France wtf!?

[Cabbage]

Who suggested this idea of Parent 1 and Parent 2? What kind of people?

A person trying their best Dr Seuss impression while forgetting to utilize a sense of whimsicality with it.

 

[ArabianLuffy]

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Are you asking if LGBT people can be religious in general or what?

No, I'm not asking if LGBT people can be religious in general or what. I'm asking can a religious LGBT person pick what suits them of the faith they believe in and reject some parts, because it won't suit their purposes?

It's called fearmongering. "If you come out of the closet, you're dead." so no wonder people didn't have the courage/awareness to come out and be honest. Here's the thing though, regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong do you really thing holding someone in fear of death is a good way to go about solving the problem? People will still be gay in secret. Only difference is they'll have to deal with more depression as they aren't allowed to be who they really are because people will have their head for it. Can you really not think of any better way to go about this issue?

From your point of view is fearmongering, but from my point of view it's not fear. It's about shame. It's about protecting dignity for us. I reject homosexuality, because beyond Quran, to me it's uncomfortable. I don't want to be touched by a male, no matter how handsome he would look. I want women, and so do all men want women.

No one can establish rules in Saudi Arabia for the sake of few. Saudis been raised that way. Men love women and women love men. That's how it rolls in Saudi Arabia. It is the Saudis will attack LGBTQ community if they happen to exist in Saudi Arabia, if the government in my country doesn't deal with them, if the Royal Family doesn't deal with them, the Saudi tribes will act by their own way if the Royal Family betrayed the pact. That's what I believe will happen in my country. The population of Saudis is 32.94 million (2017). How many Saudis are there of the LGBTQ? Definitely negligible.

Morality is one thing but nature is a whole other. Religion doesn't decide what's natural, science does and science has no problem with homosexuality as it's found all over nature and is pretty natural.

Marin, when some medicinal companies test their drugs that are created for humans, when these drugs are tested on animals, do you think the results will look scientifically justifiable? Do you think experiments on animals are actually useful in developing drugs for humans?

Sure is, but can you really not think of a better way to treat kleptomaniacs than cutting off their hand? Hospitalization? Treatment? Therapy? It's 2019 mate, ditch the swords already.

Time has no room here. It has no effect on the issue. Whether it's 1000 AD or 20,000 AD. Humans will remain the same, because without law, without order, we will return to the law of the jungle. We will kill the weak and rape them. Only the strong survives. Law and order doesn't tolerate with criminals, unless in rare circumstances such as the example of a poor father stealing for his kids.

Amputation won't be declared on a culprit for his first attempt of stealing. Our government keeps records of times a crime been committed by an individual.

- Paying Fine that could reach over $130,000 or $260,000 ... depends
- Imprisonment for maybe a 1 year, 2 years or more.. depends
- Lashes (40, 100, 500, depends)

depends on the situation of stealing

- Amputation (as the last solution and after confirming the number of times someone tried to steal)

Do women have a right to dress how they like? Like a mini-skirt, high heels and a top? Maybe piercings, tattoos, hair-dye and freestyle make up if they're into alternative?

Mini-skirt: depends on the place. Big no no for public. Laws and order of the country. Respect them. It's non-negotiable.
High-heels: BIG YES. ALL TIMES. ANY PLACE. NO PROBLEM, but......... the streets are full of potholes. Just warning.
Top: Also, no problem, but not allowed in public.
Piercings: On ears? No problem. On nose? Also no problem. It's old way of fashion and very rare to see the new generation of women in my country do that. It is believed that it is shared among: Indians, Afghanistan, Yemen (I think), some parts of North region of Saudi Arabia.
Tattoos: tattoos is forbidden in Islam, but our government isn't concerned with tattoos, because everyone is free to do with his/her body, but accept consequences for what they do.
Hair-dye and Freestyle Make Up: Is that a thing we men care about? Just do it, women! What's preventing you? Gee!

Why behead? Why not a more humane and less graphic form of execution? Why execution at all why not something productive like community service or jail?

Imagine if Saudi Arabia captured Osama bin Ladin and Abu-Bakr AlBagdadi both alive. Would you really love to see them beheaded? Of course after the intelligence get enough Intel from them.

You can actually say this with a straight face? You really see nothing wrong with that? Let me help you with a couple of questions.

Marin, I have a complete understanding of "Sharia-Law", and because of that I can't imagine myself one day I'll reject all the knowledge of Islam, and become atheist, because Islam speaks truth, and I say truth, because I understand Islam's argument. It's built on natural reasons along with morality which I'll get into nature later on. However, let me see these questions and answer them at best I could.

1) Who is evaluating your objections to Islam?

I don't know, but they have to be highly educated Muslims on academic level. Not any Muslims.

2) In what context are you presenting these objections? (How much time do you have to prepare your arguments? Is it a debate format?)

Maybe it is a debate format. Whatever I would have after rejecting Islam, whatever my argument would look like, it will be encountered with answers stems from rational thoughts of theirs those who would question me.

3) How biased are the people evaluating your objections?

I believe they wouldn't be biased. I don't think they would be biased. Because such situation as this for a guy/woman to leave Islam, and because this person is a son/daughter of this country, the people you would debate with would be highly educated individuals on academic level. I mean they have to be, because it's a serious and dangerous case. You see the truth and you would reject it? Whatever truth we are talking about, I mean just in general. You can't keep silent and not telling people the truth. I'm saying this out of religion realm. So because I have great understanding of my religion, though I don't know how to explain my argument right. However, for me knowing the truth and understanding Islam and I will say Islam makes total sense. If I rejected Islam, my rejection have to be, MUST be on same level of rationality and my rejection to Islam must be based on something. If my argument against Islam have no ground to stand on, what would that make me as an atheist (assuming if I became an atheist).

4) Why do you need to believe in Islam to have a job?

Because this is what Saudis wanted. It's not something from the government. It's not something set as a rule by the Royal Family. The Saudis themselves. The Public asked for this to be a rule, a law, condition, a requirement to have a job in Saudi Arabia as a Saudi citizen. So many foreigners whether they're Muslims or not. Whether they are from Europe, America or any advanced super power nation want the Saudi citizenship, yet the Saudi system set by the government does not grant foreigners Saudi citizenship. You could bet even Saudis don't want foreigners to become Saudis. Even if there is an American Muslim sunni billionaire businessman PhD degree guy, he won't be given Saudi citizenship for reasons the Saudi government believe in.

Simply put, Saudi Arabia as a land belongs to Saudi tribes who are native Saudis, who are Muslims sunni, who are straight. This is Saudi Arabia's own Utopia from their own vision. No force on Earth can interfere with Saudi Arabia interior affairs and their policy.

If you search Raif Badawee case, it's not just about him only. Raif wouldn't be who he is now as an atheist if it wasn't for them. Them? Who am I talking about? Saudis living among us who are secretly atheists, who are presumed to be agents of foreign governments, so the Saudi government captured those Saudis and are as we speak, still in prison. Things aren't like the past now. The Saudi government will keep on those atheists lives, to extract Intel for who those Saudis atheists are working, and to some extent, the Saudi government found some great Intel that were planned to destroy the current Saudi system. We might follow Syria if things were allowed to happen, and Saudi Arabia will become #1 most dangerous war zone. This will result into the rise of ISIS again, shia vs sunna, democracy plan would be implemented as hard as they could try, failure after failure, etc etc etc. These are just theories, but they sound like will happen if we allowed the enemy to do his plan. I'm just sayin.

Is competence irrelevant?

Competence is relevant.

5) Why would your friends turn your back on you?

Because my friends, and not only my friends, but all people close to me would fear me spreading baseless ideologies that would ruin communities just like how Raif Badawee did.

Are you not still the same friend who laughed and cried with them only now you find yourself experiencing a crisis of faith/finding your faith unpersuasive?

No, I wouldn't be the same person who laughed and cried. It's what's inside me. What in me of thoughts. What thoughts that are not justified and can't hold ground against Islam.

6) Do you realize this is basically a trial for a "thought-crime?

What makes a thought a thought-crime? I would say the land and its laws.

You dare to think differently than others and are being sentenced to death for it?

No one can judge you for thinking differently. Not unless you are unprepared and have no ground to base your differences on reasons against people who want to live under Sharia-Law.

7) How is the above any different from a typical tyranny and brainwashing such as we see in Orwell's 1984?

And how you or anyone came up to this conclusion that the above are no different from typical tyranny and brainwashing? Who are these above? Al Saud?

8) Do you really think fear of death and forcing others to be insincere about their beliefs is a good way to maintain low levels of atheism?

Fearing death is natural, but what's worse than that is to die with shame. To die while you're on the wrong side. Forcing other to be insincere about their beliefs? I don't understand this line.

Plenty more atheists get killed for their atheism.

I never read news of a Saudi atheist been killed by Saudi government, but link me. If there is one or more Saudi atheists in Saudi Arabia been sentenced to death, how Raif Badawee is any different? The guy is still alive, and I think he's still in prison.

And it's really not helping you. "We didn't kill you but we took away your right to lead a normal life like other human beings. Aren't we great?"

No. People. Some Saudis would kill Raif. I think Raif's father asked the government to keep Raif in prison in fear Raif might get killed by some people.

Calling it fiction is tongue and cheek. It would be more accurate to call it false or not factual. (Though some parts are, but the relevant ones related to God are not.)

If a cube does not fit in a round hole, one would conclude that this cube has no value and should be discarded, and he/she never once conceives that there might be a square hole.

As far as we're concerned we don't even need to do that. We can just say we don't believe you until you present proof that it is 100% true as you claim. We can remain skeptical without explicitly denying it, the burden of proof is on you.

This is the problem. This proof you command must conform your world view. Which conveniently makes it impossible for God to exist, for the holy books to be seen as true, but what do you want me to do? Point to God? I can point to a flower and use the argument from beauty and the prime mover, you will reject this. I can point to my own religion experience, you will reject that.

He could, I mean you do realize perspectives on religion/spirituality go beyond the simplistic notion of it's 100% literally true or not true at all?

Wrong. The first step in becoming Jewish, Christian, Muslim is to believe absolutely in God and that God's words are true. One can practice *** with same gender while he/she religious. It's as same as lying, stealing, etc. because part of the beauty is that God gave choice and freedom to do and to do not. But rejecting one command of God and labels it as false or claiming God didn't say that won't make someone theist. It would make him/her an ideologue.

He doesn't believe Adam existed. Nor is there any evidence for the existence of 2 humans from which everyone else came. There's pretty strong evidence though that humans as a species descended from an evolutionary chain that started long before (and I mean, really long before).

The key word is "pretty strong evidence" which these evidence could get debunked. That would be for another thread to search for our origin. Our history on this Earth. Let's leave it for other discussion.