Archives

Pastor Adkins and THE Agnostic

1 Reply
This entry is part 1 of 22 in the seriesLetters to the Editor

The Sunday edition of the Defiance Crescent-News has the first, of what I am sure will be many more, letters to the Editor concerning my recently published rebuttal letter.

My youngest son asked me today if anyone has ever written a letter to the editor in support of my views about religion. I laughed and said No. As far as I know, I am the only person who has  written to the newspaper and said “I am an agnostic.” (Some days I wonder, “what was I thinking”?) I hope my willingness to stand up and be counted will encourage others to do so. I know I am not alone. I have received their letters and email. They fear what might happen to them socially or economically if their agnosticism or atheism were made public. Their fears are well-grounded and I would not encourage anyone to take the same path as I have.

My children have to live with the fact that their dad is “the man who writes in the newspaper”. They have to field questions like “are you related to Bruce Gerencser”? If they answer yes, what often follows is a queer look, a look that says I want to tell you what I think or I want to ask you a question or two. Usually, once my children affirm their connection to me a nervous silence ensues,. It’s like, the questioner, all of a sudden, finds out he has been working along side a spawn of Satan.

The first letter to the editor response I want to deal with is written by none other than Rev. Ron Adkins, pastor of the Ney and Farmer United Methodist Churches. I know Ron personally. Our family attended the Ney Church for a number of months and it was the last Church we ever attended. One might say our last experience proved to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. (though we met many wonderful people in the Church)

Ron is a young man. This is his first pastorate. Prior to this he was a professor at Ohio Christian University. Ohio Christian University is a fundamentalist institution affiliated with the Churches of Christ in Christian Union. (I am sure Ron will chafe at the fundamentalist label but he also knows what my response is to that)

Ron has pastored the Ney/Farmer Churches for about 2 years. When I asked him what his philosophy of ministry was he told me it was “loving on people”. Evidently, as you shall see from his letter, that doesn’t include me. Some of what Ron writes in his letter reflects personal, private discussions he and  I had during the time we attended the Ney Church. One could object saying “I told you that in private” but one thing I know about preachers, “don’t tell them anything you don’t want others to know.” (I take privacy far more seriously NOW than I did when I was a pastor)

From reading Ron’s letter to the editor it is safe to assume that my rebuttal letter upset some people in his Church. Here I am, almost two years removed from attending Church, and I am still causing trouble. I realize my letter put Ron in a no-win situation. He is a great guy and he doesn’t like conflict. He has a wonderful wife and great kids. The last thing he needs is to tangle with Bruce. But, my heresy demands an answer, so Ron penned typed a reply to my letter.

As you shall see in a moment, Ron tries to avoid making this personal. He never calls me by name. Instead he calls me THE agnostic. Since the is a definite article and I am the only agnostic that has written to the paper, it is safe to assume that THE agnostic=Bruce Gerencser.

Now to Pastor Adkin’s letter. Ron’s letter appears as normal type. My response appears as bold italics.

To the Editor:

I have been averse to reading the latest letter to the editor from the agnostic because I personally find agnosticism trite for two major reasons.

Let’s get one thing out of the way right away. Ron is writing about my letter, and since I am the only agnostic who has written to the newspaper, he is directing his response to me and what I have written. Of course, his greater objective is to cheer on the faithful.

My response is personal. I guess I could hide my response target by saying I am responding to THE pastor, but, I am not one known for such subterfuge so I want to make it clear that my response is directed to Pastor Adkins and his letter to the editor. I do hope that the faithful will be challenged and forced to ask hard questions about Christianity, the Bible, and their certainty that what they say they believe is the truth is really the truth. I also hope my fellow atheists and agnostics will be encouraged to continue on the path of intellectual freedom.

I am amused somewhat that Ron considers agnosticism trite, yet he expends quite a bit of verbiage in his attack of the agnostic view. Perhaps it was not as trite as he thought is was.

First, agnosticism is predicated on the premise of skepticism concerning the existence of God. The agnostic doubts the absolute truth about God (although some may believe in a First Cause), yet states an absolute truth by claiming God does not exist and that the answer is a humanistic worldview. If consistent, the agnostic would doubt his own statements, and furthermore, would doubt his own doubt that God does not exist, thus resulting in the probability that God could exist.

I don’t believe I have ever said God does not exist.  I am, after all, an agnostic. In fact, Ron might be surprised to know that I have quite a bit of room in my agnostic worldview for a god (or gods). (much to the consternation of some hard-core atheists) I am fairly certain that the gods that man has created so far are not gods at all. I can not state categorically or infallibly (I’ll leave that to the Pope) there is NO God. Even Christopher Hitchens does not say There is No God.

The best answer,the best philosophy of living, in my humble opinion, is humanism. With humanism the focus is on reality, the here and now. Surely, Ron, the history major that he is, knows that many humanists have a spiritual or religious dimension to their beliefs. But, the humanist always comes back to what they can see. The humanist does not have time to spend on pining about a future in heaven, the rapture, and the many other events in the eternal future that preoccupy and keep Christians from engaging a suffering, hurting, and dying world.

What is humanism? The best statement I have found comes from the Humanist magazine. “Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. Free of theism and other supernatural beliefs, humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.”

Christians often prop up the straw man of absolute truth. Everyone believes in absolute truth, they claim.  Evidently Ron needs to meet a few real agnostics and atheists before he claims such a thing.

Personally, there are many things I believe to be truth or factual. Based on what knowledge and information I have at hand I have concluded that certain things are factual and true. I know that the earth revolves around the sun and that the earth is not flat. I am relatively certain the science behind these claims is true. If I was left with only the absolute truth of the Bible I would have to ignore what science teaches and I would be forced to accept that the sun revolves around the earth and the earth is flat. (among countless other incredible, yet false claims found in the Bible)

Ron writes of the absolute truth of God, and by God, lets be clear, Ron means the Christian God. Where does one find this absolute truth? The Bible? Ah, finally a concrete piece of information we can weigh in the balances. And that is exactly what I have done. I have weighed the claims of the Bible in the balances and found it wanting.

I find the claims made by academics like Bart Ehrman and Robert Price to be compelling. I find Richard Wright’s book The Evolution of God to be a fascinating  alternative story to the monotheism of orthodox Christianity.

My agnosticism rests squarely on the belief that the Bible is not what it claims to be and that it is not inspired, divine truth. At the end of the day it all boils down to the Bible. If I do not accept the claims of the Bible, or the claims of what Churches, denominations,popes or pastors say the Bible says, then I can not believe in the God that the Bible presents.  I may still believe in a god  but not the god of the Christian Bible.

Ron, I am sure, will appeal to nature and conscience as proof of God but I would counter  how can one necessarily conclude that the God who gave us nature and a conscience is necessarily the Christian God? Would a person not initiated in Christian thinking come to the conclusion, by looking at nature, that there is a God and that that God is the triune God of the Christian religion? Doubtful. In fact I can say impossible. Such a faith requires the Bible to give it structure.

Second, if then, the agnostic is not a true agnostic,because of the self-defeating premise, then there is another motivation behind his self-proclaimed agnosticism.

Answered above, so I assume this makes mute the next point Ron makes. But, Ron gets personal (divulging a bit of inside information about me) in what follows so I want to deal with it.

I have found that agnostics, who are not true agnostics,typically are angry at God because God does not operate the way they think God should operate. At other times they are angry because they have not received what they wanted from God. Like the undisciplined child who is angry at a parent using their only means of power, knowing they are powerless, will proclaim, “I hate you!” Nothing could hurt a parent more, and they know this.

The agnostic stands before God and proclaims in anger,‘”You don’t exist!” Isn’t it interesting then that humans, created beings, desire God to act the way they perceive God should act? Furthermore, I find it pathetic to claim a humanistic worldview in which there is nothing, or no one, greater than ourselves to rely.

Anger. Ron, is right about my anger but he is wrong about the focus of my anger.

The Christian God, the God of Ron Adkins does not exist. Why would I be angry at a fictional being?

No, my anger is directed towards organized religion.  My anger is directed at Evangelical Christianity. I am angry over what was taken from me over the 25 years I spent in the ministry.  I am angry over the wasted time and effort spent “doing  Church”. I am angry over my own selfish ambitions and my attempts at building a kingdom in my own name. (as all pastors do, after all why is their name on the Church sign?)

I am angry over what the ministry and the Church did to my wonderful wife and children. I am angry over countless parishioners whose lives are now shipwrecked because they drank from the well of organized religion.

Yes, I am angry and it feels good. For 33 years I lived in denial of my emotions, serving a God who was no god at all, a god that demanded self-sacrifice and self-denial. It feels good to be out from under such a burdensome weight.

Ron may consider humanism pathetic, and I might be tempted to say back at ya, but what humanism provides for me is reality. It is rooted in the common humanity we all share. I no longer have need to pray, fast, tithe, and attend. What humanism demands of me is doing, It demands of me the very things Jesus spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount. Humanism calls me to be fully human, in an imperfect, marred world. It calls me to use what talents I have for the betterment of my fellow man.

Becoming an agnostic and a humanist has forced me to admit that most of the supposed altruistic works I did as a pastor had an ulterior motive. I didn’t love people  for who they were. I loved them because I wanted Jesus to change them . If Jesus changed them then they would become a part of the Church I pastored . End result? Bigger attendance and bigger offerings. (Trying to get a pastor to admit this is nigh impossible.)

It is an exhilarating experience to truly love people as they are.

Last, I would like to briefly answer the question which became the title for the agnostic’s editorial, “Writers espoused different views.”

I am glad of one thing……..Ron used the word last. I despise the use of the word lastly. Ron gets 1 brownie point for using last instead of lastly.

I hope Ron is aware that the newspaper determines what the letter title is. I have been writing letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, etc for over 28 years and I have yet been allowed to write my own title.

First, let me give some advice to all of those wonderful Christians who have been troubled by the agnostic.Remember an agnostic on] asks questions based on skepticism. Don’t feel as though you are in a corner. The quote at hand read, “Every letter writer has their own version of God and what constitutes a right, saving relationship with that God. This shows me that there is no such thing as Christianity (singular) in America”.

Truth is an objective fact expressed in a subjective way. It is obvious that one comes to the truth of Christianity or more generally religious truth, differently than one would come to scientific truth. God is not an object to be observed. God has made himself known. Faith, therefore, is a response in obedience, the thing agnostics hate.

I find Ron’s statement here astounding. Ron writes “Truth is an objective fact expressed in a subjective way”. Ron certainly believes the Bible to be absolute truth.  I would love to  know if he really, really, believes the Bible is absolute truth. (I have my doubts) Ron, without any evidence, believes that what the Bible teaches is objective fact.

How does one know this? By a subjective experience with God. God has made himself known. How do we know that? Because the Christian says so. Because Ron says so. Ultimately, it is a matter of faith.

If it is a matter of faith why  do so many Christians try and prove the truth of Christianity? Why do they attempt to use scientific methods to prove the veracity of the claims the Bible makes?

If it is a matter of faith then why write letters to the editor attempting to discredit and refute my rebuttal letter? Would it not be better to rest in the belief that the God of faith, through the holy Spirit will take care of things? Surely God can take care of one lowly, insignificant, pimple on the ass, agnostic named Bruce?

Ron might be surprised to know that I still have faith. I have faith in the gods I can see, my fellow human beings. In my Christian days I put my faith in a God who I said was always there, but quite honestly I never really could find him. God was all-knowing and all powerful. He was supposedly intimately involved in the minutia of my life, yet when it came to things that mattered, matters of life and death, God was nowhere to be found.

I would assume that Ron considers his weekly sermons to be subjective? After all he is preaching absolute truth in a subjective manner, yes? I don’t know of any preacher that would embrace such a claim, especially  Evangelical preachers. After all, the preacher is the man of God who speaks the word of God to the people of God. Not much subjectivity  here.

I find no conflict in the different responses to the agnostic because the different individuals have expressed their belief and experience (“Pascal’s Wager”) in the one, absolute God in different ways. Faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of the world is truth and is experienced by individuals.

Ron is being disingenuous here OR his two years in the Methodist Church has worn down his Evangelical resolve. I realize he is preaching to the choir here but any cursory reading of the letters written in reply to either of my recent letters will reveal full-blown heresy. Is Ron suggesting that subjective heresy is fine as long as it is done with the right intention? If so, it is time to give all the heretics of the past a place at the orthodox table once again. Each of them had sincere intentions. They loved their version of Jesus. Welcome Brother Pelagius!

It is clear for all  who are willing to see……….no two Christians have the same version of Christianity. Christianity  for most Christians is akin to going to a buffet, taking what you want and leaving the rest. I don’t have a problem with this approach but I would, at least, like Christians to admit it. They speak of orthodoxy and common belief, but such singularity does not exist except in  denominational or Church confessions or theological texts. Real world experience tells me that every Christian believes what they want to believe and ignores the rest. (any righteous men out there that want to offer their virgin daughter to the men of the city as righteous Lot did?)

This is why all Christians can describe some kind of personal experience, or relationship, with God through the Holy Spirit. Christian faith is an assent and obedience to the revelation of God.

On  this point  I  agree with Ron. It is all about the revelation of God. In other words it is ALL about the Bible. As I have said time and time again there is no Christianity without the Bible. I am an agnostic because I reject the truth claims of the Bible. I reject its claim that it is a supernatural, divine book that reveals God to humankind. It is  a spiritual book written by men thousands of years ago.  Certainly the Bible has much to offer in way of personal spiritual guidance, but it is just a  book and it has no authority in my life. It has as much authority, and is just as inspired, as the writings of Mark Twain. (And no Christian can prove other wise because the doctrine of inspiration is presupposed and can not be empirically proved.)

Ron knew I was heading down the slippery slope towards agnosticism. Surely he can recall our discussions about the Bible. He, at one time, read my blog. Yet, when I stopped attending his Church that ended our interaction. Evidently time was better spent rescuing those who wanted rescued.

Yet, one would think that over the course of two years, in a town of 325 people, Ron or someone from the Church would have stopped by and looked in on us. As I have struggled with debilitating neurological problems, problems Ron was well aware of, one would think that a visit might be in order. How can we help? Is there anything you need? One never knows what love and kindness might accomplish.

As is always the case……….why spend time helping people who have no intentions of joining the happy band. If their ass is not in the seat why bother?

This is my subjective experience of the objective truth called the Church.

There are six Churches within a few miles of the home where my family and I reside. Prior to my recent coming out as an agnostic our family would have been a great catch for any Church. We are clean-cut, clean-livers. We look like Christians. We are talented. We have skills that any Church would be grateful to use. We are loyal, faithful people. We are loving and kind. We are great non-Christian Christians.

But, not one pastor, one Church leader, one Church member, ever knocked on our door to invite us to their Church. Even after we visited four of the six Churches, no one bothered to try and befriend us and love us as Jesus would.

No the truth is……..no one gave a shit.

And then one day………neither did we.

Ron Adkins
Ney

Bruce Gerencser
Ney

Our Life is PROOF that Christianity is the Real Deal

1 Reply
This entry is part 2 of 22 in the seriesLetters to the Editor

What follows is another letter written to the editor of the Defiance Crescent-News regarding my rebuttal letter that was recently published in the Crescent News:

In answer to Bruce Gerencser’s letter in Sunday’s paper,he says he is an agnostic and no longer believes.

He said that at one time the Bible had meaning to him and that he pastored an evangelical church for 25 years.Evangelical churches should evangelize. What did he preach ? Did he tell them that God sent His sinless son Jesus to die for our sins? John 3:16. He did. Did he ever truly accept Christ as his Lord and Savior? None of us ourselves will ever be good enough. You cannot prove to me that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God that tells us in Romans 10: 9-10 that if we believe and confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus that we will be saved.

Gerencser asked, What if there is no heaven or hell and we Christians have wasted our lives? If he is right and I am wrong, I have not lost anything. But if I am right and he is wrong, he has lost everything, his soul.

My husband is 85 and I am 82, and neither of us regret the almost 50 years of volunteer service for the Lord. For . 13 years we sang Gospel and ministered with our young family in churches and the migrant camps. Last year after my husband’s bypass surgery and 34 years in the jail and prison Ministry we left it to devote more time to visiting and ministering in our local rest home. 

If Gerencser thinks Jesus is not real, he should read our book. He says that we should live and love life. This has not been easy because we supported ourselves in our small businesses. But after 64 years of marriage we are still living and loving, thanks to Calvary.

Gertrude Hitt
Archbold

Where, oh where do I begin. Gertrude Hitt mentions a book written by her and her husband. The book is titled Power in Ordinary People and several chapters are available for viewing on Amazon. Reading the introduction to the book and a chapter or two will give readers of the NW Ohio Skeptics blog some insight to Hitt’s life and her view of the world.

Hitt, as with most of the Christians who have responded to either of my letters, attempts to use Pascal’s Wager as a valid reason for being a Christian. I won’t rehash my take on Pascal’s Wager, but I am beginning to wonder if belief in it is required before someone can be a Christian or become a member of the Church. Pascal’s Wager seems to be the prominent evangelistic approach people take when confronted by those who don’t believe in their version of God.

I want to make it clear…….I don’t care what a person does or doesn’t believe. If a particular belief in God works for someone and helps them make it through the night then whom I am I to argue with them about it? It doesn’t matter to me. I am quite willing to live and let live. I doubt local Evangelicals believe the same about agnostics or atheists. (also known as Satanists in this part of the country.)

Hitt’s basic premise is this……..Jesus works for my husband and I and he’ll work for you too if you let him. Her argument is not an objective one and it has no foundation in facts that can be proved or disproved. We just have to take her word for it.

This line of thinking is quite common in Christian circles. What is Sunday night testimony time about if it is not about “hey look what God has done for me. He can do the same for you”. The purveyors of the health and wealth gospel promise the  same thing. Benny Hinn, and others like him, justify their opulent lifestyles by saying their lives are a testimony of what God can do for people if they just have faith!. Benny has a Rolls Royce and you can have one too if you will only believe!

But what do we know about the reality of such claims? Daily news reports remind us that Christian pastors and leaders are just as sinful and fallen as those they disparage for not being a Christian, One thing I learned as a  Pastor is that people with seemingly perfect lives are not telling the truth about their lives. I used to say that the hardest thing to do is convince a person they are a sinner and need Jesus. The second hardest thing to do is convince Christians that they still are sinners. As Christians get older then tend to forget their own frailness and often become quite self-righteous.

Hitt would have us believe that Jesus is the answer to all of life’s problems. Why is it, in a country where 83% of people profess to be Christian, that life is so messy? Of course, Hitt’s reply would be that a lot of “Christians” are Christian in name only. If they only knew the REAL Jesus their lives would be different.

As many of my critics do, Hitt takes a personal swipe at my credentials as a Christian and as a pastor. What did I preach? Was I ever really a Christian? 

Hitt can not comprehend anyone knowing her Jesus and then later in life walking away. Surely there must be some defect in me. I must not have really believed. I must not have really preached the Bible.

It is time Sister Hitt and I settle this matter. Granted, she has a few more years on me, but I bet I preached to more people in my lifetime than she has. I bet I have “won” more souls to Jesus than she has. This is the Evangelical equivalent of a duel. This is how Evangelicals settle most everything. It is all about the numbers. What do I need to do to prove that I was a real, card-carrying, soulwinning, 24-7 member of the Evangelical fraternity? Would she like to see my ordination certificate? Baptism certificate? Would she like me to come and preach at her Church?  I will let her pick the text, any text, and I will come and preach from that text for her Church. Then she will be better able to judge my creds. (I am being a bit snarky and humorous here)

I can not prove to Hitt that the Bible is not inspired. Bible inspiration is a metaphysical claim that can not be proved or disproved. I CAN prove that the Bible is not inerrant, that it contradicts itself in many places, and that it teaches things that every rational human being should find appalling and offensive. Once again, I would be glad to teach a class for her Church on the “Errancy of the Bible.”

Let’s not lose sight of what issue my original letter to the editor addressed:

I am writing in response to Jack Palmer’s June 10th column. While I often appreciate much of what Palmer writes in his column, I strenuously object to Palmer’s suggestion that America is a monolithic country that believes in the Christian God.

Palmer writes that the reason everyone should be optimistic about life is that each of us should feel safe that we are a child of God and that God would never leave any of us. Palmer says that this is something each of us should celebrate each day.

My letter was a reminder that there are people living in this area that do not believe in the Christian God.I didn’t try to evangelize anyone or try to get them to leave the Christian faith.   Evidently, I  have become public enemy #1 in the eyes of some local Evangelicals.

I would think that I am a small fry in a big sea. Just another former Christian who probably never really was a Christian. Why the fear? What the need to defend Jesus and the Bible? Isn’t the Word of God more powerful than a two-edged sword? Why the need to make sure I know I am headed for hell?

The Bible Has Never Been Proven Wrong Says R.L. Wellman

Leave a reply
This entry is part 3 of 22 in the seriesLetters to the Editor

What follows is another letter written to the editor of the Defiance Crescent-News in response to my recent rebuttal letter:

This is in reply to Bruce Gerencser’s letter on Aug. 8. There is only one thing he wrote that I can agree with–that is you only have 500 words or less to respond to a letter that is full of untruths and assumptions.

Not everyone believes in God or the Bible. This is where the problem arises. Every other religion in the world talks about how their God or ways are the only way that’s right.Agnostics, from the Greek word agnostos means, “to not know/’ and agnostic is one who admits, “I don’t know.”

There is only one true God. This is the Being who made each and everyone of us in his likeness and gave us a mind and will of our own. This is the same God who inspired the prophets of old to write the Bible, His Word. The Bible may not be a supernatural book, but it is His Word. The last book was written 1,900 years ago and is still as relevant today as when it was written.

There is not one thing in the Bible that has ever been proved to be wrong. There are lots of books that report the Bible is in error, however, nothing in 1,900 years has ever proven it to be untrue. Maybe Bruce kept his Bible on the shelf with his ”classics” the 25 years he was pastor. I feel sorry for any congregation that had to listen to him,especially since he doesn’t believe in God or the Bible to be the divine truth.

lf you are not in the family of God, you belong to the god of this world. This pertains to everyone whose religion does not believe in the one true God. Satan would like each and every one of us to believe that he, hell, and God doesn’t exist. He wants us to believe that all other religions are the only way to go and there is no here-after.

With a humanistic worldview that focuses on the here and now, you don’t have to be good. You can do anything you want, take anything you want, because when you die that’s it. Bruce assumes Christians have no life, no joy, not living and loving. He said they trudge through a wicked world in search of heaven or eternal reward. If this is what he did, no wonder he became agnostic.

God means different things to different people. No two Christians have all the same rules to follow. That’s one reason different views exist. I don’t know about you but I would rather not live in a world that doesn’t believe in God. It would be everyone for themselves, anything goes. If it feels good, do it. You can look and see what is happening in the United States today and it doesn’t take long to figure out we are headed away from God and in the wrong direction.

R.L.Wellman
Defiance

Finally, a letter writer that doesn’t use Pascal’s Wager…

R.L. Wellman believes my rebuttal letter to be full of untruths and assumptions. His response shows that he doesn’t understand  Christianity or unbelief nor did he read my letter carefully.

Wellman preaches two different gospels in his letter. One is the Christian Gospel and the other is the gospel of universalism. He seems to say that as long as a person believes in God that’s all that matters. But, he then contradicts his universalism by appealing to a thoroughly sectarian book, the Christian Bible. I will assume he really considers himself a Christian, since a true universalist would not bother with replying to my rebuttal letter.

Wellman says that not believing the Bible or believing in God is where the problem lies. He never says why this is so. Instead he spends a good bit of his letter trying to prove the Bible is truth. Wellman realizes what some Christians refuse to accept. Discredit the Bible and Christianity crumbles.

I find Wellman’s view of the Bible very confusing. In one sentence he says the prophets were inspired by God and in the very next sentence he says the Bible is not a supernatural book. Which is it? If the Bible is inspired by God then it is indeed a supernatural book. (above and beyond that which one hold to be natural)

Wellman says the Bible is God’s Word, and I assume,since Wellman is a believer in the Christian God, it is his Word too. I wonder if Wellman actually believes and embraces every word of the Bible? I know Christians say they do, but I never have met a Christian who really believed ALL of the Bible, or who didn’t try to explain away some of the more difficult teachings of the Bible.

I suspect Wellman is pro-life. If I asked him if it was OK to kill unborn children, he would most likely say Yes. It is murder.

The spider smiles as the fly nears his web. :)

I would then ask Wellman if it is OK for God to kill unborn children?

God doesn’t do that.

The fly inches closer.

Yes he does.

Remember when God killed every living human being in the world with a flood, save Noah and his family? Most scholars believes millions of people died in the flood. Were there any pregnant women who perished in the flood?

The spider enjoys his fly snack. :)

That’s the God of the Bible. A genocidal, temperamental God who often acts contrary to the very laws he commands his followers to keep. Yet, Christians repeatedly tell an unbelieving world….God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.

I could share illustrations like this all day.

Wellman says nothing in the Bible has been disproved in 1900 years. Wellman speaks of books that say the Bible has errors or is filled with internal contradictions but these books are all wrong. I wonder if Wellman has read any of these books? Has he read any of Bart Ehrman’s books? Or is the Bible without error because Wellman says it is?

The Bible inerrancy that Wellman subscribes to simply can not be sustained. Both Bart Ehrman and Robert Price, along with countless other writers, show very clearly that the Bible, whether in it present English form, or as found in a plethora of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, is errant and filled with contradictions. Wellman needs to spend some time doing a bit of reading on this subject. If he will do his homework he may still save some degree of belief in the Bible but he will no longer make foolish statements about a text written thousands of years being perfect.

Wellman repeats an oft told myth……..without religion a person does not need to be good. I think what he means to say is that Christianity and the Bible is what keeps  people from committing heinous crimes. In other words, the only reason he isn’t a murderer, a rapist, or a thief is because of his Christian faith and his belief in the Bible.

Wellman’s argument suggests that he believes most crime in this Country is committed by agnostics, atheists, and non Christians. I do hope he knows that most of the crimes committed in this Country are committed by people who believe in the Christian God. I did a fair bit of prison ministry years ago. Most of the prisoners I came in contact with were “believers”. Almost 80% of Americans believe in the Christian God.

When is the last time the newspaper headline has read  “Atheist Arrested for Molesting Children” or “Agnostic Kills Her Husband” ? Certainly, atheists and agnostics can, and do, commit terrible crimes,but the vast majority of crimes committed in this country are perpetrated by people who say the believe in the Christian God. (daily the news has stories of crimes perpetrated by pastors and priests)

Wellman asserts that the only reason that people do good is because of the threat of the afterlife.  Threats of divine judgment and heaven and hell are the motivations for doing good. I assume then, that Wellman’s motive for doing good is fear.

Wellman laments the direction America is headed. The Christians rule this country.  They have the power. 80% is a pretty big majority. It is convenient to blame nontheists, but we have no power to control or change anything in this country. Atheists and agnostics make up 4% of the population. We are a growing segment of the population but we are generations away from being even a significant minority.

Granted most Christians are no different from atheists or agnostics when it comes to living their day to day lives. The actual number of true blue, willing to die for the faith Bible thumpers is quite small.

Wellman admits what I have known for a long time………every Christian has their own rules (beliefs) and that’s why there are so many different Christian viewpoints. Yet, Wellman wants me to believe there is one, divine, perfect book by which all of us are to govern our lives.  How is it that every Christian reads the same book yet none of them have the same rules (beliefs)? If the Holy Spirit is the teacher and guide for every Christian how is it possible to have sundry and contradictory beliefs?

Wellman can not fathom a world without God. In fact he is quite certain he would not want to live in such a world. I would assume, once again, that Wellman’s God is the Christian God. Yet, Wellman continues to live in just such a world. The majority of people in the world do not believe in the Christian God. Granted most of the world believes in some God or another, but most people do not believe in the Christian God.

Like most of the previous letter writers Wellman takes a moment to take a swipe at me personally. Wellman seems to think, as many other letter writers do, “once an agnostic, always an agnostic.”  Better to think this than contemplate a true man of God walking away from the Christian faith. Wellman would like to believe I left my Bible on the shelf with the classics when I was a pastor, but I bet if we both whipped out our Bible study penises mine would  be John Holmes sized and his would be found under searches for “small penises”. (please allow me a bit of perverse pleasure here)

I will leave it to my parishioners to testify as to whether or not my preaching and teaching was worth listening to.  For 25 years I never failed to have a congregation to preach to and that speaks for itself.

The Bible Has Survived for 2000 Years Without Being Changed

Leave a reply
This entry is part 4 of 22 in the seriesLetters to the Editor

What follows is a response to the letter to the editor I recently submitted to The Defiance Crescent News.

We don’t have God’s mind

In reference to Bruce Gerencser’s letter of June 1, his honesty and willingness to stand by what he believes is commendable. It puts many of us Christians to shame.

Yes, I am a Christian and declare Christ as my Lord and Savior. God doesn’t need me nor anyone else to defend Him, however, I wish Gerencser knew how much Christ loves him.

His comments show that he does have a knowledge of the Bible. Has he ever questioned how it is that the Bible has survived 2,000 years without being changed or its message diluted? The Dead Sea Scrolls show it, still today, being authentic when compared with these documents.

I do believe in the rapture of the Church, however, I am not overly concerned with end-time predictions. When I breathe my last breath that will be my end of time, so every day is the time to be ready to meet the Master. Yes, indeed, I am going to heaven.

We don’t have the mind of God. Our understanding is like that of a child compared to an adult so, of course, we have many disagreements and misinterpretations. As I Corinthians 13:12 says, “we see in a mirror dimly.” It is like trying to read fine print without your glasses. If you read the entire chapter of I Corinthians 13, loving God and each other is the cornerstone of our faith.

R Thomas

I really don’t have much to say about this letter. R Thomas seems sincere and I appreciate that she was polite in her reply to me.

Thomas expresses a view of the Bible that is quite common in conservative, Evangelical Churches. For 2000 years the Bible has survived without being changed or the message diluted. The Dead Sea scrolls prove that the Bible we have today is the same as the Bible used 2000 years ago.

Thomas’s view of the Bible has no rational foundation but I don’t blame her for being ill-taught concerning the Bible.  The blame lies at the feet of the clergy who know better. They know the truth about the Bible but they say nothing. If pastors ever told their congregations the truth about the Bible the result would be catastrophic. Without an inspired, infallible Bible the foundation of Christianity crumbles.

Why do pastors not tell the truth about the Bible?  Who told Thomas that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Bible is true?  (read here to refresh your memory about the Dead Sea Scrolls) If God is who the Christians say he is the Bible should withstand scrutiny. There is no need to obfuscate the truth about the Bible if it is indeed a supernatural book given to humankind by a supernatural God. 

I Need to Get Right With God Lest I Burn in Hell

Leave a reply
This entry is part 5 of 22 in the seriesLetters to the Editor

What follows is a response to a recent letter I wrote to the editor of the Defiance Crescent-News. My comments follow the letter:

God is real! In response to Bruce Gerencser’s letter, my initial response was anger. It didn’t take long for pity to replace anger.

Obviously, you are mad at God for something and you are trying to discredit Him and his Word.

Whether you want to admit it or not, God is real and there is coming a day when every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! I am glad this world is not my home, I’m just passing through. I’m looking forward to walking on the streets of pure gold and seeing my mansion He has prepared for me. My prayer for Mr. Gerencser is that he’ll get right with God before it is too late and he spends eternity in hell.

This world has a lot of problems, that much is true. I’m glad God holds it in the palm of his hand and wins the battle in the end.

N. Lang

It is always amazing what one atheist can do. Evidently my letter to the editor irritated Lang and it made her angry. I wonder if she confessed her anger as sin? Of course, she might have had the special kind of anger only Christians have, righteous anger. Righteous anger allows Christians to be nasty and abusive because they are doing it in God’ name.

As usual, the reason I am an atheist, according to Lang, is that I am mad at God. I am out to discredit God and His Word.  Being mad at God (misotheism) is like being mad at the Easter Bunny. Neither exist, and with so many other targets worthy of my anger, why would I waste it on a fictional being?

Lang has a hard time understanding how someone like me  becomes an atheist. Surely it must be because of some emotional wound or anger. No matter how many times I tell people that I am no longer a Christian because I do not believe the Bible to be truth, they still refuse to let that be the reason for my apostasy. It is all about the Bible, all has been, and always will be.

Am I trying to discredit God and the Bible? Of course not. I am all for letting God speak for himself and by doing so He discredits himself. The Bible, the revelation of God, is quite sufficient for discrediting God. I take the Bible as a find it and the God revealed therein is not a God I want anything to do with. Fortunately, I don’t have to worry about this since the Christian God is a work of fiction, shaped by human beings.

Lang assumes that if she says God is real that I will somehow see the error of my way and embrace the Christian God. Now if she would share with me credible proof that the Christian God exists I might consider rejoining the club. Of course she can’t prove that God exists, no one can. Believing in a God requires faith, a faith I do not have.

Lang admits that the world has lots of problems. She also says that God holds the world in the palm of His hand. Evidently she never makes the connection between problems and palm of His hand. If the Christian God is holding the world in the palm of His hand (or as the Bible says by the word of His power) it seems to me that any problems we have are rightly God’s problems. God is so powerful that He holds the world in the palm of His hand but he is powerless against the works of Satan and human beings? (whom I assume Lang blames for all the problems) What a weak God the Christian God is.

Lang makes it clear unless I get right with God I am going to spend eternity in hell. That’s always the bottom line…Bruce repent or you are going to fry. Let me think about it……….Nope. I have no plans of repenting and all the threats of judgment or hell are not going to change my firm conviction on the matter. Even if there WAS a Christian God I am still not interested in worshipping Him. Who wants to worship a God who created most of the human race so He could damn them and burn them in the fires of hell for all eternity? Wow! What a mighty God Christians serve. A God who loves humanity so much that he punishes the vast majority of them with fire, brimstone, and worms that never die.

I have no problem with Lang and her sincere hope that she will spend eternity in a place where the streets are pure gold  and everyone has a mansion. (even though the Greek is better translated rooms) Like her, I don’t want to die, and religion gives people hope and it makes life have purpose and meaning. That said, I don’t need such things. Religion, of any kind, has no value for me. I know death is certain and I am at peace with the reality that when I am dead I am dead. End of story. No Heaven. No Hell. Just d-e-a-d.

I find hope and purpose, not in a God or the sweet-by-and-by, but in those whom I cherish and love. My wife, children, grandchildren, and my extended family are enough for me. I have no need of a reward after death to give my life purpose and meaning. I am content to gain my reward in this life, the love of family is enough for me. What else is there?

The Reason Rally and My Letter to the Defiance Crescent-News About It

Leave a reply
This entry is part 6 of 22 in the seriesLetters to the Editor

Here is a wonderful video  about the Reason Rally put together by the Thinking Atheist.

Link to video

Here is a letter to the Editor I wrote to the Defiance Crescent-News today.

Dear Editor,

I waited in vain to see a Crescent-News report on the March 24, 2012 Reason Rally in Washington, DC. Over 20,000 people gathered on The Mall to give their support to the idea that America should be a country governed by reason rather than superstition and religious dogma. The Reason Rally crowd was comprised of atheists, agnostics, humanists, and secularists, every one of them with a love for America and its secular values and principles.

Noted speakers at the event included people like Richard Dawkins, David Silverman, Michael Shermer, James Randi, Dan Barker, Roy Speckhardt, Greta Christina, and Nate Phelps, son of homophobic Westboro Baptist Church pastor Fred Phelps. Videos from people like Bill Maher and Penn Jillette were shown and musicians like Bad Religion and Tim Minchin played for the crowd. Adam Savage, co-host of the popular TV show Mythbusters, gave a passionate speech that encouraged and stirred the secular faith.

The Reason Rally was the American secularist movement’s coming out party. As the recent census showed, secularism is on the rise in America. As people turn away from religions that no longer provide the answers to life’s important questions, they are realizing that answers, hope, meaning, and purpose can be found in a non-theistic, humanistic way of life. With no promise of heaven or threat of hell, secularists are focused on improving the world we live in. We only have one life and we best be about living it. If we want a better future for our progeny we have no time to waste dreaming of promises of mansions in heaven.

I realize the Crescent-News leans towards the right politically and socially. The editorial page is so right-wing that it falls right off the right side of the page. That’s your right as a newspaper. I also realize you represent what the vast majority of Defiance area residents believe and support.  However, you do have a duty to report the news and the March 24, 2012 Reason Rally was indeed news. It is news that is not going away. The Reason Rally was but first shot over the bow of Ship Christian Nation. We are here and we are not going away.

Sincerely,

Bruce Gerencser
Ney, Ohio

Letter to the Editor of the Defiance Crescent News, May 22, 2012

9 Replies
This entry is part 7 of 22 in the seriesLetters to the Editor

What follows is a letter I sent to the editor of the Defiance Crescent News.

Dear Editor,

Cal Thomas is right about one thing. The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. The Bible is not ambiguous about homosexuality. It is a sinful behaviour that is the mark of a reprobate heart. If the Bible is taken literally, it is clear that no homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God.

And this is the very reason the Bible should not be used as a legal standard in the United States. Christians are free to live according to the dictates of the Bible, however, in a secular state, a particular religion’s moral code of conduct has no business being codified into law.

There are many moral strictures in the Bible that many moderns find abhorrent. The Bible has been used in the past to justify all kinds of vile behavior. Not too many years ago segregationists routinely quoted the Bible to justify their dehumanizing of the African-American race. We matured as a Nation and realized the Bible was wrong about slavery and the so-called inferior races.

In the same manner, the Bible is wrong about homosexuality. In fact, the Bible is wrong about many sexual matters. At best, the Bible is a religious text that promotes sexual repression and control. It is is book that is currently being used by single, white, Catholic men to deny women birth control and control of their own bodies. Christians who willingly submit to such anachronistic laws are free to do so, but Christian sects have no right to force, through the legal process, others to live by their moral code.

We say we are a Nation that believes in privacy but it seems that many Christians only support a right to privacy when what is being done in private lines up with their moral code. Simply put, Christians need to mind their own business when it comes to the sexual proclivities of others. What goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults is nobody’s business. Again, Christians are free to live according to their interpretation of the moral code of the Bible, but in a secular state they have no right to insist, through legal means, that others do so.

Homosexuals should have the same civil rights as any other American. Since marriage is a legal act licensed by the state, matters of religion have no place in the process. Two men, two women, or a man or woman should have the same freedom to marry. There is no civil reason for denying homosexuals the right to marry.

Christians need to realize that the United States is not a Christian nation. It never has been. Christianity does not deserve special status and certainly the Bible should have no weight when it comes to enacting law.

Our legal system should reflect what is best for the American people. How best to live as a pluralistic people in a secular state. Allowing homosexuals to marry and have the same civil rights as heterosexuals is absolutely essential as we mature as a nation.

Sincerely,

Bruce Gerencser
Ney, Ohio

A Response to My Recent Letter to the Editor of the Defiance Crescent News

5 Replies
This entry is part 8 of 22 in the seriesLetters to the Editor

What follows is a response to my recent Letter to the Editor of the Defiance Crescent News. You can read the letter here.  This response to my letter is a good example of the way a lot of people think in rural, small town, NW Ohio. My response is in italics and indented.

Mr. Gerencser is trying to undermine the historical importance the Bible played in the building of our country’s government by villainizing it and by stating; “that the moral code of conduct of a particular religion has no business being codified into law within a secular state”.

Not at all. I readily admit the significant part the Bible played in the history and foundation of the United States. I also admit the McGuffey Readers played a vital part in the education of countless children in the United States. No one suggests that we should use McGuffey Readers in our schools today and the same should go for the Bible.

The Bible is an antiquated book, written thousands of years ago, for a people whose lives bear little to no connection with how we live in the 21st century. It is irrelevant. In fact, the Bible often stands in the way of us becoming a just and progressive society.

Look at who the culture warriors are. Most all of them have a Bible in their hand as they demand that the citizens of a secular state submit to the commands of their particular sect’s God. This kind of thinking should be offensive to all those who value democracy and freedom.

I readily admit the Bible played a part in the making of our laws. But then, there are a lot of laws that are contrary to what the Bible teaches. Why do we not see Christians demanding non-Biblical laws be repealed?

Besides, no Christian really wants the laws of the Bible codified as the law of the State. It would cramp their lifestyle. Imagine, no NFL football because of the command to keep the Sabbath.

What is the Bible? It’s a book, an inanimate object. Mr. Gerencser states that; “The Bible has been used in the past to justify all kinds of vile behavior.” The Bible itself is not responsible for any of the reprehensible acts that have been committed throughout history and have been justified by misquoting the Bible. It is the person behind the act that is responsible; not just for committing them but also for using the Bible in a lie to further their own agenda. No one will inherit the kingdom of God, if the Bible is to be taken literally. It is all of us, myself included. Why, because of our sin nature, and because of this we have all of these “vile acts” throughout history. But the Bible is not just a book, it is God breathed, meaning it came from God.

So which is it? Is the Bible an inanimate object or is it a God breathed (inspired) book?

You would have me believe that reprehensible acts have been committed by people who found justification for their acts misquoting the Bible. The Bible is not the problem, people are. I don’t have a problem with your thinking here.

However, because no two Christians can agree on what the Bible says and people routinely use their interpretations of the Bible to justify  acts that sane people consider evil, we should be able to agree that the Bible should not be consulted at all when it comes to matters of State. How could we ever determine whose interpretation is right?

I want leaders who use reason and common sense when they make decisions on my behalf. I don’t want them consulting religious leaders or the Bible before they act. As leaders in a secular state they should only concern themselves with making decisions that are in the best interest of the American people. (hint: banning abortion, demanding creationism be taught in public schools, withholding civil rights from same sex couples, and requiring sectarian prayers in school are not in the best interest of the American people)

You want to take the Bible literally, be my guest. However, we live in a secular state and literal interpretations of the Bible or any interpretation of any religious text for that matter, should play no part in our government’s decision making process.

I am not suggesting that Christians can’t be a part of our government. Since the majority of Americans are Christians. (albeit in name only) I don’t expect them to become atheists when they take office. I do, however, expect them to act in the best interest of the American people.

I want leaders who seek the counsel of good men and women rather than trying to divine the teachings and prophecies of an antiquated book written thousands of years ago.

We the United States of America are not a secular state, but a constitutional republic. Our Founding Fathers created our government based upon the Constitution which was based upon three separate documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta and the Bible. Because of this our government is controlled by the Constitution. That is why it is called a, “living, breathing document”. We have been a Christian nation from the very beginning and many of us still are. Because our Constitution was based upon the Bible, that our government is based upon the Bible and the only way to change that is to change the Constitution. Hence, the fight we have been having over the last several decades.

Uh…we are a secular constitutional republic.

Uh, most people of your stripe do not consider the Constitution a living , breathing document. I suspect you are misidentifying yourself here. Most people who hold  your view take a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. Strict constructionists view the Constitution like they do the Ten Commandments, written in stone.

I believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document. Over hundreds of years, as our nation continues to grow, evolve, and mature, our understanding of the Constitution changes. In my view, it matters not what the Founders meant the Constitution to say. What matters is what it is interpreted to mean now. Our laws have evolved and changed over time and I can only hope they will continue to do so.

Mr. Gerencser also stated that, “Our legal system should reflect what is best for the American people. How best to live as a pluralistic people in a secular state.”

Do you know what the second sentence in his quote means? Pluralism is the theory that a multitude of groups should govern the United States, not the people as a whole. These groups or organizations include trade unions, civil rights activists, environmentalists and business or financial lobbyists.

I have no idea where you got your definition of pluralism.

Diane Eck of The Pluralism Project at Harvard University writes:

The plurality of religious traditions and cultures has come to characterize every part of the world today. But what is pluralism? Here are four points to begin our thinking:

First, pluralism is not diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with diversity. Diversity can and has meant the creation of religious ghettoes with little traffic between or among them. Today, religious diversity is a given, but pluralism is not a given; it is an achievement. Mere diversity without real encounter and relationship will yield increasing tensions in our societies.

Second, pluralism is not just tolerance, but the active seeking of understanding across lines of difference. Tolerance is a necessary public virtue, but it does not require Christians and Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and ardent secularists to know anything about one another. Tolerance is too thin a foundation for a world of religious difference and proximity. It does nothing to remove our ignorance of one another, and leaves in place the stereotype, the half-truth, the fears that underlie old patterns of division and violence. In the world in which we live today, our ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly.

Third, pluralism is not relativism, but the encounter of commitments. The new paradigm of pluralism does not require us to leave our identities and our commitments behind, for pluralism is the encounter of commitments. It means holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not in isolation, but in relationship to one another.

Fourth, pluralism is based on dialogue. The language of pluralism is that of dialogue and encounter, give and take, criticism and self-criticism. Dialogue means both speaking and listening, and that process reveals both common understandings and real differences. Dialogue does not mean everyone at the “table” will agree with one another. Pluralism involves the commitment to being at the table — with one’s commitments.

I would also remind you that we do not have a government structure where the people as a whole govern. We elect people to represent us. If we like what they do while in office we reelect them. If we don’t we boot them  out of office.

Majority rule democracy would quickly devolve into anarchy and oppression. Our current government structure rightly recognizes the right of  minorities to find redress of their grievances.

We have all been witness to the glowing success of this in action over the last 3½ years. Just look at how certain groups within our government have tried to bail out the automotive industry and the housing market. All they have succeeded in doing is taking over the private market with an already failing model and enslaved our future generations with debt. A secular state remains neutral in matters of religion and treats all its citizens equal regardless of religion. Our Founding Fathers did not want our fledgling country to be sucked back into what they had just left where your religious stance could get you killed, and they wanted God to be the father of our nation. It all comes down to one thing: Do you believe in God?

Are you suggesting that the state should not be neutral in matters of religion? Are you suggesting that certain religions (I am assume the Christian religion) should receive preferential treatment? I assume you are advocating a Christian theocracy.

Yet, you turn right around suggest that our forefathers fled a theocracy to find freedom here in America. I am confused by your logic here, but then most Christian theocrats confuse me.

Where does the Constitution say the Christian God is the father of the United States?

Whether one believes in God is of no importance except for Christians who make believing in their God a matter of moral goodness. Since most of the evil acts perpetrated by the U.S. government over the course of its history were authorized by Christian men, it is proper and right for us to ask WHY anyone should think Christianity gives a person moral goodness?

I get it. God matters to you. The Bible matters to you. However, as a fellow citizen of the United States, God doesn’t matter to me and I find the Bible offensive and irrelevant. Since we are fellow citizens in a secular state we must find a way to co-exist. Telling me that I must bow to your God and follow your God’s law book is not co-existence, it is a declaration of war.

“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God.” — George Washington.

You do know that George Washington was a deist?

I will leave you with a few George Washington quotes of my own:

“Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”

“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.”

“The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes.”

MS
Holgate

Who is This Our God? A Letter to the Editor

9 Replies
This entry is part 9 of 22 in the seriesLetters to the Editor

What follows is a Letter to the Editor of the Defiance Crescent-News. It should be published in a week or two.

Dear Editor,

Who is this “our God” I keep reading about in the Letters to the Editor section of the Crescent-News? If the letter writers spoke of our flag, our country, our military, or our government, I would readily understand what they mean. As a citizen of the United States, I have a common connection with all other U.S. citizens. Our country belongs to all of us, contrary to what right-wingers think when then speak of taking back “their” country.

When the Star Spangled Banner is played, I remove my hat and turn my face towards the flag of my native land. However, when the national anthem of the “our God“ crowd, God bless America, is played, I refuse to bow in obeisance to the “our God.”

We have no “our God” in the United States. We may be one people, under one flag, willingly governed by those we elect to office, but we do not have a common God, a deity that every citizen must worship and obey.

Where in the U.S. Constitution is this “our God” mentioned? At best, the U.S. Constitution mentions a generic God, a deist form of a Creator God. Even then, the Founders of this Country, understanding the danger of having state-sanctioned religion, made sure that there was a separation of Church and State and no religious requirement for holding office. They made sure there was not only freedom of religion but freedom from religion. Christian, Atheist, and Muslim alike are equal in the eyes of the State.

So, I ask again, who is this “our God?”  Of course every letter writer would say “our God” is the Christian God. Again, I would ask, which Christian God? The Trinitarian God of the Lutheran or the non-Trinitarian God of the Oneness Pentecostal? The Calvinist God or the Arminian God? Which of the thousands of Christians sects have the “our God?”

Christians bitterly disagree and separate from one another over matters like salvation, baptism, and communion. If Christians can not agree on these basic teachings how can there be a “our God?”  The division and internecine warfare among Christians reveals the bankruptcy of the notion that there is a “our God.”

All that letter writers have is a personal God, a God they believe exists. I have no problem with them having a God or believing whatever they want to believe about that God. However, when they suggest that their personal God must be the God of all then I take issue with such a claim. As a citizen of a secular state that codified the freedom of and from religion in its founding documents, I object to any suggestion that there is a “our God” I must worship and obey.

Going down the “our God” road leads to violence, bloodshed, and a loss of freedom. Such a notion must be resisted at every turn lest we wake up one morning and find a Christian theocracy ruling the United States.

Bruce Gerencser
Ney, Ohio