An Email From a Fundamentalist Christian

grumpy cat

Several years ago, I received an email from a Christian man by the name of Mike Gallagher. Here’s what he had to say:

I’ve noticed in your articles that you have a bitterness toward so-called Baptists. (Hyles, Swaggart, etc.)  I’ve never considered these men to actually be true men of God. ( “by their fruits, ye shall know them”).  If I may, please allow me to state some observations; and I shall make them brief.  I will not preach to you (tho preaching is a form of communication; and in my experience people are afraid to listen to preaching because they are not secure in their core beliefs.)

1.  I perceive that what you had was religion. Sure, you knew about God and all the doctrines and teachings associated with it. (tho I can’t understand how a serious Bible student could get the doctrine of Calvinism out of it. Calvin wasn’t even a Baptist- yet he persecuted them)  You knew about the Bible and studied it and crafted sermons from it. You looked up to and deified(?) men that you admired; even mentored a few. You were also strongly influenced by them, yea, molded by them.  You had the mechanics of all what a Christian life should be – except for one thing..

2.  Relationships.  You know what they are.  You’ve had one with your wife for 37 years.  No doubt you’ve had strong friendships with others for years.  You have a  relationship with your children and grandchildren;  each one individually (I hope).

Relationships consist of 3 essential elements – Trust, Honesty, Commitment.  Long lasting relationships must consist of these.  But the One whom you have not had a relationship is – God. Sure one can study all about Him, know about Him, what men say about Him – but to know Him, ahh is different.  That’s why salvation always comes

First; it’s the actual meeting; the face to face (by faith) contact.  From that point on you get to know Him more (just as the more time you spent with your wife, you got to know her better; and your friends; and your children; etc.).  You’ve always known He was out there but always distant.  You prayed but didn’t know if He answered or not until you saw results – disappointing or otherwise.

He’s a person.  This is why prayer is a  2-way street;  not one sided.  He’s not there just to listen to you – He wants you to listen to Him.

3.  God didn’t forsake you; you forsook Him. The Bible is not a law book – it’s a guide book.  God isn’t the One who’s changed all these years (especially in our generation in America) We are the ones who have “gone astray”.  Can you HONESTLY say we are better off as a society than we were 50 years ago?

Well, I said I would keep it brief.  Hope we can become friends, Bruce. Some of the things you said about our flesh and humanity is true. The Apostle Paul had trouble with his; and David; and Peter; and Samson; and….. you get the idea. If I’m honest with myself, with others and most importantly, with God;  then I feel secure in what I believe. I don’t think that you do.  write soon, come on you know you can’t let this go without a response!

Mike

I will leave it to you to judge the merit of his letter. My response was short, sweet, and to the point:

You are kidding right? Be friends? Why would I want to be friends with someone who is a judgmental, arrogant ass that refuses to allow me to tell my own story on my own terms?

So no, I am not interested in being friends, hearing from you, or anything else. After hundreds of emails just like yours, I hope you will forgive me when I say to people like you, go to hell.

Bruce

Note

Email formatted to make it readable. No text was changed.

print

Subscribe to the Daily Post Digest!

Sign up now and receive an email every day containing the new posts for that day.

I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( more information )

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Powered by Optin Forms

78 Comments

  1. Michael Mock

    Heh. You know, for someone who opened his email with a promise not to preach at you, he sure moves right on in to a very… lyrical turn of phrase and starts telling you how things really are awfully quickly.

    So you didn’t have a relationship with God, eh? After twenty-five year of study and seeking, whose fault would that be, exactly?

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Well, when it comes to being married to Jesus, it is always the Christian’s fault when there is a problem with the relationship. Jesus is the perfect husband, boyfriend, CEO, soldier, well you get the drift. Jesus is the perfect everything. It is ALWAYS our fault, not his.

      Reply
  2. Beth

    I like your email a lot better.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Thanks!

      Reply
  3. Brian

    Ah, shucks, Bruce! You just didn’t do it right! God does not err.
    When he told Abe to tie Isaac to a rock and gut him, you know he was only kidding, right? Cuz Isaac was already slated for big things and God was just playing around to, well, to let Abe know who was who…. Well, Abe tied him up and would have gutted him but not REALLLY because Abe knew that God was great and would give him a break and so he just play-acted and Isaac … well, nevermind that Isaac had to be tied to the sacrificial stone and know what was coming and that his dad was okay with all this and holy shit! Look at that KNIFE! Wait…. that is all wrong. God is good, the definition of love and gentle caring.
    Anyway, can’t you play-act through the symbolic plays and trust God? That is the key! If he says to slay all the first-born, well that is to test and he wouldn’t really do that any more than drown the whole world! Jeez, Bruce, c’mon. Lighten up.

    Reply
  4. Kerry

    I love your response! I will use it myself….with permission!

    Reply
  5. Kenneth

    Bruce, don’t worry, I’m sure he will pray for you.

    Reply
  6. August Rode

    “in my experience people are afraid to listen to preaching because they are not secure in their core beliefs.” — I don’t listen to preaching because preaching tends to be disrespectful. When someone preaches at me, what I hear is “I have an opinion that I don’t care to discuss and you’re going to listen to it quietly whether you like it or not.”

    Reply
  7. mikespeir

    I’m sure we’d all prefer not to be so rude, but politeness wouldn’t work. There’s no talking to these people.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Yep. Sadly, some of them have no capacity to be decent, thoughtful human beings. But hey, they love Jesus. 🙂

      Reply
  8. Appalachian Agnostic

    His email was similar to many of the sermons I heard as a child. A long list of the ways other people are doing it wrong leading to thea declaration that doesn’t make sense.

    Reply
  9. Appalachian Agnostic

    a declaration

    Reply
  10. Susan-Anne White

    I am an Evangelical Christian and I live in Northern Ireland. I cannot understand why you, Mr.Gerencser, have to resort to rudeness when you respond to us “poor deluded Christians” who cannot think for ourselves. I am neither poor nor deluded and I have not had to abandon my intellect to believe the Bible. If you want to abandon your faith, do so, and I have no intention or desire to change your mind, but why do you not respond to those who disagree with you in a courteous, respectful manner? You sound like a US version of Richard Dawkins, only worse. Since abandoning your faith, are you now pro-LGBT and “gay” marriage? If so why, when there are atheists who oppose “gay” marriage? The LGBT lobby can be dangerous. You should search online for the case of Pastor Chuck McIlhenny whom some “gays” tried to murder. In conclusion, we believe that Evangelical Christianity today is riddled with hypocrites and pretenders and there is little difference now between Evangelicals and non-Christians when it comes to living moral lives. This is disgraceful because there should be a difference, a difference as striking as the difference between day and night. We (my husband, daughter and I) walk contrary to most Evangelical Christians in that we take seriously the Biblical commands to be salt and light and to reprove the works of darkness. Yes we have difficulty with some verses in the Bible i.e apparent contradictions and apparent cruel commands of God, but we do not abandon our faith in the Bible and the God revealed therein because of them. Instead we search for answers and we tell the Lord of our distress at certain verses in Scripture and we ask Him for explanations and sometimes He gives them.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      The American Richard Dawkins. I like the sound of that.

      Reply
    2. August Rode

      “we believe that Evangelical Christianity today is riddled with hypocrites and pretenders and there is little difference now between Evangelicals and non-Christians when it comes to living moral lives” — I believe them’s fightin’ words, them is. You seem to be saying, Susan-Anne, that non-Christians don’t live moral lives. Could I respectfully suggest that if that’s the case, you don’t know what you’re talking about?

      Reply
      1. Susan-Anne White

        I’m saying that most Christians do not practice what they preach especially in the moral realm i.e many Christians commit fornication and adultery etc just like many in the the non-Christian world. In our opinion, most non-Christians do not live clean lives and many “Christian” hypocrites emulate them.

        Take the matter of clothing, for example. Most Christians look like the world and dress like the world. We, however, do not. Someone once said to me that they knew I was a Christian by the way I dressed. That was a great compliment for me because clothing is a language and I want to communicate wholesomeness because immodest dress is dangerous. I once read about a US detective with 17 years experience and he said that in most cases of sexual assaults. provocative, immodest dress was a factor. One of the Puritans (Richard Baxter I think) said that immodest clothing was as dangerous as walking with a candle among gunpowder. You say that my words are “fightin’ words”(mind your spelling) and I do believe in “telling it like it is” and I certainly do fight the good fight of faith. Recently in the UK of which Northern Ireland is a part, we had elections and I stood as an Independent candidate with the slogan of Biblically correct NOT politically correct. I did not succeed but I don’t believe I failed either. If you want to read “fightin’words” look no further than my election manifesto.

        Reply
        1. Friend

          I am one of Bruce’s Christian readers. He has opened my eyes to the countless ways in which Christian culture makes life hard for non-Christians. You take things one step further by asserting that most Christians are not good enough to pass your Christian test of worthiness. While you indict Bruce Gerencscer for rudeness, you are tremendously disrespectful of everyone who isn’t like you. But at least you’re polite about it, right? No. Arrogant claims of superiority more than cancel out your veneer of politeness.

          Reply
        2. August Rode

          Hi, Susan-Anne. I found your manifesto. I read it. If your manifesto is a reflection of what you think it means to be Christian, then the world really is better off without it. You see, unlike you, I believe in the essential equality of *all* persons and I tend to keep my nose out of things that are none of my business. I’m not so arrogant as to think that my beliefs ought to form the basis for how the society I live in ought to be run and how everyone else ought to behave. If you think you are living “clean,” you have some more thinking to do. I’d better leave it at that…

          Reply
        3. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

          Yes, I feel so threatened by women showing cleavage and wearing clothing that accentuates and emphasizes their feminine shape. By all means, keep threatening. ?

          Reply
          1. Friend

            Bruce, you and your regular respondents don’t need my voice to strengthen your excellent points, but here I am anyway. I cannot confirm any plan for politicians in Northern Ireland to create or revive the elected office of hymen inspector. It would be unthinkable for me as a Christian to invent something outrageous and pretend not to accuse others of the idea. I will now go back to my customary Christian demure silence, which some Ulsterwomen count on—although I have no particular Ulsterwoman in mind. It is possible that the “e” in “hymen” should be deleted.

        4. Michael Mock

          I can understand why you think that Bruce’s response was “resorting to rudeness”, but I’m extremely curious as to why you (apparently) think the email from Mike Gallagher was not.

          It’s also interesting that you don’t feel that Christians are particularly better or worse than non-Christians when it comes to morality; that’s been my perception as well. However, you also seem to be saying that you and yours hold yourselves to a higher standard than other Christians and unbelievers do… Yet, when you try to give examples, you go immediately and directly to sexual behaviors. Sex and anything related to sex (such as immodest dress) seem to be a particular obsession of moralizing Christians, so much so that they often seem unaware that there might be moral issues that don’t touch on sex. I honestly don’t see how being more focused on sexual behavior constitutes any sort of higher moral standard; on the contrary, that seems like a very limited, even superficial, approach to morality.

          Your assertion that immodest dress is dangerous, with the implication that it encourages sexual assault, is naive and uninformed; the current literature on sexual assault suggests that clothing has very little to do with it, and the idea that it does has far more to do with blaming the victim than with any realistic assessment of cause and effect. Passing along incorrect and misleading information is hardly laudable, so if that’s your justification for focusing on modest dress, you might want to rethink your position.

          I’m all in favor of people holding themselves to a higher moral standard; but what you’ve told us so far seems a very… odd… way to go about it.

          Reply
        5. John Arthur

          Hi Susan,

          “Most non Christians do not live clean lives.”

          Is this true? Neither you nor I know “most non Christians”. The ethics of non Christians are very varied. Some follow an ethic of compassion and kindness. Are these not living “clean lives”?

          Non Christians are just as capable of treating others with dignity and respect as are Christians. Buddhists are non Christians, so are most of them not “living clean lives”? Buddha said that the way is not in the sky but the way is in the heart. Many Buddhists meditate on compassion and loving kindness and seek to make this their way.

          Why not show compassion and loving kindness shown towards same-sex oriented people? Why not give equal rights to these folk? I cannot see how granting same-sex marriage will affect my marriage to my wife, nor any other heterosexual marriage.

          You seem to identify ‘clean living’ with narrow concerns about a very restrictive view of sexual morality, based on an ancient text. An ethic of love might suggest that if two persons treat each other with dignity and respect, they won’t exploit or take advantage of one another but sex will take place within a context of concern, not only for one’s own welfare, but the welfare of our partner.

          Shalom,

          John Arthur

          Reply
          1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

            I suspect White has a narrow and defined list of behaviors she considers clean living. Undoubtedly, she also thinks only Christians are clean livers.

            As you point out, what matters is how we treat others. In this regard, Christians are no better than nonbelievers.

    3. Edward

      I checked out this woman’s blog. (Somebody call my ophthalmologist, please!) Anyway, among all the scare quotes, I discovered that she believes that the red-eye effect in a photo is evidence of gay people being evil, those who support Planned Parenthood are Satanists, doctors who are trying to cure cancer are really just experimenting on healthy patients, and people who commit adultery should be imprisoned. Apparently the United States isn’t the only country that needs to invest a lot more in mental health care.

      Reply
      1. Susan-Anne White

        I have a name Sir so kindly refer to me by my name instead of “this woman.” By the way, our blog is a joint effort on the part of my husband and myself. It is our blog. You are deliberately misrepresenting our blog. Now the onus is on you to quote ad verbatim from our blog where we said categorically all the things you attribute to us in your comment. We usually qualify our statements with words such as, “It is possible that…”or “Is it possible that….” when we do not have all the facts about a given topic. If you think that I am in need of mental health care, then so are at least 21 states in your country because in those states adultery is an imprisonable offence. You certainly do need to see an ophthalmologist Sir because you are not seeing clearly. We also recommend that you see a heart specialist because you also have heart problems i.e your heart is desperately wicked.

        Reply
        1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

          Susan Anne White, who caused a stir when she stood in last year’s council elections, is now aiming to become MP for West Tyrone.

          The devout Christian says her campaign will focus on moral issues including society’s “dangerous” homosexual agenda.

          She also wants to outlaw rock music, saying it fuels sexual anarchy and drug use.

          Speaking to the Belfast Telegraph, Mrs White, who is standing as an Independent, denied that her views were extreme.

          “I don’t consider myself extreme – not at all,” she said. “It is society that has moved. Not so far in the past, most people would have shared my views.

          “My views only seem extreme because society has moved away from God’s principles.”…

          …Mrs White said she opposes feminism “with all her might”, and says it is to blame for the recession.

          “Feminism is responsible for many of the social ills we see all around us,” she added.

          “They [feminists] are responsible for the economy – they destroyed the whole concept of a family wage with the father as the bread-winner and the stay-at-home mother. They make women feel they have to be out in the workforce.”

          Mrs White is also “absolutely opposed to the homosexual agenda” in today’s society. If I had the power, I would certainly re-criminalise homosexuality, along with adultery,” she added.

          She said anyone involved in homosexual or adulterous practices should be jailed…

          …Despite her strong views, Mrs White claims she is a “true friend” to the gay community.

          “I tell them the truth,” she added. “The person who is not a friend, the person who is the enemy to the homosexual is the person who pats them on the back and says their lifestyle is perfectly normal and acceptable.”

          While campaigning last year, Mrs White spoke out about rock music, saying acts like Iron Maiden and Kurt Cobain promoted anarchy in society. She said she remained opposed to these and other “vulgar acts”.

          “A lot of rock music is dangerous for the hearing,” she added.

          “That is not the only problem with it. There is an ideology which permeates rock music and it is sexual anarchy. It is also linked to drugs.” She said rock music had “a terrible effect” on young people.

          Mrs White blames the EU for much of society’s “decadence”, saying she would withdraw from Europe tomorrow.
          http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/susan-anne-white-wants-gay-people-jailed-adultery-made-illegal-and-rock-bands-outlawed-now-she-wants-your-vote-31133489.html

          Reply
          1. Patrick

            First let me start my comment by saying God bless you Mrs. White. Keep fighting the good fight. You are not alone. I too am a Christian a Saved Sinner by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. To be sure when commenting on a blog such as this you have surely entered into the lions den. The people hear will be impolite and deny that all the evils of our sinful flesh even exist. It’s OK for them to lie because they have denied the very existence of God therefore they feel they have no one to answer to. The signs are clearly stated in God’s word as what will happen in the end time. That as in the days of Naoh it would be in the days before Christ’s coming.They denied God’s existence then and are doing so now. However they won’t do this forever because.as in Noah’s day they didn’t believe. Until the flood. They definitely believed when the rain began to fall but then it was too late. Jesus will come and then it will be to late. And deny him or not when all is said and God’s word is fulfilled. (again as it always is) Then every knee shall bow and every tounge will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father! Including you Bruce and your readers! And all your unbelief will stop then. I would that all would be saved and that none should perish but as evidenced in this blog that apparently won’t be the case. We are all sinners, all come short of the Glory of God. Only some of us are believing sinners.

          2. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

            *sigh*

          3. Patrick

            One more small statement for Mrs White, I don’t believe that gays and adulterers should be thrown in jail that wasn’t the way Jesus dealt with the woman caught in the very act of adultery. While the rest were ready to stone her He simply reminded them of their own sinful state and Jesus saved her from the punishment and told her to go and sin no more. This is the picture of salvation through Jesus Christ. This is the new testament way. However after Christ comes again, after His thousand year reign, Then it will be judgement day and those who’s names are not written in the Lambs book of life well unfortunately they will be cast into the lake of fire forever.

          4. Patrick

            Hi Bruce I noticed a couple of comments have gotten through àlready but mine are still being deliberated on. Afraid to put the real truth out there aren’t you. Come on Bruce throw me out there. Am curious as to what your readers have to say about the real truth. Aren’t you?

          5. Patrick

            As stated in my first comment atheist have no problem with dishonesty. By not posting my comments because you fear your devoted readers aren’t adult enough to handle them. The feeling that you have to protect them because your afraid you will loose the comradery of like-minded unbelievers. Because now they might get a glimpse of the real truth and might actually become believers? By not posting all comments proves your dishonesty to your boogers and devoted fans.

          6. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

            Again, I have a life, so forgive me for not immediately approving your drivel. And per the commenting rules, this is your last drivel.

          7. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

            Since you knew all first time comments are moderated, saying I am dishonest seems to go against what the Bible says, eh?

            I’ll make a deal with you. Arrange for me to come to your church and preach the gospel of atheism and I’ll let you say whatever you want on my blog. Deal?

          8. Geoff

            I’m an atheist and I have no objection to reading the drivel you write, if Bruce chooses to allow it. But it really is drivel I’m afraid.

            Actually when I began reading your first comment I started off assuming you were being satirical. Then I realised the correct word was delusional.

          9. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

            Unlike you, I have a life.

          10. Michael Mock

            Okay, hang on, I’m looking at Patrick’s comments… Let’s see…
            1. Accuses Bruce of not approving his comments because he (Bruce) is afraid of the Truth… that’s E5.
            2. Thinks it’s okay for atheists to lie because nobody could possibly have a morality that doesn’t rely on a worse-than-homicidal all-seeing authority figure watching all the time… Oh, that’s B2.
            3. Invokes the authority of the Bible for people who don’t consider the Bible divine or even particularly authoritative… well, it’s a technicality, since he’s ostensibly addressing Susan-Anne White, but it still counts: A1.
            4. Assertion that those evil atheists who disagree with him will get what’s coming to them… Yes! D4! With the free space in the middle, I get BINGO!

          11. sgl

            re: “By not posting my comments because you fear your devoted readers aren’t adult enough to handle them. ”

            sorry, you’re wrong. as bruce says, he has a life, as do the rest of us. approving all your comments would be like watching re-runs on tv for the hundredth time — waste of time; we’ve seen both sides/multiple sides of the arguments before, and reject them. the fact is, many christians have utterly predictable responses and “arguments”, and it becomes tedious and tiring to wade thru the manure on the off-chance christian apologist de jure has a new insight into the universe.

            so, bruce, and many of his readers, chose to spend our time wisely and cut off the people who follow the highly predictable christian talking points without demostrating any mental ability to see the other side of the argument. i know you think you’re a special little snowflake, but in fact, you’re part of a blizzard of christian nonsense that we can see everywhere every day. the majority of the readers here know your fundamentalist arguments, and know the atheist and/or liberal christianity arguments, and choose not to be fundamentalist. and from your 1-2 comments, it’s pretty clear you’re a fundamentalist that’s unwilling or unable to understand any other opinion or perspective but your own. seen that movie before, know the ending, stop watching the movie. next!

          12. Susan-Anne White

            Mr.Gerencser, You have not answered any of the points I raised in my comments, in particular, you have not addressed my first point i.e why you are so rude to Christians who disagree with you. You have sat back for the most part and allowed your coterie of followers to debate with me. You have abandoned Christianity but you have also abandoned courtesy, propriety and decorum. Did you acquire your vulgar tongue after rejecting the faith or were you always secretly the man you now are openly. Did you deceive your various congregations for years, pretending to believe that which you now despise? Did your congregations support you and your family financially and by providing accommodation for you all while your faith (if you ever had any) secretly dissolved into ever increasing hostility towards the beliefs of the people among whom you ministered?

          13. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

            There was nothing rude about my answer. To quote the Bible, I answered a fool according to his folly. The commenter, like you, revealed he had no understanding of my story. I’ve written a lot of autobiographical material. If a person takes the time to read it they wouldn’t ask questions like you have asked here.

            I

          14. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

            And I would also add that you don’t get to set the standard for what is proper decorum, vulgar, etc.

          1. Susan-Anne White

            You have not made it possible for me to reply to your two most recent responses to my comments so I’m commenting here. You quoted the Bible about “answering a fool according to his folly.” How strange for you to quote Scripture when you don’t believe it but when it suits you, you quote a verse as IF you believed it. Also I noticed that you have my Manifesto on your facebook and you described me as a fundamentalist crazy and you said that my manifesto proves that England has its “fundamentalist crazies” too. You then said that I am standing for election. WRONG on all three points. I am not crazy and I do not live in England (I live in Northern Ireland) and I am not standing for election as the election took place last May. You also post a comment on your facebook hitpiece on me from someone called Marc Ewt. Well his feet may be on Northern Ireland soil but his head is in the clouds and we intend to refute his lies and misrepresentations on our blog. You too will get a mention.

          2. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

            The Bible has value as does any work of literature.

            Crazy is a generic term used to describe the beliefs of someone so out of touch with reality that they seem insane or mentally ill. I stand by my assessment, having been at one time every bit as crazy as you.

            Yes, I was mistaken about your location as one commenter on Facebook made clear. By all means take to your blog and write to your heart’s content.

            I’m going to ask you one time to answer the questions Michael Mock has asked you. If you do not do so then you can consider your ability to comment on my blog revoked. I’ve given you far more latitude than I do most fundamentalists, so please answer Mock’s questions IF you want to continue to comment.

          3. Michael Mock

            Susan-Anne White, you may find it much easier to scroll down to the bottom of the page and continue your conversation there. As you’ve noted, once the responses-to-reponses-to-responses get beyond a certain depth, it becomes impossible to reply further (and replies may not show up where you intended to leave them). I think you’ll find that the whole conversation becomes much cleaner and easier to navigate if we don’t keep trying to crowd things in up at the top of the page.

            I’d also like to add, in addition to my earlier points (to which you still haven’t responded, I notice), that I’m puzzled by why you would think it strange that former Christian — let alone a former pastor — would quote scripture. It’s not as if our hair catches fire if we do, after all; and there are some very nice turns of phrase in the Bible. But, honestly, there’s no great mystery here; when a former Christian uses a quote from scripture like that, it’s because they’re trying to put something in terms that will be familiar to you and hopefully easy for you to understand. There’s nothing particularly bizarre or telling about it. That’s how people communicate.

        2. August Rode

          Susan-Anne, you wrote regarding your performance in the latest general election, “I did not succeed but I don’t believe I failed either.” You captured 0.4% of the popular vote, placing dead last in a field of nine candidates. That’s virtually the dictionary definition of ‘failure’. That you don’t consider your failure to be a failure requires that you redefine the word to provide it some other meaning. That’s a clear indication that you *are* deluded, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

          By the way, when you don’t have all the facts about a given topic, the correct approach is to say, “I don’t know whether…” rather than “It is possible that…” If you don’t want to be in the position of having to say that you don’t know something, your options are either to go out and get the facts rather than spouting tripe and nonsense, or to shut up about the subject. On the other hand, if you’re too reluctant to actually learn anything that might upset you but you insist on talking about it anyway, spreading misinformation and disinformation would seem to be your only option. You know, the way you’re already doing.

          Quick question… is “your heart is desperately wicked” synonymous with “you dare to disagree with me”?

          Reply
        3. Edward

          Susan-Anne White, I too have a name, but I note that you refused to use it as well. The following quotes are taken directly from your blog, with accurate bracketed explanations where necessary:

          “The eyes of the two homosexuals in the photo are chilling in the extreme, and even if their strange look can be blamed on the camera, the photo still serves to show that the heart of Sodom is frightening.”

          “Satanists stage publicity stunt in support of devilish Planned Parenthood” [Aug. 26 blog post title]

          “I have reason to believe that they [cancer patients] were treated as guinea pigs by doctors in cahoots with pharmaceutical companies, and that money and medical experimentation (not cure) was the bottom line.”

          “I urge the police to do their duty and arrest this woman [who committed adultery] because she has committed a crime and she has offended a holy God who has said that He will judge people like her. In the New Testament we read that God will judge adulterers and whoremongers and there will be no exceptions.”

          Regarding your derisive downstream comment, I must explain that I have a life and do not spend all of my time on the computer.

          I can assure you that my heart is in no way wicked. Somewhere in Weblandia, a young gay person may stumble across horrible comments such as yours and needlessly despair to the point of harming himself or herself. I will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening, and I am certain that I do this out of the goodness of my heart.

          Reply
          1. Susan-Anne White

            Edward, Regarding the quote about Planned Parenthood which you mentioned, we described them as devilish, we did not say they were Satanists (although that possibility exists) and there is a subtle difference between the word “Satanist” and “devilish.” You did not address my comment about the 21 States in the USA where adultery is an imprisonable offence. I f you think that I require mental health treatment for saying that adulterers should go to prison, you should also say the same about those States, to be consistent in your position. Adultery is a heinous sin/crime and has led to heartbreak, disease and even murder, in some cases.

    4. John Arthur

      Hi Susan,

      If you had been a long time reader of Bruce’s writing, you would have known that Bruce was subject to repeated and continual vile and abusive (personal attack) comments from Evangelical Christians over several years that he closed some of his websites. Fallen From Grace was one such website which listed some of this abuse writing from Evangelicals.

      If you had known this, you wouldn’t wonder why Bruce gives short shrift to some Evangelicals. Rather, you would wonder why he so patient with them and continues to allow them a say.

      Shalom,

      john Arthur

      Reply
  11. Susan-Anne White

    Edward, we are awaiting your response. You had a lot to say but now silence. Ex-Pastor Gerencser, I do not appreciate being called by my surname only. By the way, the election is over as it took place in May, so I am not seeking election at present. I did not fail to get my message across in the election so I succeeded in that, and although I came last in West Tyrone with 166 votes, the Conservative Party candidate (from David Cameron’s Party) received only 3 votes more than I did and she had a huge Party machine behind her. I was an Independent and my husband was my election agent and we had no help in the election but still I made my presence felt and to try is not to fail. I gave people who share my views someone to vote for when they probably would have stayed home had I not been a candidate. August Rode, we do not mislead anyone on our blog. We tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Show us one post in which we have given misleading information or misrepresented anyone because we know of none. People are allowed to disagree with us in the comments section of our blog. Just look at the comments we have approved. Most of them are hostile. Very few Christians comment on our blog yet we know that many of them share our views. Regarding the election, you can view an online pre-election debate which I participated in if you google West Tyrone Decides.

    Reply
    1. August Rode

      Susan-Anne, you wrote, “We tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” That in itself is an untruth as the phrase “the truth as we understand it” should have been used in place of “truth”. Your methodology for determining what is true is extremely biased. For example, you maintain that “Studies have shown that homosexuals are 40 times more likely than the general populace to abuse children.” However, there are plenty of studies that show that this isn’t true at all, that homosexuals are no more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals are. See, for example: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html or https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/10-anti-gay-myths-debunked. What you’re doing isn’t presenting the truth; you’re not interested in the truth. What you’re interested in doing to finding information that appeals to your personal biases and presenting that as though it was the truth. The problem is that you treat every issue as though it was a black-and-white matter whereas all issues are complex and nuanced. Your approach is entirely lacking in nuance and it is wrong because you omit inconvenient facts. For example, I suspect rather strongly that you will look at the two links that I provided to you and immediately discount them, simply for the reason that you do not want to believe that they contain any truth. Until you actually start looking at *all* of the facts rather than simply those that bolster your biases, you are going to continue to be a caricature of person rather than a real human being.

      My feelings toward you have changed I was introduced to you in this post. I’m at the “I pity you” stage. It takes conviction and courage to put oneself forward as a potential representative of the people in your government and to risk the rejection of the electorate. That they smacked you down as hard as you were should surely tell you something positive but it won’t; I doubt that it had much impact on you at all.

      Reply
    2. Michael Mock

      Susan-Anne White (that is how you prefer to be addressed, yes?), I am also awaiting your response. It seems to me a bit disingenuous to accuse someone of having nothing to say in response to you, while you are yourself showing the same silence to another person in the very same comment thread.

      Reply
    3. Karen

      This woman and her blog are proof of what happens when people have a free platform to make outlandish claims without providing any evidence whatsoever. Her blog is full of prejudice and condemnation, nothing more than the rantings of a fundamentalist. It is far easier to condemn, Susie White, than it is to think. To read your blog is to see you and your husband are obsessed with sex, gay sex, rape, muslims and black people. You believe in the right to hit children both at home and at school yet oppose abortion – don’t kill the unborn but lay into them with a cane when they are born? you home school your own daughter, it appears, I shudder to think at the stultifying environment she is growing up in while being brainwashed by your extremely narrow and bigoted opinions.

      Reply
  12. Geoff

    Susan-Anne White.

    If someone is heterosexual then they can engage in heterosexual relationships? You may have some caveats but you seem largely to approve.

    If someone is homosexual why can you not grant them the same rights, that is to engage in homosexual relationships?

    Reply
  13. Patrick

    First To Bruce: I apologize, I was under the impression that since other comments were getting through and mine hadn’t in about 2 hours time that you had been ignoring my comment and were probably not allowing them because of my somewhat preachy style of writing. However if you were to be truly honest you have to admit that you nor I have been honest our entire life. In other words we’ve both lied. Right? Therefore you and I are by definition dishonest which is a sin. God’word says all have sinned therefore saying you are dishonest correlates perfectly with the Bible eh? Second: since the Church by definition is ‘The Body of Christ’ and Christian are what make up the body of Christ and Christians are technically all around then you are surrounded by the same church I am part of. And since you preach this ‘gospel of atheism’ to all who come by to read what may in our ‘(The Church’s)opinion is also considered drivel. Then by this technicality your are already preaching your ‘gospel of atheism’ to my Church. Will you now keep your word and allow me to say whatever I want on your Blog as per your deal?

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      No

      Reply
    2. sgl

      patrick, you’re not only a predicable bore, you’re a long-winded and manipulative predicable bore. the trifecta of boredom and a great reason to be ignored with no further comments approved.

      see, we could continue the conversation without you, because you’re so predictable and we’ve seen all the arguments before. (and sometimes we do as a joke in comment threads.) and you could continue the “conversation” on your own blog or elsewhere without us, since you don’t really pay attention to anything we actually say and engage in any actual discussion of the arguments presented. therefore, it’s not all that important for us to be here as a prop for your pompous pontification.

      Reply
  14. Patrick

    Michael Mock, Michael Mock, Michael Mock, you’re inability to comprehend what you are reading is showing. E5 In the statement you are referring to I was talking about his READERS hearing the truth not Bruce. B2 I was in the atheist seat once and happen to know that truth was more of a choice example: ‘it is better to tell a lie if it brings a smile to the face than telling the truth that might bring a tear and the very fact of thinking there was no one to answer to allowed me to feel freer to make that choice to lie. A1 My references to the Word that ‘Some reading Do Believe to be authoritative and Devine’ WAS directed toward Mrs White about the prophecy about the last day’s before the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, how there would be those like the people Noah tried to tell about the coming of the flood that did not believe.therefore no A1 for you. And lastly D4 I never said ‘Evil Atheist’ And I never even implied I would in any wise have any enjoyment of anybody Atheist or otherwise would as you stated incorrectly get what they deserve. If you read correctly I actually wrote: those whose names are not found in the Lambs Book of Life will,and l Quote:’UNFORTUNATELY they will be cast into the lake of fire. No bingo for you.?

    Reply
    1. Michael Mock

      Bearing in mind that the whole thing was more than a bit tongue-in-cheek (as pretty much everything you said in your previous sequence of posts is old hat to the regular readers here, i.e. we’ve heard these things, and variations of them, many times before), well…

      E5 – That’s an irrelevant detail. “You didn’t let my comments through, therefore you’re a coward and/or a hypocrite” is a tired and repetitive refrain around here, though you get bonus points for using it before Bruce had a chance to even read your comments, let alone bother with blocking them. It makes no difference if your accusation was based on the idea that Bruce was afraid of The Truth himself, or whether he was afraid of his readers hearing The Truth (as if we couldn’t find it for ourselves, or somehow had never been exposed to Christianity before you came along).

      B2 – Okay, I am going to plead “trouble with reading comprehension” here, as I’m having some difficulty parsing your response. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying that you know atheists are perfectly willing to lie because you used to be an atheist and you were perfectly willing to lie. I’m afraid that still says more about you than it does about atheists in general, and in any case it still counts for Preachy Evangelical BINGO. (I am, however, curious about your experience of having been an atheist, since what you’re describing doesn’t match my own experience or that of any other atheist I know.)

      A1 – No, that one still counts, albeit as a technicality. I already noted that the comment was not directed at the regular readers here; I used the word “ostensibly” because your decision to leave the comment here (rather than, say, sending Susan-Anne White an email or leaving a comment on her blog) means that you can reasonably expect the rest of us to at least see it.

      D4 – Hm. Maybe. True, you didn’t say “evil atheist”. You just said that we’re impolite, we think it’s okay to lie, and we deny that the sins of the flesh even exist; I was paraphrasing, and perhaps not as accurately as I could have… though, on the other hand, I don’t think “evil atheists” is too much of a stretch from your description of us.

      As for the concept of atheists getting what’s coming to us… Certainly you don’t seem excited at the prospect of people being tortured for eternity, and good on you for meeting that standard of basic decency. But I wasn’t referencing that particular line; I was referencing this sequence in your statement of support and encouragement for Ms. White: “Keep fighting the good fight. … To be sure when commenting on a blog such as this you have surely entered into the lions den. The people hear will be impolite and deny that all the evils of our sinful flesh even exist. … However they won’t do this forever because … Jesus will come and then it will be to late. And deny him or not when all is said and God’s word is fulfilled. (again as it always is) Then every knee shall bow and every tounge will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father! Including you Bruce and your readers! And all your unbelief will stop then.” So while you don’t want to see anyone tortured for eternity, you sure seem awfully gleeful about atheists being humbled by this inevitable proof that you were right all along. Which brings me to D4, and BINGO.

      I’m just going to mention again that I’m rather curious about your time as an atheist, since nothing you’ve written so far gives me any reason to believe that you have the least comprehension of why anyone here might be an atheist, an agnostic, or even a doubting Christian. Your experience of atheism sounds so completely different from mine that I’m not even sure we should be using the same label for them.

      Reply
  15. Patrick

    The proof is in the pudding Michael. I have been on his blog for a more extensive period of time in the past and know the way the Atheist of this Blog and in real life react to those who choose to believe. So to act as though you are impervious to this fault is indeed a testimony of your dishonesty to yourself. However not limited to the atheist only but it is part of the human nature. IE: ever lied Michael? That is the definition of dishonesty. Also Michael there is no one particular tie that binds all choices to be Atheistic just as no 2 lives are identical. However there does appearto be one thing that is semertrical and that is all Atheist Don’t believe in a God. I on the other hand have now seen and have experienced many proofs in my life through both His word and personally to refutiat this reality. And again unfortunately many Atheist (that don’t repent in their belief) will end up finding their proof when He does come back again as in Noah’s day but then it will be too late. By the way many that think they were a Christian will meet the same sad fate.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      According to the server logs, your first visit here was October 3, 2015, 7:09 AM and you came here via a link on the No Longer Quivering site.

      Reply
    2. Michael Mock

      “I have been on his blog for a more extensive period of time in the past and know the way the Atheist of this Blog and in real life react to those who choose to believe.”

      If what you’ve written here is typical of your usual approach to addressing unbelievers, then I’ve no doubt you’ve been dismissed, ridiculed, reviled, cursed out, and generally treated impolitely by the atheists you presume to address. My response didn’t take you especially seriously, either.

      However, I hope you’ll note that nobody here has taunted you for being a Christian, nor has anybody attempted to convert you to atheism or even convince you that Christianity is untrue. We’ve taken issue with specific claims that you’ve made (largely because they’re both unconvincing and repetitive, and as a result rather tiresome). I realize you may find this hard to believe, but we don’t actually care that you’re a Christian. We don’t see that as some sort of problem that needs to be fixed.

      “IE: ever lied Michael? That is the definition of dishonesty.” Okay, first of all: quit trying to use i.e. Please, please quit trying to use i.e. You keep doing it wrong, and as someone who used to actually read Latin, it’s getting on my nerves. What you’re looking for here is something more like e.g., which basically means “for example”.

      Second of all, no: that is not the definition of dishonesty. If I accuse someone of being dishonest, I mean that they make a habit of lying, distorting, omitting, or otherwise deliberately refusing to communicate the truth. If you define dishonesty as “has ever told a lie in their entire life”, then the word becomes meaningless, since it applies to every human being who ever lived. Trying to define “dishonesty” in the way you just tried to define it makes absolutely no sense linguistically; and it makes no sense morally either, for exactly the same reason.

      “Also Michael there is no one particular tie that binds all choices to be Atheistic just as no 2 lives are identical.”

      This may be the first thing you’ve said here that we agree on.

      “I on the other hand have now seen and have experienced many proofs in my life through both His word and personally to refutiat this reality.”

      Then you didn’t exactly “choose” to believe, did you? I mean, your belief is a conclusion based on your experiences. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to say that those are poor reasons to believe; we all draw the best conclusions we can from our experiences and the best of our understanding. But the proofs that you have experienced are useless to me, as I have not experienced them.

      And that still leaves me curious about your time as an atheist; you haven’t explained how you became an atheist, what life was like for you as an atheist, how you looked at the world as an atheist, what you thought of religious belief when you didn’t have any, or really much of anything that would help me understand why the atheism you talk about seems so radically different from the atheism I talk about. Please understand: you aren’t obligated to talk about any of that. You owe nothing to me, or our host, or any of the other readers here. But I am still curious.

      Reply
  16. Patrick

    Sgl your funny.?

    Reply
  17. Patrick

    Got to go. got a life to get back to myself. You’ve been given the truth again God does love you or else He would not have had you see the truth again. You have a choice to make. See ya at the judgement. Hope your name will be found in the book of life. ?

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Sadly,there are a lot of Evangelicals who think, or NOT think, like this. They reflect what happens when the Bible is all that matters.

      Not all Evangelicals are like this. Many Evangelicals would be embarrassed by these two, but they do share a similar belief system.

      Reply
  18. August Rode

    Bruce, I don’t have a lot of exposure to evangelicalism except through the internet. As evangelicals, how typical are Susan-Anne White and Patrick? Are they fairly normal (for evangelicals) or are they exceptionally rabid?

    Reply
  19. Patrick

    I believe the response given to Mike by Bruce,also the comments August Rode’how typical are Susan-Anne White and Patrick? Are they fairly normal (for evangelicals) or are they exceptionally rabid?’SGL,let’s not forget his kind words ‘predictable bore, and pompous pontification’. Are just a few examples as to the kind of reactions I was referring to. And then labelling me as an evangelical. I never once described myself as evangelical or affiliated myself with any religious title. I was once a fundamental Baptist. But came out from that system and all religious titled beliefs all together. I distanced myself from all ‘religion’ and sought for the truth outside of the Bible and the belief’s that were pushed apon me as a child to my young adulthood. I became bitter towards religion similar to how I sense Bruce did. How ever rather than ditch, reject and close my mind completely I choose to seek the real truth. Long story short I found much evidence that pointed more towards intelligent design than the happenstance theory. I found overwhelming proof both scientifically and historically that not only was there proof of the existence of a higher power or a God like being but that all evidence pointed to the God of the Israelites. I then began to truley worship Him, study His word pray to Him and see true specific and miraculous answers to my prayers which became more proof to me that He does exist. Finding prophecy from the Bible predicted thousands of years ago actually taking place right now, Things like Isreal becoming a nation again, earthquakes more now than ever in the recorded history, more knowledge now than in all the history up until recently combined and much more. All written in the Bible and all coming to pass right before my very eyes. This is where my long journey has taken me. And this is why I am a true believer. Sorry but I’ve only time for the short version. Got to go for now. By the way I’m not angry with anyone you may disagree. And state it as nicely or if you feel it necessary as rudely as you deem necessary. I’m still having a great time conversing with all you. You too again Bruce. I’ll check back later to see and enjoy all the wonderful comments. Have a great day!?

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      If you don’t like the judgment of others, act differently.

      I’ve seen nothing in your beliefs that suggest you are anything other than an Evangelical. Fundamentalist Baptists are Evangelical.

      Reply
    2. August Rode

      “And then labelling me as an evangelical. I never once described myself as evangelical or affiliated myself with any religious title.” If I’ve wronged you then I apologize, Patrick. But please do bear in mind that if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

      “I found overwhelming proof both scientifically and historically that not only was there proof of the existence of a higher power or a God like being but that all evidence pointed to the God of the Israelites.” — Fascinating. It’s interesting that no one that I’ve ever encountered before has had any such proof. What they tend to have is steaming piles of unsupported assertions and logical fallacies that satisfies them and other people already keen to believe, but *nothing* that stands up to critical thinking and scrutiny. Perhaps you could share this marvelous information of which no one else seems to be aware. If you aren’t inclined to do that, could you at least answer one questions that no fundamentalist/evangelical that I’ve ever encountered has even made the slightest attempt to answer. You said, “I choose to seek the real truth,” so my question is “What methodology do you use to determine what it true and what is not?”

      Reply
    3. Michael Mock

      “I never once described myself as evangelical or affiliated myself with any religious title.”

      That’s not entirely true, though. In your very first comment on this post (Oct 3, 8:10 a.m.) you wrote: “I too am a Christian a Saved Sinner by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” That’s not the way a Catholic would describe herself; it’s not the way a Methodist would introduce himself; and no Episcopalian that I’ve ever met would say that. Disciples of Christ don’t talk about themselves that way… you see where I’m going with this, right? That sort of language, that sort of self-description, is distinctly and distinctively characteristic of the fundamentalist and evangelical sects.

      So, no: you didn’t explicitly or deliberately name your affiliation. You did, however, describe it fairly clearly.

      Let me see if I understand what the rest of your post is describing: you say that you were once an atheist because you rejected the fundamentalist baptist teaching of your youth and became bitter towards religion. Did you ever reach a point where, having followed the evidence and sought the real truth, you genuinely thought that there were no gods out there? Where it genuinely made more sense to look at the world around you as the result of impersonal natural processes?

      I don’t mean to say that you were never an atheist; as you noted earlier, the term covers a wide variety of views and perspectives, and it really only means that someone doesn’t believe that there are gods. But I suspect that trying to use your experience of being an atheist to understand someone like Bruce, or myself, whose experiences are very, very different… well, I think it’s a mistake; I think trying to understand us through the lens of your own experience is misleading, and actually contributes to misunderstanding and poor communication.

      Reply
  20. Michael Mock

    Susan-Anne White,

    I see you are still ignoring the points I raised in my earlier comments. Since the layout of the comment thread does sometimes make it easy to overlook things, I will repeat my comment here:

    I can understand why you think that Bruce’s response was “resorting to rudeness”, but I’m extremely curious as to why you (apparently) think the email from Mike Gallagher was not.

    It’s also interesting that you don’t feel that Christians are particularly better or worse than non-Christians when it comes to morality; that’s been my perception as well. However, you also seem to be saying that you and yours hold yourselves to a higher standard than other Christians and unbelievers do… Yet, when you try to give examples, you go immediately and directly to sexual behaviors. Sex and anything related to sex (such as immodest dress) seem to be a particular obsession of moralizing Christians, so much so that they often seem unaware that there might be moral issues that don’t touch on sex. I honestly don’t see how being more focused on sexual behavior constitutes any sort of higher moral standard; on the contrary, that seems like a very limited, even superficial, approach to morality.

    Your assertion that immodest dress is dangerous, with the implication that it encourages sexual assault, is naive and uninformed; the current literature on sexual assault suggests that clothing has very little to do with it, and the idea that it does has far more to do with blaming the victim than with any realistic assessment of cause and effect. Passing along incorrect and misleading information is hardly laudable, so if that’s your justification for focusing on modest dress, you might want to rethink your position.

    I’m all in favor of people holding themselves to a higher moral standard; but what you’ve told us so far seems a very… odd… way to go about it.

    Reply
    1. Susan-Anne White

      Mike Gallagher’s e-mail to Bruce Gerencser was not rude, so why would I consider it so. You are speaking utter nonsense when you say that immodesty is not dangerous. Obviously you care nothing about the views of the detective I mentioned with 17 years experience who said that in most cases of sexual assaults he had to investigate, provocative, immodest dress was a factor. I think he knows better than you. I have nothing more to say to you on this subject.

      Reply
      1. August Rode

        You never identified this “detective,” Susan-Anne, nor did you cite anything that he had ever written. You might care to correct those oversights. I’d like to read this person’s writing myself just to be certain that you haven’t misinterpreted what he had to say. That’s entirely reasonable, isn’t it?

        Reply
      2. Michael Mock

        Mike Gallagher’s email to Bruce Gerencser was extremely rude. You, however, only seem to be looking at the surface of it, and since it lacks any foul language you don’t see how insulting it actually is. Quite frankly, that seems to be an issue with a lot of your moral stances: you’re focused on the superficial.

        As for your detective, with his seventeen years of experience, I’ve no doubt that what he said was indeed his perception. However, if you look at the actual research on sexual assault, the fact of the matter is that he’s simply wrong. And, by extension, so are you. If you care about the truth, as you say you do, then please educate yourself so that you can avoid spreading falsehoods.

        I would say the same about a lot of your particular concerns: most of them seem to be rooted in misinformation (the “gay agenda”) and/or conflating things that aren’t actually problems (rock music) with things that actually are (drug addiction). The reason you aren’t getting much traction isn’t that everyone else isn’t moral enough to understand your goals; it’s that they understand your goals, and they are rejecting them on moral grounds.

        Reply
  21. Michael Beales

    Susan-Anne White, the Marc Ewt whom you direct your vile, calumnious comments towards is a personal friend of mine, and I vouch to say with confidence a far more educated and enlightened human being than yourself. I’m not sure from which exact personality disorder (I presume) of yours stems your irrational, recalcitrant hatred of homosexuals for hatred’s sake, but let me put it into perspective for you.

    You lead a life of condemnation, repression, feeling undeservedly you are qualified to judge other human beings. You base your vocation on ancient, vaguely-sourced texts from a multitude of ancient people’s with no awareness of modern scientific discoveries. You are an ugly, sad, frankly potty individual with a black heart. I would rather burn for several eternities in Hell than set in some sort of imaginary Heaven alongside a misogynistic, unjust, aggressive, murdering, gay-hating, slavery-condoning bastard of a God you seem to advocate. You are literal filth. Do us all a favour and crawl back into the Dark Ages where you belong and stay there.

    Lots of love, Michael xoxox

    Reply
  22. Brian

    Oh my….. I have been in Jasper, walking but only for a few days! And look what’s happened. I’ve missed the whole game of Clue, or just about: I do have one guess though.
    I believe it was Mrs. White in the Lounge and the weapon was obviously Patrick.
    (Shall we shuffle and have one more go?)

    Reply
  23. Troy

    Regarding Susan-Anne White’s comment: “Mr.Gerencser, You have not answered any of the points I raised in my comments, in particular, you have not addressed my first point i.e why you are so rude to Christians who disagree with you.”

    Perhaps Bruce won’t mind if I field it? The reason is staring you in the face with this post. Much of it is unreadable as a mishmash of Bible apologetics, name calling, incensement over how one is addressed or etiquette, and other unpleasantries.

    I was raised to be habitually polite. This is great in many of life’s instances, but caused a problem when I started to field telemarketer phone calls. After wasting my time (and their time) listening to a number of spiels I began a new tactic, a curt “no thanks” (still polite!) and hang up. A telephone, like a blog is one’s own turf. For someone else to commandeer it for their own purpose is not just rude it is a violation. If someone were to enter your house without ringing or knocking would politeness be your first instinct?
    If I had to bet I suspect Bruce is a nice and polite guy, the behavior of others sometimes forces those who are polite to be rude and yes it isn’t fun to have to be the heavy.

    Reply
  24. Carmen

    Bruce,

    It really is quite amazing how many of these fundamentalists are completely POSSESSED with sex and sexuality . . . one really has to wonder. . .

    I know there’s a synonym for ‘batshit crazy’ that is more diplomatic but it just isn’t coming to me. . .

    Reply
    1. August Rode

      I use the term ‘differently saned.’

      Reply

Leave a Comment

You have to agree to the comment policy.