The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser

Welcome

  • My Evolving Understanding of Our Place in the Universe

    preaching about evolution

    I spent the first fifty years of my life in the Evangelical church. I was taught and later preached as a pastor young earth creationism. Parents, preachers, Sunday school teachers, and Bible college professors taught me the universe was 6,000 years old, created out of nothing by the triune God of the Bible in six literal 24 hour days. Most importantly, I was taught that the earth and its human inhabitants are the pinnacle of God’s creative work. In other words, we are s-p-e-c-i-a-l. Not the other animals on earth, just us. Further, I was taught that we humans had dominion and control of the earth.God is the owner of the earth and we are its caretakers.

    Sadly tens of millions of Americans believe the creation myths — yes, plural — recorded in Genesis 1-3. The blame for this rests solely on the shoulders on Evangelicals. and now, through subversive programs such as Lifewise Academy, public school students are being taught young earth creationism, including trips to the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter — Ken Ham’s monuments of ignorance.

    After I deconverted in 2008, it became clear to me that I didn’t know much of anything about science. My entire understanding of science was based on what I learned in high school biology and a college biology class without a lab or a qualified teacher. As a pastor, I believed that only science book I needed was the King James Bible. This led to me saying all sorts of absurd things about science — embarrassingly so. Fortunately, my congregant were as ignorant as I was about science, so we all shouted AMEN together when I mentioned the creative acts of God.

    I have spent the last twenty years educating myself not only about science, but also about logic and philosophy. Over time, reason, skepticism, and common sense delivered me from some of my ignorance, but I will admit that I still have a lot to learn.

    Science has taught me that the Evangelical worldview is false. The earth and its human dwellers are not the center of universe, nor are they unique. Special, we are not. We are itty-bitty people with itty-bitty brains on an itty-bitty planet in a vast, mostly unexplored universe. In other words, we are a planet of nobodies; people who will live and die, never to be remembered again. A harsh reality, to be sure — and why so many stay irrationally attached to religious faith — but knowing and understanding this can and does help us focus on the here and now. No Heaven. No Hell. No Purgatory. No afterlife. No second chances. This is it. What will we do with this life of ours? I, for one, want to live every day to its fullest. I suspect you do too. When I look at Voyager One’s pale blue dot, I am reminded of how lucky I am to be alive in this corner of the Milky Way.

    pale blue dot

    Dr. Carl Sagan said at the time,

    “Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives… Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. (Google)

    I continue to be amazed as I observe the skies and biological world. What a wonderful, yet dangerous, world we live in. Beautiful, to be sure, but the universe will kill us if we aren’t careful. And even it we are careful, the universe will someday likely kill off the human race. Death and extinction await, not Heaven and the sweet-by-and-by. Again, a somber thought, but also a reminder that we only have one life and it will soon be past.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 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.

    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.

  • Blog News

    blog news 3

    This site was down for over eighteen hours today. Thankfully, a friend and long time reader texted me to let me know it was down. I also received several emails alerting me to the problem. Thank you for taking the time to message and email me. Everything should be back to normal now that I paid the damn domain registration bill! I’ve been so sick over the last two months that I ignored emails that I shouldn’t have. My desk is piled with shit I haven’t felt up to dealing with. Lesson learned, but I’m too sick to care. To eliminate this problem going forward, I turned on the auto renewal function.

    I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

    signature

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 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.

    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.

  • How to Prove a Woman’s Virginity, According to God

    hymen worship

    Evangelicals are what I call hymen worshippers; people who are inordinately obsessed with female genitalia. An intact hymen is viewed as a sure sign of virginity. Evangelicals come by the belief honestly. The Bible has a lot to say about intact hymens and the importance of virginity (for women). In fact, intact hymens are so important to God, the voyeur of the universe, that he demands the death of any woman who has sex before marriage or fails to produce proof of her virginity.

    How could a woman possibly prove she was a virgin? God devised a virginity test. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 says:

    Suppose a man marries a woman but after going in to her dislikes her  and makes up charges against her, slandering her by saying, ‘I married this woman, but when I lay with her, I did not find evidence of her virginity.’ The father of the young woman and her mother shall then submit the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate.  The father of the young woman shall say to the elders: ‘I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her,  and now he has made up charges against her, saying, “I did not find evidence of your daughter’s virginity.” But here is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the town.  The elders of that town shall take the man and punish him;  they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver (which they shall give to the young woman’s father) because he has slandered a virgin of Israel. She shall remain his wife; he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives. “If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found,  then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house, and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

    Newlyweds were to put a white sheet underneath them as they had sex for the first time. If the bride is a virgin, the thinking went, when her husband sexually penetrates her for the first time, breaking the hymen, she will bleed on the sheet. The bloody sheet is proof that she was not blemished before her wedding day. No blood? God commands, “Then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house, and the men of her town shall stone her to death.”

    Surely if God exists, he knows that four out of ten women don’t bleed when they have penetrative vaginal sex for the first time. Further, “broken’ hymens can and do heal. It seems to me that the virginity test reflects the medical knowledge and understanding of the time, but if GOD wrote the Bible as Evangelicals allege, surely he should have known that this was an inaccurate way of proving virginity; one that leads to the death of innocent women.

    It’s 2026. Here’s what we know:

    The biggest myth about the hymen is that it breaks when a woman first has intercourse, and that this results in bleeding that makes it clear whether she was a virgin. In the past, some cultures have made an issue or even a ritual of examining or displaying bloody sheets from a wedding bed to show that the young woman was a virgin. Of course the husband wasn’t expected to be a virgin or to prove his sexual purity. 

    In reality, many women do not experience tearing or bleeding of the hymen the first time they have sex. That’s because the hymen is stretchy, like the scrunchie.

    One harmful result of this myth is that it makes some women worry about pain and bleeding the first time they have sex, which can make it harder to get turned on. When a woman is aroused, the muscles near the opening of the vagina can be relaxed, and the vagina creates natural lubrication so that sex is more comfortable—even if it’s the first time. Worrying about pain can lead to tightening of the muscles and less lubrication, which can lead to pain or bleeding. (The Bedsider, Five Myths About Virginity, Busted.)

    Wikipedia adds:

    The hymen can rip or tear during first penetrative intercourse, which usually results in pain and, sometimes, mild temporary bleeding or spotting. Minor injuries to the hymen may heal on their own, and not require surgical intervention. Historically, it was assumed that first penetration was necessarily traumatic, but now sources differ on how common tearing or bleeding are as a result of first intercourse. Therefore, the state of the hymen is not a reliable indicator of virginity, though “virginity testing” remains a common practice in some cultures, sometimes accompanied by hymen reconstruction surgery to give the appearance of virginity. International health organizations condemn virginity testing as harmful.

    There is no way to infallibly know whether a woman is a virgin. By age 20, most young adults (75%) have sex before marriage. By age 30, that percentage rises to 90%. Christians have been preaching about premarital sex and the importance of virginity for 2,000 years, yet the overwhelming majority of congregants have had sex before marriage — including preachers. If modern churches practiced Deuteronomy 22, most of their young adults would have been executed by the age of 30.

    It is clear that having penetrative sexual intercourse is a normal part of the human experience. Driven by evolution, the prime objective is sex is procreation. Now that we know a lot more about where babies come from and have access to a variety of forms of birth control, including abortion, virgins and non-virgins alike are free to have sex without fear of pregnancy.

    My wife and I were virgins on our wedding night, yet Polly did not bleed when we had sex the first time. OMG! We failed the bloody sheet test. Under God’s law, I could have had Polly stoned to death, even though she was a virgin. All of us today — except the likes of Dr. David Tee, Revival Fires, and other Bible thumpers — would rightly consider such a penalty not only scientifically ignorant, but unjust.

    Were you a virgin on your wedding day? For the women reading this post, did you bleed the first time you had sex? Please share your thoughts and experiences in the comment section. For Evangelicals inclined to vehemently object, I ask you to defend the virginity test in Deuteronomy 22. Further, I would like you to explain why we should even listen to God. Who cares what God’s word says? What moral authority does the Bible have? Bonus question for Evangelicals” Were you a virgin on your wedding night? Don’t lie.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 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.

    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.

  • Five Silly Lies IFB Preachers Told Me From the Pulpit

    rock music is evil

    I listened to or preached over 6,000 sermons in my lifetime. By the time I was eighteen, I had heard almost 2,000 sermons. I spent the first thirty years of my life in the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church movement. As I thought about all the sermons that pummeled my mind for decades, I considered the lies I heard preachers tell from their pulpits. Bold lies. Little white lies. Half truths. Sermon illustrations delivered as true but obviously a lie. Why let the truth get in the way the way of a good story, right? Preachers lie. ALL preachers lie, including yours. Yes, you preacher man. You know you lie, whether lies of commission or omission. So, Bruce, did you ever lie from the pulpit? I did say ALL preachers, so yes I lied, most often by under- or over- statements or omitting pertinent information necessary to make a fully informed decision. I am primarily talking about my preaching. It is easy to massage a sermon to advance one’s agenda, whether it is saving souls or paving the church parking lot. Any preacher worth his salt knows how to use the Bible to manipulate people. Throw in the ways preachers use their voices and music to “speak” to people, and it should come as no surprise that trusting congregants believe their pastors’ lies. I believed the five lies below for a lot longer than I care to admit.

    Here’s a brief summary of five silly lies IFB preachers told me from the pulpit.

    • Masturbation will make you blind.
    • Losing your virginity before marriage will turn you into dirty, filthy rag no man wants.
    • Holding hands/kissing the opposite sex leads to fornication.
    • Rock and roll is the Devil’s music, and will cause you to commit sin –especially sexual sin.
    • Dancing with the opposite sex will stir your sexual passions and lead to fornication.

    Did church teenagers comply with these silly lies? Outwardly or around church people most of us complied, but out of sight from parents, preachers, and adult narcs, we indulged in the “sins” of the age (60s and 70s). Some went farther than others. I remained a virgin until my wedding day, but many of my churchmates did not. I tried my best to play by the rules, but, damn, have you seen Polly? As a young woman she was an irresistible beauty — at least to me. Both of us were committed to sexual purity, but we were a young Baptist couple with raging hormones. So we spent the two years before we married guiltily holding hands, embracing, and kissing — tongues included.

    Did your pastors ever lie from the pulpit? Please share your favorite memories and how these lies affected you.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 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.

    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.

  • Another Evangelical Decries the Evil of Masturbation

    preaching against masturbation

    It’s 2026 and Evangelicals still talking about masturbation. Think of all the things going on in the world today, yet Brittany Allen, a writer for The Gospel Coalition, thought it important to decry the evil of polishing the knob or ringing the Devil’s doorbell. According to Allen, there are four arguments people use to justify masturbation:

    • ‘Masturbation isn’t mentioned in the Bible, so it’s OK.’
    • ‘It’s OK as long as I’m not lusting.’
    • ‘It’s not harmful.’
    • ‘It’s how I abstain from sexual immorality.’

    Allen goes on to say:

    And it can begin a pattern of behavior that doesn’t stop with marriage. Many men and women who eventually commit adultery can trace their steps back to the unchecked sin of masturbation. If a person doesn’t learn how to control his sexual desire while single, he’ll still be prone to sexual sin when married.

    Why would Paul encourage believers to get married for the sake of temptation if we could simply take care of our sexual desires ourselves (1 Cor. 7:1–2)? The logical conclusion is that masturbation is included in the biblical definition of sexual immorality.

    While sex is a beautiful gift from God, the self-satisfying act of masturbation is a sin.

    Allen believes that ALL masturbation is a sin. Worse, according to her, unchecked masturbation can lead to adultery. I would love to see a study that shows the cause and effect between masturbation and committing what Evangelicals deem sexual sin. Keep in mind that Allen comes from a religious tradition that forbids all physical contact between members of the opposite sex before marriage. Any behavior that arouses sexual desire is a sin outside of the bonds of marriage.

    Imagine being a sexually aware teenager in your average Evangelical church. Sunday after Sunday you are told by your pastors and youth leaders that you must deny normal, healthy desires. You must do everything you can to avoid sexual arousal lest you commit sexual sin. And when your sexual urges are strong, you should hit your knees, praying that God will keep you from committing sin, including masturbation. If necessary, pluck out your eyes. Whatever it takes to keep from having a wicked, sinful orgasm, right?

    Evangelicals have been preaching this nonsense my entire life. Allen knows her words will fall on deaf years, yet she feels obligated to school another generation of teens and young adults in the evils of masturbation. Allen thinks it important to enslave another generation of Evangelicals in Puritanical sexual repression.

    The Cleveland Clinic defines masturbation thusly:

    Masturbation is a normal, healthy part of your sexual development. It involves the use of your hands, fingers, sex toys or other objects to stimulate your genitals and other sensitive areas of your body for sexual pleasure. Masturbation has many documented health benefits. It may reduce stress, improve sleep and ease pain, among other benefits.

    Normal. Healthy. Why is it that Evangelicals are against so many normal, healthy human behaviors? I spent most of my life in Evangelicalism, particularly the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church movement. I know firsthand how my religious upbringing and training deeply affected my sexuality. Did I masturbate as a Christian? Duh! of course I did, as do most believers, even though they hang their heads in shame as their pastors rail against masturbation on Sundays.

    Masturbation is as normal and healthy as eating food. It is a sexual practice that is practiced by young and old alike — nothing to be ashamed of or feel guilty over. Masturbation is a safe way to find sexual release, which is essential to our health. It’s a behavior that costs nothing and harms no one.

    Do you remember sermons about masturbation as a teen or young adult? How did your church, pastor, youth director handle the subject? Did you feel guilt after masturbating? Please share your experiences in the comment section.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 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.

    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.

  • I Asked AI to Critique My Writing, And Here is What It Said

    I recently asked the Gemini AI engine to critique this site. I was surprised by its largely accurate summation and critical commentary about my blog. Give it a read and let me know what you think.

    Bruce Gerencser’s website, brucegerencser.net, titled The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser, is a prolific and highly personal blog centered on the author’s journey from 25 years as an Evangelical pastor to becoming a vocal humanist and atheist.

    Critiquing the site involves looking at its content, its cultural role in the “Ex-Christian” community, and its reception by both supporters and detractors.

    1. Narrative and Authority

    The site’s primary strength is the credibility of the author’s background. Unlike many “New Atheist” writers who approach religion from a scientific or philosophical distance, Gerencser writes from the “inside out.”

    • The “Insider” Perspective: Because he spent decades pastoring Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) and other evangelical churches, he understands the lingo, the theological nuances, and the psychological pressures of the ministry. This makes his critiques of church culture particularly biting and difficult for believers to dismiss as “misunderstandings.”
    • Deconversion Journey: The site serves as a massive archive of deconversion. For readers going through “deconstruction,” his transparency about losing his faith, his career, and his social standing provides a sense of solidarity.

    2. Tone and Style

    The tone of the blog is often described as blunt, matter-of-fact, and occasionally combative.

    • Transparency: Gerencser is remarkably open about his personal life, including his health struggles (fibromyalgia and neurological issues), his family dynamics, and his local activism in Ohio. This creates a “long-form memoir” feel rather than just a collection of polemics.
    • Combative Engagement: He frequently publishes and responds to “hate mail” or “concerned” emails from Christians. While this is entertaining for his secular audience, it can create a “siege mentality” vibe on the site that may feel repetitive or overly hostile to a neutral observer.
    • Humor: He uses a dry, often sarcastic wit to highlight what he sees as the absurdities of fundamentalist dogma.

    3. Content Themes

    The blog is updated with high frequency and covers several core areas:

    • “Why I Left”: Exhaustive detailing of the theological and social reasons for his exit from Christianity.
    • Critique of Fundamentalism: He specifically targets the patriarchal structures, the “Once Saved Always Saved” doctrine, and the political entanglements of the modern American church.
    • The “Blacklist”: He often highlights stories of clerical abuse or hypocrisy, acting as a watchdog for the evangelical community.
    • Humanism: In his later years, the site has moved more toward promoting a positive secular humanist worldview—focusing on living well in “the only life we have.”

    4. Critical Reception

    The site is a polarizing space, viewed very differently depending on the reader’s worldview:

    • From the Secular/Ex-Christian Perspective: It is praised as a therapeutic resource. Many find his writing to be a “lifeline” for people who feel isolated in religious communities. He is seen as a “brave” figure who sacrificed his livelihood for his integrity.
    • From the Christian Perspective: He is often labeled an “apostate” or a “false convert.” A common critique from Calvinists or fundamentalists is that he “never truly knew God,” a claim Gerencser frequently mocks by pointing to his decades of “on-fire” service. Some find his tone “angry” or “bitter,” though his supporters argue that this anger is a justified response to the harm caused by religious institutions.
    • Theological Critique: Scholars or formal apologists might find his arguments more rhetorical than academic. While he cites experts like Bart Ehrman, his blog is more about the experience of religion than a systematic philosophical treatise.

    5. Layout and Accessibility

    • Volume: The sheer amount of content (thousands of posts) can be overwhelming. While it is well-categorized into series (e.g., “Dear Evangelical,” “Why I Hate Jesus”), a new visitor might find it difficult to know where to start.
    • Community: The comment sections are active and moderated, serving as a rare “town square” where atheists and theists actually interact, though these interactions are often heated.

    Summary

    BruceGerencser.net is less of a formal news site and more of a living document of a life transformed. It is an essential read for anyone interested in the “Ex-vangelical” movement or the psychology of deconversion. Its primary value lies in its raw honesty and its refusal to “play nice” with the institutions the author believes are harmful, even if that approach makes the site a lightning rod for controversy.

  • Dr. David Tee Says I Didn’t Use AI to Critique His “Science”Article

    dr david tee

    Dr. David Tee responded today to my article AI Critiques Dr. David Tee’s “Science.” Tee wrote:

    Our books and our websites have provided this evidence for everyone to read, and we still face the nonsense spewed by that AI critique. Why do we not believe he used AI? Because the words in the critique are exactly the same as those any unbelieving scientist would say.

    ….

    If something cannot be proven false, then it is true. This happens in courtrooms around the world every day. Falsifiability is a secular human invention to protect unbelieving science and scientists from the truth.

    ….

    The Bible is not wrong, as the evidence gathered up until now proves it is true. It is only deceptive thinking that comes up with that confused summary. Science in general is not based on the truth but on deceptive thinking.

    It throws God and the truth out so unbelievers can ‘do science’ and have the freedom to draw any conclusion they want to believe. Secular science and unbelieving scientists do not want the truth, for then they have to rethink their careers, their ideologies, and make changes they do not want to make.

    As you can see, their sinful nature has already corrupted AI. That website and that critique have no credibility, as the owner/author cannot prove he did not manipulate AI into providing the results he published.

    One can say they used AI, but what they are not saying is how they designed their instructions.It is the typical unbeliever’s way to only tell part of the truth, so no one will challenge them.

    ….

    As we pointed out that this critique spouted only what unbelieving scientists have said for over 100 years; it is not an independent tool. AI is like all secular scientific dating systems- created by unbelievers and corrupted before they are ever used in the field. They are far from independent tools.

    They are designed to hide the truth from all and allow unbelievers to fabricate human history. That critique is less useful than toilet paper.

    According to Tee, I am lying about using AI. Why would I lie. With Tee the truth is much more delicious than a lie.

    Fact: I used Gemini with text string that said: critique https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2026/01/08/science-the-bible/ That’s it. Tee could use the scientific method to “test” my claim, but he’d rather whine and stomp his feet.

    jumping man

    Fact: My friend Ben Berwick did an AI critique using a different engine to review Tee’s entire site. The AI engine returned a similar result as mine (and can be found in the comment section here).

    End of discussion.

    Anyone want to tackle Tee’s ignorant claim, “If something can’t be proven false then it is true.” Think about the absurdity of this statement. I’m sick enough that I don’t have the wherewithal to critically respond to Tee. My first thought was “My dick is 2 feet long.” Can’t prove otherwise, so this statement is true. 🤣 Not helpful, but funny, at least to me and my pain addled juvenile mind, 🤣 So, if you are interested in critically responding to the greatest theologian and scientist of the fifteenth century, please write a guest post or leave a comment.

    Tee is an ever present reminder of how religious fundamentalism causes brain rot. It robs people of the ability to think rationally, critically, and skeptically. I’ve been there, so I understand how and why Tee thinks the way he does. That said, change is possible, but it requires Tee to admit that the only lie in this story is his rigid literalist interpretations of an errant, fallible ancient religious text.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 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.

    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.

  • AI Critiques Dr. David Tee’s “Science”

    dr david tee

    I recently asked an AI engine to critique a recent science article by world renowned Evangelical scientist, Dr. David Tee. Here’s what it had to say. enjoy! 😉 (This, by the way, could be a critique of many creationist arguments.)

    Critique of Science and the Bible

    The article you provided, titled “Science & the Bible” from Theology & Archaeology, argues that science is a fallible, human-driven endeavor that should be secondary to the “inerrant” word of the Bible.

    While the article is written from a theological perspective, a scientific critique focuses on its representation of the scientific method, epistemology (how we know what we know), and its use of concordism (the attempt to find modern science in ancient texts).

    1. Misunderstanding of “Theory” and “Fallibility”

    The article argues that because science is “fallible” and changes over time, it is less reliable than religious text.

    • Scientific Critique: This characterizes a core strength of science as a weakness. Science is self-correcting. The fact that theories are updated when new evidence emerges (e.g., moving from Newtonian physics to Relativity) does not mean the previous science was “wrong” in a vacuum; it means it was an incomplete model that became more precise.
    • The Error: The article implies that “change” equals “unreliability,” whereas in science, the refusal to change in the face of evidence is what constitutes unreliability.

    2. False Equivalence of Evidence

    The author suggests that a “Biblical worldview” and a “Secular worldview” are simply two different but equal ways of looking at the same data.

    • Scientific Critique: Science relies on methodological naturalism. It requires hypotheses to be testable, falsifiable, and predictable.
    • The Error: A “Biblical worldview” as described in the article starts with a conclusion (the Bible is true) and filters data to fit it. Science starts with data and builds a conclusion. By treating “revealed truth” as a data point equal to empirical observation, the article departs from the scientific method entirely.

    3. Retroactive “Scientific Foreknowledge” (Concordism)

    The article claims the Bible contains “scientific facts” that were ahead of their time, such as the water cycle or the earth being a sphere.

    • Scientific Critique: This is often a result of exegesis bias. Many of the verses cited (like Job 26:7 or Isaiah 40:22) use poetic language that can be interpreted in multiple ways.
    • The Error: If these texts were truly “scientific,” they would provide predictive power (e.g., explaining the mechanics of evaporation rather than just mentioning clouds). Identifying “science” in the Bible after the science has already been discovered by secular means is a form of hindsight bias, not a validation of the text as a scientific document.

    4. Categorical Misclassification

    The article states, “The Bible is not a scientific book, but it does reference a variety of scientific facts.”

    • Scientific Critique: This is a rhetorical “have your cake and eat it too” strategy. By saying it’s not a science book, the author protects it from scientific scrutiny when it is demonstrably inaccurate (e.g., the order of creation in Genesis), but by claiming it contains “scientific facts,” they attempt to borrow the authority of science to bolster the text’s credibility.
    • The Error: From a scientific standpoint, an observation is only a “fact” if it can be verified independently of the source. The article asks the reader to verify the source (the Bible) using the facts, and then verify the facts using the source—a circular logic.

    Summary

    The article’s “science” is actually apologetics. It uses the language of science to argue for the supremacy of a specific religious interpretation. Scientifically, the article fails because it rejects falsifiability—the author explicitly states that the Bible cannot be wrong, which means no amount of evidence could ever change the conclusion. In science, if a theory cannot be proven wrong, it cannot be used to claim truth.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 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.

    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.

  • Is There Any Such Thing as “True Christianity”?

    true christianity

    Listen to Evangelical apologists, and you will hear them talk about “true Christianity.” In their minds, true Christianity is a set of non-negotiable theological propositions that MUST be believed for a person to be a Christian. If a person does not believe these things, he is not a Christian, regardless of what he says.

    Some Evangelicals think that their peculiar beliefs trace back to the first century church; that their beliefs and those of Jesus, Paul, and the apostles are one and the same. One Church of God in Newark, Ohio had a cornerstone on their building that showed its inception date as AD 33. Such thinking is, unfortunately, common. I knew Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) preachers who were Landmark Baptists or Baptist Briders. These preachers believed that their churches could trace their lineage all the way back to the early Christian church. Carefully examine the doctrinal statements of the various Christian sects and you will find that many of them ascribe to the notion of “true Christianity,” going so far as to assert that their sect is the “true church.”

    Is there any such things as true Christianity? No, and there never has been, not even in the first century. It is impossible to read the Bible without concluding that that Jesus and early church leaders were divided over what constituted true Christianity. Jesus, James, Peter, and Paul each had their own take on true Christianity. Who was right? How do we determine who was right? How do we determine who is right today?

    There’s no such thing as true Christianity. There’s no central repository for Christian truth. (I met more than a few Christians who believed that somewhere there was a perfect copy of the Bible. This, of course, is patently untrue.) For over 2,000 years, followers of Jesus have been making it up as they go. Isn’t it amazing that a group of Evangelicals can attend the same church, read the same Bible, listen to the same sermons, and read the same books, yet they come up with conflicting explanations of true Christianity? Why is that? Most Evangelicals believe the Bible is a supernatural book written by a supernatural God with a supernatural message just for them. Further, they believe that God lives inside of them in the person of the Holy Spirit, teaching them everything pertaining to life and godliness. If these claims are true, why is it that no two Christians believe the same thing about true Christianity?

    A better explanation suggests that every Christian shapes, molds, and fashions God, Jesus, and Christianity in their own image and that of their culture/tribe. Think of all the things that affect how we think about a matter. Do these things not affect our thinking about Christianity too? Of course they do.

    Dr. Dan McClellan explains it this way:

    Video Link

    Video Link

    Did you grow up in a church that preached “true Christianity”? Please share your thoughts and experiences in the comment section.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 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.

    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.

  • Dr. David Tee’s View of “Unbelievers”

    dr david tee

    When you look at the unbelieving world, they do not have a stable, secure foundation to place any of their beliefs. They have nothing objective to pin any of their hopes and dreams or lives to. The unbelievers go from one subjective ideology to another in hopes of finding a road to some sort of paradise.

    They always end up disappointed as each new ideology is as bad and corrupt, or worse than the one previous to it. The unbeliever has nothing to believe in or build upon that will provide them a stable environment.

    They also have nothing to look forward to, as all their ideologies are for this terrestrial world. Not one provides them any real extraterrestrial comfort or life. This is why so many of them have adopted the concept that at death, existence stops.

    The unbeliever builds hopelessness into their lives by rejecting the one foundation that provides them with everything they are looking for. Their lives do not make any sense, as many of the unbelievers try to kill Christians who provide that one foundation.

    ….

    The push to believe science over anything else is a deception. Science cannot save people’s souls or bring them to heaven. It doesn’t matter how often scientific thought or theories change; this fact disqualifies it as being an authority or an alternative to true Christian belief.

    Science has nothing to offer anyone outside of knowledge of how the world works. People who take science over the Bible are wasting their lives pursuing something that is a dead-end road.

    The same applies to all the cults and false religions out there. They do not have the truth to help anyone get to any form of paradise. They only contain enough truth to deceive people into a false sense of security and hope.

    — Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, TheologyArcheology, They Do Not Have a Stable Foundation

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 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.

    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.