Menu Close

Is Providing Unbelievers “Evidence” a Waste of Time? By Derrick Thiessen

david thiessen
David Tee/Derrick Thomas Thiessen is the tall man in the back

Derrick Thiessen (who sometimes uses the pseudonym Dr. David Tee) is a retired preacher, English teacher, and currently works as a freelance writer. He has several graduate degrees in theology, archaeology and history and has authored several books.

Thiessen’s writing can be read at TheologyArcheology: A Site for the Glory of God. He also blogs at Theoarch: For the Glory of God.

As a believer, we desire to win as many people to Christ as possible. Our specific ministry has been to bring Christians past square one to spiritual maturity. We have accomplished that through our two websites and books.

We have also sought to help pastors, missionaries, and Christian workers through the same avenue. Christians of all levels must be fed the proper spiritual food. They need to strengthen their faith and have the right information to defend what they believe.

Those actions are not a waste of time. But is it a waste of time and energy to prepare data, verifiable and credible physical evidence, and other historical, astronomical, and scientific information and present it to most unbelievers, atheists, and former Christians?

Why go to all that work and trouble when you know that those people groups will do what Dr. Phillip Davies did when he was presented with the evidence proving ancient Israel was as the Bible said?

All he did was close his eyes, shake his head, and repeat over and over that ‘it did not happen’. Are there any members of those people groups who are open-minded and who will take an honest look at what has been gathered and presented?

It is our experience that very few members of those people groups will be that way. Also, we have learned that even if believers discover the real ark used during Noah’s flood unbelievers will find something to criticize and justify their decision to reject it as physical evidence for the flood.

So what is the point in Christians meeting the demand of unbelievers to present evidence when they will only receive a cold reception and blind dismissal?

We understand that unbelievers are afraid of seeing the Bible proven true. If they were not afraid or if the atheists were right and there is no God, they would have no trouble honestly examining the evidence.

One example of this fear is a comment made in a Patterns of Evidence video posted to YouTube. The scholar providing the upcoming response hit the nail on the head, and we do this from memory when he said that unbelieving scholars and archaeologists do not want to prove the Exodus true.

He said ‘If they do, then they have to confront the reality of the Bible and make wholesale changes to their lives and bodies of work.’ Regular unbelievers can have peace that they are not the only ones who are afraid of seeing the Bible proven true.

This is one reason why they make so many unrealistic demands. One militant atheist we have known for a long time once told us to ‘go and dig’ when we talked about the evidence for Noah’s flood.

The problem with that is we cannot dig every square inch of the earth to uncover all the evidence he wants to see. Even if we present that evidence he is incapable or unwilling to accept it and convert.

There are two problems with providing evidence for Noah’s flood. The first is that a myriad of researchers have uncovered verifiable physical evidence for it. Graham Hancock has been one of those researchers as have Drs. Charles Hapgood, Ryan, Pittman, and Rehwenkle to name a few.

Their failure to recognize this evidence stems from problem number two. The majority of researchers and other folks do not know what evidence for a global flood would look like.

There has been only one and that event is difficult to excavate due to the construction, wars, natural disasters, and other events that change the nature of the evidence or remove it from existence.

When Sir Leonard Woolley declared he had found the flood layer in UR, the mainstream archaeologists at that time said he was wrong because the layer was not uniform. But does the flood layer have to be uniform to be evidence of the flood?

An honest person, taking into account all the variables that would change the design of the flood layer, would say no. A person who is not honest would close their mind and say yes.

The failure to accept the mitigating factors surrounding the discovery of evidence means that the person or persons hearing the evidence will not listen and waste the presenter’s time.

It is not that there is a lack of credible and verifiable physical evidence for the majority of biblical events. The internet is full of both Christian and secular websites that present this evidence and they are all easily accessed.

The key to all of this is the one word scientists, atheists, and other unbelievers hate. God created the equation to prove that he exists and his word is true. That word is faith. The Bible tells us that by faith we please God.

Thus God is not going to provide all the physical evidence anyone wants to see or demands. God is not going to destroy what pleases him. This means that we will only get enough physical evidence to strengthen our faith, not ruin it.

This is why there is no scientific evidence for the creation of the world. Creation was a one-time supernatural act that was not enacted using any scientific method.

The way science is constructed, it is impossible for that research field to analyze creation. It will not produce any evidence for that act. Science can study the results of creation and see that God’s word is true but that is as far as science can go.

Those who demand scientific evidence are merely using that demand to hide from the truth. Those who make unrealistic demands do so for the same reason. They do not want the Bible to be true for they would have to deal with the information like the archaeologists and other scholars mentioned earlier would have to do.

God uses faith to help divide the sheep from the goats. His equation tells him who believes him and who does not. Faith is merely believing God and the physical evidence is nothing but a supporting cast member.

So the question is, are you an honest, open-minded unbeliever or are you one of those dishonest, closed-minded ones that will not even give the evidence a fair hearing?

If you are the latter, don’t waste Christians’ time. Just stop making unrealistic demands for evidence that you will never listen to. If you want evidence then you should be prepared to give it a fair hearing and careful consideration.

Note: Thiessen refuses to comment on this site, nor does he allow comments on his main blog. Derrick said in his email to me:

Same instructions apply.  It does not need your editor/assistant’s help. I will take the heat for any mistakes alleged or otherwise. I will also read all comments and respond on my own website if the need to respond is there.

Thank you for publishing it as is.

The only thing changed on Thiessen’s post was the title. It originally said, “Is It a Waste of Time” without proper punctuation. His chosen title was unspecific and ambiguous. I changed it to reflect its content. The body of the post was unchanged. I also shortened the bio and provided proper links.

Thiessen had the following to say on his blog. Make of it what you will. He seems paranoid that I might change “God’s” words. 🤣

BG opened his website to submit guest posts. He made the offer that anyone can send one in so we did. We asked God first to help us write what needed to be written and told him to publish it as is without his assistant doing any editing.

We shall see if that instruction is met and if he publishes our entry. We kept a copy to compare if and when it sees the light of day.

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.


  1. Avatar

    I wonder how “Tee” would respond to what Stephen Hawking who said; (quoting from a video), “One can’t prove there wasn’t a creator. All one can do is offer a more reasonable explanation based on science”. I doubt Tee would respond to that. He prefers to respond conveniently to postulates of his choosing.

  2. Avatar

    Changing the title and the bio are wrong and not what I wrote. if you cannot represent honestly what was submitted, then there is no point in making comments here. Also, I am not afraid to make comments here, I am more comfortable writing on my website.

    As for the above, (thedutchguy), a reasonable explanation is not the truth. It his open to subjective opinions and closed to objective truth, while allowing any false theory to be regarded as legitimate. Since creation is outside the scope of science, it is intruding on a topic that is none of science’s business.

    Science is also not objective as it doe snot include creation as written in the Bible as a possibility.

    • Avatar
      Bruce Gerencser

      Derrick wrote this on his blog:

      “BG did post the guest article we wrote BUT he did two things wrong. He changed the title which takes away from the theme and content of the article and changed our bio.

      Neither changes were authorized, which proves he cannot be honest. Below is what we wrote.”

      I grant him unprecedented access to the readers of this blog, and he whine, moans. and complains about a more accurate title, a question mark, adding his actual name (which is how he’s identified in this site), and corrected his use of links to his sites. The body of the text is untouched, even though it could use professional editing.

    • Avatar

      Sorry TA, but Dutch Guy is correct in saying that the only way of arriving anywhere near truth is to look for best explanations. That is actually what brings us close to objective truth. By definition, the truth you pretend to espouse is subjective: your comment is so horribly illogical that it’s almost impossible to think that you could possibly really believe it.

    • Avatar
      John S.

      Sorry Dr Tee, you’re wrong. I agree with Dutch Guy and GeoffT. A “reasonable explanation” is the best conclusion based on impartial and accurate evidence. Looking out across the Great Plains does not prove the Earth is flat. Looking at a satellite image shows it is round. Scientific research shows it is a sphere. So it is objective. “Truth based on faith” is subjective as it depends on a source (Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.) that is chosen by the believer. These sources are not scientific journals that researches say the geologic layers visible in the Grand Canyon. They are stories told by those who claimed to have received divine revelation thousands of years ago, which were mostly meant to guide a chosen group of people on how to live their lives.

      As a person of faith myself, that is where I apply those principles, in how I personally live my life. I do not use the tenets of my faith to attack people who don’t believe the same as I do. I certainly don’t use it to debate the age of the Earth, as I feel this squarely belongs in the realm of science. At the end of the day my faith is not dependent on scientific evidence, so the evidential age of the Earth means little to me, at least in my faith life. Faith is personal and has a totally different standard of evidence than science, so faith should inform that which can be based off intuition. Trying to use pseudoscientific evidence to bolster your faith by somehow trying to prove the creation story as told in Genesis is literal and absolute truth is wrong.

        • Avatar

          Believe it or not, Grammarly does not catch that mistake. I do not know why I make that mistake but I have been doing it for over 15 years. If I correct snot, it does not highlight doe.

          Grammarly makes a host of mistakes so it is not reliable.

    • Avatar

      I don’t think you’re in any position to complain, Mr. Thiessen. You regularly say execrably rude things about nonbelievers, and liberally pull material from Bruce’s site without proper attribution.

    • Avatar

      “…creation is outside the scope of science, it is intruding on a topic that is none of science’s business.”

      “Science is also not objective…”

      Those statements are so preposterous it’s insulting and nothing more than an LOL is called for. He should know his audience and we are not it. The chutzpah is outstanding, one must admit. The word objective has no fixed meaning to this person. Indeed words generally seem to have no fixed meaning to him which must be very convenient for gaslighting his followers. Perhaps this person has potential to run for president? The “SAY ANYTHING” strategy worked for another guy.

      • Avatar

        “Science is also not objective…”

        It is not as Hartnett and Williams wrote in their book Dismantling the Big Bang, the assumptions you start with are the results you end up with. William Dever wrote in his book Did God Have a Wide approx. on pg. 83, no one believes in objectivity anymore and he wrote in his introduction/preface that his book is not objective because that is impossible.

        So my statement is not preposterous but factual and supported by others.

  3. Avatar

    Tee obsesses with the word ‘truth’, but actually truth isn’t strictly speaking relevant to scientific endeavour. There are many definitions of truth, but I don’t like to overly complicate things and tend to regard truth as being that which holds as being correct irrespective of opinion or circumstance. Science isn’t really concerned with truth, it’s concerned with finding the best explanations of the world, knowing that these explanations can always be revised as new information comes to light. Sometimes we can see the results of science and refer to something as being undoubtedly true (for example that vaccines were developed which were immensely effective in combating Coronavirus, without almost no side effects), but in the lead up it was all about hypothesis, observation, testing, review, repeat, and all the other tools of science.

    For reasonable people, amongst whom it is not possible to include Tee, there is no reason not to subject all aspects of religion to exactly the same rigour. Why should we pretend to accept the ‘truth’ of religion without question, simply because Tee says so? People like Tee are very fearful that their worldview might be exposed if it’s subject to testing, and instead they simply assert that their position is not subject to debate. That isn’t how the world works, and even Tee’s life must inevitably be lived in ways that are practically different to how he approaches religion. If he’s ill I daresay that he sees a doctor and takes medication, albeit praying to nonexistent gods all the while.

    The simple fact is that the Christian bible is a set of texts (anthology) written by largely anonymous authors, over several centuries, without a single citation, based on a very primitive understanding of the world. It’s highly likely that even those writers would have doubted the truth of what they wrote, and simply wrote it as a sort of hypothesis. Anybody who believes literally the stories of Adam and Eve, or Noah’s Ark, or Jonah and the whale (actually the whole OT is a succession of discredited stories) is not really capable of interacting in a meaningful way with ordinary, intelligent, people. Were it not for the internet it would be impossible for Tee to be able to propagate his views, and he’d be limited to standing and ranting on street corners, and being ridiculed.

  4. Avatar
    Ben Berwick

    It’s incredibly narcissistic of David to except others to indulge him in a lie. To be honest, I don’t know why I do so, other than as part of an olive branch that he has been too arrogant to even acknowledge. The strangest thing is, he’s been going by Derrick on Medium, so it seems what name he wishes to use changes, depending upon where he posts!

  5. Avatar

    “The key to all of this is the one word scientists, atheists, and other unbelievers hate. God created the equation to prove that he exists and his word is true. That word is faith.”

    The faith to which he refers sounds to me like a synonym for closed minded acceptance of what you want to believe.

    If such “faith” was a valid way of establishing truth, one could equally have “faith” in Islam, Wicca, Santa Claus, Witches, Jim Jones’s People’s Temple, or Superman.

    We can’t simply make stuff up and say it is true.

  6. Avatar
    ... Zoe ~

    T: “So the question is, are you an honest, open-minded unbeliever or are you one of those dishonest, closed-minded ones that will not even give the evidence a fair hearing?”

    Z: This is rich. I might respond: So the question is, are you an honest, open-minded believer or are you one of those dishonest, closed-minded ones that will not even give the evidence a fair hearing?

    • Avatar

      What he said bounces off you and sticks to him? LOL I love it. Similarly if we want to know what the orange candidate is really up to just listen to what he accuses others of doing. So many examples exist that it’s puzzling his followers don’t notice. Perhaps a cultist knows and lacks the ability to care?

  7. Avatar
    Danny (the ex-Baptist) Plumber

    Jeez, a Waste of Time is right! Same damn argument I’ve heard a million times. We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence, we have Faith. And even if we had real evidence you wouldn’t believe it anyways. Oh yeah, really? Then show me some REAL Evidence, Asshole! And then you know what they always do? They say, “We have conclusive evidence that Noah’s Ark and the Flood was real because Dr. Twiddledick from Thumbupyourass Institute in Bogota Columbia can prove totally that it really happened.” Of course he’s the same guy who said that Ted Kennedy was the Antichrist. Religion, especially christianity is all about “we’re right and everyone else is wrong”. Or we have the truth! That’s why there’s a zillion cults around. This guy sounds just like a bunch of other dudes i’ve heard over the years. He concludes ” don’t waste Christian’s time”. Well, aren’t you just special. Anyways, Bruce, have a wonderful blessed Sunday morning!

    • Avatar
      Bruce Gerencser

      No need to read your responses. Let me summarize them: I’m right, you are wrong; unbelievers don’t know anything of value; my interpretation of an ancient religious text is right and any different interpretation is wrong; young earth creationism is right, evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell.

      MM has a name, as do I: Ben Berwick and Bruce Gerencser. Ben is a friend of fine, Derrick. He regularly comments on this blog. He is not stalking you. Your persecution complex is confusing you.

      • Avatar
        John S.

        So part of Tee’s response to me-“There is no standard for evidence with faith. Faith is simply deciding to believe God and his word.“ Yep- no standard of evidence for faith, just believe and be happy.
        Part of Tee’s response to Danny the unbaptist plumber-
        “ Name-calling is not conducive to anything constructive. There is a reason why people are to get discernment. It helps them separate the truth from the error. We are not supposed to blindly follow what any individual says is the truth but be like the Bereans and verify”.
        Oh really? Now we are to seek discernment and verify what someone claims? And how do we do that Dr. Tee? Research? Test the spirits? Establish standards for hypothesis, experimentation, evidence, peer review and publishing the results? Sounds a lot like the scientific method.

      • Avatar

        Don’t care. I get to use the identity I want as evidenced by your use of the wrong name for me. How can one be a friend of fine???? Obviously he is judging form his behavior.

        And you prove my point true. It is a waste of time to present evidence as you discourage people form going to my site to read my responses.

        • Avatar
          Bruce Gerencser

          Mine. I hope you realize how petty you sound, Derrick. You have been given a golden opportunity to witness to and reach scores of unbelievers, yet you waste your time whining instead. Your choice. Your “evidence” was your post. If you are truly, truly, truly interested in spreading truth, you’d answer challenges wherever they are found. Be Paul on Mars Hill instead of retreating to the safety of your city —- the place where you don’t accept comments nor do you allow people to contact you.

    • Avatar
      Ben Berwick

      Says the guy who randomly leaves insults on my blog. Perhaps I should reverse my decision to remove your real details from my site, since you clearly do not appreciate the gesture?

    • Avatar

      I’ve read your responses and they’re exactly as I, and I suspect everyone else, expected. They do nothing more than dig you further into the hole you’ve dug for yourself. You assert constantly that the bible is true, despite scholars since time immemorial demonstrating otherwise (never mind science and archaeology discoveries), and you make no attempt to defend your position. You do nothing more than assert.

      • Avatar

        Your response here is typical of time wasters who appeal to authority yet reject the Christian’s appeal to authority. I am glad you took the time to read my response but your argument is stale, out of touch with reality and distorts what scholars, etc., have done over the past two thousand years.

        I do not have to defend my position, and I did not assert. I gave you the correct information and mentioned that proof is all over the internet if you are interested in reading it.

        • Avatar

          What ludicrous comment! You may think that this makes sense in your small world, but in the real world it is absurd.

          I do not appeal to authority. I do, however, have heed to reality in my life, and that means constantly having to concede that my knowledge is insufficient in most areas to be able to do other than defer to those who are experts in their field. Hence, whilst I have some knowledge of car maintenance, I leave more complex repairs to my local garage. In matters of physics or biology I have a reasonable grasp of very basic concepts, but I defer to genuine experts in understanding anything more complex. The same with religion and the bible. In assessing those to whom I might defer I look to credibility. In the case of my garage do they get well reviewed, and do the repairs they undertake address the problems? Do physicists and biologists sound logical and coherent? If they are outliers how do their peers regard them? When looking at religion and the bible I do exactly the same. I’m pretty familiar with the bible, and have realised since I was a child that it is riddled with errors and contradictions. I don’t say this myself, I read and listen to credible bible scholars, many of whom are actually Christians, but who realise that the bible is seriously challenging.

          Even you contradict yourself, because you argue against science, science being nothing more than dealing with evidence, then you say that faith doesn’t depend on evidence because, for some reason known only to you, the bible is true regardless of the evidence…but then you say that proof (evidence) is all over the internet! So you do like evidence. Incidentally, ‘all over the internet’ is an awful place to start, unless you’re looking for porn, which is also ‘all over the internet’.

    • Avatar

      I think you should oblige Dr Tee and change the title of his post to one that reflects its content. How about ‘Providing Space for Derrick to Present Evidence is a Waste of Time’.

  8. Avatar

    I’m not going to read Dec T’s guest post, I know where to find his blogs and wouldn’t waste my time there so I wouldn’t waste my time here. I am curious though, is there a reciprocity agreement?

      • Avatar

        people should really stop trying to speak for me and from putting words into my mouth. I wrote responding to the invitation and with God’s help. It has nothing to do with me. You are free to acccept or reject the information I provided.

        • Avatar
          Bruce Gerencser

          Oh, it has everything to do with you, as your comments clearly show.

          This is my opinion. That’s how debate works. You want to preach, and then demand people bow to and submit to your infallible words. You aren’t interested in debate. That’s why you don’t allow comments on your site or have a contact page. You have insulated yourself from everything except the voices in your head.

          Again, you are squandering your opportunity to put in a good word for Jesus. I gave you an opportunity to “reach” thousands of people —- mostly unbelievers —- and you have squandered it whining and complaining about petty stuff. I wonder what Jesus will say on judgment day about your behavior? Do better, Derrick.

  9. Avatar

    Derrick is part of a religion the tells people not to lean on their own understanding, that they are corrupt and not to be trusted, that has a story saying that knowledge causes death, that has another story saying doubts are bad (hence, Doubting Thomas asking for evidence isn’t considered as virtuous as those having blind faith), and that teaches that humans need an invisible spirit deity to tell them how to think. It’s irinic that he talks about evidence out of ine side of his mouth, accuses nonbelievers of ignoring evidence, then landing everyone who has blind faith without evidence. For me, it’s a waste of time to engage with someone like that. Scientists change their ideas as the evidence leads rather than adhering to dogma no matter what.

  10. Avatar

    Another person that does not understand that science changing its views every few years means it doe snot have the truth. it is not a sign of progression but a sign that people grow tired of one falsehood and like moths go to the light, they go to the new falsehood not realizing how deceived they and science truly are.

    The question is– why would trust science which is written by humans that never knew you and do not care about you?

    • Avatar
      Bruce Gerencser

      Evidence is evidence;facts are facts; truth is truth —- regardless of who says it and where it comes from. I guarantee you Derrick that if you make persuasive arguments, readers will accept them. They don’t because your arguments are irrational and lack scientific rigor. I want to believe as many true things as possible, even if it means abandoning former beliefs. That’s exactly what I did when I deconverted 16 years ago.

      • Avatar

        No as I pointed out in my book, there is more evidence for Noah’s flood than any other biblical event yet readers do not accept the evidence. Evidence is only valid if people accept it.

        I provided an example for that statement in my article above. My arguments are not irrational and scientific rigor is not part of the equation nor is it the authority to decide what is or isn’t evidence.

        But leave it to unbelievers to go to science as it supports their unbelief and helps them hide from the truth. Which reminds me, the truth does not depend on science or what it says. The truth is the truth and it stands alone.

        It is laughable you demand scientific rigor when science only goes for the subjective explanation not the truth. Unbelievers do not get to demand anything. they only have a choice to make and since you made your choice…

  11. Avatar

    My window to respond to comments is over. BG has my email address if you want to honestly discuss issues and entertain a viewpoint that is different from yours.

    • Avatar
      Bruce Gerencser

      In other words, I am picking up my toys and going home. 🙂

      I already KNOW your position, Derrick. You seems to forget I was raised in the Evangelical church and pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years. I understand your position inside and out. I find it lacking in every way. You have a warped definition of truth, and then you try to use that faulty definition to judge the views of others. When challenged, you stomp your feet, whine, and go home. Just like you have always done.

      I hope you will consider what you might have done differently, Derrick. You wasted a golden opportunity to share the gospel and meaningfully interact with unbelievers. Your choice, but knowing you, you will blame the hardness of my heart and that of the readers of this blog.

      • Avatar

        No, I left the door open via email. How can anyone forget, you say it in almost every post you make. No you don’t and of course you do,. You have listened to the wrong people and I feel sorry for you.

        No I don’t, unbelievers are the ones with the warped view of the truth. False accusation as usual. Wrong again, your people cannot even accept the fact that science is not objective. how will they accept the facts of the gospel?

        As I said, people can contact me via email for those who want honest discussion, feel free to publish the yahoo one and I wasn’t here to share the gospel but to make a point.

        • Avatar
          Bruce Gerencser

          In other words, my writing and the discussions on this site are “dishonest,” right?

          If anyone wants to email Derrick, you can email him at Have fun 🙂

          Two things Derrick Thomas Thiessen has never said:

          1.) You are right.

          2.) I am wrong.

          I granted you unprecedented access to the readers of this blog. Sadly, you fucked up this opportunity, revealing you are incapable of thoughtful engagement with people who differ with you. You will never get this opportunity again. My debate offer, however, remains open. 🙂


  12. Avatar

    Are we sure this is the real Doc T? He no longer refers to himself in plural pronouns as evidence of his perfect communion with the triune godhead.

  13. Avatar

    Yes, i am the read Dr. David Tee. And I have placed two articles on my theologyarchaeology website titled What Christians Do Not Do The content may help you gain a better perspective of Christians and maybe appreciate the fact they do not act like unbelievers.

    • Avatar
      Bruce Gerencser

      Surely you jest. What you write about how Christians should behave means absolutely nothing. Why? Your behavior tells people everything they need to know about the quality and depth of your Christianity. In the Atheist Church, behavior matters. When we do wrong, we make amends and, if necessary, restitution. Our goal is to be better people. You’ve spent the past 50 years repeatedly playing a “get out of jail” card, following 1 John 1:9 and having your sins forgiven. No need to make amends or restitution. God has forgiven you, end of discussion.

      You, by far, are one of the worst Christians I have ever met — and that’s saying a lot. You and Revival Fires, two peas in a pod. Newer readers may think I’m being harsh, but after four years of your bullshit, I think I have a good measure of the man. I had hoped giving you an opportunity to write a guest post would temper your ill-bred, boorish behavior. I was wrong. Lesson learned.

    • Avatar

      You say you are the ‘real’ Dr David Tee. Apparently this isn’t true. Both your christian name and surname appear to be something different? The ‘Dr’ title is clearly unearned. There’s not a single accredited institution in the world that would even consider you for such a programme, never mind bothering mentoring you through the years required to prepare. I actually mean this when I say that you have a reasoning ability that would cause you to struggle academically with many 10 and 11 year olds.

  14. Avatar

    Dr. Thiessen, I am a Christian, but I feel you have erred in your approach to this post. The title, as I gather from your own site is: Is It a Waste of Time? Why would you ask this question? Have you not read your bible? Please take a deep study of 1 Corinthians 13. I’ll quote the first verse here: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal”. This is the theme of the entire chapter.
    What if God had asked this question of you? After 20 years of sexual addiction and selfish behaviors, God didn’t suddenly throw up his hands and says, “That’s it! I can’t take anymore! You’re not worth it anymore.” No, He pursued me continually, waiting for that moment of surrender when I was willing to turn, if nothing else, my problems over to Him. And when I did, He broke every chain addiction had on me. He didn’t once question whether I was worth it. I did, 1000 times, even to the point of being suicidal because the deepest root of all my issues was I felt worthless from my childhood. But not to Him.
    Bruce is worth dying for and loved, as is everyone else on this blog, even the ones calling people a-holes. As a believer, if you can’t carry that love with you wherever you go and share it with everyone around you, you need to check whether you really are in Christ. Now, I don’t want to be too hard, my first visit here I was a little to gung-ho and caused a ruckus. If I spend 20 years on here with Bruce or anyone else and thereby am able to somehow demonstrate to them, the love God has for them, it is worth it. They are worth it. When you step across that line and enter this environment, you need to check yourself and make sure you have what it takes to love the people here on this blog.
    One of the things I love about Bruce is he is brutally honest. He doesn’t reject Christian involvement on his blog. I don’t gather that he hates Christians, but I do believe he has a negative disposition towards them that has been earned by those claiming to be Christians that have been ugly and awful towards him, his family, and his friends. I believe his rejection of Christianity was met with such hostility, it all the more confirmed his break with it.

    Several of the folks that interact on this blog have had bad experiences with churches or people calling themselves Christians. I imagine most of them have felt rejected, hated, and misunderstood and probably many other things. Being unreceptive to their ideas and cold in your value of them shows them no love and does nothing to sow anything. You’ve taken the seeds you were supposed to sow and thrown it into their eyes.

    I also am willing to bet Bruce knows more about the bible and theology than I do. I’ve felt drawn to understand him. I think there is much I could learn from him. I have a sense of respect for him already in the short amount of time I’ve engaged here.

    My focus cannot be conversion, because the focus is taken off of love. I can’t have a focus on converting anyone here. It’s not my job, only the Holy Spirit can do that. Nor should my motivation to work great works here and bring myself lots of glory for my amazing abilities. They will work no miracles here, because I don’t have miracle working power. I have limited knowledge of the bible, and a limited knowledge of history. But you see, God was not focused on eradicating my sin, all the more evident by the fact that I still have a body of flesh and temptation. He was interested in me. He wanted a relationship with me.

    So, what I truly only strive to bring is genuine love. I want to understand them, interact with them, and have a relationship. And if somehow, I develop friends here and there is positive interaction and encouragement between people of different beliefs that would be truly my best witness to these folks.

    I might return to continue this discussion, but that’s all for now.

Want to Respond to Bruce? Fire Away! If You Are a First Time Commenter, Please Read the Comment Policy Located at the Top of the Page.

Discover more from The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Bruce Gerencser