"21 detained under suspicion of being gay"

[Telstra]

Damn i making so many spelling mistakes, i am having high fever and now traveling with four cats to my native town, will reach there in 1.5 hours by air. Hoping that i will escape the trap my parents have laid for me to get married, another problem to deal with. Force marriage..

if you make your own money, no one can "force" you can they?

 

[Telstra]

BigBoss,
i'm interested in hearing gay sex in Pakistan.

How, where, when, ...... etc ? u know what i mean.

 

[BigBoss]

BigBoss,
i'm interested in hearing gay sex in Pakistan.

How, where, when, ...... etc ? u know what i mean.

Yeah they can force me, if not parents then society.

Gay Life in Pakistan is good as long as you remain in your boundaries. Let me post few of my experiences regarding Gay life in Pakistan which i have posted in this thread.
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=215153

Well the illiterate part of Pakistan[which is in majority] has this custom of having young boys as their "sex pet"...they are doing it for pride,,,just to show off how manly they are,,,again in modern Pakistani society monogamy exist, and also we have queens, hunks , bears in the modern sect,,but even the modern part sometimes is ashamed to call themselves "Gays"...their favorite label is Bi-Sexual which in my opinion is a confusing state.
Most of ppl here label things as "gay sex" and they take it as practice not sexuality..for me i have always been with old men,,,they are still confused about their sexuality, i have had few old men who after having sex would just go wash themselves and start praying for salvation,,
In crust the Pakistani society consist of mixture of traditional gays[who takes sex as icon of being dominant male] and modern western type gays[who take it as showoff and a lifestyle]. Both of the sects are not ready to call themselves as gay in the context of sexuality.

Beside in the eyes of straight people being gay here means that u are some prostitute who is doing all this for money and u are the at the bottom of Male chain..

There are lots of dating sites Pakistani Guys use e.g
www.manjam.com

Other than that, there is channel on MIRC, connect through undernet server and Join "Gaypakistani" to find a whole new gay world regarding the sex hungry crowd of Pakistan.

 

[BigBoss]

A black man marrying a Muslim man? HA! The chapel would be burnt down as soon as they see our families arriving. You're an extreme terrorist with a backpack full of explosive and I'm a lazy criminal toting guns and illegitimate kids. The powers that be would never approve

Whatever! atleast we will die in the name of love, and be the first Gay "Romeo and Juliet" of the gay community, ofcourse 2nd if you guys are still stuck with "Broke Back Mountain"....Marley i can die for that piece of meat

 

[Kulindahr]

When did he lie, or stole or murdered? your accusations should come with some references. He did not spread Islam through blood shedding.

Try the raids against caravans while he was at Medina, caravans he attacked without provocation, for starters. He led the attack, and plundered people who were just going about their business.
And he did spread Islam through bloodshed -- just read the Wikipedia article, even, to see how he used aggression to intimidate neighboring tribes.

Try not to criticize my religion because of acts of those Arabs. I can't say anything about Jesus as he is considered a messenger of God and in no way we muslims are allowed to say anything against him

Perhaps not, but Islam pays little attention to who He actually was and what He actually taught... which is a back-door way of saying things against Him.

*sigh*

Islam has many prophets, but the follow the teachings of their prophet Mohammed.

Jesus was not a prophet to muslims. Jesus came before Mohammed before they were muslims.

Um, serious question here -- is English your first language? A lot of the trouble here stems from what I honestly have to call bad reading.
"To Muslims, Jesus is a prophet" means they regard Him as a prophet.
BTW, Muslims will tell you there have been Muslims since Abraham.

Yes they do, and you put Mohammed in a light like he is some criminal. He was never born from God, he is a man who was given the task by God/Allah to spread the word of Islam, like Moses back in the day. Sure Moses was maybe a little more sanitary, but you seem to forget he was nothing but human and never said follow his words.

If Mohammed had never acknowledged Jesus (or Isaiah, Elijah, and others since Moses) as a prophet, there'd be no problem; he'd just be another guy inventing a religion and shaping it the way he wanted. But since he did acknowledge Jesus (and those others) as a prophet, then he was a criminal, because he not only attacked innocent people, but encouraged others to do the same; he approved of assassination as a tool for aiding Islam; he invaded a foreign power with whom he was ostensibly at peace....

You forget we are talking about humans here. If the Christian territory is market as the Christian territory, you will have a hard time convincing them otherwise.

What Christian territory?
Give a Christian a map, and ask him to mark out Christian territory for you, and he'll look at you like you're crazy. Only a Roman Catholic would have anything to mark, i.e. Vatican City, and as I said, many Christians would dispute that, because they know that "Christian territory", i.e. territory ruled by Christianity, is a contradiction in terms.
The same is not true of Islam, and that is the problem.

Um, I doubt the people who watched him die thought he was a lier, or murderor or cheater.

The fact you can't get over the fact that Mohammed was a human living a less than civilized time is annoying enough.

People who watched Mohammed die? If they were some of those he told it was okay to lie, in order to set someone up for murder, they did.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's like faith isn't it, I could certainly just believe you know what you're talking about, but all the evidence points to the contrary.

You haven't pointed out where we can find this universal interpretation of Christ, the Bible and all things Christian, which you must have, since at several point you lectured us on what is, and is not a proper "understanding" of Christianity.

Just read the Wikipedia article about the canonization of the New Testament, dude -- it will shows you I know exactly what I'm talking about. So will a read of a tome called The Pedallion, which is a compendium of Christian councils over the first several centuries.

I gave you the reference for what you're claiming was some "universal interpretation" etc. etc. It's in this book called the Bible, and anyone with an education knows that Jesus said what I quoted Him as saying.

I asked you point blank if you have a religious bias – which any idiot can see you have – (they just need to accept Christ?!?) and instead of saying:

“Yes, I’m a Christian and I think Islam is wrong”

Which is a perfectly acceptable answer, you disingenuously went into some strange tangent about Muhammad’s bloody sword. I wasn’t asking about Muhammad.

You asked no such thing "point blank". If you had, I'd have said that the question is irrelevant, because there's no sign that I;ve brought any religion into the issue, one way or another.
So I merely repeated what I had been maintaining on the basis of the evidence.

Besides that, I haven't been discussing whether Islam, or Christianity, or anything else is "wrong", just about what it actually is. And from reading a biography of Mohammed, and listening to various sources on the web, I think Islam has serious problems, which I've been pointing out.

You were completely mistaken about the origins of humanism - really the Declaration of Independence? You do realize that’s quite a late document in regards to the philosophy behind it, and ask yourself, why did Jefferson say “Creator,” and not “God.” One would assume he was familiar with common Christian nomenclature. I look forward to reading the term paper you wrote about how devout a Christian Jefferson was.

Humanism arose out of Christianity as a result of the Reformation and the Enlightenment -- that's just plain historical fact.
I know the Declaration was a rather late document; if you'd read carefully, you'd know that.
Jefferson a devout Christian? Dude, what the heck are you on?????

LOL - Term paper - I suppose all of your term papers are in that box you can't find. Oh well I guess that's what faith is for.

I see you have no concept of what faith is.

And you don't read very well either -- I didn't say anything about a box I "couldn't find".

 

[TX-Beau]

yadda, yadda, yadda.

Let's see, I'm amusing, you're absurd, let's do Vaudeville together.

You shuck and jive rather well.

That'll come in handy for the soft shoe.

 

[TX-Beau]

You asked no such thing "point blank". If you had, I'd have said that the question is irrelevant, because there's no sign that I;ve brought any religion into the issue, one way or another.

Thanks, that amused me.

 

[cocktales]

Hot damn!

It's "bad-enough" to be born in a so-called free society!

What the hell would it be like to have been born an Arab and living in that HELL???

**For all the GLBTs of the Arab World, we do soooooo feel for you our brothers and sisters, and wish for you a better life ......away from there........soon!

 

[Kulindahr]

never read the koran but this is so wrong. Where is the UN to change the text in the koran and the bible and other religous text which the logical law doesn't agree with.

The Koran isn't allowed to change.

The Bible has already "corrected" itself.


Besides which, trying to impose a change on religious matters from a secular source just creates martyrs and fuels fresh bloodshed.

Jesus tried to set it straight by teaching love -- look where it got Him.

 

[Kulindahr]

WOW soo many posts.. too many to read. I'm kinda slow...

Anyway, what hit is scores detained but only 21 held. So apparently only 21 lacked friends in high places. Same story everywhere... those with power and connections do as they please.

Interesting insight -- I hadn't thought of that.
Now, if we could only expose (pun duly noted) those friends.....

OK, now you're entering MY turf. The meaning of a word is not its etymology, nor its structure in the source language. And if you took apart the word 'homophobia' that way, it would mean "fear of the same." The word 'homosexual' is itself a grotesque hybrid ("That's awful! It's half Greek and half Latin!" "Sounds good to me!").

The word 'homophobia' was coined by...was it Evelyn Hooker? [looks it up] No, it was George Weinberg. He defined it as "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals," then expanded on that, saying it was "a phobia about homosexuals….It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for—home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does" (emphasis added).

So even at its coinage it contained an element of hatred and brutality. But there's more to it than that: words don't keep the same meaning as time goes by. A gourmet is no longer' a little groom ('gromet', influenced by 'gourmand'); a template is no longer a little temple ('templet', spelling influenced by 'plate'). The words 'awful' and 'terrible' are no longer praise for the majestic and terrifying.

And we use the word 'homophobe' to tag our enemies. Partly this is to remind us that their hatred stems from fear; partly this is to belittle them as scaredy-cats, which is important for keeping up our confidence!

LOL
That's more thorough a correction than I expected.... but my analysis is useful anyway. Thanks, though!

BTW, of COURSE the word is a mix of two languages -- it involves "fear of the same"....

Now, you say that in your experience fear of homosexuals and homosexuality comes naturally to a lot of people. What experience do you have of people who have not grown up surrounded by a vastly homophobic culture? It's very hard not to absorb it. How can you decide that something is nature when nurture pounds it into little heads like a pile of pennies being hit with a sledge hammer? I think "you've got to be carefully taught."

I'm thinking of a few years back when the issue wasn't really an issue, and the word wasn't heard. At summer camp, with guys who'd never heard of being gay or homo or "a fag" or anything, an encounter with another guy with an erection was for some a terrifying moment. Extrapolating to the rest of the world, I conclude that there are a lot of natural homophobes. I take that to somewhat explain why minor elements of some teachings are promoted to premier status and screamed at the world as though everything will end if this One Thing isn't Fixed, and Now.
It would satisfy my pleasure in the concept of equilibrium if the proportion of natural homophobes turned out to be equal to the proportion of natural homos. But we'll likely never know, because the culture as it stands does pound fear and hatred into "little heads" (pun intended?).

Am I correct in assuming that by "[Christianity's] own proper texts," you refer to the actual words of Jesus as quoted in the Gospels, and not other parts of the NT? Because it's certainly there in the words of Paul. And you'd know better than me (we're back on your turf now) but I have heard it said that while Jesus is the central and revered figure in Christianity, it was Paul (very much against Peter) who made Christianity its own separate thing, and something you didn't have to be a Jew to be part of. And as for imports from the Jewish scriptures...didn't Jesus say "I come not to overturn the Law, but to strengthen it"?

I was meaning the New as opposed to the Old.
What Jesus said is better translated as "I come not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it." I'll take "overturn" as an acceptable translation for καταλῦσαι, though I tend to think of it as stronger than that; "destroy" is my first inclination in a random text. But for πληρῶσαι., "strengthen" is... very dubious at best; the verb πληροω stands firmly as "fill, fill up, fulfill"; its comrade, πληρωμα, means "fullness" or "completeness" or (reaching into more philosophical usage) "in a state of being finished, completed".
I'm not going to bet on it, but IIRC, the phrase you're quoting actually comes from a second century Gnostic work, whereas the actual words of Jesus in this case are from mid-to-late first century.

That's either ironic or fitting, since many of today's self-righteous right-wing evanginazis (my term, "evangelical" + "nazi") are in fact Gnostic of a legalistic stripe, who have fallen into the same error the one who penned your version did, namely thinking that by having the Law and following it ever so strictly, they were somehow more spiritual, closer to God, etc., than anyone else. What Jesus' words actually mean is that by His arrival, the demands of the Law were met: He both verified that it had come from God, and clarified the raw intensity of its strength (he who calls someone "Fool!" has committed murder...!), and took care of all its requirements, making it finished, complete, filled up to the brim... and thus requiring no more knuckle-rasping, forehead-bashing, intestinal-knotting attention.

Well, you have heard it said that Paul made Christianity its own separate thing, but I tell you, he strove as hard as Peter to reconcile the Jews.
(Sorry; I couldn't resist the opening.)
Paul just didn't have as much patience as Peter; he was also brasher and often bolder. Oddly for this discussion, though, Peter was the more willing to let go of the old rules of clean/unclean and all that; for all his supposed antinomianism, Paul sure spits out rules on occasion (though some of what he's accused of is likely quotes of someone else, which he then comments on) -- and for all his application of principles over simpleminded legalistic formulations, he falls back into tradition on occasion as well.

In a way you're right about me taking the words of Jesus over those of Paul: that's a rule of interpretation as old as disputes over the meaning of the written letters of Paul (disputes noted by Peter when he observes that Paul said some things "difficult to comprehend"). It's really an extension of the rabbinic principle that the greater interprets the lesser (as well as of another, that the clear interprets the unclear). Whatever Paul has to say, if there's any difficulty in making sense of it, one has to turn to the words of Jesus (historical trivia: without that principle, there are several books of the NT which would have been thrown out).
I'll assume you have in mind Paul's diatribe/essay concerning moral progression in the first chapter of his epistle to the Christians at/in Rome. He's getting philosophical there, and along the way he apparently invents a word or two, which have generally but not always been taken to refer to the whole realm of men having sex with men... concerning which meaning, I can argue (badly) either way... because there's not much to work with.
But since there's not much to work with, we fall back not just to the words of Jesus, but to Paul's own example of applying the principles of scripture to every issue, especially the principles of mercy and love and faith. So whatever Paul means, he doesn't mean to go around persecuting people for being born (so far as we know) a certain way, or manipulating government power for religious purposes (note: the 'separation of church and state' resides in embryonic form in some applicable words of Jesus), or for that matter doing anything else but greeting and welcoming all other humans (neighbors) with (self-sacrificing) love and concern.

So, working from the last of your statement forward (or backward, I suppose), I am referring to Jesus' words above all, but also to Paul's, as opposed to the Old Testament -- because it's in the Old Testament that the gay-haters find their fuel, feeding the fire in their hearts which longs for a Reign of God like that in ancient Israel, where religion rules the government... and they, of course, rule the religion.

And it's just those Old Testament verses, lifted exclusively while ignoring others, which feed the fires of judgment in the hearts of Islamic gay-haters as well... which was my point: that while Islam has been a bloody religion from the start, the gay-hating is as far as I can find imported, just as it is in Christianity.

I'll note a difference, though: Mohammed clearly says that sinners can be / should be put to death, while Jesus just says to pray for them, love them, etc.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is not an accurate historical summary.
The Arab/Muslim Empires took the best of Late Antiquity and preserved it while the Kings of the West were at times illiterate.
The institution of slavery was one institution that they took over from ancient times and preserved until western capitalism decided, why not?
Only, after 2 centuries, Christian conscience took up a crusade against slavery which continued until it was extirpated---everywhere except in certain Muslim centers where it may have begun as far as Africa is concerned.
Christianity has generally been throwing off the old, tired evil things of the past. Layer by layer.
There is little in Muslim civilization of the present day to interest a Christian or a post-Christian. I wish muslims would shake off the damn'd old cocoon.

Wow -- I'm impressed; that's a tidy little excursus!

So does that mean religious leaders should stick their noses in to government for religious reasons?

I didn't think so. Cause both examples are the same exact thing. There is such a thing as seperation of church and state. Neither belongs in the others business.

That's even found in Jesus' words, in the admonition to give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. There's an implication that the two are distinct... and since He was bringing, after all, a New Covenant, something like that was to be expected.

 

[Jaime]

Sure Moses was maybe a little more sanitary, but you seem to forget he was nothing but human and never said follow his words.

when moses came down from mt sinai and found the hebrews worshipping a golden calf, he went through the crowd with a sword, striking down as many people as he could. iirc, that wasn't the only time he did this.

 

[Kulindahr]

Be careful here, I’m certain he wrote a Term Paper on the subject. Complete with dozens and dozens of pages and footnotes in obscure languages.

LOL

There's nothing obscure about Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, or Latin.
Unless it's church Latin....

I'll grant that Syriac is obscure. Fortunately, we only had to deal with it briefly, and didn't have to learn the stuff in truth.

No, he was religious studies. I was linguistics.

Yep.
I dabbled in linguistics because we had to when dealing with a miniature Babel of ancient languages. Crio loses me sometimes, though....

And all this is giving me the urge to fill the tub, pour some wine, slice a little cheese, and sit in the steam reading aloud the Sermon on the Mount from my 25th edition Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.
Except my dog (8 months) has gone missing, and I couldn't concentrate.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ok, but why buttercoat the Crusades under such a clean banner? The Crusades was a holy war agaisnt Muslims.

Not as such -- it was a crusade to get the Holy Places back. They wouldn't have particularly cared who held them; they'd been Christian, got taken, and Needed to Be Restored.
It might even have worked, if not for politics (more on the Crusader side; they, so to speak, shot themselves in the foot... and then the other foot).

How about presenting a video when you guys bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Huh we did not had that media coverage at that time, isn't it?

I kept thinking okay, that's entertaining cinematography, but is there going to be any substance to this?

It would be a lot easier to deal with the Middle East if we stopped fucking with their countries.

Unfortunately for the foreseeable future, most of them aren’t going to be trusting us.

Considering that many people in that region are still angry about Alexander the Great...
no kidding!

And If quoting anything from Koran then kindly search the context it was said, that sentence from Quran shown in the video was written during the war to raise the morals of the soldiers.

I noticed that one. I didn't recognize the others, but it set off an alarm.
Okay, another alarm -- splash over substance alarmed me already.

 

[Kulindahr]

That percentage comes from discussing with people from Pakistan, no body who is educated approves Ladin deeds, as a matter of fact people think that Ladin was an agent of USA and was used as an excuse to invade Muslim Countries.

Well, we in the US do love a good invasion...

That's intresting, what other rumors are there

Holy crap -- I thought I'd seen some weird conspiracy theories, but this is crazy!
How does that fit in with the idea that the Jews blew up the Trade Center?

 

[Kulindahr]

Damn i making so many spelling mistakes, i am having high fever and now traveling with four cats to my native town, will reach there in 1.5 hours by air. Hoping that i will escape the trap my parents have laid for me to get married, another problem to deal with. Force marriage..

Throw a cat at each parent, and run.

 

[Kulindahr]

Whatever! atleast we will die in the name of love, and be the first Gay "Romeo and Juliet" of the gay community, ofcourse 2nd if you guys are still stuck with "Broke Back Mountain"....Marley i can die for that piece of meat

I feel a song coming on....

<you'll recognize the tune to be used...>


"Die! In the name of love...
before they break our hearts!"

 

[Telstra]

The Koran isn't allowed to change.

The Bible has already "corrected" itself.


Besides which, trying to impose a change on religious matters from a secular source just creates martyrs and fuels fresh bloodshed.

Jesus tried to set it straight by teaching love -- look where it got Him.

i do not take religous books (wrote by men) too seriously and others should do the same.

 

[Apollo]

If Mohammed had never acknowledged Jesus (or Isaiah, Elijah, and others since Moses) as a prophet, there'd be no problem; he'd just be another guy inventing a religion and shaping it the way he wanted. But since he did acknowledge Jesus (and those others) as a prophet, then he was a criminal, because he not only attacked innocent people, but encouraged others to do the same; he approved of assassination as a tool for aiding Islam; he invaded a foreign power with whom he was ostensibly at peace....

Right, keeo holding a man from a more barbaric age to modern standards of living and acting. If it helps your arguement, go ahead. Mohammed was a murderer!!!!!! So were the christians, and they were bloodier.

Um, serious question here -- is English your first language? A lot of the trouble here stems from what I honestly have to call bad reading.
"To Muslims, Jesus is a prophet" means they regard Him as a prophet.
BTW, Muslims will tell you there have been Muslims since Abraham.

If you don't understand my English, than interpret it. They follow the teachings of Mohammed, not Jesus. Geez

What Christian territory?
Give a Christian a map, and ask him to mark out Christian territory for you, and he'll look at you like you're crazy. Only a Roman Catholic would have anything to mark, i.e. Vatican City, and as I said, many Christians would dispute that, because they know that "Christian territory", i.e. territory ruled by Christianity, is a contradiction in terms.
The same is not true of Islam, and that is the problem.

Get off your high horse. If Christians heard that Christians in the Christian block of Jerusalem were being attacked and getting invade, people would be up in arms. Pissed that they are trying to take over their religious land.

The Christian Quarter is one of the four quarters of the ancient, walled Old City of Jerusalem, the other three being the Jewish Quarter, the Muslim Quarter and the Armenian Quarter. The Christian Quarter is situated in the north-western corner of the Old City, extending from the New Gate in the north, along the western wall of the Old City as far as the Jaffa Gate, along the Jaffa Gate - Western Wall route in the south, bordering on the Jewish and Armenian Quarters, as far as the Damascus Gate in the east, where it borders on the Muslim Quarter. The quarter contains the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, one of Christianity's holiest places. The Christian quarter contains about 40 Christian holy places.

People who watched Mohammed die? If they were some of those he told it was okay to lie, in order to set someone up for murder, they did.

WHAT!?!?! He fell ill and died on the Dome of the Rock.

Originally it was a disagreement over who succeeded Mohammed after he died. The Sunnis hold that Abu Bakr was Muhammad's rightful successor and that the method of choosing or electing leaders (Shura) endorsed by the Qur'an is the consensus of the Ummah, (the Muslim community). Shia believe that Muhammad divinely ordained his cousin and son-in-law Ali (the father of his only two grandsons Hasan ibn Ali and Husayn ibn Ali) in accordance with the command of God to be the next caliph, making Ali and his direct descendants Muhammad's successors.