Several years ago, I followed and participated in a Facebook forum discussion about the move by Xperience Church (please see “We Accept Anyone No Matter What,” Local Evangelical Says) to an anchor store at the Northtowne Mall in Defiance, Ohio. The discussion was lively, to say the least. One common theme throughout the discussion was the need for Evangelical Christians to quote the Bible, either by itself or as proof for their assertions. This led, of course, to Evangelicals arguing amongst themselves about what this or that verse “really” meant. Just another day on Facebook, right?
Evangelicals enter public forums with several presuppositions:
The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God
The Bible is THE book above all other books
Every word in the Bible is true
The Bible is NEVER wrong
Doubting the Bible’s truthfulness is sin
The words attributed to Jesus in the gospels were actually spoken by him
The Bible presents a blueprint, manual, guideline for living
Armed with these “truths” about the Bible, Evangelicals wage war against anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. I am sure virtually every non-Evangelical reader of this blog has had a social media interaction with an Evangelical, and more likely than not, the discussion included the believer quoting the Bible. During the discussion about Xperience Church, one Evangelical took to preaching, complete with quoted Bible verses. When she said she was just engaging in friendly discussion, I replied, no, you are preaching. She responded, I only quoted one passage of Scripture. I replied, actually you quoted five Bible verses. She retorted, well most of them were paraphrases. While that was indeed true, for someone like me, it was easy to see that she was referencing specific Bible verses. In other words, she was preaching.
Evangelicals are encouraged to read, study, and memorize the Bible. Through Sunday services and various weekly meetings, Evangelical minds quickly become saturated with Bible verses. This saturation is so deep that Evangelicals often parrot Bible quotations without even knowing it. Taught that the Bible is the divine answer book for life, Evangelicals will often offer up this or that passage of Scriptures as THE answer to whatever is being discussed. No issue is beyond proof-texting. Sadly, Evangelicals think that by posting a “thus saith the Lord,” they are engaging in discussion, when in fact, they are little more than a parrot at the local pet store who repeats a handful of learned phrases.
Most Evangelicals fail to question or challenge the presuppositions their proof-texts are based upon. To quote my favorite Bible character, Lucifer, “Yea hath God said?” Is the Bible really the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God? Is the Bible really THE book above all other books? How can you be certain the Bible is NEVER wrong? How can you be certain the words attributed to Jesus are actually his? It is not enough to believe the Bible is a God-given supernatural book. Beliefs are not the same as facts or evidence. “Well, I believe these things by faith,” Evangelicals say. Fine, but why should I or anyone else accept what you are saying is true? If you cannot show that the Bible is what you say it is, why should any of us listen to a word you have to say? Personally, I am not willing to faith-it. I want facts, evidence, truth. Surely, Evangelicals “should” want the same.
I have been accused of being a Bart Ehrman fanboy. Maybe I am, or maybe, just maybe, his books are the single best way to disabuse Evangelicals of their beliefs about the Bible. If I can get an Evangelical to honestly and openly read several of Dr. Ehrman’s books, I know that it is likely that their sincerely-held beliefs about the Bible will crumble and crash to the ground. If Evangelicals truly seek “truth,” then they must be willing to lose their faith; or at the very least radically change their beliefs.
The Bible is not what Evangelicals claim it is. Educated Evangelical preachers know this, yet on Sundays they play make-believe, leading congregants to think that the Bible is the very words of God/Jesus. These preachers know this is a lie, but their identity and economic wellbeing are tied up in perpetuating this untruth Sunday after Sunday. They must not tell congregants the truth lest they find out the emperor has no clothes. Evangelical preachers know that if their charges question the purity and veracity of the Holy Bible, why, what’s next? Questions are the slippery slope that leads to liberalism and apostasy. For these preachers, better to lie than to cause people to lose their faith.
I was also troubled by your suggestion that I not share my beliefs with anyone. You told me my beliefs could cause others to lose their faith! Is the Christian faith so tenuous that one man can cause others to lose their faith? Surely, the Holy Spirit is far more powerful than Bruce (even if I am Bruce Almighty).
I am aware of the fact that my apostasy has troubled some people. If Bruce can walk away from the faith…how can any of us stand? I have no answer for this line of thinking. I am but one man . . . shall I live in denial of what I believe, of what I know to be true? Shall I say nothing when I am asked about the hope that lies within me? Christians are implored to share their faith at all times. Are agnostics and atheists not allowed to have the same freedom?
My ex-friend viewed my story as a threat to the faith of others. To protect them, he asked me to keep quiet about my loss of faith. In other words, he asked me to lie or deceive people. In his mind, protecting the flock was far more important than “truth.” So it is with the nature and history of the Bible. Evangelical preachers, out of fear of burning everything to the ground, shelter their congregants from “truth.” Better for them to go to Heaven blissfully unaware of the truth about the Bible than to risk them turning into Bruce Gerencser. In their minds, the end (Heaven) justifies the means.
Sadly, most Evangelical preachers act like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. Remember the dialog between Nicholson and Tom Cruise? Nicholson said, “you can’t handle the truth!” Is this not what Evangelical pastors say when they withhold the truth about the Bible from their congregations? Perhaps it is time for full disclosure, letting the chips fall where they may. Surely, the Christian God is able to protect his sheep from the wiles of an ex-Evangelical-preacher-turned-atheist or a book-writing professor. If he can’t, then perhaps it is time to question whether God is the all-powerful, all-knowing deity millions of American Evangelicals say he is. Perhaps, in the end, this God is just a character in a work of fiction.
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
This is the latest installment in The Voices of Atheism series. This is a series that I would like readers to help me with. Know of a good video that espouses atheism/agnosticism or challenges the claims of the Abrahamic religions? Please email me the name of the video or a link to it. I believe this series will be an excellent addition to The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser.
Thank you in advance for your help.
What follows is an interview of Dr. Bart Ehrman on why he is an agnostic atheist. Ehrman shares his journey from Evangelicalism to atheism. You will have to watch the video on YouTube. Playback on other websites has been disabled.
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
I recently stumbled upon a Dr. David Tee-like apologist by the name of Robert Clifton Robinson. What follows is a quote from one of the many articles he has written about New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman. Enjoy. 🙂
Bart Ehrman is considered by many as one of the world’s most preeminent New Testament scholars. The problem is that Ehrman doesn’t believe the New Testament is true, that God exists, or that the writers of the New Testament have told us the truth about Jesus. The problem with Bart Ehrman is that he rarely presents any evidence to support his suppositions and criticisms of the New Testament. [As someone who has read most of Ehrman’s popular books, I can confidently say that this is a bullshit claim.]
….
We might ask why a man would seek to obtain a Phd and become a New Testament scholar, if he doesn’t believe God exists in the first place? The answer is quite obvious. There is tremendous academic and financial recognition for anyone who claims to be a former evangelical Christian, and is now an atheist. [Really? I would love to see Robinson’s evidence for this claim. He sounds like a man who is jealous of Ehman’s fame and wealth. That said, I made $1,666,666.69 off this blog this year! Claiming to be an Evangelical-pastor-turned-Satanic-atheist sure has paid off for me.] Bart Ehrman achieved international acclaim and became a very wealthy man by assuming this role for himself.
If we conduct a personal examination of the persons who are held up as critical scholars, we learn that many are atheists who do not believe God exists, or that the Bible is true. It is not difficult to imagine why a person who doesn’t believe in God, would want to acquire an advanced education that would enable them to be recognized as a New Testament scholar. The adversaries of Jesus and His Gospel have used many tactics in order to try and impeach His death and resurrection.
….
There are many like Bart Ehrman who freely admit they are an atheist, and don’t believe the New Testament, while asking us to believe them when they assure us that the New Testament is not a reliable narrative of Jesus.
….
Although Ehrman defines himself as an atheist, it is unclear why he would seek to achieve a doctorate in Divinity only to use his education to refute and discredit Jesus. The entire point of gaining knowledge of the Bible is to be able to communicate the truth of who Jesus is to the world.
….
It would have been better that after Dr. Ehrman discovered he no longer believed in Christ, that he chose a different career. By remaining a New Testament Scholar and writing books that cause people to reject Jesus and lose their salvation, he has assigned himself to the same destiny as Judas Iscariot. [Judas was predestined to betray Jesus, so, using Robinson’s logic, Ehrman was predestined to become an atheist New Testament scholar. Want to blame someone? Blame God.]
In searching for further information about Robinson (particularly his educational background), I came across a sixteen-minute video by a former Evangelical named Ben. Ben, who comes from a similar background as mine (Pensacola Christian College, King James-only, IFB, Southern Baptist, etc.), has had some interaction with Robinson. I found his response to be, how shall I put it? Awesome. Hilarious. Snarky. As a man who has spent decades earning advanced degrees in snark — degrees that are every bit as real as Dr. David Tee’s doctorate — I found Ben’s takedown of Robinson to be top-shelf. I have added his site and channel to the list of people I follow. I hope you will do the same.
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Millions of Americans believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. This belief is the foundation of much of the nonsense spouted by Evangelical culture warriors and Republican politicians. In their minds, the Bible is written by God and is perfect in every way, including matters of science and history. Blinded by lifetimes of Fundamentalist indoctrination, they believe that no one has ever proved the Bible has mistakes, contradictions, or errors. The B-i-b-l-e, yes that’s the book for me. I stand alone on the Word of God, The B-i-b-l-e. BIBLE! Or so the popular Evangelical song goes anyway. No matter what other books say, if their words contradict the Bible, then they are wrong. God can never, ever be wrong, so that means the only book he ever wrote can’t be wrong either.
Those of us who are ex-Evangelicals turned atheists/agnostics/humanists/pagans/liberal Christians know how the belief that the Bible is inerrant negatively affects the ability to reason and think critically. What belief underpins creationism, flat-eartherism, hatred of LGBTQ people, and opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, premarital sex, birth control, family planning, socialism, gambling, drug use, alcohol drinking, women working outside of the home, women wearing pants, long hair on men, rock music, and Game of Thrones — shall I go on? Without people believing the Bible is some sort of infallible religious text, most of these “beliefs” turn into personal opinions. It is only when the Bible is vested with inerrant divine authority that it becomes a dangerous weapon in the hands of preachers and congregants alike.
Of course, the Bible is not inerrant, nor is it infallible. Whether one believes the Bible is inspired is a matter of faith, not fact, so this aspect of belief is beyond empirical inquiry. Several years ago Dr. Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar at the University of North Carolina, posted an article on whether the Bible has contradictions (behind paywall). Here are three of the four of contradictions Ehrman listed:
I start with one that may seem completely unimportant, but is, to me, a clear contradiction. In Mark 5:21-24 a man named Jairus approaches Jesus in distress. His daughter is “very ill.” He wants Jesus to come heal her so she doesn’t die. Jesus agrees to go, but before he can get to Jairus’s home, he is delayed by a woman who herself desperately needs to be healed (5:25-34). While Jesus is dealing with her – it takes a while – someone comes from Jairus’s house to tell him that it is too late, the girl has now died (5:35). Jesus comforts Jairus, goes, and raises her from the dead. Matthew also tells the story (Matthew 9:18-26). But in this case …Matthew also tells the story (Matthew 9:18-26). But in this case Jairus comes to Jesus to tell him that “My daughter has just now died” (9:18). He wants him to raise her from the dead. Jesus goes and do so.
So the contradiction: when Jairus comes to Jesus: does he want him to heal his sick daughter, who unfortunately dies before Jesus can get there? Or does Jairus come only after the girl is dead, wanting Jesus to raise her from the dead?
Of more importance, but a famous one. Matthew and Luke both give a genealogy of Jesus that is strictly patrilineal: father to son, going back for generations (Matthew 1:1-16 starting with Abraham and bringing the family line down to Joseph, Jesus’ alleged father; Luke 3:23-38 starting with Joseph and taking the family line the other direction, all the way past Abraham to Adam).
Question: Who was Joseph’s father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, and so on –all the way back to King David? Was it Jacob, Mathan, and Eleazar … (Matthew 1:15-16)? Or was it Heli, Matthat, and Levi… (Luke 3:23-24).
In considering the question, note: both genealogies are *explicit* that this is the line of Joseph (not, for example, Mary; or the brother of Joseph; or someone else. Joseph). And note, these are not simply alternative names for the same people: most of the names are *completely* different from one another, all the way back to David. That’s because in Matthew Joseph is the descendant of David’s son Solomon; in Luke he is the descendant of a different son, Nathan. Moreover, the genealogies are patrilineal – not traced through mothers but explicitly through fathers to sons.
More complicated. In Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth (Matthew 2:1-23), he is born in Bethlehem. Nothing indicates that his parents came from anywhere else to get there: there is no story here of a trip from Nazareth to register for a census only to find there was “no room in the inn.” They simply are in Bethlehem. When the wise men come to worship the child, the King of the Jews, Herod, learns of Jesus’ existence, and he sends the troops to kill him (2:16-18). Joseph is warned in a dream, and he takes Jesus and Mary and they travel, on foot, to Egypt, where they remain until Herod dies (2:13-15, 19-23). When they return home, though, they cannot return to Bethlehem (presumably their home, since there would be no other reason to ponder coming back there), and so relocate in Nazareth. In Luke’s account (Luke 2:1-39) Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth and they end up in Bethlehem because of a census in which “the entire world should be enrolled” (Luke 2:1). Mary is pregnant, full term, and happens to give birth while they are there. After Jesus is circumcised (2:21), and brought to the temple (2:22), they perform the sacrifice required for women who have given birth in order to return to ritual purity (2:24). This is to follow the law laid out in Leviticus 12:2-8; the sacrifice was to happen 33 days after the circumcision (so 40 days after birth). As soon as that is completed, they return straight to Nazareth (2:39).
There is no word in Luke about King Herod’s decision to have the child killed or of the flight of the holy family to Egypt. And so, the contradiction: if Luke is right that 40 days after Jesus’ birth, the family returned directly to Nazareth, how can Matthew be right that they instead went and stayed in Egypt until the death of Herod?
If you want to learn more about the text of the Bible and Christian church history, I encourage you to join Dr. Ehrman’s blog. The annual membership fee is $29.95, with all proceeds going to charity.
Remember, it only takes one error, contradiction, or mistake to bring the inerrancy house tumbling down. Most educated Evangelical pastors know that the Bible isn’t what they claim it is, yet Sunday after Sunday they stand before their congregations and say, THUS SAITH THE LORD! These liars for Jesus know they would be unemployed and the pews would be empty if congregants ever learned the truth about the Biblical text.
I have had a number of Evangelical preachers and laypeople come to this site, certain that their Bibles (and beliefs) were infallibly true. As I always do, I asked them to read several of Bart Ehrman’s books. There is no value is trying to engage zealots if they won’t, at least, look at the evidence for the claim that the Bible is NOT an inerrant, infallible text. Over the past fifteen years, I have only had one person read Dr. Ehrman’s books and still believe the Bible is inerrant. Everyone else was forced to admit that the Bible was not what Evangelicals claim it is. Sometimes, this resulted in loss of faith. Other times, people held on to their faith, but moved on to religious environments that valued intellectual inquiry and facts. Want to destroy the hold Christian Fundamentalism has on our country? Disabuse Evangelicals of the notion that the Bible is some sort of perfect text, different from all other books. Once Evangelicals see that the Bible is not what their preachers and teachers say it is, they will be forced to determine whether they can trust anything their leaders say.
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Evangelicals believe that the moment a sinner is saved, God, in the person of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost, comes into the born-again sinner’s life and lives — somewhere, no one can say for sure where — inside of that person. This is commonly called the “indwelling of the Spirit of God.” Every true Christian® is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 6:19 states that the bodies of Christians belong to God; that these bodies are the temple, the residence, of the Holy Ghost.
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
In Romans 8:7-10,13,14,16, the Apostle Paul says that Christians have the Spirit of God dwelling inside of them.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God…The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Those who do not have the Spirit’s indwelling are not Christian. How can someone know he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit? While Evangelicals tend to focus on right beliefs as evidence of salvation, Paul says that behavior is evidence of whether someone is led by the Spirit. Those who are in the flesh (unbelievers) cannot please God, but, according to Paul, Christians are “not in the flesh, but in the Spirit.” Paul speaks of death for those who live according to the flesh. True Christians® are to mortify (put to the death) the flesh. This mortification of the body brings life, both in the present and the afterlife.
Reflecting the Gnosticism found throughout the Bible, Paul tells the Church at Corinth that the things of God cannot be known apart from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost:
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:10-14)
The natural man (non-Christian) cannot understand the things of God. Supposedly, only Christians can understand and correctly interpret the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. The Bible is the only book ever written that cannot be understood just by reading it. Unbelievers, according to Evangelicals, have sin-darkened hearts and are in bondage to the ruler of this earth, the prince and power of the air, Satan. According to the Bible, non-Christians are deaf and blind to Biblical truth. No unbeliever can understand the Bible without first being saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman tackles unbelievers not understanding the Bible in a post titled Does a Person Need the Holy Spirit to Interpret the Bible?
I’ve never found it at all convincing that a person needs the Holy Spirit in order to interpret the Bible. As an agnostic, of course, I don’t believe in the Holy Spirit (since I don’t believe in God). But even when I did believe in the Holy Spirit, I thought that it was silly to claim that a person could not interpret the Bible correctly without the Spirit – for a couple of reasons that have always struck me as virtually irrefutable.
The first is this: if it’s true that the Holy Spirit is the one who provides the correct interpretation of Scripture, then why is it that so many people who claim to have the Holy Spirit cannot agree on what the Bible means? This is simply an empirical fact that is not open to dispute. Different Christian interpreters of the Bible, all of them claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit based on humble prayer, come away with diametrically opposed interpretations of major important passages, of minor less important passages, and of major biblical themes and doctrines – just about everything.
I saw this vividly when I was myself a fundamentalist Christian: clear and hard-core different interpretations of major issues, by devout and spiritual Christians, based on how the New Testament was being read. As a poignant example: I had come out of a charismatic background where we believed that “speaking in tongues” was the clearest manifestation of God’s spirit, based on our reading of Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. At Moody Bible Institute, on the other hand, we were taught that charismatic activity, and especially the speaking in tongues, was a demonic activity and that the charismatic group from which I had come was misinterpreting these passages. Well, which is it? Both groups claimed to be representing the views of the Holy Spirit that had guided their reading of Scripture.
I could point to passage after passage after passage where well-meaning and clear headed Christians who claim to be given their understanding by the Spirit provide two, three, or four contradictory interpretations of the passage. So what is the evidence that the Spirit assists in interpretation?
The second reason I’ve never bought this is that as a complete agnostic who does not believe in the Holy Spirit, I have studied passages and come to the very same conclusions as those who claim the Spirit has told them what the passages mean. If I “need” the Holy Spirit to interpret these passages, why have I interpreted them in the same way that people who have the Holy Spirit has interpreted them? Seems like I’ve done all right without the Spirit.
And there’s a reason for that. Whatever you think about God, the Holy Spirit, or the Bible – the Bible is written in human languages following human rules of spelling and grammar and coming out of completely human situations lived in by human authors. To interpret the Bible you need to be a human, one who can read words and understand sentences. Even if the Bible is inspired, it is inspired in human words and is, therefore, susceptible of human understanding. My view is that the Spirit does not contribute to the process.
Ehrman is quite right when he says that Christian confusion over exactly what the Bible says belies the notion that the Holy Spirit lives inside Evangelicals, acting as some sort of divine GPS or search engine. According to many Evangelicals, all they need to do is say, Lord lead me/show me the way, and BOOM! their lives follow the exact course mapped out by the Holy Spirit. The same goes for understanding the Bible. Evangelicals metaphorically type their questions into God’s Google app, and BOOM! the Holy Ghost leads them to the exact book/chapter/verse answer. Awesome, right? No need to think. Just “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you,” with God promising “every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” (Matthew 7:7,8)
If the Holy Spirit lives inside EVERY believer, why can’t Christians even agree on the basics: salvation, baptism, communion, and whether masturbation is a sin. There are thousands of Christian sects, each guided by the Holy Spirit, each believing that their Jesus is the way, truth, and life and their little merry band of believers is the holder of the faith once delivered to the saints. Christianity might — I say might — be taken more seriously by non-Christians if sects/churches/pastors all spoke with one voice. But, they don’t. Instead, Christianity is rife with internecine warfare, with sects and churches competing with each other over money — err — I mean souls. Jesus said that the world would know that people were his followers by their love for one another. Hey Christians . . . how’s that loving one another thing working out?
Supposedly, being indwelt by the Holy Ghost gives Christians the requisite power necessary to live above sin (transgression of the law of God) and the world. I say supposedly, because from my seat in the atheist pew, I don’t see any difference between Christians and non-Christians. Am I missing something here, Christians? If all the above is true, if God the Holy Spirit, really does live inside of you and is your teacher and guide, why is it that Christians don’t live any differently from unbelievers? If, as John says, in 1 John 2:3,4,15, 29, 3:6:
….we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him…. Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him….ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him….whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
Can anyone really say that he or she is a Christian? 1 John 3:8 states that anyone who sins is of the devil! Can someone be a Christian AND a child of the devil? At this point, Evangelical readers likely will say, Bruce, Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven. Christians are works in progress. Wait a minute, what about all the verses mentioned above? What about what 1 John 3:10 says, “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” John says the difference between God’s children and Satan’s children is behavior. The writer of the book of Matthew says in chapter 25 that on judgment day it will be what people did and did not do that will determine where they spend eternity.
I am sure that I will hear from Evangelicals who will castigate me for “wrongly” interpreting the Bible. After all, I don’t have the Holy Spirit living inside of me, so how can I possibly tell others what the Bible says and means? Well, I just did. So much for needing the Holy Ghost to know what the Bible says. The aforementioned verses aren’t ambiguous, so what conclusions should unbelievers come to when observing how Evangelicals live their day-to-day lives? At best, we can conclude that Christians are, in every way, just like unbelievers; that if the Holy Spirit lives inside of believers, he is fast asleep or on vacation; that Christianity has no moral or ethical authority, given that Christians themselves can’t practice what they preach.
If you are an Evangelical, think about the notion that God lives inside of you; that the Bible is some sort of Gnostic book that can’t be understood by six-sevenths of the human race; that only the saved understand what the Bible teaches. Do you REALLY believe these things? Do you really believe that the moment I left Christianity that I lost the ability to understand the teachings of the Bible; that decades of reading and study disappeared from my memory, never to be remembered again? In what other realm do we see this kind of thinking?
Sadly, Evangelicals, unlike liberal and progressive Christians, stubbornly hold on to their literalistic interpretations of the Bible — interpretations that force them to endorse, support, and defend silly beliefs, no matter how stupid and ignorant it makes them look. There is little that any of us can do to reach people who think they know the punch line for the biggest joke in history. While mere worldlings feast on the plethora of literature available today, Evangelicals scour the pages of a book deemed inexhaustible, hoping to find Bronze age wisdom for twenty-first-century living.
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Evangelical number one says to an unbeliever, you need to read the Bible. Within its pages you will find the good news of the gospel. Through this message, you will find the forgiveness of sins and life eternal — that is, if God decrees it to be so and you haven’t committed the unpardonable sin.
Evangelical number two says to an unbeliever, the natural (non-Christian) people cannot understand the things of God (the Bible) because they are spiritually discerned. Since non-Christians are dead in trespasses and sins and the Holy Spirit does not live inside them, they cannot understand the Bible. Unless God gives non-Christians ears to hear and eyes to see, they are unable to discern and comprehend the only supernatural book ever written, the Protestant Christian Bible.
Confused? How about I let Leslie, a Fundamentalist Christian blogger, explain this to all of us unregenerate, unsaved enemies of God:
Have you ever tried to talk to someone about the Gospel, just to have them declare that the Bible is simply another book? Where do you go with this? …. But the question (and answer) that impacted me most was this one: What do you do when an unbeliever says the Bible is just like any other book and full of errors and contradictions?
This does seem to be a very relevant question in this day and age, does it not? The authority of scripture has been so undermined that few people believe the Bible to be the very Word of God anymore.
Dr. John) MacArthur gave a two-part answer to this question that I found incredibly encouraging. I am conveying his general thoughts (not his word for word answer) and then sharing some of my thoughts about what he said.
First, we need to stop expecting them to believe the Bible is the Word of God. Of course, they don’t. And Scripture tells us that they can’t until God unveils their eyes and shines His light on their hearts.
You may be thinking– Wait! You mean it’s not up to us to shine the light on to their hearts?
We can present it. We can share it. We can try to persuade them. But only God can give the light of His knowledge to a searching heart. …. Unbelievers can’t understand until God opens their eyes. It’s impossible.
Secondly, if someone is challenging us about the Bible, he suggested that we ask them one simple question: Have you read the Bible?
If they say no, then suggest to them that this is a very strong statement to make about a book they’ve never read. If they decide to do their own study at that point, then let the Bible speak for itself.
Isn’t that a wonderful thought?
Hebrews 4:12 confirms this: For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
The Bible will speak for itself to the unregenerate, seeking heart. God may use us to help someone to find salvation but He doesn’t need us.
According to Leslie, non-Christians cannot understand the Bible. No matter how much they read the Good Book, unless God gives them understanding, its meaning will remain beyond their ability to comprehend and understand. Yet, Leslie gives a completely different answer (to be fair, she is parroting Fundamentalist John MacArthur) when saying how Christians should handle non-Christians who say the Bible is filled with contradictions. Have you read the Bible? she suggests saying to atheists and unbelievers. Leslie assumes most non-Christians haven’t read the Bible, not knowing that many unbelievers know the Bible quite well and have likely read and studied it more than most Evangelicals. That doesn’t matter of course. Why? Remember, non-Christians have no capacity to understand the Bible. But wait, didn’t Leslie say they should read it? Now you are catching on . . . around and around the mulberry bush we go.
What Leslie, John MacArthur, and a cast of millions believe is that to understand the Bible non-Christians need some sort of Gnostic superpower. Without this supernatural ability to see and understand what the words of the Bible mean, it becomes just another book gathering dust on the bookshelf. So what about people such as myself, Robert M. Price, Dan Barker, John Loftus, and Bart Ehrman? All of us spent years reading and studying the Bible, allowing God to teach us the “real” meanings of its words. Yet, now that we no longer believe, does this mean that POOF! — all our knowledge has disappeared? I wonder if Evangelicals understand how ludicrous and silly it sounds when they suggest that non-Christians can’t understand the Bible. The Bible — truth be told — is not that complicated. Having read it from cover to cover numerous times, I know what it says. After studying it for thousands of hours and preaching over 4,000 sermons, I think I can safely say I know the Bible (from an Evangelical perspective). I think I am more than ready to test out of this class and move on to hard books such as George R.R. Martin’s Games of Thrones.
Leslie quotes Hebrews 4:12:
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Based on this verse, Leslie concludes that the Bible has some sort of magic power, a living book that is able to divine human thought and intent. I wonder, is this just for Christians? I just went to the bookshelf and retrieved my trusty Cambridge, leather-bound King James Version of the Holy Bible. After removing several inches of dust, I held my Bible on the side of my head and waited for it speak. Tell me, oh Bible, what am I thinking? What are my intentions? I waited and waited, yet nothing happened. Hmm . . . I wonder, am I doing it wrong? Then it dawned on me . . . Leslie is misinterpreting the Bible. Up from the recesses of my sin-addled mind came the memory of how this verse is often misinterpreted by Evangelical parishioners and pastors alike.
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
You see, the word of God is a HE, a HE that sees all things. This word of God is not the Bible, it is likely JESUS (see John 1). It is Jesus (or the Holy Spirit) who discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. The Bible? It is a book that is no different from any other book. Written by numerous men — many of them unknown — over hundreds of years, the Bible is a compilation of religious, historical, and poetic writings. It is not, in any way, some sort of magical book that contains messages that can only be unlocked by those who have the special Evangelical decoder ring. Containing sixty-six books, the Bible is littered with contradictions and internal inconsistencies. All the Evangelical parlor tricks in the world can’t harmonize its words. Numerous Gods, numerous salvation plans, and numerous contradictory interpretations await those who dare to read its pages. Evangelicals such as Leslie will deny what I have written, oblivious to the true nature of the Biblical text. Filled with faith, God’s chosen ones thumb their noses at academics who dare suggest that the Bible is not what Evangelicals claim it is. In the aforementioned quote, Leslie told her readers to ask those who say the Bible has contradictions if they have ever read it. Yes, Leslie, we have. Perhaps the real question is whether Leslie has read any books by authors such as Bart Ehrman, Robert M. Price, or John Loftus, or a host of other non-believing scholars. These men were all, at one time, Evangelicals. Now they are atheists. I wonder if Leslie has studied the history of Christianity or how the Bible came to be? My money is on Leslie — if she has done any study at all — not having read any books by authors outside of the narrow Fundamentalist constraints of the Evangelical box.
Often, when Evangelicals say they have studied these issues, what they really mean is that they have read apologetic books written by Evangelical authors. Warned of the dangers that await those who read authors such as Bart Ehrman, Evangelicals only read books that are on the Approved Evangelical Authors list. And here’s what many non-Christians don’t know. Most Evangelicals NEVER read theologically oriented books. In fact, most of them rarely read the Bible. How then do Evangelicals come to know what they believe? Simple. Every Sunday at 11:00 AM they report to Bible Knowledge Class 101, also known as Sunday Morning worship. While Evangelicals are encouraged to bring their Bibles to church so they can follow along as their pastors teach them the Bible, once the service is over, these Bibles will be returned to storage, only to retrieved the following Sunday. When Evangelicals are asked about what THEY believe, most often what they reply with is what their pastor believes. He is the arbiter and purveyor of what is true. And like lambs to the slaughter, church members follow along. Yet, according to Leslie, these illiterate Evangelicals know more about the Bible than Evangelicals-turned-atheists who spent a lifetime parsing the Greek and divining every word of its text. Only in the Christian church does this kind of thinking exist. Imagine someone saying that only a person who lived at Hogwarts could “really” understand the Harry Potter books. Why non-Hogwarts-living Potterite readers would laugh at such a thought. As with all literature, anyone willing to read and study the Bible can understand its teachings.
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Several days ago, I received an email from an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) zealot named Noah Zielke. Zielke ignored my requests on the Contact Page and emailed me anyway. What follows is my response to him. Best I can tell, Zielke is a computer science major at the University of Alabama. I do give him credit for reading some of my autobiographical material, along with a few posts about the IFB church movement.
I publicly responded to Zielke’s email with a post titled IFB Zealot Says He’s Surprised God Hasn’t Killed Me Yet — Part One. As I expected, Zielke responded to my post with another email. What follows is the text of his email and my indented and italicized response.
Thanks for the response, I have only a few points to reply:
Yes, you ignored or disregarded pretty much everything I said.
In regard to: “It’s evident your momma didn’t raise you right, that you lack basic decency and respect for other people. This is a common trait among IFB Christians. What kind of person goes around calling people he disagrees with “stupid”?”
I assume you are being a bit tongue-in-cheek having read your other content, but if not, this is pretty hypocritical. One of your flagship articles is practically a treatise on how much you hate evangelicals, but you abstract this by making it seem like you just hate the “Jesus” that we have apparently constructed (which you just use as an effigy for us).
No, I was not being tongue-in-cheek. Going around calling people who disagree with you “stupid” is indecent and disrespectful. Outside of Donald Trump, you won’t find me saying anywhere that I hate anyone. Sorry, hating people is not in my DNA. Oh, it was at one time. Love what God loves, hate what God hates. And since God hates sinners, Christians should too. Such thinking caused untold harm to self and others.
I am a plain-spoken person. People who “misunderstand” my words typically do so on purpose — as you are doing here. If I “hated” someone, the readers of this blog would know it.
You reference the post Why I Hate Jesus in your thinly veiled attempt to smear my character. You are certainly not the first nor the last person to attempt to do so. Rather than take what I wrote at face value, you choose instead to attribute ulterior motives, and in doing so, attack my character.
The aforementioned post is difficult for Fundamentalists, who are Bible literalists, to parse. Such people have a hard time understanding metaphors. I don’t hate Jesus — he’s dead. I don’t hate people — including Evangelicals. So what do I mean when I say in this post I hate Jesus? As you discerned and then quickly turned it into a personal attack, the “Why I Hate Jesus” post is about Evangelical beliefs — not flesh and blood Evangelicals. It is Evangelical beliefs I hate, not Christians themselves.
I make no apology for my opposition to Evangelical beliefs and practices. And let me be clear here, I vehemently oppose Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) beliefs. The IFB church movement is a cult that causes untold heartache and pain. IFB churches and colleges are dying on the vine. I hope I am alive when the movement draws its last breath. I would love to be the one holding a pillow over the IFB movement’s face, ending its reign of psychological (and at times, physical) harm. Do I “hate” IFB preachers and church members? Of course not. I have family members who are IFB preachers, evangelists, and missionaries. I regularly interact with IFB adherents, hoping through my writing and private emails to help them see that one can be a Christian without buying into the violence and harm peddled by IFB churches and pastors.
My goal has never been to evangelize for atheism. That said, more than a few people have said that my writing was instrumental in their deconversion. Am I grateful for this? Absolutely. The goal of any writer is to persuade and help people. If I play some small part in helping people break free from the pernicious chains of Fundamentalism, I’m fine with that.
You recommend a book in which Jesus is called a “Stupid, Working-Class Hick from Galilee” (End of Christianity Ch. 2, John Loftus) among other things. Your general tone is condescension (occasionally love and understanding, it depends on the article).
John Loftus is an acquaintance of mine. I recommend John’s books because I think doubting Evangelicals will find his writing helpful. This doesn’t mean that I agree with everything John writes or says. I will leave it to John to defend his word choices.
You will find all sorts of atheists using the word stupid. I don’t use the word when referencing people — not in a literalist sense anyway. Have I ever said someone is stupid or ignorant? Sure. But my focus is always on their beliefs, not their person. I think you hold stupid, ignorant beliefs. That doesn’t mean, however, that I think YOU are stupid. Indoctrinated? Ill-informed? Lacking knowledge? Sure. But, not “stupid.”
Basically, it seems like you delight in pushing people to anger by crudely attacking everything that they believe, and then when they respond you act like an innocent do-gooder (like a big brother punching his younger brother and then acting innocent when the younger brother retaliates).
There ya go again with the attacks on my character. You just can’t help yourself. Again, I attribute this to your IFB upbringing. It’s just part of your metaphorical DNA.
I do two things on this blog: tell my story and critique Evangelical Christianity. I am pointed and direct. I have never been one to mince words. This is who I am. Don’t like it? Don’t read my writing. That thousands and thousands of people read my writing suggests that most readers connect with and appreciate what I have to say — including some Evangelical Christians.
I am just one man with a story to tell. If what I say provokes Christians to anger, what does that say about them and their faith?
I find it interesting, Noah, that you haven’t made one attempt to challenge my beliefs or conclusions. Why is that? Instead, you go after my character, assigning false motives to my work. Instead of accepting my story at face value, you have built in your mind a straw-man Bruce Gerencser. Doing so, allows you to dismiss what I say out of hand.
I think that if everyone is honest, they subconsciously believe that people who disagree with them on major issues are stupid, meaning at the very least ignorant and ininformed [sic], or are viewing facts from a misgiven or dishonest perspective. I believe that in this sense, you certainly, and probably your readers, believe that I’m “stupid”, you are just being a hypocrite who is afraid to say so.
Yes, I think you are ignorant and uninformed. Nothing you have said so far changes my opinion of your words. However, as I stated above, I do not think people are “stupid” in the sense you are using the word.
All you are telling me in this paragraph is how you perceive people who hold different beliefs from yours. It seems, then, you are the one who needs to change his behavior, not I.
What I sent you was quite literally the thoughts that crossed my mind as I read your blog. I figured based on what you write that you enjoy getting inside the mind of an evangelical.
I grew up in the Christian church and pastored Evangelical churches for 25 years. I daily monitor over 100 Evangelical blogs and websites. Over the last fourteen years I have received thousands and thousands of emails, social media messages, and blog comments from Evangelicals; from IFB adherents; from countless Noah Zielkes. I know exactly what is (and isn’t) in the minds of Evangelicals. You knew this, ignored my contact form requests, and emailed me anyway — not to interact with me, but to tell me what you think about me.
I’ve read bits and pieces of Bart Ehrman’s books, and I reject all of his conclusions because I firstly reject his premises and general approach. He portrays well-known and oft-responded-to facts about the Biblical text as startling revelations that shake the foundation of Christianity!. He portrays his and his colleagues’ hare-brained theories as established, unquestionable fact. He’s just the latest hype-job in a long line of critics who have their roots in German higher criticism from the 19th century.
So, you haven’t actually read any of Dr. Bart Ehrman’s books, yet you feel qualified to critique his writing and dismiss it out of hand? You do know reading blog posts, book reviews, and forum posts is not the same as actually reading his books, right? Do your homework, Noah, and then we will talk.
I noticed you commented on a website devoted to Peter Ruckman and King James-onlyism. Do you really believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God? Do you really believe the KJV is without error? Surely you know such a belief cannot be rationally sustained; that such a belief collapses if I can show one “error” in the text? Inerrancy, in general, is a house of cards built upon a rotting foundation. (I once was KJV-only, so I am quite knowledgeable about the belief, along with its various strains, including Ruckmanism.) I would be more than happy to interact with you on this issue.
A Sinner Saved by Reason,
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Since my last post about “Dr. David Tee (David Thiessen, Theology Archeology, TEWSNBN), “Dr.” David Tee Continues to Obsess Over My Writing, the defender of Fundamentalist Christianity from a dank, poorly lit basement somewhere in the Phillipines has written six more posts that are either about me directly or mention me in passing.
Typically, I ignore Tee’s stalker-like obsession with me, but his next-to-last post about me (and atheists in general), Are Evangelicals Responsible for the Culture Wars? demands some sort of response from me. My response is indented and italicized. All spelling and grammar in the original.
The answer according to BG [ Tee is too lazy to type out my name] and other atheists seems to be a resounding ‘yes’. Just read his words as BG speaks for himself and other atheists:
“It seems that Donald can’t or won’t understand why atheists might want to challenge Evangelical beliefs, especially since those beliefs directly affect and harm unbelievers.”
This concept is held by atheists world wide. Instead of taking the blame for their own actions, it is easier and more convenient to blame someone else. The easiest target is the Evangelical or the RCC or some other protestant religion that goes against atheist ideals.
The history of the modern culture war is clear. One need only look at the history of the Moral Majority and other Evangelical groups who followed in their steps to see the people and beliefs behind the current iteration of the “culture war.” The same can be said of conservatives within Roman Catholicism and Mormonism. (Many other culture wars have been fought throughout America’s history — prohibition comes to mind, as does the pro-slavery movement. I am specifically talking about the post-Roe vs. Wade culture war.)
What behaviors, exactly, do atheists refuse to take responsibility for? Besides, there’s no such thing as “atheism” or the “religion of atheism.” Wikipedia defines atheism this way:
“Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.”
Atheists are individuals. There’s no sect or church atheists belong to. Each atheist simply denies the existence of deities. That’s it.
There’s also no such thing as “atheist ideals.” Aside from their common belief about the non-existence of deities, atheists have all sorts of political and social beliefs. Sure, many atheists are humanists, holding liberal/progressive ideas. Others, however, are card-carrying conservatives, many of whom voted for Donald Trump.
It should go without saying that I do NOT represent all atheists. The only person I represent is Bruce Gerencser. Do many of the readers of this blog generally agree with me? Sure. But, more than a few of my atheist readers wish I wouldn’t write about politics. To suggest that I am representative of a typical atheist is not only untrue, but dishonest.
BG repeats himself and makes his accusation even clearer: “Evangelicals are the primary force behind the culture war.”
Then he goes on to list the ‘crimes’ [I do not use the word “crimes” in my post.] being committed by Evangelicals that not only supposedly started this culture war but fuels [sic] it. Those are strong words to hurl against a group of people who look to help everyone in the nation in which they live.
“I spent significant time in my first response to Donald explaining to him why I do what I do. It seems that Donald can’t or won’t understand why atheists might want to challenge Evangelical beliefs, especially since those beliefs directly affect and harm unbelievers. My God, we need only to look at the January 6 insurrection or the election of Donald Trump to see how Evangelicals harm others. Evangelicals are the primary force behind the culture war. These warriors for Jesus want to criminalize abortion, outlaw same-sex marriage, marginalize LGBTQ people, and establish a Christian theocracy where the Bible is the law of the land. These things materially cause harm, so it would be irresponsible for me not to speak out on these (and other) issues. I suspect Donald wants the freedom to do the same. Again, I ask why does Donald want privileges for Evangelicals that he is unwilling to grant to atheists, agnostics, humanists, pagans, and other unbelievers?”
Tee asserts that Evangelicals “look to help everyone in the nation in which they live.” Really? I mean, REALLY? Everywhere I look, I see Evangelicals who want to cause harm to others: women, LGBTQ people, immigrants, atheists, and Muslims to name a few. What religious sect is behind the current war against masks and vaccinations? What religious sect was front and center during the January 6, 2021 insurrection? What religious sect is threatening violence toward people who refuse to bow to their theocratic demands? What religious sect has forsaken following after Jesus for fascism? (I am, of course, speaking generally. I am well aware of the fact that there are Evangelicals who take seriously the teachings of Christ and love their neighbors as themselves. They are, however, the exception to the rule.)
Evangelicals are an existential threat to our Republic. Left to their own devices, blood will be shed, people will die, and the Christian flag will stand proud and tall above the U.S. flag at the Capitol. In their minds, there is no king but Jesus and no law but the Bible.
But when you look at the crimes Evangelicals are supposed to be guilty of it really makes you wonder where the minds of atheists are at. How is it wrong to stop abortion and make that act of murder illegal?
How is making abortion illegal a far worse crime than killing innocent people? If a Christian stops a man from killing a woman on the street he is praised, yet when it comes to protecting unborn children from their parents somehow that act of sparing a life is worse than the atrocities committed by Stalin, Mao, and Hitler put together.
Abortion is not murder, need I say more? Eighty-eight percent of abortions take place in the first trimester — sixty-five percent in the first eight weeks. If Tee cannot or will not see the difference between a zygote and a child, I don’t know what to tell him.
Here are twenty-five questions I have for anti-abortionists, also known as forced-birthers:
Does life begin at conception? How do you know it does? Is your view based on science or is it based on a religious belief?
If life begins at conception, why are you supporting an Ohio bill that makes it illegal to have an abortion once a heartbeat is detected? Does life begin at conception or at first heartbeat?
Do you support the use of emergency contraception (morning after) drugs? Why or why not?
Should a pro-life pharmacist have the right to not dispense emergency contraception drugs? Should I be allowed to opt out of anything that goes against my moral or ethical beliefs, regardless of their foundation?
Is abortion murder?
Do you believe murderers should be prosecuted?
Do you believe that driving the get-away car makes a person just as guilty as the person who robbed the bank?
Do you believe a woman who has an abortion should be prosecuted for murder? How about the doctor who performs the procedure? How about the nurse that assisted in the procedure? How about the person who drove the woman to the clinic? If you believe in the death penalty, do you support the execution of murderers?
Do you use birth control pills?
Should you be prosecuted for murder since birth control pills can, and do, cause spontaneous abortion?
Should abortion be allowed for reasons of rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother?
If you answered yes to question eleven, do you support murdering the fetus if it is the product of rape or incest?
Should a fetus be aborted if the mother’s life is at risk?
Do you support murdering the unborn if it saves the life of the mother?
Is your viewpoint on abortion a religious belief?
What passage in the Bible prohibits abortion? Does this passage define life beginning at conception?
Has God ever killed the unborn?
In Genesis, God destroyed every human save eight by drowning them in a flood. Were any of the women who drowned pregnant? Did God kill the fetuses they were carrying? (Kill the mother, kill the fetus.)
Do you support the death penalty? Do you support war? Should women who survive self-induced abortions be charged with attempted murder?
If you answered yes to question nineteen, why do you oppose the killing of the unborn but support the killing of those already born?
Why do you believe that killing the unborn is murder but consider an American bomb killing a baby 3 hours old a tragic result of war, collateral damage, but not murder?
Do you support birth control being readily available in every school? If your objective is to reduce or eliminate the need for an abortion, wouldn’t easily available, free access to birth control reduce the abortion rate?
Do you believe it is better for a severely deformed child to live for a day and die than for the fetus to be aborted? If so, explain why it is better for the child to suffer needlessly?
Do you believe that God is in control of everything? Does everything include children being born deformed or with serious defects that will result in a life of extreme suffering and pain?
Is someone a Christian if he or she supports abortion?
I’m sure Tee will take these questions as some sort of test for him to answer. Can’t wait for that. (That’s sarcasm, by the way.)
Obviously, atheists have a warped sense of what is fueling these so-called culture wars. The same questions can be put to the support of same-sex marriage.
How is it wrong to stop people from being perverts, mocking traditional marriage, and wanting to preserve that rite of life for everyone? Why should an institution become a laughingstock simply because some people do not want to follow the rules of marriage that have been in place since the beginning of time?
Where is the crime in limiting the institution to only those who will follow the rules? There is no law stating that same-sex couples cannot love each other outside of marriage.
However, there are certain rules in place that prohibit non-married partners from benefiting from certain aspects of life when a same-sex partner dies, is injured, and so on. To change those rules one does not have to destroy the institution of marriage but the LGBTQ community doesn’t care about that.
They are very selfish and only think of their own selves. It is not the Evangelical that fired the first shot in this battle and they have the right to defend the institution of marriage and keep it holy, sanctified, and pure.
After all, it is the sick and perverted that is invading the domain of marriage and they were not invited to join. In this case, the LGBTQ community is the one to blame for the war over marriage.
Tee says LGBTQ people are sick, selfish, and perverted. That should tell you all you need to know about the man. Thou doth protest too much, “Dr.” Tee.
Marriage is a state-sanctioned contract between two people. The state grants certain privileges to people who enter into such contracts. Tee can provide no rational reason outside of quoting the Bible to prohibit two people of the same sex from marrying. Their marriages do not affect Tee and his fellow moralizers in any way. What drives Tee’s outrage is his lifelong homophobia (and perhaps latent desire for gay sex). Tee covers up his homophobia with moral pronouncements and Bible verses, but make no mistake about it, underneath his facade is a homophobe (and I am using the word in a colloquial sense).
Then BG states the next crime to be marginalize LGBTQ people, yet how so? He does not go into detail here and in reality, homosexuals were never really marginalized. One of the codebreakers of the German enigma machines was a homosexual.
They got to help in the War and they got to work, live in homes, and so on. People draw the line when special rights are being granted. The selfish and greedy reach of the LGBTQ knows no boundaries.
….
Oh my, LGBTQ people get to serve in the military, have jobs, and own homes — rights Tee would deny to them if he and his fellow theocrats were in charge. LGBTQ people demand equal rights and protection under the law. Instead of thinking about anal sex all the time, I suggest Tee ponder why it is right to deny LGBTQ citizens the same rights heterosexual Americans have? What legal basis is there for denying LGBTQ people the same civil rights everyone else has? LGBTQ people want equal rights, not superior rights — unlike Evangelicals with their Christian nation beliefs.
But these crimes may only be the smoke screen for the most important ‘crime’ held against the evangelical- establish a Christian theocracy where the Bible is the law of the land.
What is being said here is that the atheist really wants to make their own rules and live by them. They do not want to humble themselves and say to God, ‘okay, we will obey you…’ They want to be masters of the world and live their own ways.
They do this regardless of how much harm and hurt their alternative lifestyles do to other people. It is not the Christian or Evangelical that is harming people, it is the atheist.
….
Well, at least Tee finally admits he is a Christian nationalist.
Everyone is being hurt by the atheist support of the LGBTQ agenda.
Who is being hurt and how? How does wanting equal rights and protection under the law for everyone cause harm to others? No answers will be forthcoming
Finally, the atheist and their fellow unbelievers have not created a great society to live in with their rules.
Crime is out of control, injustice is being done daily, people are being killed, shot, robbed far more now than when God’s rules were on the books. Also, criminals are not being punished for their crimes. How is this better than a God-centered nation?
Uh, the overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian. Christians control the levers of government and the U.S. Supreme Court. If crime is out of control (and it’s not) who is to blame? Most of the crime committed in this country is committed by people who believe in the existence of the Christian God, and who, to some degree or another, believe the Bible is the Word of God. Surely, Tee doesn’t think it’s atheists commiting most of the crimes in this country?
Tee lives in a dystopian Christian alternate reality, one where atheists roam the land murdering, raping, stealing, and burning churches to the ground. Much like many of his fellow Evangelicals, Tee has a persecution complex extraordinaire — detached from reality.
When you look closely at the facts, the atheist is merely blaming Christians for what they are actually doing.
Please provide those “facts” you are talking about, David. We would all love to look at them “closely.”
Oh, and the atheist says that those who make extraordinary claims need to produce the physical evidence to support those claims. Well. BG says God does not exist, there is no sin, and many other anti-biblical claims. He has yet to produce any real physical evidence to support his extraordinary claims.
I am an agnostic atheist, David. You know this. So, please quit misrepresenting my views. Sin? A religious construct used to induce fear, keeping asses in the pews and money in the offering plates. My real “evidence” can be found in the almost 4,000 posts on this site. Feel free to rage blog away, David. In fact, I encourage you to start a new blog with the express purpose of deconstructing my writing. Or, you can continue to whine and complain over my refusal to accept your irrational, unscientific, immoral, anti-human claims.
We challenge him to do so on his blog instead of declaring how many years he has been in ministry, how many sermons he has preached, or how he has trouble going to the bathroom (way too much information there).
The solution to your existential angst David is this: don’t read my blog. I have explained to you why I use autobiographical statements in my writing several times. Yet, you continue to whine about me doing so. I have come to the conclusion that you are jealous. You have come out on the losing end of a dick-measuring contest and don’t like it. You don’t like the fact that I have garnered a large following over the years. Instead of plowing your own fields, you stand along the fence row complaining about my farming techniques. You, my friend, are a petty man.
You are the only person who has ever complained about my use of autobiographical material or mentions of my health problems. Why is that, David? Let me state once again: you are a petty man.
Why are you so opposed to natural bodily functions such as sex and shitting? I assume you do both. If you don’t want to talk about your fucking and pooping, fine. However, I will continue to do so. Maybe I’ll even share photos. You can use them free of charge. 😂 Don’t like it? Don’t read my blog.
On a side note, BG has this to say:
“If Donald has not done so, I encourage him to read one or more of Dr. Bart Ehrman’s books on the history and nature of the Biblical text.”
We know [a real Dr. unlike you] Bart Ehrman through his books, lectures, and debates. How could anyone think he has the truth about the Bible? He makes a lot of declarations but we are yet to see him produce any hard, verifiable, physical evidence that any of his declarations are true.
….
His books are the same way. It is all his point of view not facts from archaeology or history. All you get from Bart Ehrman is lies and misrepresentations.
sigh
Let’s see, “Dr.” David Tee’s books have sold how many copies, exactly? Surely Tee will provide his sales numbers for all to see? Something tells me his sales numbers will be 2,000,000 books less than Dr. Ehrman’s.
Tee thinks that by slanderously attacking Bart Ehrman he can get at me. After all, I’m a fanboy and I frequently suggest Evangelicals read Dr. Ehrman’s books.
Most Evangelicals believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible. Tee most certainly does, though I suspect he thinks his interpretations are superior to the original text. He is the pope of Evangelicalism. He’s never been wrong about a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.
You can’t honestly read Dr. Ehrman’s books and come away believing the Bible is without error. If facts and evidence matter, inerrancy (as typically defined by Evangelicals) has to go. Tee “says” he had read Ehrman’s books, yet never mentions them on his site. I suspect he is overstating his Ehrman prowess. Tee remains a staunch defender of inerrancy, so either he hasn’t read Ehrman’s books or his “faith” stands in the way of intellectual honesty. One can certainly remain, as many have, a Christian after reading Ehrman’s books, but inerrancy cannot be rationally sustained.
Saved by Reason,
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
According to most Evangelicals, the Bible is not only inspired (breathed out) by God, it is also infallible and inerrant. (Please see Are Evangelicals Fundamentalists?) Since the Bible was written by men moved by the Holy Spirit or dictated by God, it stands to reason — God being perfect in all His ways — that the Bible is perfect, without error. Some Evangelicals take the notion of inerrancy even further by saying that the King James Version of the Bible is without error. And some Evangelicals — the followers of Peter Ruckman — take it further yet by saying that even the italicized words inserted by the translators of the King James Bible are divinely inspired. Other Evangelicals, thinking of themselves as more educated than other Christians, say that the “original” manuscripts from which English translations come are what are inerrant. Translations, then, are reliable, but not inerrant (even though pastors who believe this often lead churches that are filled with people who believe their leather-bound Bibles are without error). The problem with this belief is that the “originals” don’t exist. Over the years, I ran into countless Christians who believed that these so-called “originals” existed “somewhere” and that they are safely stored “somewhere.” Recently, one such ignorant Evangelical told me that I should read the Dead Sea Scrolls. In doing so, I would see that Christianity is true. Evidently, he didn’t know that the Dead Sea Scrolls don’t mention Jesus, and those who “see” Jesus in the Scrolls are either smoking too much marijuana or are importing their biased theology into the texts. Such is the level of ignorance found not only in pulpits, but in church pews.
Is the Bible in any shape or form inerrant? Of course not. Such a belief cannot rationally or intellectually be sustained. It is nothing more than wishful thinking to believe that the Bible is inerrant — straight from the mouth of God to the ears of Christians.
Dr. Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar and professor at the University of North Carolina, answered a question on his blog about whether believing the Bible has errors leads to agnosticism/atheism. Here is part of what Ehrman had to say:
I have never thought that recognizing the historical and literary problems of the Bible would or should lead someone to believe there is no God. The only people who could think such a thing are either Christian fundamentalists or people who have been convinced by fundamentalists (without knowing it, in many instances) that fundamentalist Christianity is the only kind of religion that is valid, and that if the assumptions of fundamentalism is flawed, then there could be no God. What is the logic of that? So far as I can see, there is no logic at all.
Christian fundamentalism insists that every word in the Bible has been given directly by God, and that only these words can be trusted as authorities for the existence of God, for the saving doctrines of Christianity, for guidance about what to believe and how to live, and for, in short, everything having to do with religious truth and practice. For fundamentalists, in theory, if one could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that any word in the original manuscripts of the Bible was an error, than [sic] the entire edifice of their religious system collapses, and there is nothing left between that and raw atheism.
Virtually everyone who is trained in the critical study of the Bible or in serious theology thinks this is utter nonsense. And why is it that people at large – not just fundamentalists but even people who are not themselves believers – don’t realize it’s nonsense, that it literally is “non-sense”? Because fundamentalists have convinced so much of the world that their view is the only right view. It’s an amazing cultural reality. But it still makes no sense.
Look at it this way. Suppose you could show beyond any doubt that the story of Jesus walking on the water was a later legend. It didn’t really happen. Either the disciples thought they saw something that really occur [sic], or later story tellers came up with the idea themselves as they were trying to show just how amazing Jesus was, or … or that there is some other explanation? What relevance would that have to the question of whether there was a divine power who created the universe? There is *no* necessary relevance. No necessary connection whatsoever. Who says that God could not have created the universe unless Jesus walked on water? It’s a complete non sequitur.
The vast majority of Christians throughout history – the massively vast majority of Christians – have not been fundamentalists. Most Christians in the world today are not fundamentalists. So why do we allow fundamentalists to determine what “real” Christianity is? Or what “true” Christianity is? Why do we say that if you are not a fundamentalist who maintains that every word in the Bible is literally true and historically accurate that you cannot really be a Christian?
While I question how someone can be a Christian and not believe all that the Bible says is true (perhaps this is the result of a Fundamentalist hangover), I know, as Dr. Ehrman says, that hundreds of millions of people believe in the Christian God, perfect Bible or not. I am not, contrary to what my critics suggest, anti-Christian. I am, however, most certainly anti-Fundamentalist. I am indifferent towards the religious beliefs of billions of people as long as those beliefs don’t harm others. Unfortunately, many Evangelical beliefs and practices ARE harmful, and it is for this reason that I continue to write about Evangelicalism.
Inerrancy is one such harmful belief. Believing that every word of the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and true leads people to false, and at times dangerous, conclusions. Take young earth creationism — the belief that the universe was created in six literal twenty-four days, 6,024 years ago. Men such as Ken Ham continue to infect young minds with creationist beliefs which, thanks to science, we know are not true. The reason the Ken Hams of the world cannot accept what science says about the universe is because they believe the text of the Bible is inerrant. According to inerrantists, the Bible, in most instances, should be read literally. Thus, Genesis 1-3 “clearly” teaches that God created the universe exactly as young earth creationists say He did. This kind of thinking intellectually harms impressionable minds. While little can be done to keep churches, Christian schools, and home schooling parents from teaching children such absurdities, we can and must make sure Evangelical zealots are barred from bringing their nonsense into public school classrooms.
Peel back the issues that drive the culture war and what you will find is the notion that God has infallibly spoken on this or that social issue. Think about it for a moment: name one social hot button issue that doesn’t have Bible proof texts attached to it. Homosexuality? Same-sex marriage? Abortion? Premarital sex? Birth control? Marriage and divorce? Prayer and Bible reading in public schools? Every one of these issues is driven by the belief that the Bible is inerrant and that Christians must dutifully obey every word (though no Evangelicals that I know of believe, obey, and practice every law, command, precept, and teaching of the Bible). Removing the Good Book from the equation forces Evangelicals to contemplate these issues without appeals to Biblical authority and theology. As a secularist, I am more than ready and willing to have discussions with Christians about the important social issues of the day. All that I ask is that they leave their Bibles at home or stuffed under the front seats of their cars. In a secular state, religious texts of any kind carry no weight. What “God” says plays no part in deciding what our laws are. Evangelicals have a hard time understanding this, believing that their flavor of Christianity is the one true faith; believing that their infallible interpretation of a religious text written by their God is absolute truth. It is impossible to reach people who think like this.
While I at one time believed the Bible was the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God, it was not until I considered the possibility that the Bible might not be what I claimed it is, that I could then consider alternative ways of looking at the world. This is why I don’t argue about science with Evangelicals. I attack their foundational beliefs — that the Bible is not inerrant; that the Bible is not what they claim it is. Once the foundation is destroyed, it becomes much easier to engage Evangelicals on the issues they think are important. Given enough time, a patient agnostic/atheist/rationalist/skeptic can drive a stake into the heart of their Fundamentalist beliefs. As long as Evangelicals hang on to their “inerrant” Bibles, it is impossible to have meaningful, productive discussions with them. All anyone can do for them is present evidence that eviscerates their inerrantist beliefs. Since Heaven and Hell are fictions of the human mind, I am content to let knowledge do her perfect work. I know that most Evangelicals will never abandon their faith (the one true faith), but some will, so I am content to continue fishing for the minds of women and men. Using reason and knowledge is the only way I know of to make the world a better place. Part of making the world a better place is doing all I can to neuter Fundamentalist beliefs. Inerrancy is one such belief.
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Erin Davis, a writer for the Lies Young Women Believe website, wrote one of the most astounding, delusional, and absurd blog posts I have ever read. Filled with assertions based on THE BIBLE SAYS, Davis’ post reflects how deeply and thoroughly Evangelicalism can negatively affect one’s ability to reason and think.
With giants (1 Sam. 17), strange creatures (Job 40:15), angels (Ps. 91:11), demons (Mark 5), and a God who is mysteriously three in one, sometimes the Bible reads like a children’s fairy tale or Hollywood screenplay. But it isn’t. It’s a history book of events that actually happened to real people. More than that, it’s a book about a very real God.
Every Word of God Proves True
Proverbs 30:5 makes this bold promise:
Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
An easy way to prove the truth found in Scripture is through the genealogies. Let me show you what I mean.
Isaiah 11:1 declares this promise, “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.”
There isn’t a person on the planet that God doesn’t love and care about.
That promise wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans without the genealogy found in Matthew 1:1–17 and again in Luke 3:23–38. This list starts with Abraham and ends with the birth of Christ. Smack dab in the middle we find this gem:
And Jesse the father of David the king (Matt. 1:6).
The branch Isaiah wrote about was Jesus. His words were written 800 years before Christ was born! If we skipped this genealogy, we would miss the wonder of seeing this prophecy fulfilled.
God Cares About the Little People
Ever hear of Mahalalel, Hezron, or Abijah? Probably not, but God has. He made sure their names were listed among the genealogies found in Genesis 5 and Matthew 1. Every single human since Adam has three things in common:
We are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27).
We are loved by God (Jer. 31:3).
We were designed to be with God for eternity (Eccl. 3:11).
There isn’t a person on the planet that God doesn’t love and care about. The genealogies read like lists of His favorite people.
God Is Faithful.
Here’s a question I love to ask Christians who are older than me:
“Tell me about that time God let you down.”
I’ve been asking that question for years, almost every chance I get to hang out with people with a gray hair or two. I’ve never met a single person with an answer. Instead they all gush about God’s faithfulness, telling me how time and time again He has shown up in their lives.
Evidently, Davis has not studied the history of the Christian Bible, nor has she read anything about the various textual contradictions and errors found in the Biblical text. I suspect that Davis grew up in and is still a part of a religious tradition that asserts the Bible is a God-given and God-written, inspired, inerrant, and infallible text. Whether the Bible is inspired is a metaphysical claim beyond the scope of rational inquiry, but assertions that the Bible is inerrant and infallible are evidentiary claims that can be investigated. Anyone who has honestly and openly looked at the text of the Bible cannot conclude it is an inerrant text.
Well, Bruce, I have studied this issue and I still believe the Bible is inerrant. To that I say, bullshit. If someone follows the evidence wherever it leads, he or she must conclude that inerrancy cannot be sustained on rational grounds. When people claim that the Bible is inerrant, I always ask them if they have read any of Dr. Bart Ehrman’s books. Most often, the answer I receive is no. For the handful of people who say yes, my response is this: you are letting your presuppositions keep you from seeing things as they are. Biblical scholars of every stripe have concluded that the Bible has textual errors and contractions; that the Bible is internally inconsistent. It is impossible for someone to read Ehrman’s books and still hang on to the belief that the Bible is inerrant. And it is for this reason many Evangelical scholars and pastors say the Bible is inerrant in the original writings (which do not exist).
Davis believes the Bible is “true” because the Bible says it is. This is circular reasoning — a common problem in Evangelical Christianity. Countless people are Christians, all the while believing the Bible is fallible and errant. They recognize that the Bible is a human-written text that points the way to God, not a divine rulebook or blueprint for life. These Christians readily admit that some of what the Bible says is not true, is outdated, or inapplicable for today. While I have problems with how they come to these conclusions, I do find that this view is more intellectually honest than parroting that the Bible is inerrant.
The key to reaching Evangelicals is to get them to see that the Bible is not what they claim it is. Until Evangelicals are willing to consider that they might be wrong; that the Bible might contain errors and contradictions, there’s not much anyone can do to reach them.
Davis states that God cares about the little people. She bases this statement on the fact that numerous unknown people are mentioned in the Bible and, since God wrote the Bible, this is proof that God cares about everyone. Davis sincerely believes that God loves and cares for everyone. She believes this because the Bible says so. Again, eyes-wide-open honesty does not bear out Davis’ claim. Look around. What do you see? Do you see evidence for the belief that God loves and cares for everyone? Of course not. At best, we see a God who is indifferent to the plight of his creation. He steps in from time to time and helps Nana find her car keys, but when it comes to big-ticket issues such as war, violence, sexual assault, starvation, oppression, and Donald Trump, the Christian God is AWOL.
Davis desperately needs to believe that God loves and cares for her. I understand WHY she believes as she does. God loving and caring for Christians is the glue that holds Christianity together. No matter what happens in their lives, Evangelicals believe that God is looking out for them and that “all things work together for good.” This thinking directly conflicts with reality — shit happens, life can suck, and all credit and criticism belong to humans. God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is a fictitious middleman who keeps Evangelicals from seeing life as it is. That’s the beauty of religion. It gives people meaning and purpose, promising life after death. (Please see The Life-Changing Power of the Mythical Jesus and Never Underestimate the Power of Jesus) Believing such delusions allows Evangelicals to evade the harshness of human existence. Sadly, many people think that it is better to believe a lie if it gives them peace and happiness. I don’t fault people who follow this path as long as they keep it to themselves. However, when they drag such nonsense into the public square and de-legitimize the lives of everyone who believes differently, I’m going to challenge, on rational grounds, their beliefs.
Davis concludes her post by saying that God (not any God, only the Evangelical God) is ALWAYS faithful. When Evangelicals talk about the faithfulness of God they mean that God always does what he says he will. If God says he will do ______________ then he always does. Think of all the promises God supposedly made in the Bible. Has God infallibly kept every promise? Of course not. Any cursory examination of the lives of Christians reveals that God is NOT faithful, that he routinely fails to pay child support. When challenged on the God-is-Faithful claim, Evangelicals often respond that just because God hasn’t come through yet, doesn’t mean he won’t come through in the future. Ah yes, God will, someday, likely not today, come through. He’s God and he ALWAYS comes through.
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
