I turned on the news this afternoon to find out that the People’s Republic of China is conducting military training exercises in the Taiwan Strait — an international body of water separating China and Taiwan (officially the Republic of China). One hundred and ten miles wide, the Taiwan Strait is considered internal territorial waters by China.
China considers Taiwan part of its sovereign territory. Few Americans know much about Taiwan’s history and why China considers the 168 islands that make up Taiwan part of the mainland. All Americans hear is that Taiwan is a democracy and China is a communist state. Once the word “communist” is invoked, most Americans immediately think China is an existential threat. The great red-baiter Joseph McCarthy lives on. Sure enough, the news show I was watching made certain that viewers knew that China was communist. This, of course, had nothing to do with the story. It was an attempt by a Sinclair-owned news station to poison the news.
Sinclair’s “news” story included interviews with two right-wing Republican congressmen, one of whom was Lindsey Graham, the senior senator from South Carolina. Graham, known for getting the vapors and crying on TV, said it was imperative for the United States to immediately send additional troops to Japan and South Korea, and place nuclear weapons near China. Another Republican said the US needed to immediately send massive amounts of weapons to Taiwan so they can defend themselves. No Democrats were interviewed; neither were any anti-war congresspeople.
The majority of our political leaders in Washington D.C. are warmongers, including many Democrats. Fueled by fantasies such as American exceptionalism and manifest destiny, many of our leaders at all levels of government think the United States is a beacon of freedom (except for having the largest incarceration rate in the world) and democracy (except for gerrymandering, laws meant to restrict voting rights for people of color, and the recent expulsion of two Black representatives from the Tennessee House); that the God of the Christian Bible is on our side, and he will lead us to victory in every war we fight (even though we haven’t won a military conflict since 1945). With minds filled with American grandeur and supremacy, virtually everyone, from Democratic president Joe Biden to Republican lunatics too numerous to count, thinks the United States is an unassailable, impregnable fortress of good.
Even people who live in other Western countries have been charmed by America’s rhetoric and press releases. Recently, a commenter on a post titled The United States Advances “Democracy” One Bloody, Violent War at a Time had this to say: The USA has done bad things, but generally with the intention of trying to do good. Is the American prime directive try to do good? Is the United States a do-gooder on the world stage? Do our political leaders really put “good” above all else?
A cursory reading of American history suggests that we have never been a nation primarily motivated by good. Most people would agree that peace is good. So how do we square this ideal with the fact that the United States has been at war somewhere in the world for most of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries; that the US has troops and contractors deployed in virtually every corner of the world? War does not bring peace. All war does is bring a cessation of hostilities. Bloodshed and destruction happen until both sides agree to stop killing each other. Is this cessation “peace?” Of course not. The reasons for the hostilities remain, festering until coming to a head once again in the future. This is exactly what is happening in Ukraine. The United States (and NATO) is fighting a proxy war against Russia. Saber-rattling warmongers want to do the same with Taiwan, delusionally thinking that Taiwan can fight a war with China and win. All the United has to do is provide Taiwan with billions of dollars of fancy weaponry, just as we are currently doing in Ukraine. Further, many Americans think we can willy-nilly threaten sovereign states such as Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China with nuclear war without challenge. What happens when a country we have backed into a corner economically with embargoes, tariffs, and other punishments that only hurt the people in the street, decides that its only hope is the use of nuclear weapons against the US? What happens if these countries band together, much as Western nations have done with NATO? When economic and political survival is at stake, nation-states can and do use extreme measures to allegedly protect themselves. This is exactly what the United States did in World War II with the bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Tokyo, and the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If and when the United States finds itself in a conventional war with a major world power; one where boots must be put on the ground, it is doubtful that the US would win such a conflict. As with all such wars, the willingness to use extreme measures to win only increases as time goes on. The unthinkable becomes possible, as was the case at the end of World War II. The US is losing its primacy in the world, and instead of evolving with the times, America is determined to use violence and death to maintain its power and economic superiority. And when the whole world is on fire someday? Americans will proudly wave foam fingers in the air, saying “We’re #1, we’re #1!” Finally, they will be right.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.
Good science-based medicine should endeavor to isolate variables as much as possible. That is what the entire placebo-controlled trial is about. We cannot make causal conclusion unless the variable of interest is isolated. The problem for CAM proponents is that when you properly isolate the variable that is at the core of their treatment, it doesn’t work. After thousands of clinical trials, for example, acupuncture researchers still have not been able to demonstrate scientifically that acupuncture points mean anything. They do not appear to exist – their own research concludes this. Similarly, there is no “life energy” behind energy medicine, subluxation theory has been essentially disproven, and the principles of homeopathy are demonstrable nonsense.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.
Today, I received the following email from an Evangelical man named Alex. My response is indented and italicized and indented. All spelling and grammar in the original.
I’ve read a lot of your site over many months, it is certainly an interesting read, though to a Christian, very sad to hear.
As is my custom, I checked the server logs to see how many times Alex visited this site and what he read. According to the logs, Alex, who hails from England, visited the Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser fifty-three times. Not bad, considering the fact that most Evangelicals who leave preachy comments or send me preachy emails read one or two posts before sharing with me what the Lord laid upon their non-existent hearts.
I have written almost 5,000 posts since December 2014. I highly doubt that Alex has read “a lot” of my writing. Some, a handful, yes, but “a lot,” no. I do appreciate that Alex read what he did. I’ll give him a gold star for that. However, as readers shall see below, Alex “read” but he didn’t comprehend or understand. Despite investing time in reading my writing, he learned little to nothing about me; what I believe; how best to interact with me. Instead, Alex did what Evangelicals do: attack my person by calling me names, attacking my motives, and threatening me with Hell.
It reminds me greatly of Judas, who walked so closely with the Lord yet wanted out and you know the rest. Yet when he got what he thought he wanted, freedom! and a bit of money, He found that actually none of that mattered really. He gave up heaven for what? nothing.
Alex sees me as a Judas-like betrayer of Jesus. Ouch, right? Alex says Judas betrayed Jesus because he wanted freedom and money. In the end, Judas found out that these things didn’t matter. He gave up eternal life in Heaven, for what? Nothing.
First, Judas was preordained to betray Jesus. The Bible calls him the “son of perdition.” Judas had no say in the matter. Jesus was a lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. God’s plan to redeem humanity was concocted in the mind of God before Judas, Adam, and Eve were created. I am somewhat surprised that Alex doesn’t know these things, especially since, based on a Google Search, he is a preacher.
Second, we really don’t know anything about Judas. All we have are stories written by unknown authors 30-90 years after they allegedly occurred. Remember, we have no writings from Judas, no evidence that he even existed. All we have are the words of men who, let’s face it, needed a scapegoat for what happened to Jesus. Thus, Judas has become a villain in the minds of twenty centuries of Christians; right up there with the man, the myth, the legend: Satan, aka the Devil, aka Lucifer, aka Beelzebub, aka Slewfoot. It is in this vein of thinking that Alex sees the Evangelical-turned-atheist Bruce Gerencser.
Did I betray Jesus for freedom and money? Alex thinks so. Is it a betrayal to walk away from Christianity? Is it a betrayal when one realizes that Jesus is not who he claimed to be? Is it a betrayal to realize that the central claims of Christianity are untrue? Is it a betrayal to file for divorce from an abusive spouse? I think not. I devoted my life to following and serving Jesus. Yet, when I needed him the most; when I needed him to quell my doubts, questions, and fears, Jesus was AWOL, saying not a word to me. And so I started taking a close look at our marriage, finding out that I was married to deceiver, liar, and myth. If anybody is a “Judas” in this story, it’s Jesus.
Alex suggests that I left Christianity because I wanted freedom and money. On the former, he is right. I wanted the freedom to live my life as I pleased. I wanted the freedom to enjoy life to its fullest, free from the constraints of Evangelical rules, regulations, and standards. Of course, Alex will say, SEE! SEE! Bruce wanted to live a licentious life, so he divorced Jesus and ran headlong into the loving arms of hedonism. Of course, that’s not what happened. I have the freedom to do what I want, but, as a humanist, my life is governed by humanist ideals. I have moral and ethical values that matter to me. In fact, I am a far better Christian than many Evangelicals I know. Sure, I love to say fuck, enjoy good whiskey, watch R-rated movies on HBO, and have experienced making love in other than the missionary position for the purpose of procreation, but based on my good works, I am a pretty good Christian atheist. 🙂 All praise be to Loki!
On the latter — money — Alex is right too. We make more money today than we ever did in the ministry. However, contrary to what another Evangelical zealot recently told me on Facebook, we are not affluent. In fact, we are in the bottom quartile in income, especially when our exorbitant medical costs are taken to account. We don’t live in poverty, nor are we poor. However, if Polly lost her job or the U.S. government stopped paying social security recipients, we would be bankrupt in a month or two.
What is great about our post-Jesus financial position is this: we are free to spend our money any way we want. We no longer have to pay the Evangelical God taxes: tithes and offerings. We no longer have to cough up money every time our pastor — that was me — cooked up a fundraising scheme. We no longer have to “think of the missionaries” or support parachurch ministries. We are free to be as selfish or gracious as we want to be. We no longer feel “conviction” over spending money on ourselves. We now can enjoy a nice meal and a night out on the town without worrying about WWJD.
Alex seems to think that Christian bondage is a selling point. It’s not. I heard the call of secularism: “You are free, cheezy bread. You are free! Go! Go!” 🙂 Why in would I ever want to return to the bondage of Egypt? I have found the Promised Land, and I have no intention of returning to the intellectual equivalent of eating three meals a day of garlic and leeks.
Video Link And you, having walked so closely for so many years almost with the end in sight decide to betray the Lord.
Alex doesn’t seem to value intellectual integrity. People believe what they believe because they can’t do otherwise. Surely Alex knows that I left Christianity for intellectual reasons. I am an honest man. When I concluded in 2008 that the Bible was not inerrant or infallible; that the central claims of Christianity could not be rationally sustained, what did Alex want me to do? Fake it, until I make it? Faith it? What kind of person does Alex think I am? I am a man of principle and conviction. All Alex needs to do is provide sufficient evidence for the existence of the Evangelical God and the supernatural claims Christians make for Jesus and the Bible, and I will believe. Better yet, skip the evidence. All Jesus has to do is heal me, and I will believe. He allegedly healed people 2,000 years ago. Surely he can do it today! Is he not the same YESTERDAY, TODAY, and FOREVER? Think of how many people could be won to Jesus if God miraculously healed me and gloriously saved me? Yet, scores of Evangelicals have prayed for me, without success. Either God isn’t hearing their prayers, I’m more powerful than God, or he doesn’t exist. My money is on the latter.
I don’t know how many people put their faith in Jesus due to your preaching over many years, but it must be over 100 souls! Wow! Bruce, how many Christains could ever say that? Very few indeed! Imagine the blessings to be given to you in heaven ! yet you seem to want to throw it all away! I cant understand what for?
In one church alone, six hundred people made public professions of faith. Throw in a few hundred more over the course of twenty-five years in the ministry, and almost one thousand sinners have been saved through my preaching. Not bad, right? According to Alex, God would give me blessings (rewards) in Heaven after death if I would only come back to Jesus. I am throwing all these rewards away, and for what? In Alex’s Bible-sotted mind: nothing.
What, exactly, are the rewards I will receive? A new BMW? A yacht? A hundred-foot-long closet of color-matched clothing, complete with color-matched socks and shoes? No, according to the Bible, I will be rewarded with crowns. Woo Hoo, right? I guess I will be able to show off my crowns to all the Alexes in Heaven; those who didn’t win as many souls as I did? Nope. The Bible says that believers will cast their crowns at the feet of Jesus, giving him all the praise and glory for their good works. Jesus is like the boss at work who does none of the work but takes credit for yours.
You say when I die, thats it, the end. Yet how to you KNOW that? What are you basing this assumption on?
How do I know that when I die that will be the end of life for me? No Heaven, no Hell, no afterlife; just eternal darkness and nothingness. My view is not an assumption, it’s a fact. All the extant evidence available to me says that once people die, they stay dead. Five miles from my home lie my mother and grandmother in Fountain Grove Cemetery. Six miles to the south in the Sherwood Cemetery lie my dad’s parents, several aunts and uncles, and a cousin. These graves are an ever-present reminder to me that when people die, they stay dead.
If Alex has empirical evidence for his claim that there is life after death, he should provide it immediately. However, he has no such evidence. All he has are verses in an ancient religious text, faith, and feelings. That’s it. Does Alex expect me to believe in the existence of life after death, all because the Bible says so, or that he “feels” eternal life is a thing? Sorry, but that’s not how I roll. Want to convince me that Heaven, Hell, and the afterlife exist? All you have to do is provide me with sufficient empirical evidence that your claims are true.
You talk on and on about what you dont believe in, yet very little about what you now actually DO believe in.
Evidently, Alex hasn’t read any of the posts where I talk about my current beliefs; about my commitment to democratic socialism and the humanist ideal. That said, the focus of my writing is on telling my story, helping people who have questions and doubts about Christianity, and critiquing Evangelicalism. This has been my focus for the past fifteen years. I do, on occasion, write about politics, especially my progressive view of the world.
On the ABOUT page, I sum up my view of the world this way:
“You have one life. There is no heaven or hell. There is no afterlife. You have one life, it’s yours, and what you do with it is what matters most. Love and forgive those who matter to you and ignore those who add nothing to your life. Life is too short to spend time trying to make nice with those who will never make nice with you. Determine who are the people in your life that matter and give your time and devotion to them. Live each and every day to its fullest. You never know when death might come calling. Don’t waste time trying to be a jack of all trades, master of none. Find one or two things you like to do and do them well. Too many people spend way too much time doing things they will never be good at.
Here’s the conclusion of the matter. It’s your life and you best get to living it. Someday, sooner than you think, it will be over. Don’t let your dying days be ones of regret over what might have been.”
I believe in love and kindness. I believe in family, friends, and making the world a better place. I believe in enjoying what time I have left on earth, spending it with Polly, our children, our grandchildren, and people who matter to me. I believe in the Cincinnati Reds and the Cincinnati Bengals. I have great faith that one day the Reds or the Bengals will win a world championship.
Of course, all these things are secondary to Alex. What matters to him the most is life to come, and not the here and now. I am not willing to gamble the present away in the hope that I will receive some sort of divine payoff after death; a payoff no one has verifiably received.
Evoulution? then how did sex and reproduction start happening? how did life even start in the first place? It is impossible, no matter how much time you give it…..something cannot appear from nothing.
Alex is not a scientist and neither am I. I know enough to say that creationism is nonsense. Everything that science tells us about our biological world and the cosmos suggests that life and the universe did not come into existence in six literal twenty-four days; that Adam and Eve were not the first humans.
I wonder if Alex knows that scientists (or atheists) don’t think something came out of nothing. Surely, he knows this, right? Surely, he has read the countless science articles on the Internet that explain the existence of the universe? Surely, he has read books by actual scientists; men and women who have spent their lifetimes trying to understand our world? Surely, he doesn’t think Genesis is a science textbook?
I suggest Alex start here:
Video Link Yet there is still time for you to come back to the Lord!
How can Alex know this? Does he know whether I am one of the elect? Many Evangelicals have told me that I am an apostate or a reprobate — people beyond the saving grace of God. How could Alex possibly know the state of my soul? Maybe I am still a Christian, as many Independent Fundamentalist Baptists (IFB) allege; once-saved-always-saved, headed for Heaven regardless of Alex’s pronouncements about my eternal destiny. Imagine Alex having to spend eternity with me as his next-door neighbor. 🙂
Don’t you miss walking with Him? Talking to Him? Being blessed by Him?
NO, NO, and NO. I Corinthians 13:11 says: When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
I grew up, putting away childish thoughts about a magic man in the sky pulling the strings of my life. Instead of praying to a deity that doesn’t exist, I talk to real people, including myself. 🙂
The Christian life as you know is a battle, and the dark side has deceived you, please turn back to the Lord while you still can. He loves you and is waiting to welcome you back.
The Christian life is a battle because Evangelicals believe the words of the Bible are true; they believe the words of preachers are true. If they would but weigh the words of the Bible and the words of preachers in the balance, they would find them wanting.
While Alex doesn’t threaten me with Hell, the threat is implied: “turn back to the Lord while you can.” If you don’t, God is going to torture you in the Lake of Fire for eternity. Such threats don’t work with me. All they do is remind me that the Alexes of the world believe in a monstrous deity; one unworthy of my time or worship.
Alex can’t possibly know if God loves me or desires to welcome me back to the club. It always amuses me when Evangelicals say Jesus is waiting on me; that he is powerless to save me; that it is up to me to excercise my will and return to the cult. Has Alex not read what the Bible has about the sovereignty of God, God’s decrees, and the inabiity of man to save himself? My salvation rests solely in the hands of God. He knows where I live. He knows my cellphone number and email address. If you are reading this, Jesus, let’s talk. Please stop having Alex and his merry band of cultists contact me. Have you read the things they say, Jesus? Why would I ever want to buy a new Kirby vacuum? 🙂
Alex suggests that I have gone over to the dark side. Only in Evangelical Christianity is intellectual light darkness. Only in Evangelical Christianity is freedom bondage. There’s nothing I can do for Alex other than to pointedly and honestly respond to him. He arrogantly believes he is right. That’s what certainty does, it breeds arrogance. Until Alex can consider the possibility that he could be wrong; that his beliefs are not as sure and steadfast as he thinks they are, there’s not much I can do other than recommend that he read one or two of Dr. Bart Ehrman’s books on the history and nature of the Bible. Only then will there be a chink in his Evangelical armor; one through which a bit of knowledge and understanding will shine through.
Saved by Reason,
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.
One of the reasons the people at ABR or Associates for Biblical Research do not like us is that we challenge so many of their conclusions. They have gone to the point of specifically telling us to leave them alone.
But we do that with many Christians as we feel they have strayed away from biblical guidelines and have accepted secular science’s guidelines. One is the key scientific process called peer review.
Here is what ABR said in a newsletter that we receive:
Many of you have asked about the peer-review article connected with ABR’s discovery of a curse-tablet from Mt. Ebal in Israel. ABR began the peer review process from the outset of the discovery by establishing a team of experts from the academic community.
That work culminated in an article that was submitted to a scientific journal for peer review and publication. We continue to await the final results of that review and the release of the article for publication.
Thank you to everyone who has prayed about this and have sent words of encouragement. As soon as news is available, and the article is released we will be in communication with the ABR family!
This may work for secular articles and conclusions but for Christian articles and content, the unbelieving world does not have the superior view. Nor do they have an objective view of the Christian content.
The bias against Christian content is very strong and the latter is easily recognized even though there are single and blind peer review processes. In other words,, and this will apply to secular science content as well, if a researcher has an opposing view of the content, it is not going to be reviewed objectively or fairly.
….
For the Christian, how would they expect the unbelieving peer reviewers to have any knowledge of Christian content and be able to review it correctly? The Bible says that Christians are not to walk in the counsel of the ungodly.
So if the peer reviewers in this case are not Christian and they make the recommendation that changes be made to the content, the Christian cannot comply.
The Christian is supposed to produce the truth, not theory, predictions, etc. and most reviewers do not have the truth to help the Christian writer succeed in producing better quality content.
If Christians make a discovery, as is the case for ABR, how can the unbelieving process shed light on that discovery?
….
What we are pointing out is that Christians should not use the peer review process because it is NOT biblical. It is a secular science construct that has no foundation in the truth nor has the goal of providing the truth.
….
In their work, especially archaeological, scientific, anthropological, and so on, should be guided first by the Holy Spirit. They should be in obedience to the Biblical instructions that set us apart in all fields of research.
No Christian should be advertising their work as peer-reviewed approved. We do not seek the approval of other humans. We need the approval of God and know we have published the truth.
That is our goal as Jesus is called ‘the truth’ not the theory or explanation. We go for the truth as guided by the Spirit of Truth. There is no such thing as the spirit of theory or interpretation or explanation.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.
Note: For those unfamiliar with the term henotheism: henotheism is the worship of a single, supreme god that does not deny the existence or possible existence of other deities. (Wikipedia)
When we take the Bible seriously we discover a significant but unsuccessful cover-up about the gods we find in the Bible, who evolved over the centuries from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism.
Let’s look at Genesis 1. I’ll make 7 points about the first two verses, usually translated like this:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was without form and void, and darkness covered the surface of the abyss, and the Spirit of God was moving over the waters.
First, This is not describing the absolute beginning of time! The word “the” in verse one, “In the beginning” is not there.
Better Translations:
When God began to create the heavens and earth. (NRSV)
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth. (New American Bible)
Second, Genesis is not describing a creation out of nothing! Instead, it’s describing the making of something from pre-existing matter.
This is stated well by a translators note in New English Translation (NET):
Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter. The ‘heavenly/sky’ did not exist prior to the second day of creation, and the ‘earth/dry land’ did not exist as we know it, prior to the third day.
Genesis 1 begins ominously. What exists is a formless empty earth, hidden beneath a darkened watery chaos.
Third, Genesis 1 is not describing the origin of heaven where the saints go when they die! It’s describing the origin of the “skies” above us.
Fourth, Nor is it describing the origin of the planet earth, since it hadn’t been discovered yet! It’s describing the origin of “dry land”.
Fifth, Nor does the “Spirit of God” move over the waters! The word used can be translated “spirit” or “breath” or “wind” because the ancients believed wind came from the breath of their gods. It’s best translated as “the wind of God”. We no longer attribute the wind, or hurricanes, to God’s Spirit or breath.
Sixth, Who was making the world in Genesis chapter one?
It was Elohim, a plural word for “gods”. Dr. Randall Heskett: “Elohim, even after monotheism, still includes the heavenly hosts, who are part of the divine council.” Heskett is an Old Testament and Hebrew scholar. This includes “the sons of god” (Job 38:7). Elohim says, “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26), which includes these celestial beings. More on Elohim directly below.
Seventh, The word “abyss” is misleading, since what is being described in Genesis 1:2 is not just vastly deep and darkened waters. It’s describing a primordial “chaos” which is being manipulated and maintained by mischievous chaos gods! More on chaos gods after we first look at Elohim.
So here is a better translation of Genesis 1:1-2:
Elohimmade the skies and the dry land, beginning with landthat was without form and void, with darkness covering the surface of the chaos, with the wind of Elohim moving over the waters.” The original grammar is a bit difficult to translate. If nothing else, consider this a slightly interpretative translation using corrected wording.
I could use the word “God” instead of Elohim since the verbs indicate a singular male God. (i.e., “God he said ‘Let there be Light…’”). It’s just that it’s more complicated than that. Dr. Heskett suggested “In the beginning, when the henotheistic god—who became a monotheistic god but kept his henotheistic name—created the heavens and earth.” He adds, “elohim is the resonance of henotheism, before the move to monotheism.”
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.
This is the latest installment in the Songs of Sacrilege series. This is a series that I would like readers to help me with. If you know of a song that is irreverent towards religion, makes fun of religion, pokes fun at sincerely held religious beliefs, or challenges the firmly held religious beliefs of others, please send me an email.
Today’s Song of Sacrilege is Need a Favor by Jelly Roll.
only talk to God, when I need a favor And I only pray, when I ain’t got a prayer So, who the hell am I? Who the hell am I, to expect a savior? Oh-oh-ohh If I only talk to God, when I need a favor? But God, I need a favor
I know Amazing Grace But, I ain’t been livin’ them words Swear, I spend more Sundays Drunk off my ass, than I have in church Hardcover King James Only been savin’ dust, on the nightstand And I don’t know what to say By the time I fold my hands
I only talk to God, when I need a favor And I only pray, when I ain’t got a prayer So, who the hell am I? Who the hell am I, to expect a savior? Oh-oh-ohh If I only talk to God, when I need a favor? But God, I need a favor Amen, amen
Yeah, I owe you more than one And, beggars can’t be choosers But, I’ll pay for all I’ve done Just, please, don’t let me lose her
I only talk to God, when I need a favor And I only pray, when I ain’t got a prayer So, who the hell am I? Who the hell am I, to expect a savior? Oh-oh-ohh If I only talk to God, when I need a favor? But God, I need a favor Amen, amen Amen, amen
Hangin’ in there, just barely Throwin’ up prayers, like Hail Mary’s If You’re still there, Lord spare me Oh my God, oh my God, Hail Mary
Hangin’ in there, just barely Throwin’ up prayers, like Hail Mary’s If You’re still there, Lord spare me Oh my God, oh my God, Hail Mary
I only talk to God, when I need a favor And I only pray, when I ain’t got a prayer So, tell me, who the hell am I to expect a savior? When I only talk to God, if I need a favor? God, I need a favor Amen God, I need a favor, whoa Amen
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.
My use of transgendered pronouns was not a mistake; it was sin.
Public sin requires public repentance, not course correction.
I have publicly sinned on the issue of transgender pronouns, which I have carelessly used in books and articles.
I have publicly sinned by advocating for the use of transgender pronouns in interviews and public Q&As.
Why did I do this? I have a bunch of lame and backside-covering excuses. Here are a few. It was a carry-over from my gay activist days. I wanted to meet everyone where they were and do nothing to provoke insult.
When the Supreme Court decided in favor of gay marriage, the danger of my position started to come into focus. The codification of gay marriage and LGBTQ+ civil rights launched a collision course between LGBTQ+ and the Christian faith.
….
Is LGBTQ+ a normal option in the ever-expanding menu of sexual orientation and gender identity, needing a little Jesus to aid human flourishing? Or does LGBTQ+ come from Satan as a reflection of the world, the flesh, and the devil? Is it part of God’s creational design or rebellion against the creation ordinance? It’s one or the other because the Christian faith is inherently binary, not non-binary.
….
How is using transgender pronouns sinful, you might ask?
Using transgendered pronouns is a sin against the ninth commandment and encourages people to sin against the tenth commandment.
Using transgendered pronouns is a sin against the creation ordinance.
Using transgendered pronouns is a sin against image-bearing.
Using transgendered pronouns discourages a believer’s progressive sanctification and falsifies the gospel.
Using transgendered pronouns cheapens redemption, and it tramples on the blood of Christ.
Using transgendered pronouns fails to love my neighbor as myself.
Using transgendered pronouns fails to offer genuine Christian hospitality and instead yields the definition of hospitality to liberal communitarianism, identity politics, and “human flourishing.”
Using transgendered pronouns isn’t a sin because the times have changed, and therefore, using transgendered pronouns isn’t sinful today but a morally acceptable option in 2012. Sin is sin. The Bible defines this as sin. Sin does not lose its evil because of our good intentions or the personal sensibilities of others. Changing cultural forces can bring sin into fresh light (as the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision did for me). But a renewed focus is no excuse for sin and no dodge for repentance, not for a real Christian.
I repent.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.
What drives the Republican Party? What is the singular tool used by Republican politicians to raise money and drive voters to the polls? One word: fear. Spend time listening to Donald Trump, Fox News, ONN, and NewsMax, and you will quickly learn that fear is the fuel that drives the right-wing engine.
Fear the Mexicans. Fear the Blacks. Fear LGBTQ people. Fear the atheists. Fear the secularists. Fear the Democrats. Fear the socialists. Fear Black Lives Matter. Fear ANTIFA. Fear China. Every night, right-wing media serves up that day’s boogeyman that must be feared; that must be slain by voting for the “right” kind of people; right meaning white, libertarian, heterosexual Christian politicians.
Republicans are not stupid. They know that their days are numbered. The United States is becoming browner and less religious by the day. It won’t be long before Whites are a minority race. It won’t be long before the nonreligious outnumber the largest American sect, evangelicalism. There’s coming a day when the eighty million people who don’t vote — many of whom are younger adults with progressive values — realize that they can effect immediate change by voting; that they have the power to put an end to the rule of anti-democratic, misogynistic, racist, and bigoted politicians.
Until that day comes, we must continue to combat Republican fearmongering with facts, passionate protests, and political activism. Unlike Republicans, we must not turn to violence to advance our cause. This battle is one that will be won with words and votes. We must not give in to fear, even when it seems there is no hope in sight.
Ohioans will have an opportunity in November to put an end to the immoral Republican war on women’s reproductive rights. Right now, signatures are being gathered to put this issue on the ballot. If you care about reproductive rights, access to abortion, and birth control, please sign one of the petitions that are circulating in our area. Don’t leave it for someone else to do.
I realize the Ohio Democratic Party has largely been ineffective and out of touch with Ohio voters. On the local level, I know the Party is dominated by old people; people who are often out of touch with younger voters. As an aged Democrat, I know we must do better to attract and engage younger voters, many of whom have progressive ideals. If we don’t, Republicans win.
Bruce Gerencser Ney, Ohio
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.
“The US is the most warlike nation in the history of the world.”
— Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter
Exporting wars, launching “color revolutions,” fomenting extremist ideologies, and promoting economic instability…the US has left countless trails of bloodshed and turmoil around the world.
….
“War is the American way of life,” said US historian Paul Atwood, noting that the US was born, grew, and became a superpower out of war, slavery, and human slaughter.
In its more than 240-year-long history since declaring independence on July 4, 1776, there have only been 16 years in which the US was not at war. From the end of World War II (WWII) to 2001, the US has initiated 201 of the 248 armed conflicts in 153 locations, accounting for over 80 percent of total wars fought. Since 2001, wars and military operations by the US have claimed more than 800,000 lives and displaced tens of millions of people.
Experts and observers reached by the Global Times said that the US, ignoring the objective reality of its own shambolic democratic record, instead attempts to use “democracy” as a pretext to wage war and as a cover for its numerous crimes such as causing humanitarian disasters and destroying sovereign order, is the real culprit threatening the world.
….
For a long time, the US war machine has rumbled across the world, leaving countries in disarray, and people’s livelihoods decimated.
The Korean War (1950-53) resulted in the deaths of more than 3 million civilians and approximately 3 million refugees. During the war, US forces strafed hordes of refugees due to fears that North Korean intelligence agents had infiltrated the refugees, and carried out notorious No Gun Ri and Sinchon Massacres resulting in the deaths of more than 30,000 innocent civilians.
The Vietnam War, which took place from the 1950s to the 1970s, was equally bloody and brutal. The Vietnamese government estimates that as many as two million civilians died in the war, many of whom were systematically slaughtered by US forces in the name of fighting Viet Cong communists.
Data show that US forces dropped more than three times as many bombs on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia as were dropped by all sides during WWII.
According to the New York Times, since the war officially ended in 1975, nearly 40,000 Vietnamese have been killed by land mines, cluster bombs, and other ordnances, and 67,000 have been maimed.
Worse still, 20 million gallons of Agent Orange which contained the deadly chemical dioxin, were dropped by the US army during the war, causing cancer or other diseases in much of the local population.
In the Middle East, the US’ flames of war also lasted for decades.
In 1991, US-led coalition forces attacked Iraq to start the Gulf War, directly leading to about 2,500 to 3,500 civilian deaths and the destruction of approximately 9,000 civilian homes in air strikes. The war-inflicted famine and damage to local infrastructure and medical facilities has caused a huge humanitarian crisis, even resulting in the deaths of about 500,000 children, according to United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimates.
In 2001, the US sent troops to Afghanistan in the name of fighting terrorism. The war has not only killed at least 100,000 civilians and led to 2 million people becoming refugees, but has also left the country with difficulties in rebuilding its economy and political system.
….
In 2003, the US invaded Iraq on trumped-up charges, despite widespread international opposition, resulting in an estimated 200,000 to 250,000 civilian deaths, of which more than 16,000 were directly caused by US forces.
The US-led coalition also extensively used depleted uranium bombs, cluster bombs, and white phosphorus bombs in Iraq, and did nothing to reduce harm to civilians, Sun Degang, professor and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Fudan University, told the Global Times.
The United Nations estimates that Iraq still has about 25 million landmines and other explosive ordnances that need to be removed today.
Since 2001, the US has declared at least 91,340 strikes, including operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, which may have directly killed at least 22,679 civilians and possibly as many as 48,308, according to a September report by a British investigative organization Airwars.
“War is one of the key means by which the US executes its foreign strategy and achieves global hegemony,” Li Haidong, a professor at the Institute of International Relations of China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times, noting that in the historical process of its rise, the US has always adhered to a militarization mentality and attached great importance to the joint machinations of military alliances in the diplomatic field, repeatedly relying on war to achieve the strategic need to consolidate the country’s sphere of influence.
“The US is the most warlike nation in the history of the world,” former US president Jimmy Carter once confessed. The Global Times found that, since WWII, almost all US presidents have waged or intervened in foreign wars during their terms of office, with a variety of reasons for waging wars.
Many countries believe that war is highly destructive and should be avoided, but in the US’ view, war can bring prosperity, and a war can sweep away the inertia of American society, thus keeping the US vital and dynamic, which is an inherent concept and tradition of the elite group formulated in the 240-year development history of the country, Li said.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. – Matthew 5:9
In a brilliant op-ed published in the New York Times, the Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi explained how China, with help from Iraq, was able to mediate and resolve the deeply-rooted conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, whereas the United States was in no position to do so after siding with the Saudi kingdom against Iran for decades. The title of Parsi’s article, “The U.S. Is Not an Indispensable Peacemaker,” refers to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s use of the term “indispensable nation” to describe the U.S. role in the post-Cold War world.
The irony in Parsi’s use of Albright’s term is that she generally used it to refer to U.S. war-making, not peacemaking. In 1998, Albright toured the Middle East and then the United States to rally support for President Clinton’s threat to bomb Iraq. After failing to win support in the Middle East, she wasconfronted by heckling and critical questions during a televised event at Ohio State University, and she appeared on the Today Show the next morning to respond to public opposition in a more controlled setting. Albright claimed, “if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see here the danger to all of us. I know that the American men and women in uniform are always prepared to sacrifice for freedom, democracy, and the American way of life.”
Albright’s readiness to take the sacrifices of American troops for granted had already got her into trouble when she famously asked General Colin Powell, “What’s the use of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Powell wrote in his memoirs, “I thought I would have an aneurysm.”
But Powell himself later caved to the neocons, or the “fucking crazies” as he called them in private, and dutifully read the lies they made up to try to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq to the UN Security Council in February 2003.
For the past 25 years, administrations of both parties have caved to the “crazies” at every turn. Albright and the neocons’ exceptionalist rhetoric, now standard fare across the U.S. political spectrum, leads the United States into conflicts all over the world, in an unequivocal, Manichean way that defines the side it supports as the side of good and the other side as evil, foreclosing any chance that the United States can later play the role of an impartial or credible mediator.
Today, this is true in the war in Yemen, where the U.S. chose to join a Saudi-led alliance that committed systematic war crimes, instead of remaining neutral and preserving its credibility as a potential mediator. It also applies, most notoriously, to the U.S. blank check for endless Israeli aggression against the Palestinians, which doom its mediation efforts to failure. For China, however, it is precisely its policy of neutrality that has enabled it to mediate a peace agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the same applies to the African Union’s successful peace negotiations in Ethiopia, and to Turkey’s promising mediation between Russia and Ukraine, which might have ended the slaughter in Ukraine in its first two months but for American and British determination to keep trying to pressure and weaken Russia.
But neutrality has become anathema to U.S. policymakers. George W. Bush’s threat, “You are either with us or against us,” has become an established, if unspoken, core assumption of 21st-century U.S. foreign policy. The response of the American public to the cognitive dissonance between our wrong assumptions about the world and the real world they keep colliding with has been to turn inward and embrace an ethos of individualism. This can range from New Age spiritual disengagement to a chauvinistic America First attitude. Whatever form it takes for each of us, it allows us to persuade ourselves that the distant rumble of bombs, albeit mostly American ones, is not our problem.
The U.S. corporate media has validated and increased our ignorance by drastically reducing foreign news coverage and turning TV news into a profit-driven echo chamber peopled by pundits in studios who seem to know even less about the world than the rest of us.
Most U.S. politicians now rise through the legal bribery system from local to state to national politics, and arrive in Washington knowing next to nothing about foreign policy. This leaves them as vulnerable as the public to neocon cliches like the ten or twelve packed into Albright’s vague justification for bombing Iraq: freedom, democracy, the American way of life, stand tall, the danger to all of us, we are America, indispensable nation, sacrifice, American men and women in uniform, and “we have to use force.”
Faced with such a solid wall of nationalistic drivel, Republicans and Democrats alike have left foreign policy firmly in the experienced but deadly hands of the neocons, who have brought the world only chaos and violence for 25 years.
All but the most principled progressive or libertarian members of Congress go along to get along with policies so at odds with the real world that they risk destroying it, whether by ever-escalating warfare or by suicidal inaction on the climate crisis and other real-world problems that we must cooperate with other countries to solve if we are to survive.
It is no wonder that Americans think the world’s problems are insoluble and that peace is unattainable, because our country has so totally abused its unipolar moment of global dominance to persuade us that that is the case. But these policies are choices, and there are alternatives, as China and other countries are dramatically demonstrating. President Lula da Silva of Brazil is proposing to form a “peace club” of peacemaking nations to mediate an end to the war in Ukraine, and this offers new hope for peace.
During his election campaign and his first year in office, President Biden repeatedly promised to usher in a new era of American diplomacy, after decades of war and record military spending. Zach Vertin, now a senior adviser to UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, wrote in 2020 that Biden’s effort to “rebuild a decimated State Department” should include setting up a “mediation support unit… staffed by experts whose sole mandate is to ensure our diplomats have the tools they need to succeed in waging peace.”
Biden’s meager response to this call from Vertin and others was finally unveiled in March 2022, after he dismissed Russia’s diplomatic initiatives and Russia invaded Ukraine. The State Department’s new Negotiations Support Unit consists of three junior staffers quartered within the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. This is the extent of Biden’s token commitment to peacemaking, as the barn door swings in the wind and the four horsemen of the apocalypse – War, Famine, Conquest and Death – run wild across the Earth.
As Zach Vertin wrote, “It is often assumed that mediation and negotiation are skills readily available to anyone engaged in politics or diplomacy, especially veteran diplomats and senior government appointees. But that is not the case: Professional mediation is a specialized, often highly technical, tradecraft in its own right.”
The mass destruction of war is also specialized and technical, and the United States now invests close to a trillion dollars per year in it. The appointment of three junior State Department staffers to try to make peace in a world threatened and intimidated by their own country’s trillion-dollar war machine only reaffirms that peace is not a priority for the U.S. government.
By contrast, the European Union created its Mediation Support Team in 2009 and now has 20 team members working with other teams from individual EU countries. The UN’s Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs has a staff of 4,500, spread all across the world.
The tragedy of American diplomacy today is that it is diplomacy for war, not for peace. The State Department’s top priorities are not to make peace, nor even to actually win wars, which the United States has failed to do since 1945, apart from the reconquest of small neocolonial outposts in Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait. Its actual priorities are to bully other countries to join U.S.-led war coalitions and buy U.S. weapons, to mute calls for peace in international fora, to enforce illegal and deadly coercive sanctions, and to manipulate other countries into sacrificing their people in U.S. proxy wars.
The result is to keep spreading violence and chaos across the world. If we want to stop our rulers from marching us toward nuclear war, climate catastrophe, and mass extinction, we had better take off our blinders and start insisting on policies that reflect our best instincts and our common interests, instead of the interests of the warmongers and merchants of death who profit from war.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.
