Julia Gillard is an atheist!

[ninwa]

It's not really a commandment. I am referring to Deuteronomy, 22:20-21.

Also, there is no law in the Bible that says a non-virgin is to be killed on her wedding night. I encourage you to study the first chapter of Tractate Ketubot if you really want to understand the commandment to which you are referring. Unless you have done, there is no way you can understand it, so you should refrain from using it a tool to bash the Bible.

Had a quick look. Read something about the paths the poor, poor husband can take if *shock horror* his wife isn't a virgin on her wedding night. And then a huge focus on virginity of the woman in general.

If you actually think the fact that a woman isn't a virgin when she gets married is a big enough deal that the husband needs to go to "court" for it and that there actually needs to be a whole chapter in some book devoted to it, then I really have nothing more to say to you, and I am really, really glad that I don't have your so-called "morals".

Yeah and sorry I can't study it in detail, lunch break isn't very long at work.

[polky]

Morals change over time, they always have and they always will, whereas religion (the true one at least) does not and will not change. Hence, I feel that a prime minister who does not subscribe to any religion, and whose morals are thus only those of contemporary society, is not a good thing.

Doesn't this (a leader who is religious and thus does not have morals that change over time) lead to a prime minister who is out of touch with the people?  The prime minister has to address the issues that are facing society, and without taking into account what contemporary society thinks is right or wrong, he/she faces the danger of being an irrelevant and undesirable leader. As you said, the definitions of right and wrong change over time (for certain issues - I presume that over time there has been little deviance in the societal perception of murder), and as such, the leader should be flexible enough to accommodate these changes so that any policies will benefit the people at that time.

[QuantumJG]

But an irreligious person has no fixed morals to begin with

Hey, okay, that's just your opinion. And mine goes something like...

If you need a storybook to help you differentiate between what's right or wrong, then you are either

• intellectually challenged; or
• inherently not a good person.

And if you follow a storybook which says it is right to, just as one example among hundreds, kill a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night, then you are really either

• stupid; or
• a shit person who wants to justify their evil actions with "God's word".

Agree to disagree, eh. We've already done the god/religion debate to death, anyway.

You obviously know my answer but... I agree.

[Yitzi_K]

Lol ninwa you 'had a quick look'?

No matter that last year in my school we spent the best part of a year learning that one chapter, at 1.5 hours a day, and I still wouldn't claim to understand it fully. But if you think you know it all from a quick look, then good for you.

Again I say, don't bash it till you understand it. I'm sure you'd be offended if I criticised your opinion on something without even having a basic understanding of it first.

[Yitzi_K]

Morals change over time, they always have and they always will, whereas religion (the true one at least) does not and will not change. Hence, I feel that a prime minister who does not subscribe to any religion, and whose morals are thus only those of contemporary society, is not a good thing.

Doesn't this (a leader who is religious and thus does not have morals that change over time) lead to a prime minister who is out of touch with the people?  The prime minister has to address the issues that are facing society, and without taking into account what contemporary society thinks is right or wrong, he/she faces the danger of being an irrelevant and undesirable leader. As you said, the definitions of right and wrong change over time (for certain issues - I presume that over time there has been little deviance in the societal perception of murder), and as such, the leader should be flexible enough to accommodate these changes so that any policies will benefit the people at that time.

Well that's my point - who says thise changes are for the best?

[ninwa]

Again I say, don't bash it till you understand it. I'm sure you'd be offended if I criticised your opinion on something without even having a basic understanding of it first.

Okay, so tell me where I was wrong. Does it not discuss a woman's virginity then?

In that case, I apologise. Though if so, why did you direct me to it in reply to my comment about... well, virginity?

[Yitzi_K]

No, it does discuss virginity, but not in the terms you have put it. And since you're criticising, it seems reasonable to me that you fully understand that which you are criticising beforehand.

I don't bring up matters I have no understanding of in order to bash someone else's beliefs, and I would appreciate it if everyone had the same courtesy.

[ninwa]

No, it does discuss virginity

which is exactly what I had a problem with, if you would bother to read my post.

Also, are you saying that what is explicitly stated in the bible is wrong then? I know religious people who say everything the bible says is correct. And since you state "religions are moral" in general (and not <this specific religion which doesn't follow this part of the bible>), then will you explain such things as

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

and

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death

?


Anyway this is completely off-topic and has been discussed to death in the god thread. Not making any more posts about this.

[QuantumJG]

The thing I don't get is that everything is evolving to be able to accomodate for now, whilst religion is utterly oppressive and highly prejudice (because it follows the principles we applied thousands of years ago). By religion's definition, morality is synonomous to oppressing women. I thought that we were striving for equality?

If there exists a deity who judges you upon death I would like to say that I followed morality through common sense rather than fear, because one of my favourite quotes is 'Those who give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety' (I'm sure the quote is not word for word).

Ok this is also the last time I digress from the actual topic.

[Yitzi_K]

No, it does discuss virginity

which is exactly what I had a problem with, if you would bother to read my post.

Also, are you saying that what is explicitly stated in the bible is wrong then? I know religious people who say everything the bible says is correct. And since you state "religions are moral" in general (and not <this specific religion which doesn't follow this part of the bible>), then will you explain such things as

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

and

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death

?


Anyway this is completely off-topic and has been discussed to death in the god thread. Not making any more posts about this.

[Cthulhu]

I don't think that her having a religion or not will change the way she runs the country. I do believe this is a step forward for Australia though. A woman and an Atheist prime minister at the same time we're becoming more tolerant!

[Chavi]

Many of the laws in the Hebrew bible are not practiced today, because there are no Jewish religious courts that have the power to enforce them. Bringing forth quotes out of context that demand death for all sorts of crimes that are tolerated today, is therefore  irrelevant, as they are not practiced, just frowned upon (i.e. dishonoring parents, sex b4 marriage).

What is relevant however, are the moral lessons learned from the religious texts as the bible. Some may brush these off as archaic or irrelevant, but lets not forget that Western society was founded upon the moral codes of the Hebrew bible - (and historically, a large proportion of those at the helm of human rights, social welfare and establishing democracy were Jews).

What you should be looking at, is whether the person's interpretation of religion (or lack of religion) adversely affects their performance as PM or tolerance toward other cultures.
In this case, I think not.

[vexx]

my opinion of her just went up.

++++

[enwiabe]

Ahahahaha I love the arrogance of "LOLZ ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORALS"

It's the last straw religion is clinging to. You've been fed that, Yitzi, by your teachers at Yeshivah. I'm sure you're going to say "NO NO I CAME UP WITH IT ON YOUR OWN", but it's the propaganda of all the religious sects that atheists are evil people with no morals.

You can con yourself into believing it, but anyone with any modicum of critical thought realises that it's the last bastion of religion flailing their ridiculous arms in an attempt to wrangle the mass exodus of people away from their stranglehold of power over them. You're just one of the people brainwashed into believing this by the puppeteers pulling the strings.

It originated with the Catholic Church when they first started to shit their pants over the number of people actually turning away from Christianity and becoming atheists. It was a measure to get their parents to turn on their children, e.g. if you give up god you're a demon in your parents' eyes.

Nothing more than emotional blackmail and unfounded frenzy. You cannot make a logical argument for 'no god, no morals'. You can say 'no god, no JEWISH/CHRISTIAN/MUSLIM morals'. But anyone who ascribes to a moral code has morals.

And now you're going to say 'BUT OMGZ DEYR NOT FIXEDDDD' - but they are, they're fixed within the boundaries of society. And to be perfectly honest, given how many hundreds of practises religious people have given up because of changing morals in society, it's pretty clear to see where morals come from

I have not heard of a single stoning within the Jewish community in Melbourne, whereas I know there were plenty 2000 years ago in Israel. Society evolves, and religion moves with it. Deal with it, because do you know where religion is moving next in society? Out of it...

In conclusion, Gillard will be the best Prime Minister we've ever had. Why? Because her critical thinking skills were not eroded in her formative years by bible-bashers telling her ridiculous, fanciful stories and forcing her to believe them without any proof whatsoever. Seems to me like the best choice

[Russ]

Ahahahaha I love the arrogance of "LOLZ ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORALS"

You know, if you're going to open with this, you should probably try to avoid posting something that reeks of arrogance...

Irrespective of that I still agree that being a "good", contributing member of society is not dependent on religion.