>>18060886
>Nice opinion, if it was so clear why is your translation in the minority?
Eternally youthful slave boys which if you saw, you would think of them to be pearls scattered clearly implies that these boys are beautiful. This is the obvious interpretation. If they were slave girls being compared to scattered pearls, you would not deny this. You only deny it due to personal bias. The fact that they are beautiful is the intention of the passage. The Qu'ran affirms attraction to boys as normative by the fact that it promises attractive, eternally youthful boys as a reward in heaven.

>it highlights the eternity of heaven when even your servants are everlasting
They needn't be eternally youthful boys as beautiful as scattered pearls for this to be the case. They could just be "faithful servants, eternally healthy", but the passage highlights their youthful beauty.

>And how are you going to attempt to prove that?
Because demons don't exist.

>Even if you believe it just is impossible that doesn't change the fact that their methodology is sound.
In regards to the rejection of the hadith about Muhammad averting his gaze from a beautiful boy, the methodology used by medieval scholars to reject this hadith is unknown to us (as far as I'm aware) and relies on information which we do not have access to and their determination is only taken to be sound on the basis of their authority (which is called into question by the fact that they take anecdotes of demon attacks to be actual occurrences). Regardless, the fact that this hadith dates to the 8th century tells us something about early Moslem society.

The hadith which relates that Muhammad saw his god as a beautiful young boy is largely rejected by scholars using arguments which would only convince religious individuals.

>On your "probabilistic grounds" you should reject the reports of eternal heavenly beings
I do not believe that eternally youthful beings exist in heaven. I have not argued that they exist.

>>24736176
Compared to boys, women are:
>taller
>more hirsute
>more robust
>less gracile
>heavier
>more odorous
>darker complexion
>higher testosterone levels
>hysterical, obnoxious, groidical personality
>less demure
>less Aryan
>manlier voices
>more pronounced facial features; more prominent maxilla; lower gonial angle; higher nasomental angle, etc.
>nowhere near as beautiful or cute
>less viscous hair
>imperfect skin; enlarged pores; covered in cellulite and acne
>disgusting, hairy, testosterone enlarged genitalia which exudes nasty fluids

They're basically cavemen compared to boys. They are men with mammaries. They have to shave their legs and cake themselves in makeup to deceive men into thinking they're attractive, whereas boys exhibit natural, careless beauty.

The truth is, women are not beautiful. They secrete certain pheromones and display signals that make men sexually aroused, but there is nothing beautiful about them. If men lacked the biological mechanisms which made them respond to women with sexual arousal, nobody would delude themselves into thinking they were beautiful. Being attracted to them is a fertile form of homosexuality.

It is much less gay to be attracted to boys than it is to be attracted to women.