Wednesday, February 6, 2008

«Went to Talk to a Pastor Today»

I spoke to a Lutheran pastor today, to try to get a better understanding of why anyone believes in a religion. I feel I can understand someone's viewpoint, without agreeing with it myself.

Warning: atheist ranting starts beyond this point.

Flying Spaghetti Monster: I Want to BelieveRight from the beginning, I could tell she wasn't looking forward to seeing me. When I asked to see her I could overhear "That young man I told you about is here..." followed by an unhappy sigh from the pastor.

She was nice enough, but strongly believes I was raised wrong. And when I told her I was an atheist her tone of voice changed momentarily. I could tell she didn't really like me.

I was polite, I kept in mind that I came to her. I wasn't there for a religious debate, and didn't start one. I was only there for her side and her views, and didn't say much regardless of how much I disagreed.

I asked about a few passages in the Bible, most of them were in the Old Testament. Essentially she told me that Jesus reformed the Old Testament, so none of it really applies. However, she didn't want to outright say it was obsolete or didn't apply. When I struck a few in the new testament, she couldn't say it was wrong. Instead she did some double-talk and skirted around the question rather than a straight answer. Especially when I outright asked her about atheists. Did she ever approach that indirectly... She started to talk about the 3 kings, and went off on another topic.

Most of her excuses (and I do mean excuses), were about society at the time it was written. I'm sitting there thinking, "Since when is the perfect word of God subject to human society?" Isn't the Bible suppose to be what directs society, not the other way around?

When I brought up a passage that specifically says women are not to speak in a church [1 Corinthians 14:34-35], and it was from the new testament, she told me that's not what it means. How else can that be interpreted? Well, she seemed to think it was because women had a tendency to chit-chat in church and be disruptive. So a law was made that they were to keep to church-related speaking, scripture reading, and singing. How do you go from "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak" to "They're permitted to speak, but keep to church-related discussion"?

Flying Spaghetti Monster - Touched By His Noodly Appendage desktop background.I suggested to her that maybe there needs to be a New-New Testament. Because even the New Testament seems to be obsolete. She just laughed and didn't really agree or disagree.

I also said that Jesus should have been immortal, so he could keep humans on the path God intended. She agreed with this one, and said she'd ask God why he didn't.

I still give any major religion just as much faith and probability of being true as I give Pastafarianism. Remember boys and girls, adults with imaginary friends that speak back to them are delusional.

Oh, and this time religious debates/responses are OK in the comments.


  1. I find this post interesting. Especially the part about how society formed the Bible. Not because I disagree, it's always been my belief. But because in this post I finally saw the hypocricy in it.

    Women aren't supposed to speak in church. That rule doesn't obey anymore, since it was meant they way you explained.

    Man should not be with man as man should be with woman.
    That passage still stands, at least according to many religious beliefs.
    However, many people suggest that it was originally written to stop temple prostitution, where little boys were sold off to men within the temple walls.

  2. Whats to debate? - these religionists are all nuts ! Got to keep prodding them and probing their views though because there is hope tat some of them may realise just how delusional their beliefs are.


Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

»» «« »Home«