go long, be sure to write something substantial about the facts at hand and the solutions that need to be considered. Otherwise, your material is easily dismissed for straying from the discussion, and then there is no point to be writing at all. If you do not want to engage with bloggers or other commenters on a level that balances philosophy and facts (and without so many goddamned rhetorical questions), then you should consider putting your written efforts into a philosophy blog.

Agree with dhurtado. Marty asks in the headline, "How does he know?" Quite so. How does any purported religious authority know anything? Answer: they don't, of course. Being a religious skeptic has its intellectual rewards. I can attack and ridicule this guy's beliefs about the afterlife on the ground that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Those invested in their own supernatural beliefs don't have that luxury if they wish to remain intellectually consistent.

blackton:

walton is insufferable, a raging egomaniac with nothing real to say. I am a Univesity Professor who teaches language. My job is effective communication.

george:

An academic. Why doesn't that surprise me. Although you don't sound like one when fulminating against me.

But let's try this:

1] what was Marty trying to communicate with this post? Was he "effective"? Why?

2] my rejoinder to Marty---ineffective? Why?

Let's stay focused just on this point, first. Then we can traverse to the others.

Oh, and I have noted my personal experiences here. My years growing up in the belly of the working class beast, my work in the shipyards and steel mills, my years in the Army, the year in Vietnam, the year in shrinkworld trying to piece together all the fragments again, the years in college, the years in radical political organizations, the years as a husband, a father, a productive member of the community etc.

And you? I missed your resume apparently.

george

Jhildner,

On a tangentially related topic, you may recall our discussion about the accommodation of religious holidays by public schools and othe public institutions. You may have caught wind of the controversy in Oak Pak, IL, in which certain Jewish residents of Oak Park have strenously objected to the scheduling of a high school football game during Rosh Hashanah. Two of the players were Jewish and elected to play in the game. Both the school board and the two players were subjected to intense criticism. I understand the objection. I would understand the objection among Christian residents of Oak Park if a high school football game were scheduled for Christmas day. But the controversy does re-raise the question of whether public schools can accommodate religious observance without engaging in religious discrimination. It might be relatively easy to track Christian and Jewish holidays and avoid scheduling athletic events on those holidays, but what about the Muslims, Seventh-Day Adventists, and other religious groups that may be represented in Oak Park? Or what about orthodox Jews, who I understand observe the weekly sabbath? Is it practicable, or even possible, to track all religious holidays that are observed in a community and avoid scheduling athletic events or other school activities on those holidays? Probably not. So how can we justify accommodating some religions and not others without violating the religion clauses of the First Amendment? Is it enough, as we have discussed, to say that the discrimination is not based on religious bias but simply on the practicality that Christians and Jews constitute a large majority of the community?

“Here's the thing: there is never any room in a policy discussion for ad hominem attacks. Jackson, look for failures in the logic of those to whom you respond, not assumptions about their bodily composition.”

Dylanposer, logic? Where is the logic in any of Loony George’s attacks?

His comments seem to alternate and adopt a preachy, a pseudo scholarly tone, sometimes he tries to adopt a comical tone about topics that are not funny, and then he takes refuge sarcastic tone. What I don’t see is any consistent or even inconsistent logic. Nor is there any truth in most of what he says.
There isn’t even any discernible irony in is comments.

I suggest therefore, Dylanposer that you look for his logic while I attack his miserable overfed carcass. (I have trouble believing that any one by the name of George Walton actually exists.)

As for being nice, Blackton and Irony and god knows Noga (even I was blind enough, when he first showed up and turned the talk back threads into an “I am George and this is all about me blog tried to reason with him once upon a time) have tried to reason with him but nothing came of it.

Look at Blackton’s latest sensible proposal asking the loony to tell us how he knows what he says he knows, but got a “I am a second Eric Hoffer, an authentic ---which is to say fake, longshoreman, and you are just an academic twit” in other words his answer was a loud I PREFER NOT TO and like that other fictional loony we will have to live him alone and move on to threads sans George.

jhildner1
“Agree with dhurtado. Marty asks in the headline, "How does he know?" Quite so. How does any purported religious authority know anything?”

This is not what Marty asked. He asked, how does this specific important Sheikh know what heaven is like?

He wasn’t talking about all important religious authorities; he wasn’t even talking about Muslim authorities in general.

It was loony George Waltune who tried to generalize the discussion into one about religion in general, and specifically, being obsessed with Jews, about Judaism.

This George’s signature style he will try to generalize any specific topic because he knows next to nothing about specific topics.

In any case, Marty never said that he believed that there is a heaven and hence ugly George’s comments that Marty should

“offer some speculations about what will happen to His People after Judgment Day?

Is a sign of his antisemitism! “Marty’s people?” Me thinks that that would be his employees at TNR, wouldn’t it?

dhurtado
"On a tangentially related topic, you may recall our discussion about the accommodation of religious holidays by public schools and othe public institutions."

Who cares, hurtado, you just bought into George's attempt to turn the thread topic into a discussion about religion in general.

Got anything to say about "Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid Description of heaven...?

Would you want to turn Muslim in order to have "sex in heaven?"

dylan:

Here is the thing about viewing policy through such abstract philosophical perspectives that the discussion drifts away from the real: the 'intellectual' yammering goes so far above the heads of those affected by policy conflicts, it renders discussion meaningless.

george:

Anyone familiar with the bulk of my posts at TNR knows "the real" is suffosed throughout them. I just don't approach it from the same didactic inclinations I bump into time and again---here and in other venues. I am instead an autodidact. And I explain why that is important. As an existentialist, for example.

Also, I don't approach it from within the Democrat/Liberal, Republican/Conservative narrative of the mainstream media.

And I endlessly explore the existential variables that propel folks into embracing "the real" from one set of moral and political vantage points rather than others. THAT is what bothers people, of course. Or I strongly suspect that is. I force them to explore their past, their childhood, their eperiences, their relationships. I ask them to consider how they are intertwined so as to predispose them to one rather than another God, political agenda, moral fount.

Isn't that what I am doing above? Marty gets a few chuckles reading about the culturally challenged Arab Muslims and their knucklhead virgin scenarios in Paradise. So, did I rejoin by "intellectualizing" his post and offering an epistemological assessment of religious semiology? No, I responded in kind by turning Marty's prejudices back in on him and suggesting it is just another example of an existential snort against Them----the mindset of The True Believer.

And though far more tolerant of me than others here [which I genuinely appreciate], you still miss the point of my efforts.

In other words, that "finding solutions" to problems that devolve out of conflicting moral, politcal and religious narratives is best taken up by acknowleding first and foremost there are no Real Solutions----not if by that you mean the most rational or ethical or politically correct solution of all. On the contrary, my point is that only through moderation, negociation and endless compromising will "solutions" be derived that are the least problematic. I just have no illusions about that in the context of political economy.

Do you understand this point?

What do you know about existential philosophy? How is it different from realism [philosophical]? idealism [philosophical]? essentialism? naturalism? materialism? objectivism? How does it approach the antinomy that is at the heart of the "Is/Ought" problem? The problem of "universals" in other words?

And how is that best broached in the context of analyzing and reacting to "the news"?

What you see as "straying from the subject", I see as "nudging an understanding subject in a different direction".

If you think that is busllshit however, then, from your perspective, that's what it is. But this is what always fascinates me: The relationship between words and worlds....between what is said to be true, what we believe to be true, and what can be demonstrated [syllogistically, for example] to actually be true. Sans David Hume. What is true 'by definition", what is true "analytically", what is true "empirically"? How effective was Kant in fusing this in his deontological assessment of "Duty"? And how meaningful [and effective] is his "Critique" of pure and practical reason absent the transcendental?

We can easily claim to know that anything is true. But what are the limitations of language in delineating this? Irony claims you all get this part. Well, I don't see it reflected at all in the posts I read at TNR.

george walton

For myself, I find the great incongruity between what is allowed in the Islamic heaven and what is strictly forbidden to a Muslim on this life, on pain of severe punishment even death, most intriguing.

Unremitting sexual activity, homosexuality, alcohol. And no trouble whatsoever from the female of species. The ultimate male fantasy. What can it mean? How do the believers accept that what they are harshly warned against is free for the taking and even celebrated in heaven?

I believe the Christian and Judaic visions both assume that part of the enchantment of making it to paradise is the release from the bodily need for hedonistic pleasure, the achievement of "perfect happiness" which seems to be defined as absence of carnal desires. The Islamic paradise is the opposite. It's like parents would teach their kids that candy is bad for them. But .. if you are a good boy and do not eat or even ask for, candy, when you die you will go to heaven where you can eat candy all day long.

"For myself, I find the great incongruity between what is allowed in the Islamic heaven and what is strictly forbidden to a Muslim on this life, on pain of severe punishment even death, most intriguing"

Me, too.

As to those virgins, are they also in paradise or in hell? It appears to be hell, that is if they are up there solely for men's sexual gratification. In other words, according to the gospel of Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid, women are perpetual sex slaves here and in the afterlife.

In that light, why would a Muslim woman want to be a suicide bomber? Why would she even want to be a Muslim at all?

Methinks the Sheikh is a crackpot.

This will save me some typing:

Here is a succinct overview of the conception of heaven in Judaism:

"DEATH, HEAVEN, AND HELL"

"In general, Jewish thinkers have focused on the ways to lead a good life on Earth and improve this world, leaving concerns about death and beyond until the appropriate time. Judaism has stressed the natural fact of death and its role in giving life meaning. Of course, issues of death are inevitably important. The fear of death, concern about the fate of our own soul and those of our loved ones, ethical concerns that some people die unfairly, all these and many other issues are discussed in Jewish literature. Since God is seen as ultimately just, the seeming injustice on Earth has propelled many traditional Jewish thinkers into seeing the afterlife as a way to reflect the ultimate justice of human existence.

Traditional thinkers considered how individuals would be rewarded or punished after their deaths. There are a few rare descriptions of life after death. Traditionalists gave the name Gehenna to the place where souls were punished. Many Jewish thinkers noted that since, essentially, God is filled with mercy and love, punishment is not to be considered to be eternal. There are, similarly, many varying conceptions of paradise, such as that paradise is the place where we finally understand the true concept of God. It is also possible that there is no separate Heaven and Hell, only lesser or greater distance from God after death. In addition, punishment might be self-determined on the basis of suffering in kind the suffering the person brought about. That is, Judaism doesn't have a clear sense of Heaven and Hell, with different places in Hell for different punishments. Rather, the idea is that God uses the afterlife to provide ultimate justice and for the wicked to seek some sort of final redemption.

Judaism does not believe people who are Gentiles will automatically go to Hell or that Jews will automatically go to Heaven on their basis of their belonging to the faith. Rather, individual ethical behavior is what is most important. Many traditional Jews believe that Judaism provides the best guide to leading such an ethical life."

http://www.angelfire.com/al/AttardBezzinaLawrenc/JewCathDifference.htm

What has always intrigued me, as a non believer, about the Jewish idea of heaven is the Platonic nature of its conception.

Self deluded George:

“Anyone familiar with the bulk of my posts at TNR knows "the real" is suffosed throughout them. I just don't approach it from the same didactic inclinations I bump into time and again---here and in other venues. I am instead an autodidact. And I explain why that is important. As an existentialist, for example…..

And I endlessly explore the existential variables that propel folks into embracing "the real" from one set of moral and political vantage points rather than others. THAT is what bothers people, of course. Or I strongly suspect that is. I force them to explore their past, their childhood, their eperiences, their relationships. I ask them to consider how they are intertwined so as to predispose them to one rather than another God, political agenda, moral fount."

Bad spelling aside, what makes this pompous ass think that posters and readers here need him to explain to them what "true reality is?"

Doesn't he realize that is condescending tone alone will drive away most sane posters? George fancies himself some kind of seer with a unique insight into what is true and real. This is why I see him as a loony: he assumes a posture that he condemns in others.

I do agree with one point George made. He is an autodidact, as his insufferable posts show. There is an adhoc quality to his writing like someone who has just looked up a topic on the internet.

Jackson,

My note to Jhildner was intended for him, as his comment evoked a discussion he and I had a couple of months ago on the TNR blogs. If you are not interested, then disregard it. On the other hand, if you have something thoughtful to say about it, I am all ears. Walton did not turn the discussion into one about religion in general. His comment related to ridiculing the mythology of other religions, which is exactly what Marty did. The only part of the post that was written by Marty was the headline: "A Bit of Comic Relief From Official Saudi Television: An Important Sheikh Describes the Virgins of Paradise. And How Does He Know?" The argument that Marty was ridiculing only the Sheikh personally and not Islamic belief does not withstand scrutiny. If one of Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, were ridiculed for his or her belief that Armageddon is nigh, would you argue that it is only the individual that is being ridiculed, and not the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses that Armageddon is nigh?

Here is the million dollar question Jackson. If you find George's posts so worthless, why don't you just ignore them? I ignore most of them myself (sorry George). Don't you realize that your reactions to George just feed his fire?

dhurtado, since the Saudi Sheikh's belief is not universal among Muslims, jack's point that the Sheikh himself is the target of Marty's ridicule is valid. If the Jehovah witness, you cited, not only said the end is near, but that Jesus is coming down with a flying saucer, he would be laughed off as silly.

The Sheikh went into self-indulgent and extra details that exposed his own personal bias, a bias not quite as pronounced in the moderate Muslim ideas of heaven. It was radical and crackpot-like, therefore this particular ridicule is all on him, not the Muslim faith in general.

dhurtado, Marty was ridiculing that sheik, lets face it, the guy is crazy. What is disturbing is the status he has in his society (and I might add I am pretty damned disturbed by Glen Beck).

"The argument that Marty was ridiculing only the Sheik personally and not Islamic belief does not withstand scrutiny." Actually, I find it does. Now I don't know what Marty's opinion is of Islam, but it certainly is far wider and contains far more diversity of beliefs than what comes from this mad nutter. You give this sheik far too much authority. He is rife with misconceptions at to what even the Koran says:

There is this falsehood: Women Will Not Get Any Benefits Out of Paradise

Some people tend to argue that since men will get houris then what will women get? Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former Head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, adds:

“Here Allah mentions the Hoor Al`Een because in most cases men pursue women and not vice versa. As for women, Allah Almighty may marry them to any of the believers in Paradise, if they did not get married during worldly life, or He may compensate them by making them feel content with their position. It is also said that Allah may grant women some kind of beauty with which they will feel that they are better than the Hoor Al-`Een and that they are their mistress, so they will not love anyone other than their own husbands nor will they feel jealous of the Hoor Al-`Een.” (Source)

The main reason why the Quran and hadith are stressing the fact that men will get virgin girls is because it more appealing to men than promising virgin men to women. Men are more sexually active and therefore are facing a lot of difficulty (especially in the teenage years) to remain chaste. There are a lot of temptations in this world. That is why that Allah keeps promising these virgin girls who are more superior to the women of this world to those that remain patient and steadfast. That way, this motivates the unmarried men to remain chaste and be patient because they know they have something better waiting for them in the next life. Because if they do not get it legally in the next life then they would get it illegally in this life.

These are some verses that show the equality that men and women receive when it comes to attaining the rewards of paradise.

Surah 3:195

So their Lord accepted their prayer: That I will not waste the work of a worker among you, whether male or female...

Surah 4:194

And whoever does good deeds whether male or female and he (or she) is a believer -- these shall enter the garden, and they shall not be dealt with a jot unjustly.

Surah 16:97

Whoever does good whether male or female and he is a believer, We will most certainly make him live a happy life, and We will most certainly give them their reward for the best of what they did.

Surah 33:35

Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women and the humble men and the humble women, and the almsgiving men and the almsgiving women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their private parts and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allah much and the women who remember -- Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward.

Surah 36:56

They and their wives shall be in shades, reclining on raised couches

Surah 39:34

They will have with their Lord whatever they desire; that is the reward of those who good.

Surah 43:70

Enter the garden, you and your wives; you shall be made happy.

I also want to point out that critically examining religions should not be anathema, provided it is done in a spirit of understanding and respect. But some religions are crackpot ones, such as scientology. It is pretty easy to distinguish between the two.

Now, one last thing about Walton. I took the trouble to add something to the conversation by doing some research on the Islamic surahs related to women and paradise. Jackson did the same with regard to Judaism. This is the point of these discussion, to share our thoughts and our knowledge, not just bloviate like a deranged narcissist.

dhurtado
"Here is the million dollar question Jackson. If you find George's posts so worthless, why don't you just ignore them? I ignore most of them myself (sorry George). Don't you realize that your reactions to George just feed his fire?"

I do ignore most of his posts. However, when he says something bigoted thinking that he is being enlightened I am compelled to take him on. This is what happened above.

As I said above, I don't ignore antisemitic comments in daily life and there is no reason I should ignore them here.

Also I find his smug attitude of being more enlightened than any one else here, of knowing the true nature of reality insulting.

Blackton: "I took the trouble to add something to the conversation by doing some research on the Islamic surahs related to women and paradise."

Exactly, it's the specifics of any topic that is interesting and not its reduction to some "abstract truth."

OK. Now we are having a meaningful discussion about Marty's derision of the Sheikh's expressions. If the point is that the Sheikh's statements are not representative of Muslim belief, then I think it is a fair argument that Marty was ridiculing the Sheikh's words and not Islam. Of course, Marty does not say that. He just holds the interview up for ridicule. For what purpose? Just for a few laughs?

Jackson, if you were ignoring George's posts, you wouldn't know what they said.

PS. I think it would have been helpful for Marty to somehow say that he thinks the Sheikh is a deviant (if that is in fact what he thinks) because, otherwise, his post is susceptible to the inference that he is ridiculing Muslims/Arabs.

"Jackson, if you were ignoring George's posts, you wouldn't know what they said." dhurtado

wrong, ignoring doesn't only mean not glancing them over now and then, it also means not responding to them.

"PS. I think it would have been helpful for Marty to somehow say that he thinks the Sheikh is a deviant (if that is in fact what he thinks) because, otherwise, his post is susceptible to the inference that he is ridiculing Muslims/Arabs."

Hurtado, it would be helpful if you read the entire post including its links: they too carry the intended meaning:

“In the latest of his controversial statements and fatwas, well-known Saudi Islamist lecturer and author Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid stated, on Al-Majd TV on August 27, 2008, that mice were Satan's soldiers and that "according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed in all cases" (to view the clip, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1850.htm ; to read the transcript, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1850.htm ). Sheikh Al-Munajid, who frequently appears on Saudi TV channels, was a former member of the staff of the Saudi Embassy Islamic Affairs Department in Washington, D.C., but was stripped of his diplomatic credentials. [1]

MEMRI's translation of Al-Munajid's statements, which was quickly picked up by the international media, became part of the ongoing dispute between hard-line clerics and reformers in the Arab world.Additionally, the widespread western attention to his statement forced Al-Munajid to defend and clarify his statements. In a November 6, 2008 interview on Iqra TV, he insisted that he had "never issued a fatwa about the killing of Mickey Mouse," and complained about MEMRI's translation and release of clips of his statements on this and other matters (to view the MEMRI TV clip of this interview, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1912.htm ). Previously, on September 4, 2008, in an interview with Alarabiya.net, he discussed his statements and complained about MEMRI; and on September 29, 2008, he posted his own YouTube video, in response MEMRI.

In the Arab world, the Saudi daily Al-Madina published a lengthy article citing Saudi Islamic scholars who defended Al-Munajid and claimed that MEMRI had distorted his words, just as the Jews and the Christians had falsified scripture. One of the scholars also proposed establishing an organization to counter MEMRI.”

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP212308#_edn1

It’s obvious that the Sheik represents an extremist and ignorant form of Islam which feeds hatred of Jews and Christians. Why shouldn’t people ridicule him?

Another occasion for merriment:

"WELCOME TO TPA
(Terrorist-Proof Airlines)

We at TPA, Terrorist-Proof Airlines, are in the
Flying business.
We can absolutely guarantee
NO WALK-ON GUNS, KNIVES, BOX CUTTERS, SHOE-BOMBS
Or other weapons will ever be carried onto OUR FLIGHTS!

Book your next flight with TPA, the safest airline in the industry!"

http://www.salsastories.com/stories_t-u/tpa.htm

Jackson,

What I read in your excerpts is that there is some controversy about whether the translation accurately reflects what the Sheikh said. But Marty's words say nothing about "Mickey Mouse." Rather, they ridcule that fact that the Sheikh described the "Virgins of Paradise." It is certainly my understanding the the Virgins of Paradise is a part of Islamic theology. And, in any event, if it is not Marty's intent to smear Islam, then why not be up front about the Sheikh being a deviant kook, rather than make readers dig for it?

Jackson says: "wrong, ignoring doesn't only mean not glancing them over now and then, it also means not responding to them."

I won't argue with you regarding what "ignore" means. Let me just rephrase the question. If you find Walton's posts to be a worthless waste of time, then why bother to even look at them? Don't you think that George actually enjoys your agitated responses? That you are giving him exactly what he wants?

noga:

I believe the Christian and Judaic visions both assume that part of the enchantment of making it to paradise is the release from the bodily need for hedonistic pleasure, the achievement of "perfect happiness" which seems to be defined as absence of carnal desires.

george:

Bingo. In the end it all stops with what you profess to believe.

Fine. But what is the relationship between that and what you profess to know about this? And what is the relationship between that and what can be known about it? And why isn't it enough for you that others believe contradictory things about it? How are the professions of Sheikh Al-Munajid really all that different from your own? And why are they open to contempt if they're not?

Neither one of you know...epistemologically, ontologically, teleologically...what will happen after Jews and Christians and Muslims die. You're just making these leaps of faith to sheer speculations that are most appealling [emotionally and psychologically] to you for different reasons. It's exactly the same thing.

And if someone had followed you and Al-Munajid around from birth and recorded your lives as they actually unfolded, we could see clearly all the reasons you came to believe what you did and he came to believe what he did.

But if we put this existential play by play analysis to the side and examined why one should be more persuaed by your Paradise rather than his.....then what? Then we are back to square one of course. One clump of evanescent supposition rather than another. And yet it is from these sheer fantasies that we are expected to choose which one makes the most sense?

george walton

scrubby:

Methinks the Sheikh is a crackpot.

george:

Okay, what are your own assumptions about Salvation, sex and gender relationships? And how exactly would you delineate them and NOT sound like a crackpot if someone asks, "well, how do you know this?"

g.