Menu Close

Tag: Derrick Thomas Thiessen

Dear Evangelicals, Bible Verses are Claims, Not Evidence

Bruce Gerencser 26 Comments
evidence

Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, continues to misuse and misattribute my content, writing several posts about me virtually every week, saying he is just using my copyrighted material to teach believers — all ten of them who read his blog, anyway. I have largely ignored Thiessen’s posts, but a recent one titled Do They [Unbelievers] Really Want a Discussion? deserves a response.

Thiessen wrote:

Over the years we have had discussions with a variety of unbelievers and people who claim to be Christian. They have not always gone well. We are not trying to evangelize these people but work hard to plant and water seeds in them.

….

They usually do not want an open-minded discussion. Their minds remain closed and they only want the believer to be open-minded to their views and points. if they want to have an open honest discussion, then the unbeliever cannot simply dismiss the points made by the believer.

….

That specific unbeliever [Bruce Gerencser] already knows that science, archaeology, and other secular topics do not cover, fully support, or provide the information he is willing to listen to. That means he only hears what he wants to hear and can freely remain in his unbelief without guilt.

….

This is why we have stopped talking to many unbelievers. They just do not want to hear the truth and they want to shield themselves from what God has to say. A believer is not allowed to have an open and honest discussion because they are already forbidden to include what their belief is and where they came to that belief.

To be truly objective, the unbeliever has to be open to everything involved in the discussion and that includes quotes from the Bible. One cannot prove the Bible true without using bible verses as part of their examples and points.

….

Those Bible verses needed to present one’s point of view are backed up by both science and archaeology. Without that reference point, it is impossible to refute the arguments made by the unbeliever. One cannot appeal to both science and archaeology to prove a point if one cannot bring pertinent bible verses into the discussion.

….

BG [Bruce Gerencser] has our email address and if he has a list of questions he wants answered, then we would be happy to answer them for him. But we will not get involved in a discussion. He won’t like the answers but the truth is the truth and he does not have it anymore.

Thiessen wrongly thinks that I have doubts about the existence of God, Jesus, and Christianity. I don’t. I am fully persuaded that the Christian God is a myth, Jesus is a man who lived and died, and the central claims of Christianity are false. I have weighed these things in the balance and found them wanting. I don’t have questions that need answering, and even if I did, I would never, never go to a disgraced preacher who lacks understanding of basic Christianity — especially soteriology — for answers. If I want answers to religious questions, I seek out experts, not hateful, mean-spirited, argumentative Evangelical preachers.

Now to the focus of this post. Evangelicals, including Thiessen, think if they quote a Bible verse, they have provided evidence for their claim. This is not true. Bible verses are claims, not evidence. Evangelicals claim Jesus was born of a virgin, and give several Bible verses (which they grossly misinterpret) to justify their claim. However, these verses are not evidence of the virgin birth. They are claims, and if Evangelicals want me to believe that a teen girl named Mary was impregnated by God (the Holy Ghost) without consent and gave birth to a God-man named Jesus, they must provide more evidence than “the Bible says.” Of course, there is no evidence for the virgin birth apart from the Bible. The same can be said for many Evangelical beliefs.

When I ask for “evidence,” I am asking for more than proof texts. I am more than happy to talk about the Bible, but when Evangelicals appeal to the Bible as the sole source of evidence for their claims, I am going to call foul. First, there is no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a fallible, errant, contradictory ancient compilation of religious writings. Believing the Bible is God’s inerrant, infallible words is a faith claim, one for which Evangelicals can provide no evidence apart from saying “I believe it to be true.” Second, the central claims of Christianity rest on a foundation of faith — a faith I do not have. I refuse to ignore evidence and facts and just faith-it.

Ninety-nine percent of the emails and messages I receive from Evangelical preachers and apologists are filled with Bible verses and regurgitated arguments and claims. No new arguments, no new claims, just the same old shit, new day. I would love to hear a new argument, but none have been forthcoming for sixteen years. I am open to new evidence for the claims of Christianity, but I highly doubt any is coming. I spent 20,000 hours reading and studying the Bible. I preached over 4,000 sermons. I have read countless theological tomes. I am confident that I have a comprehensive understanding of Christianity. If the Thiessens of the Evangelical world have new evidence for their claims, I am more than willing to hear them out. However, regurgitating the same things over and over again is not helpful nor persuasive, and I wish the Evangelicals who contact me would realize this. Alas, they don’t, so I must endure email after email of quoted — often misused — Bible verses, appeals to Pascal’s Wager, heretical theological beliefs, threats of judgment and Hell, and questions asking me if I have ever read this or that book.

Do better, Evangelicals, do better.

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

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

The Dr. David Tee Saga — Part Five

Bruce Gerencser 9 Comments
david thiessen
David Tee/Derrick Thomas Thiessen is the tall man in the back

Dr. David Tee is a fake name used by Derrick Thomas Thiessen, a Christian Missionary and Alliance preacher who fled the United States/Canada twenty years ago and now lives in the Philippines. Thiessen has spent the past two years ripping off my writing, hurling sermons at me, and attacking my character. He has written over one hundred posts about me. And at times, I respond. (Search for Dr. David Tee and Derrick Thomas Thiessen.)

This concludes the series titled The Dr. David Tee Saga. From this point forward, Tee/Derrick Thomas Thiessen will not be mentioned on this site. I’m sure he will continue to “correct” me, but I will not respond.

Here’s what Tee wrote about me last week:

Why is he so afraid?

BG [Bruce Gerencser] continues to publish distorted materials about us [this series] and we wonder why he is so afraid of us? All we do is point out the error of his thinking and content and do nothing else. He is a quitter and we have not known one quitter to have any credibility whatsoever.

He offers everyone nothing save his own disbelief, blank ideas, and baseless declarations. He has no credible evidence to support his views. Maybe he is tired of being reminded of the dreadful mistake that he made so many years ago when he left the faith.

We wish we could redeem him but he seems to be happy in his dark life. ‘His story’ is boring, old, and not new as he is just another person in a long line of former believers who have left the faith and blamed everyone else for their departure.

Maybe he does not like being reminded of what he has left and lost? We cannot be sure but he really should stop making himself an internet laughingstock as people laugh at his inability to continue in his faith. Who celebrates a quitter? God doesn’t.

But he likes the bad attention as he likes playing the victim so we do not expect to see any change in him. It is just sad to see a person being used like he is.

I will leave it to others to decide whether what Thiessen said about me is true. I’m confident thoughtful people will see Thiessen’s rant as pure projection; the man looking in the mirror.

Thiessen has been given the opportunity to write a facts-based rebuttal to the material provided by W.W. Jacobs.

Let me conclude this post with two more things about Thiessen you may not know.

First, Thiessen is a 1980 graduate of a Bible college in Canada. It is doubtful Thiessen has a doctorate, and if by some slim chance he does, the degree is likely from an unaccredited institution or diploma mill — both of which abound in Evangelicalism. Thiessen has been repeatedly asked by numerous people to provide documentation for his claim that he has a doctorate. Thiessen refuses to do so, saying that “God knows,” and that is all that matters.

Second, “Dr. David Tee” is a name given to Thiessen by fellow students during his Bible college days. I viewed a college publication in which Thiessen, the student, is called “Dr. Tee.”

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

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

The Dr. David Tee Saga — Part Three

Bruce Gerencser 0 Comments
david thiessen
David Tee/Derrick Thomas Thiessen is the tall man in the back

Editor’s Note: Dr. David Tee is a fake name used by Derrick Thomas Thiessen, a Christian Missionary and Alliance preacher who fled the United States/Canada twenty years ago and now lives in the Philippines. Thiessen has spent the past two years ripping off my writing, hurling sermons at me, and attacking my character. He has written over one-hundred posts about me. And at times, I respond. (Search for Dr. David Tee and Derrick Thomas Thiessen.) This series will take a look at things Thiessen doesn’t want anyone to know about. Once this series is completed, Tee/Thiessen will no longer be mentioned by me in my writing. You have my word on this subject.

Guest Post by W.W. Jacobs

First, we cover what may be my single favorite exchange in the record we’ve been discussing:

“Do you vote, Mr. Thiessen?”

“No.”

“Did you ever apply for voter registration?”

“It’s illegal to do so.”

“Yes, it is. Have you ever done so?”

“Yes.”

[Ed.: let us pause here and reflect on Derrick’s recent blog post: “…this confession … destroys any credibility or authenticity (he) thought he had. Anything he has published, is publishing, or will publish is now non-credible because he willfully admits to breaking the law. Nothing he says can be taken even at face value because he thinks he is above the law.”]

“When did you do that?”

“Ten years ago, ten to fifteen years ago?”

“Where?”

“It was in (State 1).”

“What did you do?”

“Didn’t vote.”

“Did you apply for voter registration in the state of (State 1)?”

“Yeah, I applied, but didn’t vote, didn’t use it.”

“How did you apply?”

“Just filled out a card and sent it in.”

“What name did you use?”

“David Ford.”

“You knew you had to be a US citizen to vote?”

“Yeah. I didn’t vote.”

“Did you know it’s illegal to create an application to vote using a false name if you’re not a US citizen?”

“It didn’t say application for one was illegal. To have one or use, it’s illegal.”

“Did you get the voter registration card?”

“No.”

[omitting several comments that are summarized as “you can’t prove I ever had physical possession of the voter registration card, and besides, I never used it, so no harm, no foul”]

…

“Did you apply for voter registration anyplace else?”

“No.”

“Specifically, did you apply for one in (State 2)?”

“No.”

“Did you ever use the name Peter Sullivan?”

“No.”

“… Do you recognize this?”

“No.”

“This is a voter registration card for (State 2). What’s the name that’s at the top?”

“Sullivan, Peter.”

“What is the address listed for Peter Sullivan applying for this registration card?”

“(redacted)”

“That’s where you lived, correct?”

“Yes.”

“And what is the occupation listed?”

“Writer.”

“And you are a writer, correct?”

“I was.”

“And what is the date of birth listed on this registration card?”

“(redacted)”

“That’s your date of birth, is it not?”

“Yes.”

…

“… Can you tell me any reason – this thing has your address, your date of birth, your occupation. Just a coincidence?”

“No, because off and on I would help people out and have them stay with me. Some were not the most reputable people, but they needed help and this could be the way they paid me back.”

[Ed.: I don’t know about you, but whenever I’ve done someone a favor, they’ve repaid my kindness with, usually, a meal, or returning the car they borrowed with a full tank of gas, not by committing a felony on my behalf.]

“… This says, if I’m correct, ‘I’m a citizen of the United States.”

“Okay.”

“Is that what it says?”

“Yes.”

“And does it also say it’s a felony for someone to sign this and submit it if that information is not correct?”

“Okay. That’s what it says.”

“So your testimony is that you did something similar to this in (State 1), but you’re denying any responsibility for doing this in (State 2)?”

“Yes.”

Incidentally, you’ve received just a taste of the mental gymnastics he’s capable of. Maybe later we’ll get to the visitation rights he demanded for his child, which he then never availed himself of because “I believe it’s my right not to do so.”

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

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

The Dr. David Tee Saga — Part Four

Bruce Gerencser 6 Comments
david thiessen
David Tee/Derrick Thomas Thiessen is the tall man in the back

Editor’s Note: Dr. David Tee is a fake name used by Derrick Thomas Thiessen, a Christian Missionary and Alliance preacher who fled the United States/Canada twenty years ago and now lives in the Philippines. Thiessen has spent the past two years ripping off my writing, hurling sermons at me, and attacking my character. He has written over one-hundred posts about me. And at times, I respond. (Search for Dr. David Tee and Derrick Thomas Thiessen.) This series will take a look at things Thiessen doesn’t want anyone to know about. Once this series is completed, Tee/Thiessen will no longer be mentioned by me in my writing. You have my word on this subject.

Guest Post by W.W. Jacobs

This will be my final installment in this series. Derrick himself would be wise not to breathe a sigh of relief; I have certainly not disclosed all the damning information I have on him, and I will not hesitate to reveal more if he decides to start rattling his saber of sanctimony again, either here or elsewhere.

However, the objective of the first post I made here last year is accomplished. Any ministry worth its salt should be Googling David Tee / David Thiessen / Derrick Theissen / David Ford / Peter Sullivan / whatever he decides to call himself.

And the first several results of the search will be this site, recording the story of the would-be missionary whose employment in a non-teaching job is only measured in months because he decides the accepted standards of conduct in the typical place of employment do not apply to him … who has credibly been accused of domestic violence by at least two women … who has no verifiable degree from an accredited institution beyond a bachelor’s degree conferred in 1980 … who not only abandoned his child but fled the country to avoid so much as paying a nominal amount of court-ordered child support … who spits in the face of those who extend benevolence and compassion to him … and who is an identity thief and a convicted felon.

The first Scripture for today, just for Derrick, is Luke 12:1-3: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops.”

Also Luke 8:17: “For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.”

For the overall theme of this remaining installment, the Scripture is Romans 13:1-2: “Every person is to be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”

For the sake of this discussion, we will assume that a Christian, such as Derrick, will recognize the 535 members of the U.S. Congress and the elected chief executive of the U.S. government – i.e. the President – as having authority that is ultimately been conferred upon them by God (Derrick’s presumed assessment of the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency notwithstanding).  This would include their authority to write and enact U.S. immigration laws.

To keep this simple, when you come to the United States from another country, you are either coming as a visitor or coming to work for an American employer. If you’re coming as a visitor, you are not allowed to work while you’re here, and you have to leave after a certain period of time. If you’re coming to work (an H-1B visa) you have to be sponsored by a specific employer and you have to have a job already waiting for you.

Derrick came in on a visitor visa, which is why he needed to steal …  err, “accept a gift of” … someone’s Social Security number in order to get a job, because possession of a Social Security number is a basic affirmation of your legal right to work in the United States. But we’ll get to that.

First, some background information. All quotes below were offered, under penalty of perjury, by Derrick.

“Mr. Thiessen, where were you born?”

“ British Columbia.”

“What is your date of birth?”

“(Redacted).”

“Do you have a Social Security number?”

“123-45-6789.” (Not the actual number he used.)

“And you’re a citizen of what country?”

“Canada.”

“Do you have any citizenship rights in the United States?”

“No.”

“What is your current immigration status?”

“Visitor.”

“Do you have a visa?”

“Canadians don’t need one.”

[Ed.: this is accurate – so long as they aren’t coming for work.]

“… we get automatic six months in America …”

[This is also accurate, with some caveats that are not germane to this discussion.]

“… we have to leave once in that six-month period, and we get an automatic six months again.”

[This is not accurate. Visitors must petition the U.S. government for an extension if they want to stay longer.]

“It’s your understanding that you can stay in the United States, Canadians can, indefinitely as long as you leave the country and come back in once every six months?”

“In consulting with an immigration attorney, yes, that’s what I can do.”

[Ed.: This is presumably the same immigration attorney who allegedly told him it would be fine to apply for entry to the U.S. under a false name.]

“Is that what you in fact have been doing?”

“Yes.”

 “And what did you do, go to [border town]?”

“Yes.”

“Cross the border?”

“Yes.”

“And then come right back?”

“Yes.”

“Is there paperwork you need to sign when you come back across?”

“No.”

[Ed.: His paper trail does include at least one Mexico-based cell phone number. My presumption is that he needed some way to validate having ‘left the U.S.’ and “here’s my Mexican phone number” was what he came up with.]

 “Have you ever used a false Social Security number?”

“Yes.”

 “Where was that?”

“(Redacted)”

“For what reason did you use a false Social Security number?”

“Just for identification. Someone gave it to me. I never applied for it, never bought it, someone just gave it to me out of the kindness of their heart.”

“Who did?”

“(Redacted name of a lady who is now of age to collect Social Security and, suffice to say, is having some issues doing so because of Derrick’s abuse of what he claims to be her kindness.)”

“What was that Social Security number that she gave you?”

“123-45- … I think it’s 6789.” (Again, not the actual number.)

“Did you ever use that Social Security number?”

“Not really.”

“What do you mean by not really?”

“I had it for identification. That’s it.”

“Did you ever write it down on a piece of paper verifying or saying that was your Social Security number?”

“Not that I can recall.”

…

“You were using a false name?”

“No, that [David Ford] is the name I was going by for ten years through that whole time.”

“Did David Ford have his own Social Security number different than your Social Security?”

“No, he never had one.”

“What Social Security number did you use during this … process?”

“Just the one that was given to me by that girl.”

“What number was that?”

“I don’t know … I haven’t thought about it for years.”

“So you used a false name and a false Social Security number, under oath … is that a fair statement?”

“No, I used the same name I was presenting myself by. I was not going to make matters any worse. I took that name, I stood by that name, I never committed any fraud by that name, because I was always going to stick by that name in all situations.”

[Ed.: this is emblematic of Derrick’s logic: “I never committed any fraud under the fraudulent name I was using.”]

“Did you use a false Social Security number?”

“I used that number that was given to me by the girl.”

“Was that your Social Security number?”

“It was hers, she lent it to me and she said, here, you can have your freedom, use my Social Security number.”

“Did you understand that to be legal?”

“At the time, no.”

“You understood it to be illegal, correct?”

“I … at the time, it took me about a year or two to find out all the legal ramifications.”

…

“This document … your Social Security number is stated there and it’s Social Security number 123-45-6789.”

“Okay.”

“Was that your Social Security number?”

“That’s the one that was given to me, yes.”

“Answer the question. Was that your Social Security number?”

“These were … can you clarify that?”

“Let’s do it this way. Was that Social Security number issued to you by the United States government?”

“No.”

“This as a false Social Security number given to you by some girl?”

“It was a Social Security number given to me by a friend.”

“You know you were not entitled to use it?”

“At the time, I knew that. At the time initially given, I didn’t know it.”

“You thought this might have been legal to use a false Social Security number?”

“I don’t have an opinion on that either way. At the time I wasn’t worried, didn’t think about it being illegal.”

“Did you have a card with that Social Security number on it in your wallet, on your person, or somewhere?”

“No.”

“[This voter registration record] … just right above the [stolen] Social Security number, it’s got your place of birth and it says California?”

“Yes.”

“Were you born in California, sir?”

“No.”

“So you lied on that question, is that correct?”

“Yes.”

“And do you think that was proper or legal to do?”

“No.”

This would be a good time to revisit Derrick’s recent comment: “…this confession … destroys any credibility or authenticity (he) thought he had. Anything he has published, is publishing, or will publish is now non-credible because he willfully admits to breaking the law. Nothing he says can be taken even at face value because he thinks he is above the law.”

This concludes my posting on the subject, unless Derrick and his lying, deserting, abusive ways escalate matters such that it becomes necessary to offer the rebuke of disclosing additional information.

I thank Bruce for allowing me this space and time.

To Derrick: I would presume that Bruce’s offer to provide the space for you to offer a substantive rebuttal remains in force.  Just remember having held the monkey’s paw if you do.

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

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

The Dr. David Tee Saga — Part Two

Bruce Gerencser 4 Comments
david thiessen
David Tee/Derrick Thomas Thiessen is the tall man in the back

Editor’s Note: Dr. David Tee is a fake name used by Derrick Thomas Thiessen, a Christian Missionary and Alliance preacher who fled the United States/Canada twenty years ago and now lives in the Philippines. Thiessen has spent the past two years ripping off my writing, hurling sermons at me, and attacking my character. He has written over one-hundred posts about me. And at times, I respond. (Search for Dr. David Tee and Derrick Thomas Thiessen.) This series will take a look at things Thiessen doesn’t want anyone to know about. Once this series is completed, Tee/Thiessen will no longer be mentioned by me in my writing. You have my word on this subject.

Guest Post by W.W. Jacobs

I want to open with this thought from Derrick’s recent blog post:

“You cannot be Christian and a Democrat.”

Not even the fact of him being Canadian would lend any credence to a claim of unfamiliarity with a Democrat named Jimmy Carter. He is far from the only example, but he is certainly the most prominent one.

On to today’s post. In reviewing some of the recent comments, I get the impression that there’s significant interest in his history of interpersonal relationships.

Today I open with 1 Timothy 5:8: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

 “To whom have you been married?”

“Her name was [redacted].”

“For what period of time were you married to (her)?”

“From 1988 to 1989.”

…

“Have you had any contact with (redacted) since 1989?”

“No.”

“Did you get divorced in (state)?”

“Yes.”

“What name were you using at the time of this divorce?”

“David Ford.”

…

“Was there ever filed in court any paperwork regarding any domestic violence whatsoever between you and (redacted)?”

“No.”

“At any time?”

“No.”

“Was there any domestic violence between you and (redacted) at any time?”

“Not in my opinion.”

“Tell me about what someone else might think.”

“Well, we fought like normal. That’s all.”

“Did you ever strike her at all?”

“She probably says I did.”

“Did you?”

“Not that I recall.”

[During a discussion about his employment history.]

“Canadian dollars are 50% of American dollars, and I’m going to have to be paying child support, it’s a 50% hit that I can’t afford, it’s better that I find work here that I can fully fund the child support.”

[Ed.: I am not sure if this is a genuine misunderstanding or deliberate obfuscation – I suspect the latter – but for most of the time period at issue, the exchange rate was around 1.50 USD to CAD. In other words, it would cost him $15.00 American to get $10.00 Canadian. However, in reverse, $10.00 Canadian could be exchanged for $15.00 US, meaning that in Canadian dollars, his monthly child-support obligation would be roughly the same as a monthly utility bill.]

“Have you made any child –“

“There’s no money to pay the child support.”

“So the answer is no?”

…

“It wouldn’t be effective to do that.”

“Why not?”

“Well, 50 percent, that would be almost impossible for me to pay child support.”

“Why?”

“The Canadian expenses are very outrageous. Not only is there a 52 percent income tax, but if you live in the wrong area where the jobs are, expenses are astronomical.”

“So I’ll ask you again. Your reason for not going back to Canada and getting a job is because of the exchange rate and expenses in Canada would not make it worth your while financially?”

“They would not benefit anyone financially.”

Derrick hails from Alberta originally. Above, I referenced information about what presumably would be one of his monthly bills. The site where I found this information has this to say about the cost of living in Alberta:

With Alberta having no provincial sales tax and relatively higher incomes than the rest of Canada, the province can be attractive to move to. Along with a fairly modest cost of living that is anchored by low rents province-wide, and cheap gas prices, Alberta can be a place to comfortably raise a family.

Source: https://wowa.ca/cost-of-living-canada

I will let the reader draw their own conclusions about the validity of his statement that he could not afford to return to his home province of Alberta, get a job, and fulfill his court-ordered obligations.

Also, simply because I don’t want the headache of transcribing it, here’s a basic outline of some of the other testimony about this child:

  • He was granted visitation and never availed himself of it
  • When asked why, he said, “it’s my right not to.”
  • Regarding additional questions about the child, he said “I don’t believe it’s mine.”
  • He claims that a few different women have tried to pin him as the father of their children “but when push came to shove, no child came forth.” Does anyone want to take bets that he skipped town before a paternity test could be done?
  • “I had a childhood disease, and I have been sterile for years.” He had never had a medical determination of this because “I never felt the need to.”
  • Several pages of this deposition are all about how he doesn’t feel it’s his child. I wonder if that’s how he convinced himself that he’s not violating 1 Timothy 5:8 all these years – if it’s not his child, he’s under no obligation to provide, right? Yet in my e-mail correspondence with him, from the jump, he kept referring to “my boy.” Dude, make up your mind.

From here there was some discussion about Derrick’s family history, which I am skipping, notwithstanding an amusing exchange in which he couldn’t remember if his brother’s name is “Tom” or “Jerry” (not real names, although the real ones are equally dissimilar). To limit the scope of this post to his personal relationships, we now turn to a discussion of Derrick pleading guilty to a very minor – Class C – felony and put on probation.

“Did you, in fact, violate your probation?”

“Yes.”

“Did the probation officer file a petition to have your probation revoked?”

“I don’t know. That I don’t know.”

“Specifically were there allegations of new criminal activity?”

“No, not that I’m aware of.”

“Specifically allegation of assault by you on [former girlfriend]?”

“Okay. They reported that. I got sent back.”

“Tell me about that.”

“About what?”

“What was the assault on [former girlfriend]?”

“We just had a disagreement.”

“You assaulted her, is that correct?”

“Not really.”

“What do you mean by not really?”

“She’d call it assault. I wouldn’t.”

“But she did call it assault, didn’t she?”

“Yes.”

“She called the police, did she not?”

“Yes.”

“She got an injunction against you for domestic violence?”

“As far as I know she did.”

…

“Any domestic violence of any kind between you and [ex-wife]?”

“No.”

“Never?”

“No.”

“Were there any arguments?”

“We fought like normal people.”

“Did you ever break anything?”

“I threw a phone away from her, not at her.”

“Phone break?”

“Yes.”

“You threw that in anger?”

“Yes.”

“Anger at [ex-wife]?”

“Anger at the situation.”

“What situation?”

“Just whatever was going on at the time.”

“What was going on at the time?”

“Just an unreasonable amount of dialogue that pertained to her wanting to leave.”

“She wanted to leave you?”
“Yeah.”

“You didn’t want her to leave you?”

“Didn’t want her to, but I didn’t stop her.”

“Threw a portable phone across the room and smashed the phone, correct?”

“Yeah.”

“Do you have certain problems with people closing doors in your presence?”

“At the time when that happened it felt like she was cutting me off.”

“What, at the time what happened?”

“I just told her she did it she could open it.”

“The door?”

“Yeah.”

“When did this happen?”

“I never kicked it open.”

“When did this happen?”

“About the same time frame as when the phone was thrown.”

…

“So you agreed telling [ex-wife] not to close any doors behind her, is that correct?”

“Yes.”

“You told her that on more than one occasion?”

“I could have.”

“And you told her that if she ever closed any doors on you, you would kick them down?”

“Yes.”

“Why did you tell her that?”

“Because I thought she was cutting me off, and I couldn’t handle that.”

“Why couldn’t you handle that?”

“She was my wife.”

“So your wife is not entitled to any privacy?”

“She got privacy.”

“How did she get privacy if she can’t close the door?”

“I never kicked one down either.”

“But you threatened to?”

“Yes.”

“On more than one occasion?”

“Could have been more than one.”

“Was it more than one?”

“I remember once.”

…

“[Ex-wife] got a protective order against you, did she not?”

“Yes.”

…

“And were the allegations made in that document accurate?”

“Yes.”

…

“You consider that domestic violence?”

“No.”

“Do you consider not allowing your wife to go into her room and close the door, threatening to kick the door down if she does, do you consider that domestic violence?”

“That’s not a question that would pertain … that would get the full truth out of that.”
“I’m sorry?”

“That’s a question I couldn’t answer with the full truth. That would be stipulating that I set the limit that she couldn’t close any doors. That’s not true.”

“Do you consider threatening to kick a door down if your wife closes it to be domestic violence?”

“No.”

“What do you consider domestic violence?”

“Basically if I physically did something to her.”

“So threatening her doesn’t –“

“I didn’t threaten her. I threatened the door.”

“This isn’t the first time a protective order has been issued against you, is it?”

“I don’t know.”

[Ed. Spoiler alert: it’s not the first time.]

One of the reasons this is all being done in multiple parts is simply that I get a headache trying to follow along with his semantics.

For a different angle regarding his interpersonal relationships, we all know how Derrick feels about gay people.

I have been in contact with a man named Max, who was rather astounded to read some of Derrick’s blog posts on the subject. He and his late (male) partner gave Derrick food, clothing, shelter, and even money – more than once – during a period when Derrick was homeless and broke.

Max would like Derrick to know that if Derrick feels the humanity they showed him – to include their compassion and generosity toward him – is somehow tainted by their sexual orientation, he is willing to negotiate a repayment plan so Derrick need no longer be indebted to a homosexual.

Incidentally, I shared this with Derrick, and Max’s unhappiness about being labeled a reprobate. His response was “I never called Max a reprobate!” No, Derrick, you just said gay people are depraved and beyond all hope of salvation so long as they continue in “their lifestyle.” That’s <check notes> the dictionary definition of “reprobate” and you certainly never noted any exceptions, least of all your long-ago benefactor, to that statement. So … yeah, you did.

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

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

OMG, Bruce Broke the Law!!

Bruce Gerencser 13 Comments
law breakers

Last week, I mentioned in a post that Polly and I drove to Michigan to buy some cannabis to help with drug withdrawals. One man, Dr. David Tee (whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen) took issue with my lawbreaking, saying:

“I am, however, quite willing to break the law myself, and that’s exactly what I did on Thursday.” — Bruce Gerencser

It is this confession that destroys any credibility or authenticity BG thought he had. Anything he has published, is publishing, or will publish is now non-credible because he willfully admits to breaking the law.

Nothing he says can be taken even at face value because he thinks he is above the law. In our ethics and other theological classes, we discussed situational ethics and many people advocate for them.

However, situational ethics does not exist and the end does not justify the means. This type of behavior only opens up a can of worms that ruin society. Breaking the rules is not okay unless you are obeying God’s commandments.

Yes, I broke the law — a law that is a misdemeanor with a $150 fine if convicted.

According to Thiessen, my admitting I bought pot means that no one going forward can ever trust me again; that I lost all credibility and authenticity. Of course, no one but Thiessen has made this claim. As far as my authenticity is concerned, most readers appreciate my honesty. Deciding to tell the whole story was never in question. I can’t talk about not having pain meds for five days and why that happened, and not talk about how I fixed the problem — even if I broke Ohio law.

Thiessen, of course, is a hardcore Christian Fundamentalist. He is a consummate rules keeper, as most Fundamentalists are. Thiessen seems to forget or ignore the fact that I was an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) for much of my life. I have a firsthand understanding of rule-keeping. I also know that for all my rule-keeping, I wasn’t perfect. I daily sinned in “thought, word, and deed” — or so I thought at the time. There are no perfect Christians — Thiessen included.

No one gets through life without breaking the law. I suspect thousands of readers of this blog have broken the law, and many of them break the law every day. My almost-perfect wife, Polly, breaks the law every day when she hops in our car, sets the cruise at 59 mph, and drives to work. During my driving career of forty-six years (I had to stop driving in 2020 due to my health) I broke the law thousands of times. I received numerous speeding tickets from 1974-1996, everything from ten miles over the speed limit to forty miles over the speed limit on M-59 east of Pontiac, Michigan, at age twenty. My driving was a “Need for Speed” game before such games were even thought of.

When I was a pastor, there were times people slipped me cash as a gift. Legally, I was supposed to claim that money on my income tax return. I broke the law, as did every preacher I knew. Early in our marriage, we were dirt poor. We drove, for a time, without automobile insurance. Again, I broke the law. Such is life. Contrary to Thiessen’s assertions, situational ethics do exist, and we all, at one time or another, make choices based on circumstances, and not what is written in man’s laws or the Bible.

I am generally a law keeper, but there were/are times when I found it necessary or fun (as in speeding) to break the law. As a born-again Christian, there were times when I felt guilty over breaking the law, but most of the time I gave “guilt” nary a thought.

According to Thiessen, it is never right to break the law unless the law is in conflict with the Bible. Then it is okay to break man’s laws. Funny how he doesn’t apply this standard to his own life. Thiessen cannot return to the United States without possibly facing arrest for crimes committed twenty years ago. The thrice-married Thiessen lives in the Philippines because he has to.

I am indeed an occasional lawbreaker. Circumstances will determine future law-breaking. If this is too “real” for you and you can no longer read my writing lest I lead you down a path of moral and ethical decay, I say “he that is without “speeding,” let him cast the first blog post.”

By all accounts, I am a good man. I doubt that cannabis gummies and four pre-rolled joints will change opinions about me one way or another. I did what was best for me at the moment. When Polly had an A-fib attack, I drove her to the emergency room, six miles away. The speed limit was 55. I drove 80-90 mph on dark, barren U.S. Hwy 15. Did I break the law? Sure. Given the choice of breaking the law or saving the life of the love of my life, I chose the latter. And I would do it again. In Thiessen’s world, it is always a sin to break man’s laws (unless they are contrary to the Bible).

Have you ever broken the law? Did you feel guilty about doing so? Do you drive over the speed limit or commit other non-serious, inconsequential laws? Please share your thoughts and experiences in the comment section.

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.

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

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Dr. David Tee Thinks I Should Quit “Whining” About My Chronic Pain and Narcotics Laws

Bruce Gerencser 16 Comments
pain and suffering

Dr. David Tee, an Evangelical preacher whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, mounted his blog pulpit to opine about my use of narcotic medication for chronic pain. Thiessen’s post is in response to Will the War on Chronic Pain Sufferers Ever End?:

We were at the BG website the other day and we read a big whining article about his need for opiates to control his pain. However, he was whining about the rules that govern the usage of opiates and he did not like them.

As usual, he wanted people to break the rules for him and other opiate medication needing pain sufferers. However, he knew the rules and he should not whine. it is life. Governments have a moral responsibility to regulate medications so they are not abused.

He does not like that either but the government is supposed to exist to protect people from themselves among other things. We had a guy like this in Korea. He fought hard tp [pass a law that all NETs had to have a clean criminal record history in order to teach in the country.

We fought against him but his side won. The next thing we read in the Korea Times is an article about his whining that his criminal record, as slight as it was, should be given a pass even though his advocacy led to many people losing their jobs.

He whined about having a family to feed, etc., yet he could no longer teach. He only has himself to blame as he is one of those people, like BG who think their personal circumstances allow them to violate the rules. While everyone else has to follow them.

My post was about how the government is presently waging war against people with chronic pain; how following the rules left me without pain medications for almost five days. I wasn’t whining, I was shouting. Thiessen shows no sympathy or compassion for me. “Just suck it up, BG, them’s the rules.” Spoken like a True Fundamentalist, always following rules.

Thiessen says that I asked people to break the law for me. I most certainly did not, and I can find no evidence that remotely justifies his claim. I have had a handful of readers offer to help me pain-wise over the years; people willing to commit a crime to get me what I need (This is the third time in recent years that I have had to go through withdrawals due to pharmacies not having my medication.) I always say no, save for the time a reader sent me some Kratom and CBD products. I have never asked someone to break the law for me. I would never knowingly risk the freedom and economic security of others just for pain relief.

I am, however, quite willing to break the law myself, and that’s exactly what I did on Thursday. We drove to Michigan to check out a cannabis store. We had a delightful time, both driving through Amish country and perusing the store’s products. The staff was helpful, suggesting what works best for nausea and chronic pain. I bought $120 of gummies and prerolls. So far, the marijuana has helped with my pain and general flu-like feeling from narcotics withdrawal.

It is government that necessitated me to break the law. There’s no reason that government at both state and federal levels couldn’t immediately legally legalize pot. I had to choose between dark suicidal thoughts and using an illegal drug I knew could help reduce my suffering (which was affecting my mental health). I chose the latter. I regret to inform slippery-slope believers: no, I am not already hooked, and no I haven’t already moved on to cocaine (the two things Evangelical preachers often tell youths about marijuana.)

I am an advocate for chronic pain sufferers. I use my stories about experiences with pain and suffering to encourage people who are in pain and to demand government action on better treatment of chronic pain sufferers. I want good laws, effective laws, not laws that foster unnecessary pain and suffering. Of course, Thiessen doesn’t care about any of these things. He is a member of a religious cult that glorifies suffering. Get saved, die, ascend to Heaven, no more pain, stop whining. Of course, none of this is true. As a humanist, I believe this present life is the only one I will ever have. Death is stalking me, and it won’t be long before he catches me. And then, that’s it. I will be turned into ashes and strewn along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. Why in the world would I not try to find things that will help me physically — even if it meant breaking the law? Less pain means I can be more active and productive.

Or it could be that Derrick Thomas Thiessen lacks the ability to empathize with others; to truly be loving and compassionate. And Thiessen despises me, so in the Good Samaritan story, he’s definitely walking by my bloody body along the roadside, pausing to say “stop whining” as he smugly, self-righteously walks away.

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

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

The Dr. David Tee Saga — Part One

Bruce Gerencser 3 Comments
david thiessen
David Tee/Derrick Thomas Thiessen is the tall man in the back

Editor’s Note: Dr. David Tee is a fake name used by Derrick Thomas Thiessen, a Christian Missionary and Alliance preacher who fled the United States/Canada twenty years ago and now lives in the Philippines. Thiessen has spent the past two years ripping off my writing, hurling sermons at me, and attacking my character. He has written over one-hundred posts about me. And at times, I respond. (Search for Dr. David Tee and Derrick Thomas Thiessen.) This series will take a look at things Thiessen doesn’t want anyone to know about. Once this series is completed, Tee/Thiessen will no longer be mentioned by me in my writing. You have my word on this subject.

Guest Post by W.W. Jacobs

“Your irrational ‘response’ has no evidence backing it up.” — Derrick Thiessen, 27 July 2022

“Make sure you’re not holding onto a monkey’s paw when you demand evidence be offered against you.” — “W.W. Jacobs”, 27 July 2022 (For an explanation of this comment click here.)

This exchange eventually escalated to Derrick threatening suits over libel and slander. Problem: accusing someone of libel and slander involves documenting that they knowingly and maliciously disseminated false information.

The information disseminated to date isn’t even false, let alone maliciously disseminated. And what is contained herein is just a portion of the information available to me.

I haven’t decided how far I’m going to dive into this – that will largely depend on my interest and the level of benevolence Bruce is willing to extend – but since the single biggest pet peeve Derrick seems to have is being addressed as “Derrick” and not “David” (which he has the audacity to compare to Saul being renamed Paul) I’ll start there.

The following is excerpted from a sworn deposition that Derrick sat for a number of years ago:

“(The deponent), having affirmed to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as follows:

“Would you state your full, legal name please?”

“Derrick Thomas Thiessen.”

“And Derrick is spelled how?”

“D-E-R-R-I-C-K.”

“Your middle name is Thomas, T-H-O-M-A-S?”

“Yes.”

…

“Mr. Thiessen, do you have any other form of ID in any other name, or is Derrick, or David, the name?”

“No. Surname is David, I go by David. My immigration lawyer who filed the paperwork put David Thiessen down as the primary name, so I’ve gone by that instead of Derrick, so all my American ID is in David.”

(Incidentally, Derrick, the next time you’re hard up for money, you may well have a solid malpractice case against the attorney who advocated filling out paperwork listing a name other than the one on the identification issued to you by the Canadian government when you sought to enter the U.S., considering how far your detrimental reliance on that information has spun out of control.)

…

“Mr. Thiessen, have you ever used any other name other than Derrick Thiessen?”

“What?”

(His attorney) “We did discuss his name David Ford, I believe.”

[Ed.: he published a tract or pamphlet entitled “Abortion: Where Can We Turn?” under the pseudonym “John Ford” – not “David Ford” – in the mid-1980s, and testified to same in this deposition.]

“Fine. Did you have any other names, other than David Thiessen?”

“I don’t believe so.”

“What other name did you use?”

“David Ford.”

“Did you use any other names at all?”

(His attorney) “I’m sorry, are we remembering the fact that he also said that Derrick and David is, used those names recently? I just want to make it clear he doesn’t forget we’ve already discussed that.”

“We did discuss his name David Ford, I believe.”

“You testified that you used the name David Ford?”

“Yes.”

“You also testified you used the name David Thiessen?”

“It’s synonymous. I don’t differentiate between the two.”

“Your synonymous names are Derrick Thiessen and David?”

“I use D. David Thiessen, it’s on my American ID.”

“What about the name David Ford?”

“I haven’t used that in years.”

“Why did you use it?”

“I didn’t want my family to find me.”

“Who specifically in your family didn’t you want to find you?”

“My immediate family.”

“Why didn’t you want them to find you?”

“Personal reasons at the time.”

“What were the personal reasons at the time?”

“Just disagreements between the family and me.”

“What type of disagreements?”

“I just said I wasn’t coming back.

“Why did you want them not to find you?”

“Didn’t want anything to do with them.”

…

“So you used the name David Ford?”

“Yes.”

“It’s your testimony that you didn’t use any other false names?”

“Yes.”

“This was a false name, correct?”

“It wasn’t changed legally, but it –“

“That was not your name, correct?”

“For ten years it was, yes.”

“But not your legal name, correct?”

“Not my legal name.”

“Where did you come up with Ford?”

“Came to me. I just picked a name out of the hat.”

(There are other names he acknowledged previously using, including Peter, elsewhere in this deposition.)

So, let’s recap:

Neither “David” nor “Tee” are part of his legal name.

“Derrick Thomas Thiessen” is his legal name.

His legal name has apparently never been changed – through deed poll, civil action, or similar – from “Derrick Thomas Thiessen.”

He did not start calling himself “David” to commemorate some “road to Damascus” moment, but because he wanted to go “no contact” with his family.

In this same deposition, he identifies his parents as “Frank” and “Eleanor.” The cemetery where they are buried records their names as “Franz” and “Elnora.”

As best I’ve been able to determine, they were either first- or second-generation Canadians of German descent. It is certainly understandable why people living in North America in the 1940s might want to downplay their German heritage, thus understandable why they started calling themselves Frank and Eleanor, just as Derrick’s uncle Heinrich started going by Henry. But none of them ever legally changed their names. They also never disclaimed Franz / Heinrich / Elnora as their legal names, they simply started identifying themselves by Anglicized versions of those names.

Derrick is definitively a name of Germanic origin. I gave Derrick the benefit of the doubt and looked into whether “David” (or even “Thomas”) might be an Anglicization of “Derrick.” It is not.

However, “David” is the name he reverted to once he left the company of anyone who was aware of his second marriage. (Yes, his current marriage is at least #3 … what is it Paul instructed Timothy about church leaders being “the husband of one wife”?) He also left the purview of people aware of the child his second marriage produced – including child-support enforcement authorities, who had the name “Derrick Thiessen” flagged for wage garnishment if the name was ever listed on an I-9 form.

But I’m sure Derrick will be happy to explain that it is a complete coincidence that the beginning of his child-support obligations approximately coincide with when he started abbreviating his last name to his college nickname. Just as I’m sure the increased scrutiny of identification and immigration records after 9/11 merely happened to coincide with his “call” to Korea.

One other issue needs to be pointed out. To reiterate, this is Derrick’s sworn testimony under oath. This leaves only a couple of possibilities:

  1. He told the truth in this deposition and has been misrepresenting the truth since then, such as when repeatedly denouncing Bruce’s use of a “wrong name” to identify him. (Even the one admission he made in his own blog implied that he had legally changed his last name, and still paired it with the first name “David.”)
  2. He lied in this deposition, in which case he committed perjury.
  3. Just kidding. There is no third possibility.

Neither lying under oath nor lying in the years since is a good look for a man who claims to lead a broad and far-reaching ministry.

Next time if Bruce’s magnanimity and my schedule permit: why the curriculum at Canadian Bible College [now called Canadian Theological Seminary] apparently does not involve studying Romans 13 or any portion of 1 Timothy. We’ll also discuss the odds of a man with Derrick’s level of arrogance opting not to acknowledge holding a degree more advanced than a bachelor’s in theology when under oath.

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

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Dr. David Tee’s Heretical Gospel

Bruce Gerencser 7 Comments
david thiessen
David Thiessen is the tall man in the back

I genuinely feel sorry for Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen. A former college-trained Christian Missionary and Alliance preacher, Thiessen has constructed for himself a Christian gospel that bears no resemblance to the gospel found in the Bible or that which is believed by Evangelical Christians everywhere. Thiessen finally declaring his heretical gospel helps me understand his thinking and some of the bizarre things he has said in the past. Many of the readers of this blog are former Evangelicals. As you read Thiessen’s gospel, ask yourself, does this resemble anything you heard in church or preached as a pastor? Let me know your thoughts in the comment section.

Thiessen writes:

Anyone, thieves, murderers, children, adults, LGBTQ members, atheists, and more people are all welcome to accept Christ as their savior. The only aspect of human life NOT invited or included in this plan or paradise is sin.

Every person who wants to go to God’s paradise has to give up their sin and practice it no more. Sin is not allowed in God’s home. The knowledge of sin is clearly defined and well documented as well as proclaimed.

Everyone knows God’s definition of what is sin and what is holy behavior. There is no secret and everyone has access to the Bible. They can read it for themselves if no one does it for them. [The Bible says the natural man CANNOT understand the things of God.] Those definitions do not change and humans cannot change it or add to them.

The definitions are clear and understandable so that no one has an excuse if they do not give up sin and live by God’s rules.

….

People look to get away from God through these false ideologies like diversity and inclusiveness yet those false ideologies only remind people that like God there are always rules and not everyone is going to like them.

….

If people want to go to God’s home and paradise, they must abide by God’s rules. There is no way around this fact. Only God can change those rules and he won’t as he remains the same. The rules are the rules and you need to accept that if you want a chance to live for eternity and avoid hell.

No matter how nice a person you think you are, you still need to accept Jesus as your savior and give up all sins and the practice of it to make it o heaven. There will be many famous people who have lived good and moral lives but they won’t make it to heaven.

The reason for that is the rule for salvation. Being good and moral is not the criteria to make it to heaven. [Isn’t stopping all sin being good and moral?] The rule to make it to heaven is to accept Christ as your savior and live by his rules. As Jesus said, why do you call me lord yet do not do the things I say (quoted from memory). [Jesus also said “there is none that doeth good, no not none.”]

The Bible also says that obedience is better than sacrifice. While those good and moral people may sacrifice sin and unethical behavior, they did not obey the rule for salvation. Thus they cannot expect to make it to heaven.

This is fair and just as the rules for salvation apply to everyone and that is very inclusive and diverse.

I am sure that Thiessen will say I misrepresented him, but the aforementioned words are his, not mine. What I read is a works-based gospel that is antithetical to salvation by grace. If perfection — the forsaking of all sin — is required for salvation and entrance into the eternal Kingdom of God, Heaven will be void of human life. No Christian, including Thiessen, will make it. I encourage David to really rethink what he believes, especially in light of his own sinful behavior. He better hope salvation is by grace. If not, he’s going to be burning in Hell with the very people he routinely condemns for behavior he deems sinful.

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

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Dr. David Tee Takes Issue With the Sacrilegious Humor Series

Bruce Gerencser 13 Comments
mocking religion
Cartoon by Peter Broelman

I ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich an hour ago — Jiff creamy peanut butter, strawberry jam, on Aunt Millie’s buttermilk bread. Undoubtedly, the voyeur Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, will soon write a scathing blog post about Welch’s grape jelly being the only God-approved jelly. Tee is a lazy writer who often co-opts the work of others instead of writing original posts. Both Ben Berwick and I are his favorite targets. We really wish he would move on to other targets, but he won’t. In my case, he is bound and determined to let the world know that I am wrong, even if his “world” has ten inhabitants.

Tee writes about me several times every week. He refuses to use my name or link to this site. Both of these behaviors violate Internet/blogging norms, but he doesn’t care. Typically, I ignore his posts, but on occasion, I will respond to his nonsense (or his bigotry, homophobia, or support for child predators).

Yesterday, in a missive titled, Some Misc. Thoughts, Tee took issue with the Sacrilegious Humor Series on this site, and the post Sacrilegious Humor: Religion by George Carlin.

Tee wrote:

Attacks on believers

These are going to grow as unbelievers become bolder. Since we use the BG website we are using an example from that content here:

“This is the latest installment in the Sacrilegious Humor series. This is a series that I would like readers to help me with. If you know of a comedy bit that is irreverent towards religion, makes fun of religion, pokes fun at sincerely held religious beliefs, or challenges the firmly held religious beliefs of others, please email me the name of the bit or a link to it.”

The latest installment is using some comedy routine by George Carlin. We are well aware of his views on religion and Christianity, etc., and have listened to many of them. A militant atheist we know had one of his comments in his signature on an archaeology discussion forum we participated in years ago.

The problem with Mr. Carlin’s point of view is that he looks at the world after sin and corruption entered. Then he blames God for the problems everyone faces or has faced since the beginning of time.

Like most unbelievers and former Christians, he blames God for the mess even though God had nothing to do with the mess. Also like unbelievers and former Christians, he doe snot take the time to find the real criminal who is responsible for the mess the world is in.

They also do not honestly look at what God DID do. They ignore that like they ignore evil and accuse God of things he did not do while the real criminal gets off scot-free and is able to continue to deceive people and either ruin their faith or keep people from accepting Christ as their savior.

Number one, that is not fair and number two, that point of view is not honest. As you can see by that quote, the owner of that website is looking for more material to attack or encourage the attacking of believers.

That is not right either. If BG does not want to be a Christian, that is his choice. He should remain silent and not encourage others to follow his path or attack Christians. Christians are only trying to help unbelievers escape sin and hell.

That is not anything that someone should rise up and attack Christians and extension God, Jesus, and the Bible. Stopping spiritual aid to those in spiritual need is equal to some dictators who stopped food shipments destined to help their starving people.

There are numerous problems with Tee’s post, including bad theology and a heretical understanding of the sovereignty of God, but I want to focus on the last three paragraphs:

Number one, that is not fair and number two, that point of view is not honest. As you can see by that quote, the owner of that website is looking for more material to attack or encourage the attacking of believers.

That is not right either. If BG does not want to be a Christian, that is his choice. He should remain silent and not encourage others to follow his path or attack Christians. Christians are only trying to help unbelievers escape sin and hell.

That is not anything that someone should rise up and attack Christians and extension God, Jesus, and the Bible. Stopping spiritual aid to those in spiritual need is equal to some dictators who stopped food shipments destined to help their starving people.

According to Tee, I am unfair and dishonest. In fact, I have been more than fair to an interlocutor who has done nothing but attack me, call me names, and lie about me. I offered to let him write a guest post. He declined. I offered to debate him. He declined. He is not banned from commenting on this site, but he refuses to do so. Instead, he removed comments from his blog so no one could respond to his writing. Tee is only interested in preaching, not dialog.

When it comes to honesty, Tee defines dishonesty as any belief that is different from his. He has established himself as the final authority on the Bible, Christianity, archeology, biology, and sex positions. Okay, maybe not the last one. 🙂 Long-time readers have heard me say many times: certainty breeds arrogance. Tee, a Christian Missionary & Alliance trained Fundamentalist, is the epitome of this arrogance. I have been interacting with him for over two years. I have yet to see him change his mind one time. When you are right, you are right, right?

Is my goal to attack Christians? Of course not. Scores of Christians regularly read my writing. Unfortunately, Tee thinks his peculiar brand of Evangelicalism = True Christianity. The focus of my work is Evangelical Christianity. Sadly, Evangelicalism is rife with beliefs, practices, personal behaviors, and people that are worthy of ridicule and mockery. The idea that religion must not be made fun of is absurd. I refuse to grant religion that kind of authority in my life. I respect individual believers — or try to, anyway — but their beliefs and practices? I respect that which is worthy of my respect. If Evangelicals don’t like being ridiculed, I suggest they change their ways (and let me be clear, some atheists are worthy of ridicule too).

I want to rewrite one of Tee’s paragraphs. Tee said:That is not right either. If BG does not want to be a Christian, that is his choice. He should remain silent and not encourage others to follow his path or attack Christians. Christians are only trying to help unbelievers escape sin and hell.

That’s not right either. If Derrick Thiessen doesn’t want to be an atheist (or Catholic, Buddhist, or Hindu), that is his choice. He should remain silent and not encourage others to follow his path or attack atheists. Atheists are only trying to help Christians escape irrationality and ignorance; to encourage them to embrace the only life they will ever have.

Checkmate.

Let’s try the same thing with the next paragraph. Tee wrote: “That is not anything that someone should rise up and attack Christians and extension God, Jesus, and the Bible. Stopping spiritual aid to those in spiritual need is equal to some dictators who stopped food shipments destined to help their starving people.”

That is not anything that someone should rise up and attack atheism/humanism and by extension skepticism, reason, and rationality. Stopping aid to those in intellectual need is equal to some Evangelical preachers who refuse to let their parishioners read books and websites that might challenge their beliefs and worldview; information that is meant to help people starving from a lack of knowledge.

Checkmate.

What we have here is a clash of worldviews. I am more than willing to interact with Tee and any other Evangelical on our competing worldviews, but Tee isn’t interested in such things. And neither are most Evangelical preachers. They know what they know, but, unfortunately, they are unable to fathom being wrong. Tee’s favorite quote comes from the movie Matilda:

I’m smart, you’re dumb, I’m right, you’re wrong, I’m big, you’re small.

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

Connect with me on social media:

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

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Bruce Gerencser