Menu Close

Tag: Ben Berwick

God’s Moral Law

Bruce Gerencser 5 Comments
ten commandments

Recently, my friend Ben Berwick got into a discussion with several Christians about [the] moral law. You can read his post on the matter here.

In Christian thought, there is a difference between “moral law” and “the moral law.” Moral law is generally viewed as natural law; the law that is supposedly written on the hearts of all humans. (Jeremiah 31:33, Romans 2:16, and Hebrews 10:16) Most Christians think the law written on our hearts is the Ten Commandments. Which version? Or just the Nine Commandments since keeping the Sabbath is practiced by few Christians today? The Bible never says what the laws that are written on our hearts, so Christians assume what these laws are, much like they assume God exists to start with and that we have a “heart.” If the law is written on the hearts of all humans, why is there such diversity and disagreement on morality — even among Christians? Is the Ten Commandments the only law that is “moral”? If not, why didn’t God write all of his laws on our hearts? Maybe it is a memory problem. We don’t have enough storage space for 635+ laws, so God just gave us a summary list of laws to follow.

Many Christians, especially those of a Calvinistic/Reformed persuasion, take a different view of the moral law. Believing ALL Biblical law is moral, these Christians divide God’s law into three categories: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. Some Calvinists believe the moral law is binding and in force, but the ceremonial law was fulfilled in the atonement of Christ and the judicial law applied only to the nation of Israel. While the judicial and ceremonial laws can still be instructive, only the moral law is binding today. Good luck with deciding exactly what those moral laws are. Other Calvinists believe that only New Testament law is valid and in force. Much metaphorical blood has been spilled defending these positions. As a Calvinistic Baptist, I held to the former view — that of theonomist Rousas Rushdooney — that all the law of God, rightly interpreted, is in force today.

Evangelical apologists would have you believe that the moral law is clear and absolute. Why, then, is there so much debate and confusion among Christians about God’s law? It seems to me that Christians are every bit as subjective on God’s law as they claim unbelievers are. They believe what they want to believe and ignore or interpret away the rest. Ever cafeteria Christians, they pick and choose which laws to believe and, hopefully, practice. I say hopefully since there is no evidence that Christians are meaningfully more moral than unbelievers.

A whole separate argument is whether God himself is moral. I argue that he is not, and that many of his “moral” laws are, in fact, immoral.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Dr. David Tee is a Petty Man

Bruce Gerencser 19 Comments
dr david tee

Dr. David Tee, whose real name in Derrick Thomas Thiessen, is a Christian Missionary & Alliance preacher without a church to pastor; a man who abandoned a child years ago and fled to the Philippines to avoid legal accountability; a thief who regularly uses content from this site without giving proper attribution; an obsessive-compulsive man when to comes to my writing and that of my British friend Ben Berwick. He cannot and will not stop molesting us.

Tee has written more than one hundred posts about me, and a substantial number of articles about Ben. Over the past six weeks, Tee has written a post that mentions me every few days. Ben has figured out how to completely block him from accessing his site, but I’ve been unable to do so. There was a time when I would respond to his attacks, lies, and mischaracterizations, but I no longer do so. I only respond now when he says something so egregious that I feel compelled to reply.

As you know, I’ve taken a break from writing. (We are going to a baseball game in Cincinnati on Monday.) I’ve been trying to catch up on a few things, especially emails and the Black Collar Crime Series. My goal this coming week is to get my podcast up and running. Imagine my surprise, then, to read this from Tee:

They [Ben Berwick and Bruce Gerencser]are never honest. The owner of the BG website [The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser] said he was taking a break from writing, yet aside from 3 guest posts, he has published more articles since that notice went [where?] than any other given week he was writing.

He then goes on to say this about Ben:

Honesty and integrity are two things we do not expect from unbelievers. But we can call them cowards as their actions are just that, cowardly. The MM [Meerkat Musings] website owner [Ben Berwick] is exactly like the little boy who didn’t get his way and takes his ball and goes home.

He wants to call the shots even though he has no credibility, or legitimacy to call the shots. We laugh at him and his actions because he has not grown up but likes to bully those who are different from himself.

He is supposed to be an adult yet acts in the most childish manner. he should change the name of the website to chicken little. If we are being harsh it is because his actions exemplify everything we have just written.

We are getting more of a laugh than anything else and write this in a lighthearted manner even though he will make false accusations about us. He always does.

What a prick. Tee says he is a follower of Jesus, but his behavior says that he is anything but.

Most of the readers of this blog understand that I took a break from writing. The posts that have been published recently, don’t fall into that category. Sounds of Sacrilege, Sounds of Fundamentalism, and the Black Collar Crime Series? These series’ require very little work on my part. I use templates that allow me to push out content quickly. I have a big backlog of potential posts for these series. So, during my time away from writing, I’m trying to clear this backlog.

Of course, all Tee cares about is calling me a liar.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

This is How Dr. David Tee Sees Himself

Bruce Gerencser 6 Comments
david thiessen
David Thiessen is the tall man in the back

Recently, Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, took the Protestia site to task for their hateful, un-Christian behavior. Protestia, the one-time love child of disgraced Fundamentalist Baptist preacher J.D. Hall, is currently operated by David Morrill, Paul Brown, Brad Schoolfield, and Seth Dunn. Protestia is known for three things: their anti-abortion, forced birth views, their obsession with consenting LGBTQ people’s sex lives, and ferreting out perceived heresy within Evangelicalism and Christendom at large. In other words, Thiessen’s kind of “Christians.”

In a post titled An Answer to Op-Ed Article, Thiessen wrote:

We have no problem with that, if they actually did do some honest refuting and challenging doctrinal errors. What our one line under our quote above was referring to was HOW they were going about this ministry. It had nothing to do with their ministry or purpose.

We think they misunderstood what we wrote and instead of asking for clarification, they go and jump to conclusions and make assumptions about what we said. Of course, right now it is very difficult to get a hold of us due to some unfortunate actions by certain people.

So here is the clarification. Our words were referring to the name calling, the insults, and other derogatory terms used by Protestia in their identification, challenges, and refuting of those people they have found to be false teachers.

We find their terminology and its use to be very unbiblical and unChristian. In the different ministries that Protestia participates in, they are not excluded from any biblical rules of conduct towards believers or unbelievers.

We will not bring anyone back to the church or to the faith by insulting them. On occasion, we have done the very same type of ministry throughout the years. Yet, we refer to people as Mr., Mrs., Miss, Dr., and so on except for those gender identity-confused people who are referred to by their birth pronouns.

We do not hurl names, insults, or even write them as that sets a bad example for our readers and disobeys the biblical instruction ‘ soft answer turneth away wrath’. We do not care how nasty those people we identify get as we are to return good for evil.

….

There are a lot of false teachers running about saying things that are not biblical and just plain wrong. If you are going to challenge them, then challenge what they are saying instead of insulting them or ignoring what they have said because you have identified them as false teachers.

….

Give credible and legitimate information not personal attacks or ad hoc statements that put a black mark against your claims of being Christian. Jesus may have insulted the Pharisees, etc., but that does not give us permission to ignore the rules of behavior Christ laid out for us.

None of us are on his level and we should be very careful not to copy him without fully understanding more of why he said what he said. We are not free to insult but we are free to identify and refute, as well as challenge those who pretend to be Christian, yet say and do unChristian things.

Thiessen lacks any sense of self-awareness. He seemingly has forgotten the countless articles he has written about me and Ben Berwick. He evidently has forgotten about his comments and emails too.

A year ago, Thiessen sent me the following mail:

Our assessment of BG. We are not going to post this publicly so do not worry about being humiliated or embarrassed.

We have analyzed BG’s behavior and words for some time now and we see a developing identity. He is a person who was a low-level obscure independent Baptist preacher who certainly gets jealous and envious of others.

His Christian work seems to have been motivated by these desires as he used his own will and not Jesus’ in his ministry as well as his being critical of those more successful, popular, and less obscure counterparts.

Instead of humbling himself and correctly following Jesus, he followed his character trait and quit. That is not a sign of a good servant of God. He likes to stand in judgment of others grading their level of spirituality with a subjective ruler judging that those observed were not practicing the faith properly.

What exact standard he used is not known, but it was his own making and not God’s. Then instead of being the example, he walks away and condemns every Christin and God for failing to meet his ideals.

Now he is just a narcissist who hopes he gains the fame and popularity that escaped him when he was a Christian. he wants to leave a negative legacy behind so that people will think he was a great preacher and now a great blogger.

In reality, he remains obscure, uninfluential, and wants to be the center of attention like he has found something new and wonderful for the world, when he is just another unbeliever in a line filled with billions of unbelievers saying the exact same thing as every other unbeliever has said or is saying.

He is a sad and pathetic figure who needs to broadcast his failure to follow Christ to the end of the world and instead of being great, he makes himself a laughingstock. Someone who could not cut it.

And yes we are still sad that you walked away from your faith.

DR. [capitalizing it doesn’t make it so] David Tee

Evidently, Thiessen’s “insults” are different from those uttered by the “fine” Christians at Protestia. Thiessen also states “that does not give us permission to ignore the rules of behavior Christ laid out for us.” I fell on the floor and laughed for twenty minutes after I read this line. Go to Theissen’s TheologyArcheology: A Site for the Glory of God blog and read the plethora of posts he has written about me. You will search in vain for any evidence of Thiessen following the commands of Christ or demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22,23). This so-called man of God shows no regard for the teachings of Christ on how you should treat your enemies:

Ye [Derrick Thiessen] have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you [Derrick Thiessen], Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)

The Message translation renders Matthew 5:48 this way: Grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.”

Grow up, indeed.

Thiessen continues to refuse to mention me or Ben Berwick by our names. He also refuses to properly link to the content he uses from our sites. Thiessen lies about us and routinely distorts and misuses our words, so I find it unbelievable that he can say, with a straight face that he always treats people with respect. He doesn’t, and the readers of this blog know he doesn’t. But, what do we know, right? He and God, the royal “we,” know the truth.

For the record, Theissen has written at least twelve posts about me since December 31, 2022 — one post every two days.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

My Response to Dr. David Tee’s Latest Tantrum

Bruce Gerencser 5 Comments
dr david tee

Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, continues to rage blog against me and my British friend, Ben Berwick. What follows is my response to several things Thiessen has written over the past couple of days. These excerpts are from the posts Empirical Evidence-2 and Church Survival. Give them a read if you dare, but you won’t be able to comment on Thiessen’s blog. He has eliminated commenting on his site. He has also taken down his contact page, thus further walling himself off from any accountability for his words.

Most of our material has nothing to do with MM, BG, and other unbelievers yet they feel free to do unprovoked attacks on us. We only use material God leads us to and wants us to write about, whether it includes us or not. When it is in the public square, people have the right to respond to the information or talk about its erroneous points.

Once again, Thiessen refuses to call us by our names. He recently decided to also stop linking back to our sites when he quotes us. He is, in effect, stealing our content, not giving proper attribution. (Please contact me Derrick if you would like me to teach you the proper use of names and source attribution in your writing.)

If you peruse Thiessen’s blog you will find that MOST of his content references BG or MM. Thiessen rarely writes original content. He writes that which could charitably be called response posts. If you look at my posts over the past year that mention Thiessen, you will see that almost all of them are responses to something he has written about me. If Thiessen wants me to stop responding to him then all he needs to do is stop mentioning me on his blog. He won’t do this, of course. Without me and Ben, Thiessen would have nothing to write about.

Thiessen is certainly free to respond to my writing in any way he chooses. I have resigned myself to the fact that Thiessen will do what he does, even if the voice in his head tells him to stop. For some unknown reason, he is obsessed with me, much like a stalker or a scorned lover. I offered to send Thiessen a picture of me nude. He refused, of course, to provide me with his mail address so I could do so. I thought that maybe seeing me naked would calm his passions a bit. 🙂

Oh, and we are not linking to his response as he will just trash this answer and its content. All quotes came from MM’s website and were not edited by us. We just quoted them in pieces to facilitate a response to each point.

MM could not wait to pen his reply last night to part two of our Empirical Evidence post. As usual, it was filled with denial and the usual making science the authority over od [sic], etc. it was a waste of time to read so we did not read it nor are we answering it directly.

But one thing that has bothered us is that both MM and BG make everything we write personal to them. They continue to use our wrong name as if to get a rise out of us. But their disrespect undermines their points of view.

I will leave it to Ben to defend himself, if he chooses to do so.

Yes, Derrick, when you mention us by name; when you attack our character; when you lie about us; when you distort our beliefs, we are going to take it personally.

I use Thiessen’s legal name because, well, that’s his real name. David Thiessen, John Ford, David Tee are all fake names used by Thiessen to escape accountability to family and law enforcement. That’s why he lives in the Philippines, safe from U.S. legal service. Using his legal name makes it easier for people, including a child he abandoned, to find him.

As far as Dr. David Tee is concerned, Dr. Tee is a nickname given to Thiessen when he was in Bible college. Thiessen has provided no evidence for his claim that he has an earned doctorate. He could easily settle this issue by providing the name of the school where he EARNED his degree. As it now stands now, only God has seen Thiessen’s degree, and he ain’t talking.

If they had stopped to think about it, our use of initials was not personal. MM stands for Meerkat Musings which indicates that we are not addressing the person writing the content. Instead, we are addressing the content only and have left all personal aspects out of our own content.

The same for BG. His website is titled ‘The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser’ So our use of initials again only refer to the website content, not the man behind it. But they do not think about these details in their haste to try and do everything they accuse us of doing to them.

But expecting rational and polite behavior from unbelievers is an unrealistic hope. As we read their content and responses, they are the ones making it personal, not us. But we will try to ignore their badly written responses and focus on the content we can use here.

Bullshit. One hundred percent grade-A bovine shit. This blog is all about me. It is a first-person account of my journey from Evangelical to atheism. Thiessen knows this, and readers will quickly see through his justifications and nonsense.

Unbelievers have nothing to offer the believer except destruction. The believer needs to be warned about them and their views.

Thiessen is free to warn unbelievers about Ben Berwick and Bruce Gerencser and their “evil” views. Please note that Thiessen previously said his writing wasn’t “personal,” yet he says he is obligated to warn the believing world about us. That seems pretty personal to me.

Only a handful of Christians read Thiessen’s blog. Most of his site’s traffic is from this blog and Meerkat Musing. So to Derrick’s fans (Victor Justice and Revival Fires, to name two) I say: consider yourself warned. Bruce Gerencser and Ben Berwick are the False Prophet and the Beast:

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. (Revelation 19:20)

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Religion, History, Violence, and Adolph Hitler by Ben Berwick

Bruce Gerencser 11 Comments
guest post

Guest post by Ben Berwick. Ben blogs at Meerkat Musings.

Allow me to preface this post with the warning that this topic is a sensitive one. The depictions of violence are quite graphic, and quite brutal. Discussions of this nature can easily become heated, for we are talking about cherished beliefs and ideals. We are talking about historical figures of much notoriety.

Some background. This post grew out of discussions over at Silence of Mind. Whilst Silence of Mind himself has proven to be intractable and quite unreasonable, another participant, Citizen Tom, proved to be, if not agreeable to my position, cordial and civil in discussing it.

It is fair to say, judging from a brief read-through of Tom’s site, and he and I will likely not agree on many things. That is normal, that is life. It might be difficult to find common ground, or reach a consensus, but that does not make it impossible, and we all might learn something along the way. In the time since those early conversations with Tom, I have already had cause to reconsider a few things, and at the very least, thinking about the phrasing of my arguments.

With all of that out of the way, what is the purpose of this post? It concerns morality, how it is, heh, ‘divined’. It concerns how we view good, and evil, and in what name we act on what we see as good, and evil. I am rambling, for this post covers a lot of ground, and distilling it all into a single sentence is proving difficult.

A History of Bloodshed

SoM argued that atheists lack morality, for atheism is responsible for more deaths than any other form of ideology. He cited Stalin as an example. SoM would not be the first person to conflate atheism and communism, and therefore incorrectly blame atheism for Stalin’s murderous regime. His motive was to suggest that atheism is amoral, or even immoral. ‘Stalin was an atheist, Stalin was evil, therefore all atheists are evil’. SoM also sought to point out that Stalin and Mao (a follower of Marxist and communist ideals) proved atheism is more violent, by virtue of a greater death toll than religious ideology. Therefore, not only did he falsely equate atheism with communism to make atheists look bad, he proved ignorant of several important factors.

During the era of the Crusades (furious wars of religious ideology, between Christians and Muslims, pagans, and even other Christians), the weapons of war were nowhere near as sophisticated or powerful as they are today. There was a smaller population, and they lived in smaller cities and rural areas. It stands to reason that a holy war, waged with the weaponry of a modern military, among today’s densely-populated urban and suburban cities and towns, would be as devastating as any major war. SoM ignored this, and ignored the point about the Crusades.

Apologies to Tom, for it would feel like I am tackling SoM’s arguments all over again, and expecting Tom to respond to those points. There is some overlap, which I will come to.

Biblical Commands for Bloodshed

Christianity has a long and violent history (it’s not the only religion in this boat, but Christianity quickly became the central point of discussions in SoM’s post). Is this violence because of, or in spite of, what the Bible contains?

The Old Testament is filled with violent commands from God. The Bible is often held as the inerrant Word of God, and to some Christians, is to be taken literally as well. We are often told that we cannot judge God by human standards of morality. Is that because so many people would reject the ‘morality’ on display in passages like this, if read in isolation? Imagine you did not know of God, and for all you knew, the following were said by a human being:

1 Samuel 15:2-3 – This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

If we heard Numbers 18:2-3, and thought it were another human being who had spoke, what would we think? Bring your fellow Levites from your ancestral tribe to join you and assist you when you and your sons minister before the Tent of the Testimony. They are to be responsible to you and are to perform all the duties of the Tent, but they must not go near the furnishings of the sanctuary or the altar, or both they and you will die.

What would you think if you heard Isaiah 13:15-16 in isolation? This appears to relate to the treatment of prisoners of war. Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.

Numbers 31:14-18: Moses was angry with the officers of the army–the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds–who returned from the battle. “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

I think we can all generally agree that showing mercy to a vanquished enemy is a good quality. Sparing the lives of civilians is an imperative, and the treatment of women in this passage? It would be considered abhorrent to any good person.

Yet some Christians believe these actions are justifiable, and even good, when carried out at God’s command. These extremists are the ones who would have gleefully been at the frontlines of the Crusades, slaughtering others in the name of God. It is no wonder that there has been so much violence in the name of Christianity, when the Bible is full of it.

A Moral Compass

Bearing in mind the Biblical instructions for bloodshed, and how much conflict Christianity has been involved in throughout its history, is it right or fair to suggest that atheism is immoral?

Which is not to say that Christianity, or other religions, are automatically immoral. There are some terrifying, horrific events in religious texts, but there are good and kind notions to be found within them as well. Some people draw comfort from them, and who I am to say they shouldn’t? 1 Peter 4:8: Most important of all, continue to show deep love for each other, for love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Thessalonians 5:11: Therefore encourage one another to build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. 1 Corinthians 13:4-5: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Humans can be tribal. We will gravitate towards like-minded groups, and sometimes, this can polarise us. Our instinctive, intrinsic need to create communities and belong is no bad trait, yet it means it is all too easy for us to see outsiders to our community as inferior or threatening. We feel the need to remove them as a danger, and that might involve blinding ourselves to how people are individuals. We are, as a species, very good at generalising, and often in a demonising sort of fashion. I dare say I have been guilty of this in the past, and I cannot say with certainty that I won’t unwittingly fall into that trap in the future.

One method of generalising is to point to an individual, or a small group within a community, and say ‘that person is immoral, therefore the entire community is immoral’. SoM appeared to operate with such a policy when he referenced Stalin, and the deaths incorrectly attributed to atheism. I’ve seen this sort of fallacy used elsewhere too, against atheism, and against religions. SoM and Tom both objected to a particular example of a Christian who committed some terrible atrocities, yet SoM in particular held up Stalin as an atheist and said ‘this is atheism and what it does’. More on that later.

Organised religion is often held up as a moral compass, with rule to live by, rules that civilisation needs. ‘Thou shall not kill’ is an obvious example of one of the Ten Commandments. However, do we need a commandment to tell us not to kill? Without it, would human beings lack the moral centre that makes killing abhorrent to most of us?

To put it another way, if the only reason you do not lie, cheat, steal or kill, is because a holy book told you not to do these things, how certain are you of your morality? If your faith in your beliefs is shaken or even destroyed, do you think you would become a murderer the day after?

There is another angle to consider. There are millions of atheists and agnostics in the world, hundreds of millions. Countries such as the Czech Republic have a high percentage (over 50%) of people who consider themselves irreligious. Sweden, Japan, and South Korea are in a similar situation. These countries are not morally bankrupt wastelands of corruption (in fact, Japan is one of the safest countries on earth). It would be too simplistic to say that atheism is the reason these countries tend to rate quite highly on quality of life indexes, because atheism is nothing more than the absence of religious belief. On the other hand, it does go to show that countries with large percentages of atheists are not consumed by what some Christians consider to be immorality. Nor are atheists demonstrably amoral.

Morality Always Comes From God?

One of the arguments Tom put forward is that atheists were imbued with Christian standards of morality, whether they know it or not, and whether they accept it or not. Tom regards this as the Truth. It is certainly an explanation for why hundreds of millions of atheists and agnostics are not slaughtering people left, right and centre, but it is also completely and utterly unprovable. I may well be imbued with morality via a supreme being, but how can I show this? I can’t. I have no means to verify this. It is a convenient form of answer, yet also meaningless. I can just as easily say my morality was granted to me by the pantheon of Norse Gods. Perhaps it was given to me by the spirits worshipped by Native Americans. Who can say for certain? Tom, and other Christians, ask me to take this on faith, but I deal with what is tangible.

There is evidence that our concept of morality is the result of evolution. I quote from Frontiers for Young Minds, and a post from Jean Decety and Jason M. Cowell:

How do we distinguish good from evil, right from wrong, just from unjust, and vice from virtue? An obvious answer is that we have learned to do so through socialization, that is, our behaviors were shaped from birth onward by our families, our preschools, and almost everything we contacted in our environments. Morality is an inner sense of rightness about our behavior and the behavior of others. How we feel, think, and act about the concepts of “good” and “bad” are all parts of our morality. For example, hitting another person for any reason is seen as bad, while sharing something we like with another child who is sad is considered good. Morality is so deeply rooted in the fabric of our everyday lives that it seems hard to imagine a society without any moral rules. Indeed, observations made by scientists who study different societies around the world have shown that, despite cultural and individual differences, all human beings have some sense of right and wrong.

When we use the word “morality” we are generally talking about ideas of justice, fairness and rights, and the rules we have about how people should treat one another. Consider the following: as a reward for finishing your homework, you have been given 10 marbles that you really like. You are then told about a poor child who would not be able to get any marbles, even though he did his homework too. However, you have the option to give some of your marbles to the poor child. What would you choose to do? Most children would naturally share some of their marbles with a poor child and would also be surprised if another child received more than 10 marbles after doing the same amount of homework! This shows that children understand both fairness and justice. As humans, when we consider how we or others should share something we have been given, we tend to take into account both how much of a reward someone deserves for the “work” they did and whether rewards are evenly split between individuals.

Interesting isn’t it? From a very young age, and across countries and cultures, we seem to instinctively understand what is fair and what is unjust. The theists will tell us this is because God filled our souls with these concepts. However, these concepts are found outside of humans. Animals, with no concept of God and lacking the capacity for the concept, have display indications of what we define as moral behaviours:

Natural observations of animals in the wild and research in laboratories show us that a number of “building blocks” of moral behavior can be found in animals. For instance, many animals exhibit behaviors that benefit other members of their species. Such prosocial behaviors refers to any behavior intended to benefit another individual. (meaning behaviors that are good for others), like helping each other and caring for offspring, have been seen in rodents and primates. Rats will help other distressed rats that have been soaked with water, and it will also choose to help a cage mate that is in distress before obtaining a food reward. Chimpanzees will help each other and share with each other, but only when they benefit from the sharing, as long as the costs are minimal and the needs of the other chimpanzees are clear. Chimpanzees also collaborate and form alliances in fights or when hunting. Capuchin monkeys have even been shown to react in a negative way when they see other monkeys being treated unfairly.

Babies show indications of morality:

When we see early signs of morality in young babies, this provides strong evidence for the evolutionary roots of morality, because babies have not yet had much time to be influenced by their environment. Psychologists who study human development have shown that human babies enter the world ready to pay attention and respond to social stimuli, such as voices and faces, and that babies begin forming social relationships during the first year of life. Young children provide comfort and assistance to both other children and adults in emotional distress. For instance, when they see their mothers in pain, 18-month-old toddlers show comforting behaviors (such as hugging, patting, and sharing toys). As infants develop and become more able to analyze what is going on around them, they even have the ability to recognize when a person in their environment is treating another person badly. At a young age, infants are quickly able to figure out whether the consequence of a behavior is good or bad, suggesting that their genes are involved and that experience and learning are not the only causes of moral development. At just 3 months of age, infants spend more time looking at a puppet character that has previously acted in a nice way than at one that acted in a negative way, suggesting that infants prefer those who “do good things.” By 6 months of age, this preference is stronger, with children not only looking more at helpful and nice puppet characters but also actually reaching for them. By 12 months of age, infants begin to understand the concept of fairness. When these infants witness cookies being shared, they expect an equal number of cookies to be given to all of the people involved.

So, it would seem that animals and very young children instinctively understand some concepts of sympathy, sharing, and fairness. Some Christians (not all) believe that babies are born sinful (co-incidentally, some Christians believe this justifies the slaughter of children in some of the Old Testament’s more barbaric verses). They believe young children are lacking in morality. To quote:

Parents understand that it doesn’t take long for a baby to being acting sinfully. They cry out of selfishness, they learn to say “no” to their parents, they hoard their toys and refuse to share.

Others might claim that babies are born without a sin nature in the womb, and remain sinless until they commit a sin after birth; but again, this is not what we find in the Bible.

David writes in Psalm 51, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Babies in their mother’s wombs are developing sin natures as they develop physically, and they commit sinful actions after birth.

This seems to jar with the study that demonstrates infants are capable of showing comfort to those in distress. Then again, our behaviour is part instinct, and part learned. Babies – especially new-borns (my daughter was a new-born once!) – need a lot of attention, they would not survive without it, so it stands to reason they will cry to get that attention. That isn’t ‘sinful’, that is a survival instinct. As they grow and develop, they learn from their parents. They take their cues from the people around them, and yes, they might sometimes misbehave, as they test the limits of what they can get away with, from time to time. They also combine their instinctive sense of right and wrong with what they learn from the people around them. All of this supports the evolution of morality, which comes from our nature as social animals, and the desire to build and protect communities as a result.

All that being said, can I say with certainty that there is no higher power, directing matters behind the scenes? The truth is, I don’t know. Whilst SoM has labelled me an atheist (it never occurred to him to ask where I actually stand), I consider myself an agnostic. I do not claim to know for sure that there is no supreme being of some kind. The universe is vast, there are plenty of mysterious, unsolved events in the world, and maybe there is something out there that’s created us, directed us, and quietly embedded us with what makes us ‘us’. Whether or not that ‘something’ is the Christian God, is another matter. It cannot be proven, or demonstrated, via empirical means. On the other hand, evidence exists to show that morality can be driven by evolution, and therefore the argument that atheists cannot have a moral compass is on shaky ground.

Conflating Atheism and Communism

A common theme of the discussions between myself, SoM and Tom, was to suggest that atheism and communism are one and the same, or at least, that communism is a product of atheism, and therefore atheism is responsible for the actions undertaken in the name of communism.

This is a fallacy. Atheism is merely the absence of belief. Atheism is not a political ideology, and is not responsible for the rise of Marxism and communism. Karl Marx’s dissatisfaction with society and his critical views on religion would have existed before the rise of Marxism, and existed afterwards, yet note that revolutionary political ideologies were not springing up because of this. Atheism existed before the rise of Marx’s radical agenda, and existed afterwards, and note that violence was not erupting because of it.

This brings me to a pertinent point. You do not hear of people killing (or for that matter, preaching) in the name of atheism. Atheism is not a form of political ideology and it is not (as some incorrectly argue) a religion. Atheism is only the absence of belief. In contrast, people kill in the name of their religion all the time. That isn’t to say that religion is the cause, but it is interesting that people like SoM (who admitted he would kill me if God told him to) are quick to suggest the absence of belief is why people kill, and then defend the presence of belief in killers, through all kinds of mental gymnastics.

Hitler’s Faith

All of this brings me to my next section. SoM had no problems with attacking an entire group of people over the actions of a handful of historical figures (and as we have established, he did so under misleading pretences). Perhaps unsurprisingly, he took a hypocritical issue with the mention of Hitler’s beliefs.

Adolf Hitler was raised as a Christian, and his book, Mein Kampf, referenced Christianity and his beliefs on numerous occasions. In documented discourse, Hitler’s religious views appear to be quite fluid, at times critical of Christianity, at times believing that true Christianity had been corrupted, and yet referring to atheists as ‘animals’. It would not be fair to suggest that Hitler = Christian and therefore all Christians = Hitler. It could be that Hitler was not a Christian. I am willing to modify (mollify?) my original position regarding this, as a result of further reading. However, Hitler was not an atheist either, contrary to any suggestion of such.

Conclusions

It would be far from fair to say that all Christians have the same, frightening, literal interpretation of the Bible (the interpretation that can find no wrong in God’s blood-soaked actions of the Old Testament). There are many Christians who quietly ignore the Old Testament completely. Whether that is the right thing for a Christian to do is not for me to say. However, Christianity as an organised religion has a lot of historical blood on its hands (as do a number of organised religions).

In terms of providing a moral way to live, is Christianity better than atheistic, humanist moral codes? Wrapped up in that question is another question, what is moral? We can delve into the morality of opposing same-sex marriage versus accepting it. We can consider the morality of women’s rights in a secular society, versus a religious one. The religious would argue there are objective standards for morality on these and other issues. The irreligious would argue that these are subjective, dependent upon the beliefs (or lack thereof) of individuals.

Is society better when religion has more influence? I don’t think so. I expect Tom would not agree, and as I said right at the start of this, that’s normal. I will also say that I have no problem with people wanting to have religion in their lives, but it should never be forced upon anyone. I’m British, but the principle of separation of Church and State in the US is an important bulwark against a theocratic regime, and theocracies tend to be quite oppressive. Choice matters, freedom matters.

To sum it all up, I would argue that atheists, as a group, do not lack morality.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

My Answers to Dr. David Tee’s “Questions”

Bruce Gerencser 30 Comments
dr david tee

In January 2021, my friend Ben Berwick wrote:

Returning for a moment to something put forward on Blogging Theology, we have this sweeping notion that atheists believe murder can be ok, due to subjective morality. I’m not aware of anyone who has suggested murder is ok, but I am aware of several Biblical passages where victimless crimes are punished by death. There are quotes in both the Bible and Quran that speak of the destruction of entire civilisations for not believing in God. We are led to believe such wholesale slaughter is justified and morally right, yet when asked if they would carry out such acts if commanded to, the devout often refuse to answer. I wonder if any of my usual sparring partners will explain how the numerous violent acts of God in holy texts can be considered beyond redoubt, but not believing in God can automatically qualify someone has a supporter of murder?

Twenty-two months later, Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, responded to Ben’s post in an article titled If God Asked You to Kill Me:

Would you do it? That is the question MM asked us some time back. He was not thrilled with our answer as he was looking for a strict yes or no response. Our answer was that God would not ask us to kill him.

The reasoning is simple, God is not in the murder business. Anyone in the NT era who says they were told by God to kill someone, was not hearing the voice of God. In the OT when he told the Israelites to kill certain people groups, it was not a request but a command.

God has his perfect reasons for issuing those commands. One of them was that the people were so far gone that they probably could not be redeemed. We see that situation in the pre-flood world as all they thought of was evil.

We are getting to that attitude in today’s world. Many people only think of doing evil and they are not in a position where they will be open to redemption. But even in this new situation, God will not ask his followers to kill unrepentant sinners.

He still wants all men to be saved and he will exhaust all avenues to achieve that goal. When they are exhausted, he will not ask his followers to kill anyone. he will end this world as we know it and bring the final judgment upon everyone.

God does not need us to kill anyone. The time when unrepentant sinners are sent to hell is coming close. also, God is not going to tell his followers to do any sin. He will not ask or command anyone to murder someone else.

….

When the question was posed to us by MM, it was merely an attempt to create a strawman argument against God and sinners and to provide him with justification for his refusal to accept Christ as his Savior.

There was no legitimate reason to ask that question since it is the Muslim who claims their god commands or asks them to kill those non-Muslims he does not like. Christians are not commanded to kill and the Crusades were not of God but of man’s desires fueled by evil influences.

Note that Thiessen didn’t answer Ben’s question: if God told you to kill me (as God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac) would you do it? Having read Thiessen’s writing for years, I can tell you that if he believed God was telling him to do something, he would do it. I have no reason to believe he wouldn’t murder Ben — as God’s hand of judgment — if he were certain his peculiar God was telling him to do it. This is a man, after all, who testified under oath that he hears voices.

Ben has written several posts on his interaction with Thiessen and another apologist: Disturbing Silence and If God Asked . . . . Thiessen quickly responded with a post titled Here is the Question, revealing he does not pray or contemplate before responding to his critics. In his rambling, at times, incoherent, post, Thiessen asks two questions. While he primarily directed these questions to Ben, he also directed them to me (unbelievers). What follows are my responses to his questions.

#1. Is MM so bad that God needs to send someone to kill him?

As far as we can tell, MM has not gone over the edge or past the point of no return so why would he be concerned that God would send someone to kill him? This fascination with the topic has us wondering what MM is doing in his private life.

I have no doubt that if I suddenly died, Thiessen would claim that my death was his peculiar God’s judgment on my life. I am certain he would think the same if Ben suddenly died.

Thiessen subtly wonders out loud if Ben is doing something in secret that would warrant God sending someone to kill him. Thus, he believes that there may be times when God will send someone to kill unbelievers; and if he is honest, he will admit that if he is the one chosen by God to do the killing, he will gladly do so.

But in the NT age who would be bad enough for God to send someone to kill him? After all, God has let Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other evil people live long enough to do their dirty deeds,

We do not think that MM is a serial killer on the level of the Green River Killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, and or John Wayne Gacy nor is he a criminal like Whitey Bulger or members of the Mob in any era, so why is he so worried about God sending someone to kill him?

God is very patient and wants MM to be saved just like he wants everyone else to be saved. 

Ben, of course, is not worried about God sending someone to kill him. He may, however, be worried that someone thinking God is whispering in his ear might cause him harm. I too have similar concerns. Religious fanaticism — and make no mistake about it, Thiessen is a fanatic — can and does lead people to do all sorts of bad things.

This leads us to God’s next question: #2. Since MM thinks he is so bad and he knows the gospel message, why hasn’t he done something about his sinful spiritual condition?

I don’t think Ben has ever said he is “bad.” The best I can tell, Ben is a decent bloke. I wished he lived closer. I’m sure we would hit it off and down a few beers on Fridays at the local pub.

Yes, Ben knows the “gospel.” So what? Ben has read and understands the gospel, but he rejects its claims, as do I. Ben hasn’t done anything about his “sinful spiritual condition” because he isn’t a sinner in the Evangelical sense of the word. Thiessen wrongly thinks that if he believes something to be true, everyone should believe the same thing. As a Fundamentalist, he has a narrow worldview; one that has no place for any other viewpoint but his own.

We know he and others have heard the gospel so he knows there is a way out of his sinful situation why has he not acted on it properly and asked Jesus to redeem him? One reason he hasn’t is that he is too focused on us and other believers and will use us and other believers as his excuse for not accepting Christ.

Both Ben and I are unbelievers (agnostic and atheist, respectfully). We don’t believe because we have found the central claims of Christianity to be false, or lacking evidence for their justification. Personally, I reject the notion of “sin,” thus there is no “sinful situation” for me to get out of. I haven’t asked Jesus to forgive me because I reject the Christian concepts of redemption and forgiveness. When I cause harm to someone, I ask for their forgiveness. God doesn’t exist, so I have no need of his “forgiveness.” Again, Thiessen wants to force everyone to conform to his peculiar theology, and when they don’t conform, he attacks them personally, impugning their character.

Is he trying to be like Ghandi refusing salvation because the Christians he sees do not act the way he wants them to? But he should realize that Jesus is not calling him or any other unbeliever to follow other Christians.

Ignore anyone who can’t spell Gandhi’s name correctly. It is evident that Thiessen knows very little about Gandhi’s life; his religious, political, and social beliefs and motivations.

Jesus is calling MM and other unbelievers to FOLLOW HIM. Then if MM is so upset at other believers, why does he not protect himself, change his eternal destination, accept Christ as his personal savior then follow Jesus correctly showing every other believer how it is done?

If Jesus is calling, his flip phone must not be working. I have not received one call from the Big Kahuna. Thiessen says he is a Christian. Fine. What in his behavior commends Jesus to unbelievers? I see nothing in the life of Derrick Thiessen that is remotely attractive. He is a hateful man, a liar. He repeatedly attacks people he disagrees with. If he is a Christian, why would I want to be one? No thanks. I have pointed this out to Thiessen numerous times, complete with Bible verses. He ignores me, saying that unbelievers have nothing of value to say to him. But, what about what God said? — crickets —

This is the way it is with unbelievers. They do not understand the faith or how it is lived, yet feel they can critique the lives of those who believe as well as criticize the faith etc., yet do nothing to change their lives.

I can’t speak for Ben, but I most certainly do understand “the faith” and “how it is lived,” and Thiessen knows this. I was part of the Evangelical church for fifty years. I was born again at age 15. I pastored churches in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan for twenty-five years. I know “the faith” and “how it is lived” inside and out. Thiessen has no evidence to the contrary. I am more than qualified educationally and experientially to critique Christianity, including critiquing the lives of those who claim to follow Christ. “By their fruits, ye shall know them,” the Bible says. Unlike Thiessen, I don’t hide in a foreign country under an assumed name, leaving behind a track record of immoral and criminal behavior. My life is an open book. If someone has a question, all he or she has to do is ask.

My life is fine just the way it is. Do you know what pisses Thiessen off? I don’t need his God; his Jesus; his Bible; or his religion. He cannot wrap his mind around someone not being like him.

MM and unbelievers are not in a position to criticize Christians as they refuse to live life following Christ. Their lives are not better than the Christians and they have nothing to offer anyone so they really cannot complain about God, his plan of salvation, or how Christians live their lives.

Well, we can do whatever we want. FREEDOM!

Thiessen is the one who has nothing to offer to anyone. Just the other day he said he was thinking about shuttering his blog. Why? Nobody reads it except God (and God never comments). If visitor, pageview, comments, and email numbers mean anything. a lot of people think I have something to offer. In 2022, this site will once again pass one million page views. My presence on social media is growing and I continue to receive speaking engagement requests. Even to Thiessen, I have something to offer: blog fodder. He would have nothing to write about without me or Ben.

Especially when they do not recognize the adversary that hinders the Christian’s spiritual growth. With that refusal, they are criticizing Christians based on 1/4 to 1/2 of the story. That is not right nor is it fair.

So we challenge MM and other unbelievers to honestly answer those questions. We do not expect MM to be honest as he never is and will find some way to deflect the true content and distort it into something he can criticize.

Consider Thiessen’s two questions answered. 🙂

Saved by Reason,

signature

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Dr. David Tee Says It is Wrong for Me to Write the Black Collar Crime Series

Bruce Gerencser 10 Comments
david thiessen
Derrick Thiessen, back row, tall man in the green shirt

It has been a while since I’ve responded to something written by Dr. David Tee — whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen. Thiessen continues to rage-blog about me and Ben Berwick (Meerkat Musings). For the most part, I have ignored Thiessen’s bloviating, but his latest post about me deserves a response.

I am still working on a post titled “Who is Dr. David Tee”? One thing I know for sure is this: Thiessen is a staunch defender of Christian rapists, child molesters, predators, and abusers. This fact is shown once again in his latest post about me.

Here’s what Thiessen had to say (all spelling and grammar in the original):

BG has a series called Black Collar Crime.

BG is short for Bruce Gerencser. Thiessen is too lazy to type out my name, so he uses BG instead. He does the same with Meerkat Musings (Ben Berwick).

He is soooo brave ‘outing people’ who have already been arrested and saying how bad they were. it doesn’t take much to read a newspaper or two to get these stories. These men have already been outed so there is no need for him to write this series.

Actually, the Black Collar Crime series takes a significant amount of time for me to write. For each story, I typically read several news sources, check out the alleged offender’s social media accounts, and read the offender’s church website. I also view and listen to their videos and podcasts. I always want to make sure I accurately report these stories. Sometimes, thanks to churches quickly wiping all mention of offenders from their websites, I have to use the Wayback Machine to find older iterations of church websites. All of this takes time.

I do not, at any time, say how “bad” offenders are. I use headlines that are factual, not sensational. These headlines are typically built from the news stories themselves.

I have explained to Thiessen numerous times why I publish the Black Collar Crime Series. Sometimes, you have to tell toddlers things numerous times before they “get it,” so I will try one time to ‘splain to Thiessen why I write this series.

I use Google Alerts to notify me when there are new stories about clergy criminal misconduct — especially sex crimes. I receive several hundred alerts a day. I sift through these alerts to find stories best suited for the Black Collar Crime Series. So far, I have published over 1,000 articles, with hundreds more waiting to be reviewed and posted to this site. Many of these stories come from one or two news sources. All too often, these reports quickly disappear or are placed behind paywalls. By publishing them on this site, I am providing a public record of these clerics and their crimes.

Plus, he is not helping law enforcement as the people he records have already been arrested. All he is doing is showing that he can jump on the beat-down bandwagon instead of showing the pastor love, forgiveness, mercy, and so on.

Preachers claim to speak for God. They claim to believe and practice the Bible. Many of them preach one thing and do another. Preachers are viewed as moral authorities, so when they don’t practice what they preach, their hypocrisy needs to be pointed out.

Evangelical churches are known for hiding and covering up criminal behavior (especially sex crimes) by clergymen, deacons, evangelists, missionaries, Sunday school teachers, bus workers, and other church/ministry leaders. Just as it is important to expose offending preachers, it is also important to expose offending churches.

There’s no bandwagon for me to jump on. Only a handful of people and groups are writing about clergy criminal behavior. It’s not easy to daily wade through the Evangelical sewer, but doing so is important. We must not let preachers and churches continue to criminally harm people without being called to account. The best way to do this — for me, anyway — is to write the Black Collar Crime Series.

Thiessen seems to think I should feel sorry for the offenders: the rapists, child molesters, sexual predators, and abusers; that I should show them love, mercy, and forgiveness (and so on, whatever the hell that is). He’s joking, right? Forgiveness is up to the victim, not me. Mercy is up to the courts, not me. And love? That’s up to their families, not me. My responsibility is to write this series and shine light on their wicked behavior.

But enough about that series, we have noticed that he only publicly attack those who said they are Christian. That is kind of biased and very dishonest. We challenge him to do a black-collar crime series on atheists.

Yes, it is the Black COLLAR Crime series, a riff on the white collar many clergymen wear. This blog is primarily about Evangelicalism, not atheism. The Black Collar Crime Series, Red Collar Crime Series, and other series fulfill that mission.

We know there are plenty of atheists who make the police blotters and have been arrested for numerous crimes. Let’s see him be honest for a change and do both sides of the street instead of hating on only those he was once a part of.

There is a connection between religion and the crimes committed by preachers. I will gladly write articles about crimes committed by atheists in the name of atheism, so I am calling Thiessen’s bluff. Please send me any news stories of crimes committed by atheists; crimes where atheism played a part. Remember, offending preachers often use religion, theology, and the church to prey on people. Can this happen with atheists? Sure, but I currently don’t know of any stories about predator atheists.

I am sure readers of Thiessen’s words will see that he continues to besmirch my character. I expect this of him. He claims I am dishonest, a liar, yet he provides no evidence for his claims. I get it. Theissen doesn’t like the Black Collar Crime Series. I suspect the series gets too close to home for him, so, unable to refute the message, he rails against the messenger.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Cowboy Bob Sorensen Says I am Dishonest and an Angry Bigot, All Because I Quoted Him

Bruce Gerencser 19 Comments
atheists are idiots

Cowboy Bob Sorensen is An Evangelical Christian who despises atheists; not just atheism, but atheists themselves. Two weeks ago, I featured Cowboy Bob in the Christians Say the Darnedest Things Series. This series quotes Evangelicals without any commentary from me. Welp, Cowboy Bob took offense at me quoting him.

Here’s what he had to say:

My previous article on this weblog was a retooled post from Fakebook that examined alleged logic and morality from certain misotheists. It prompted reactions. One was built on complete dishonesty, including putting words in my mouth. I saw that he was just another angry bigot who was justifying his rebellion against Almighty God, and not worth my time. (I reckon he sent about ten visits here with his link.) If you go there, note that he doesn’t exactly enforce the comments policy for his sycophants.

A second reaction was written by an acolyte of the first writer. His comments on this weblog were the same old boilerplate rhetoric. When I stopped responding and allowing his disingenuous comments, he wrote his own post.

Cowboy Bob thinks I was dishonest. In what way? All I did was quote him. Don’t like being quoted? Stop saying inflammatory, hateful shit. I’ve been reading Cowboy Bob’s blog for several years. His hatred for atheists is legendary.

Cowboy Bob also thinks by me quoting him that I’m “justifying” my rebellion towards his peculiar version of the Christian God. This one is a head scratcher for me. Maybe, he means my blog as a whole. Regardless, I am just one man with a story to tell. I’m not in the justifying business. That’s Cowboy Bob’s schtick — justifying the Bible and its abhorrent teachings. Jesus, Cowboy Bob, you are a member of a blood cult. You are the one that has a lot of justifying to do.

Cowboy Bob also took issue with something my friend Ben Berwick wrote in a post titled The Creation Cowboy. (I didn’t even know Ben wrote this post until today.) I’ll leave it to Ben to defend himself. Calling Ben an acolyte of mine is hilarious. Ben’s not even an atheist. We became acquainted though being targets of fake Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen. That’s it. That we’ve become friends is awesome. But acolyte? Child, please. I don’t have followers. I have readers, some of whom are friends and acquaintances. Cowboy Bob is the one who belongs to a cult. He and Thiessen should get together. Both are rabid Bible-thumping creationists.

For the record, here’s the comment Cowboy Bob left on Ben’s post. You be the judge of his character. I know what I think. 🙂

To show the brilliance of The Mighty Atheist™, you begin with an ad hominem, using cowboy as a pejorative. This is followed by a hasty generalization about my knowledge of atheists based on just onearticle. I’ve got some bad news for you, Sunshine, I’ve been writing about atheists, theology, and other things for somewhere around fifteen years. That means I won’t fall for tricks. So, have fun with your argument from silence and other logical fallacies in your vindictive, petty post. Mayhaps when your frontal lobes develop and you can have a rational discussion, I’ll let you comment on my posts again, mmmkay?

Evidently, Cowboy Bob didn’t like the comments readers left on my post. I went back and read the comments. I didn’t see anything that violated the comment policy. Are regular readers and commenters given greater latitude, comment-wise? Yep. Everyone can have a bad day. However, Evangelicals often come in commenting with both barrels blazing. I make no apologies for cutting such people off after one or two comments. My house, my rules. Don’t like it, start your own blog.

Finally, Cowboy Bob thinks it is beneath him to respond to me; not that there’s anything for him to respond to since all I did was quote him. He implies, based on referrals from this site, that no one reads this blog. He fails to consider that my quote was sufficient to fairly represent him, so there’s no reason for readers to click the link to his site. I am certain, based on the server logs, that a wee bit more than ten people read Cowboy Bob’s quote. 🙂

Cowboy Bob’s goal is to discredit and demean. I’m confident that fair minded readers will see right through his subterfuge — all ten of you anyway. 🙂

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Dr. David Tee Continues to Rage-Blog at Ben Berwick and Bruce Gerencser

Bruce Gerencser 7 Comments
dr david tee

Fake Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, is upset over Ben Berwick and me quoting his words. Somehow, some way, we are mispresenting him by quoting from his blog posts. Both Ben and I link to his posts so our readers can read our Tee quotes in context. We’ve yet to have anyone except Thiessen say that we have mispresented or distorted his words. Thiessen has yet to learn that when you say things in public, somebody is going to quote you or repeat what you said. I own every word I write. When I am not clear, I explain and clarify. But, when I say something that offends someone, I don’t run from my words. If Thiessen doesn’t want to be held accountable for what he says, I suggest that he stop saying nasty, hateful, inflammatory stuff.

Part of the problem is that Theissen has a god complex. He is not special in this regard. When a man thinks that he is supernaturally called by a supernatural God to preach supernatural sermons, is it any surprise that he thinks he is God, or at the very least, God-adjacent? I previously mentioned that Theissen feels Ben and I are persecuting him. He even said that he was just like Jesus standing silent before the Sanhedrin. When a person with intimate knowledge about Theissen’s past shares verifiable evidence for troubling past behavior, Theissen says nothing. Why? He’s above the fray, as God is. God doesn’t answer his critics and neither does Thiessen. Just today, Theissen said:

We never said we were the moral authority on this issue. We did say that GOD is and we write his words, not ours. Ours are not inspired but they are based on inspired words. So the problem BG and MM have is not with us but with God and his ways.

Need I say more?

Theissen continues to defend his belief that a ten-year-old (or even a five-year-old) rape victim should be FORCED to carry her fetus to term. Thiessen shows a callous disregard for the welfare of the girl. All that matters is his warped interpretation of the Bible. Theissen has written post after post defending his position. He’s done the same with his continued defense of rapists, child molesters, and abusers. It seems that his moral compass is broken. No amount of pushback from Ben or me has changed Thiessen’s mind. Why? We are atheists (though Ben has never claimed to be an atheist). Atheists have nothing to offer the human race. Our words should be ignored. Thus, he makes no attempt to engage our challenges. Instead, Theissen attacks us personally, disparaging our character and slandering our good names. Why does he behave this way? He’s “God,” so he can say and do whatever he wants.

Theissen provides a good example of this in his latest diatribe, No Rational, Logical or Evidence Filled Arguments:

We have 2 main detractors [Ben Berwick and Bruce Gerencser] that like reading our website. They can’t seem to get enough of our content. When we say something they do not like, their websites are filled with their ‘opposing’ points of view.

We know about them because they make sure they link to our articles in their content. What we have found is that despite their demands that Christians present rational, logical, and evidence-filled (their definitions, of course), content in rebuttal to their arguments, these detractors do not do the same thing.

They would rather use innuendo, lies, misleading comments, and false declarations as if they are an authority.

….

His words imply something we never said, implied, or hinted at. BG misleads his readers YET not one word is found in either article that presents a rational, logical, and evidence-filled opposing view.

He has to stoop to insults, inferences, and clever wording to get his readers to think negatively about us and our content. MM is just the same.

….

Nothing rational there or even logical. He resorts to name calling, abusive language, and lies and he continues to try to read our minds. Of course, he makes the excuse of not presenting anything rational, logical, or evidence-filled by insulting us and using that as justification for his failure to make his point.

Both MM and BG like to attack the messenger so they do not have to deal with the truth.

….

MM & BG just want negative fodder to continue to attack us in their own sinful ways. They won’t be rational. logical or even produce evidence to support their views. Everything they have written or alluded to points to the validity and truthfulness of our content.

We never said we were the moral authority on this issue. We did say that GOD is and we write his words, not ours. Ours are not inspired but they are based on inspired words. So the problem BG and MM have is not with us but with God and his ways.

….

They do not like those ways, so they advocate for everything sinful. Their denial of both God and sin just shows that their arguments are never rational,. logical or even evidenced-filled. They are not honest either.

Their arguments are personally based,  subjective and according to their own desires and thoughts. Unbelievers are never rational, logical, or evidence-based because they dismiss the truth in favor of their own deceived opinions.

They are not our enemy, but the evil in and behind them are. We do not wish them ill-will and are saddened that they hold onto evil in spite of hearing the truth. We also do not spread misinformation, or lies and do other things to them as they do to us.

Our actions prove we are more moral than they can ever hope to be.

dr david tee 2

Here’s my challenge to Derrick Thomas Thiessen. Want to debate the issues, Derrick? I will gladly debate you on YouTube. I will make the debate available on my YouTube channel. All that I ask is that you use your real name and visage. No hiding behind fake names and avatars. Want to defend your views on the Bible, abortion, and defending child molesters? I will gladly provide you with a forum to do so. I am not inclined to continue this back and forth via blog posts. I will respond if you personally attack me, but outside of that, I am content to leave you to your own devices.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.