Excerpt from The Question Every Christian Must Answer, by Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen. The grantor of Thiessen’s alleged doctorate is unknown. Make of that what you will. Regardless, Thiessen views himself as an expert on the Bible, history, science, archeology, LGBTQ issues, and why I’m no longer a Christian. Doubt me? Just ask him.
If science is pursued correctly and honestly, then science agrees with the Bible. What turns young minds away from biblical truths are the theories, opinions, and conclusions that are generated from unbelieving scientists.
It is their assumptions, leaps to conclusions, conjectures, and hypotheses that say the Bible is wrong, not true scientific exploration or facts. Once believers understand this truth, then holding on to their faith in the face of the onslaught from secular science becomes much easier.
It is their assumptions, leaps to conclusions, conjectures, and hypotheses that say the Bible is wrong, not true scientific exploration or facts.
….
When Christians take unbelieving or secular science over God’s words, then they are not exercising faith.
Instead, they are rejecting what God has said in favor of what unbelievers have claimed to be true. This is not just doubt but clear rejection of God’s words. Since God cannot lie, then we can take his word over what unbelieving scientists, archaeologists, anthropologists, and other unbelievers claim.
….
These institutions need to get back to God and rein in their science teachers/professors and get them to teach the truth, not unbelieving science.
….
The Bible is not wrong. It is the unbelieving scientists who are.
Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, recently wrote the following about the nature and construction of the Bible. Thiessen denies human culture had anything to do with the writing of the Bible. He even goes so far as to say that “The Bible’s content is from God’s culture, not a Jewish one.”
Thiessen says he has Bible college education (and a doctorate), yet his writing reveals beliefs that bear little resemblance to Christian orthodoxy. That’s fine, Thiessen can believe whatever he wants, and college educated people can and do believe stupid things. However, Thiessen would be hard pressed to find any of his professors who would agree with what he has written here, or any of his ministerial colleagues who would say, “Fine work, Dr. Tee.”
I have a lot of Evangelical readers, including preachers. Drop a note in the comment section detailing what you think about Thiessen’s claims. Can you square them with the Bible?
This question is related to what our professor said in class one day: ‘You have to understand the culture of that time’ when referring to how the Bible was written. There are two related answers to that question.
The first answer would be that no human culture shaped the Bible. The second answer explains why that is so. The second answer is that God’s culture shaped the biblical content. The Bible is a divinely written book transmitted through inspired authors who happen to be human.
There was no human culture involved in the writing of the Bible. Every word came from God and his culture and what he wanted humans to become. Human culture cannot create instructions enabling and helping other humans to become holy.
….
The Bible is not part of Jewish literature. It is part of God’s literature written to provide humans with God’s holy culture so that all people would know how to live in the kingdom of God.
….
There is no human culture involved in the writing of the bible. Every word recorded reveals God and what he wants his people to do and live. The Bible is God’s literature whose content reveals what God wants us to know.
….
The style of biblical writing does not change or influence the message. The style is just the style that is used to communicate important information. Many scholars, etc., feel that the style of writing changes the message, but it does not.
….
The message transcends the style of writing, keeping the Bible a book from a divine culture and not a human one. Once Christians understand this, living the Christian life becomes much easier and less confusing.
Christians know exactly what they are to do and what God wants them to do. This divine culture origin ensures that everyone throughout history has the will of God at their fingertips. They can also avoid the trap this common mistake leads them to.
….
The Bible’s content is from God’s culture, not a Jewish one. One could say that if the Jews correctly followed the Bible, they would be living God’s culture, not a Jewish one. The same goes for the NT.
….
The NT was not created out of a Jewish culture. It was created out of God’s holy culture.
— end of excerpt —
I have read a lot of theology in my almost 70 years of life, but I’ve never read the above before. How do you answer someone who says “no human culture — including Judaism — wrote the Bible? I can’t think of any way to square this with what we know about the nature and history of the Bible.
I had rules that governed my study of the Bible. If I found myself coming to a conclusion that was not supported by experts in the Biblical text, my interpretation was likely wrong. If Thiessen followed this rule, what would experts be telling him? Of course, he has the Holy Ghost on his side, so he has no need to listen to experts.
What changes have you seen, if any, to the types of comment you receive to your posts over the many years you’ve been going? There’s been a huge advance in the quality of comment on dedicated atheist websites, where it’s more about taking the arguments and the evidence to apologists, but this is not really one of those sites, being more about the practical implications of being a nonbeliever living in a religious culture. Obviously there are the silly commenters like Revival Fires, but what about more general comments?
Blog comments have always been an important part of this site. Since December 2014, 53,000 comments have been left by readers. The stated goal of The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser has been to provide help to those who have questions and doubts about Christianity and those who have already left Christianity. While some posts are outliers to this goal, for the most part, I have stayed true to my goal: helping others navigate having questions about or leaving primarily Evangelical Christianity.
Over the years, millions of people have stopped by this site. People come and go, often without a word about why. Most readers never comment or send me an email, so I am uncertain as to how my writing has been received by them. As far as commenters are concerned, I do wonder why certain people stop commenting. Did I piss them off? Maybe. I suspect that the real reason is they may have found my writing not as helpful as it once was, or they disagree with my progressive, liberal, socialist, pacifist politics. Nothing I can do about that. I’m not going to change my beliefs for the sake of readership numbers. While the Orange Menace, President Donald Trump, has certainly amped up my political writing in recent years, I don’t think anyone would say this is a political blog.
This blog was a deconstruction/ex-evangelical site long before these words came into popular, everyday use. The other day, I stumbled upon a three-year-old social media post about me. The writer, a Christian, wanted to know if anyone had heard of an atheist named Bruce Gerencser. He wondered why I wasn’t part of the atheist mainstream, suggesting I must have done something “bad” to be marginalized by atheists.
I have contented myself to stay in my lane. I am not a big self-promoter, so I am not going to contact an atheist (or Christian) site or podcast to sell myself to them. I’ve been blogging since 2007, first as a barely-hanging-on liberal-leaning Evangelical Christian, and then, after deconverting in 2008, as an atheist. Over the years, I have been interviewed by blogs, websites, magazines, newspapers, and appeared on numerous podcasts, which you can access here. From time to time, journalists contact me for information about Evangelicalism in general, and the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church movement. In all of this, I have not promoted myself one time. I rely on word of mouth and personal recommendations to spread the good news that “Bruce Gerencser Saves.” S&H Green Stamps (for older readers)? No, but I have helped “save” countless people from the clutches of Evangelical Christianity and other Fundamentalist religions. I know this because I hear from people thanking me for helping them deconstruct, deconvert, or move on to kinder, gentler forms of religious faith.
I have also been labeled a follower of Satan; an enemy of Christianity. Thousands of comments have been left by Evangelicals upset over something I wrote. The attacks, at times, have been brutal, so much so that I stopped blogging several times years ago. I have been blogging continuously now for almost thirteen years. On this iteration of my blog, I have written over 6,000 posts.
In the early days of this site, the comment section was flooded with comments from butthurt IFB adherents, including pastors, evangelists, and missionaries. These folks have largely stopped commenting, leading me to claim victory! 🙂 Not really. I suspect they either became bored, or, unable to successfully challenge my claims, moved on to easier targets for their sermons, proof-texts, and shallow, contradictory apologetics.
Geoff mentioned the evolving and improved content and comments on some atheist sites, and I agree with him. The online atheist community is changing. Out goes the old guard, and in comes a new batch of atheists to hopefully lead the community forward. Shows such as The Atheist Experience and Talk Heathen are mere shadows of what they once were; other sites such as Almost Ian, the DZ Debates (Justin), The Bible Guy, Mythvision, Harmonic Atheist, Jon Cohen, and the various shows on Jimmy Snow’s network, The Line, to name a few. Whether these content creators have long-term success remains to be seen.
I continue to wonder why so many atheist readers come and go. Do they get what they need from me and move on, or do they find my writing boring? I don’t know, outside of the fact that I know some atheists stopped frequenting this site because of what they perceived from me was an unwarranted friendliness towards religion. Some atheists have even suggested that I am a “secret Christian.” None of these claims is true, as the vitriol dumped on my head by God’s chosen ones surely shows.
I am not sure what more I can do to attract more commenters. Typically, the people who comment are regular, long-term readers, with a few new readers’ comments sprinkled in. Gone are the long running arguments and debates over this or that religious belief or practice. Why this is no longer the case remains unclear to me. The comment section has a friendlier tone these days, more like friends getting together on a Friday night at the local pub.Usually it’s bottom feeders such as Dr. David Tee, Revival Fires, and others who provide entertainment, but none of them is up to the task of cogently defending the “faith once delivered to the saints.” These folks are little more than monkeys who fling shit at those they disagree with. No real arguments or defenses of Christianity. Instead, they resort to personal attacks and character assassination. Such people are the price you pay for having a public blog.
Over the years, the comment policy has changed, moving from a wild, wild west format to more of a controlled environment where every commenter is given at least one opportunity to say whatever they want to me. Whether they get a second comment depends on how well they play with others. I am much more likely to ban or block someone today than I was years ago. After you have heard the same Bible nonsense and personal attacks over and over and over again, it’s easy to say to yourself “I don’t want to hear this drivel any more.”
Recently, I have thought about loosening up the comment policy, but I fear that doing so might run off commenters who prefer the walled garden approach I currently use. I know I can’t please everyone, but your thoughts on this matter would be helpful.
Here’s the comment policy that has been in effect for the past four years:
All commenters are expected to use a functioning email address. The use of a fake or non-functioning email address will result in your comment being deleted.
Pseudonyms are permitted. Please use the same pseudonym with every comment.
All first-time comments and comments with more than one HTML link are moderated.
Before commenting, please read the ABOUT page to acquaint yourself with my background. You might also want to read the Dear Evangelical page.
Evangelical commenters will be given one opportunity to say whatever they want. One, not two, three, or ten. Just one. Quote the Bible. Preach the sermon God has laid upon your heart. Put in a good word for Jesus. Deconstruct my life. Call me names, attack my family. You have one opportunity to impress readers with your John Holmes-like Bible prowess. After that, the following rules apply:
The following type of comments will not be approved after your first comment:
Any comment that is not on point with what the post is about
Any comment that denigrates or marginalizes abuse victims
Any comment that attacks LGBTQ people
Unsolicited medical advice of any kind (and I mean ANY)
Any comment that disparages my wife, children, or grandchildren
Please be advised that personal threats of violence or stalking will be reported to your service provider and law enforcement.
I write about issues that might not be child-friendly. Please be aware of this. I also use profanity from time to time, and I allow the use of profanity in the comment section. Any butt-hurt comment about language will be ignored, and if warranted, ridiculed.
The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser is not a democracy where anyone has a right to say whatever they want. This is my personal blog and I reserve the right to approve or not approve any comment. When a comment or a commenter is abusive towards the community of people who read this blog, I reserve the right to ban the commenter.
If you can be respectful, decent, and thoughtful, your comment will always be approved. Unfortunately, there are many people — Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians in particular — who have a hard time playing well with others. They often use a passive-aggressive approach towards me and the non-Christian people who frequent this blog. This kind of behavior will not be tolerated and will result in a permanent ban.
This blog is also not a place for hardcore atheists to preach the gospel of atheism. While I am an atheist, many of the people who read this blog are not. Frank, honest, open, and passionate discussion about religion, Christianity, and Evangelicalism is encouraged and welcome. However, I do expect atheists not to attack, badger, or denigrate people who still believe in God. If you are respectful, decent, and thoughtful, you will be fine.
My writing is direct and pointed and so is my response to comments. Please do not confuse my directness and pointedness with me attacking you or your religion. This is a grown-up blog, so crying that I offended you or “attacked” your religion will fall on deaf ears.
If you can play by these rules, I hope you will become a part of our community and join the discussion.
— end of comment policy
Do you see something in the comment policy that you think should be changed or done away with? Or is there something you would like to see added to policy? Please share your ideas with me in comment section.
In closing, I can’t help but note how my declining health has affected this site. I was once known as a prodigious blogger, writing several posts a day. Sadly, I can no longer put out like I once did — yes, there’s a sex joke lurking in that line. I have really struggled with this issue, wondering if it is time for me to stop writing. My friends, acquaintances, and family continue to encourage me to keep writing, but when you have multiple days when you can’t even get out of bed, it’s hard to find the energy and stamina to write a text message, let alone a blog post. That said, I still try. I still push myself, even when I want to curl up on the couch and be left alone My sleep is so disturbed these days, that I sleep when I can, usually in short one- to two-hour blocks. Yesterday, I never made it out of bed, spending the day fitfully sleeping while family gathered at our home to celebrate the best mother ever. I had slept for six hours straight, but that was due to only getting a total of five hours sleep over the previous three days. This, of course, has severely messed up my schedule, forcing me to live in the moment instead of on a schedule. I can’t say I have adapted well to my new reality. I’m too old for this shit, but no one asked me, so I take every day as it comes.
Suggestions are welcome. You know what to do!
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Both Bg [Bruce Gerencser] and MM [Meerkat Musings, Ben Berwick] say things that are not the most intelligent or wise to say.
….
He obviously has not read our books on Noah’s Flood [link removed to book] in which we record a large amount of evidence for that event. BG should do so in order to not make this silly mistake again. Only unintelligent people would ignore the evidence and make such erroneous statements.
….
Another unintelligent and silly thing to say. Gonorrhea is not a ‘living element that was targeted by the flood. What was killed were all the humans who chose evil over God.
….
What makes BG’s statement so silly and unintelligent is that the flood did ot wipe out sin or corruption that entered the world at Adam’s sin. It also did not wipe out evil that leads people to sin and corruption.
Thus, gonorrhea would not be wiped out as its source is found in a variety of places. The cattle on the ark were not perfect and incorruptible, nor were the other animals or the people on board. To assume that they were would be stupid andidiotic.
The germs that affected the pre-flood world did survive in a variety of ways simply because the components that act as a catalyst were not removed during the flood. After the flood, people still got sick and died.
….
But stupid people just do not think things through when they make their weird and out-of-reality accusations against the Bible and God. They also prove they do not know how diseases come to life and what conditions are needed to fuel that existence.
They would rather just blindly accuse God of making a mistake. They take this step when they do not look at the whole picture.
Sigh, Where, oh where, do I begin? Being a “stupid” man, I won’t have much to offer a renowned Biblical scholar and author such as the mighty Tee, but I will try.
First, why in the world would I read Thiessen’s books? I have, in the past, read all the big- name authors in young earth creationism. At the first church I worked for, we had John Whitcomb come in and hold a two day Creationist Conference. I am well-versed in what Christian Fundamentalists believe about creationism and Noah’s flood.
Second, it is evident that Thiessen does not know how to competently search the Internet. Had he done so, he would have learned that Gonorrhea doesn’t survive for long in water — no more than a couple of hours, depending on the water source. It only survives for a couple of minutes in chlorinated pool water. Thus, the flood did not kill the disease, and since it needs a human host, at least one human on Noah’s big boat was infected with the clap.
Thiessen hurled a lot of slurs my way instead of actually engaging what I wrote. He failed to follow basic research principles, choosing, instead, to just make up shit as he goes. Thiessen has no answer for my Gonorrhea claim other than personal opinion and religious dogma.
Do better, David,
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Our books and our websites have provided this evidence for everyone to read, and we still face the nonsense spewed by that AI critique. Why do we not believe he used AI? Because the words in the critique are exactly the same as those any unbelieving scientist would say.
….
If something cannot be proven false, then it is true. This happens in courtrooms around the world every day. Falsifiability is a secular human invention to protect unbelieving science and scientists from the truth.
….
The Bible is not wrong, as the evidence gathered up until now proves it is true. It is only deceptive thinking that comes up with that confused summary. Science in general is not based on the truth but on deceptive thinking.
It throws God and the truth out so unbelievers can ‘do science’ and have the freedom to draw any conclusion they want to believe. Secular science and unbelieving scientists do not want the truth, for then they have to rethink their careers, their ideologies, and make changes they do not want to make.
As you can see, their sinful nature has already corrupted AI. That website and that critique have no credibility, as the owner/author cannot prove he did not manipulate AI into providing the results he published.
One can say they used AI, but what they are not saying is how they designed their instructions.It is the typical unbeliever’s way to only tell part of the truth, so no one will challenge them.
….
As we pointed out that this critique spouted only what unbelieving scientists have said for over 100 years; it is not an independent tool. AI is like all secular scientific dating systems- created by unbelievers and corrupted before they are ever used in the field. They are far from independent tools.
They are designed to hide the truth from all and allow unbelievers to fabricate human history. That critique is less useful than toilet paper.
According to Tee, I am lying about using AI. Why would I lie. With Tee the truth is much more delicious than a lie.
Fact: I used Gemini with text string that said: critique https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2026/01/08/science-the-bible/ That’s it. Tee could use the scientific method to “test” my claim, but he’d rather whine and stomp his feet.
Fact: My friend Ben Berwick did an AI critique using a different engine to review Tee’s entire site. The AI engine returned a similar result as mine (and can be found in the comment section here).
End of discussion.
Anyone want to tackle Tee’s ignorant claim, “If something can’t be proven false then it is true.” Think about the absurdity of this statement. I’m sick enough that I don’t have the wherewithal to critically respond to Tee. My first thought was “My dick is 2 feet long.” Can’t prove otherwise, so this statement is true. 🤣 Not helpful, but funny, at least to me and my pain addled juvenile mind, 🤣 So, if you are interested in critically responding to the greatest theologian and scientist of the fifteenth century, please write a guest post or leave a comment.
Tee is an ever present reminder of how religious fundamentalism causes brain rot. It robs people of the ability to think rationally, critically, and skeptically. I’ve been there, so I understand how and why Tee thinks the way he does. That said, change is possible, but it requires Tee to admit that the only lie in this story is his rigid literalist interpretations of an errant, fallible ancient religious text.
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
I recently asked an AI engine to critique a recent science article by world renowned Evangelical scientist, Dr. David Tee. Here’s what it had to say. enjoy! 😉 (This, by the way, could be a critique of many creationist arguments.)
The article you provided, titled “Science & the Bible” from Theology & Archaeology, argues that science is a fallible, human-driven endeavor that should be secondary to the “inerrant” word of the Bible.
While the article is written from a theological perspective, a scientific critique focuses on its representation of the scientific method, epistemology (how we know what we know), and its use of concordism (the attempt to find modern science in ancient texts).
1. Misunderstanding of “Theory” and “Fallibility”
The article argues that because science is “fallible” and changes over time, it is less reliable than religious text.
Scientific Critique: This characterizes a core strength of science as a weakness. Science is self-correcting. The fact that theories are updated when new evidence emerges (e.g., moving from Newtonian physics to Relativity) does not mean the previous science was “wrong” in a vacuum; it means it was an incomplete model that became more precise.
The Error: The article implies that “change” equals “unreliability,” whereas in science, the refusal to change in the face of evidence is what constitutes unreliability.
2. False Equivalence of Evidence
The author suggests that a “Biblical worldview” and a “Secular worldview” are simply two different but equal ways of looking at the same data.
Scientific Critique: Science relies on methodological naturalism. It requires hypotheses to be testable, falsifiable, and predictable.
The Error: A “Biblical worldview” as described in the article starts with a conclusion (the Bible is true) and filters data to fit it. Science starts with data and builds a conclusion. By treating “revealed truth” as a data point equal to empirical observation, the article departs from the scientific method entirely.
The article claims the Bible contains “scientific facts” that were ahead of their time, such as the water cycle or the earth being a sphere.
Scientific Critique: This is often a result of exegesis bias. Many of the verses cited (like Job 26:7 or Isaiah 40:22) use poetic language that can be interpreted in multiple ways.
The Error: If these texts were truly “scientific,” they would provide predictive power (e.g., explaining the mechanics of evaporation rather than just mentioning clouds). Identifying “science” in the Bible after the science has already been discovered by secular means is a form of hindsight bias, not a validation of the text as a scientific document.
4. Categorical Misclassification
The article states, “The Bible is not a scientific book, but it does reference a variety of scientific facts.”
Scientific Critique: This is a rhetorical “have your cake and eat it too” strategy. By saying it’s not a science book, the author protects it from scientific scrutiny when it is demonstrably inaccurate (e.g., the order of creation in Genesis), but by claiming it contains “scientific facts,” they attempt to borrow the authority of science to bolster the text’s credibility.
The Error: From a scientific standpoint, an observation is only a “fact” if it can be verified independently of the source. The article asks the reader to verify the source (the Bible) using the facts, and then verify the facts using the source—a circular logic.
Summary
The article’s “science” is actually apologetics. It uses the language of science to argue for the supremacy of a specific religious interpretation. Scientifically, the article fails because it rejects falsifiability—the author explicitly states that the Bible cannot be wrong, which means no amount of evidence could ever change the conclusion. In science, if a theory cannot be proven wrong, it cannot be used to claim truth.
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
When you look at the unbelieving world, they do not have a stable, secure foundation to place any of their beliefs. They have nothing objective to pin any of their hopes and dreams or lives to. The unbelievers go from one subjective ideology to another in hopes of finding a road to some sort of paradise.
They always end up disappointed as each new ideology is as bad and corrupt, or worse than the one previous to it. The unbeliever has nothing to believe in or build upon that will provide them a stable environment.
They also have nothing to look forward to, as all their ideologies are for this terrestrial world. Not one provides them any real extraterrestrial comfort or life. This is why so many of them have adopted the concept that at death, existence stops.
The unbeliever builds hopelessness into their lives by rejecting the one foundation that provides them with everything they are looking for. Their lives do not make any sense, as many of the unbelievers try to kill Christians who provide that one foundation.
….
The push to believe science over anything else is a deception. Science cannot save people’s souls or bring them to heaven. It doesn’t matter how often scientific thought or theories change; this fact disqualifies it as being an authority or an alternative to true Christian belief.
Science has nothing to offer anyone outside of knowledge of how the world works. People who take science over the Bible are wasting their lives pursuing something that is a dead-end road.
The same applies to all the cults and false religions out there. They do not have the truth to help anyone get to any form of paradise. They only contain enough truth to deceive people into a false sense of security and hope.
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Dr. David Tee, an Evangelical preachers whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, continues to churn out posts about me, most of which I ignore. This one was impossible for me to ignore. The post in question is titled Do Not Listen to Unbelievers. All spelling, grammar, punctuation, and irrationality in the original.
If he [Satan] can bring down a dedicated Christian like BG [Bruce Gerencser] through an unbeliever like Bart Ehrman, he can do it to anyone who is unwary and thinks unbelievers know more than Christians do.
….
BG [Bruce Gerencser] serves as an example of what happens when one listens to unbelievers over godly people and God’s word.
….
The first question every Christian should ask themselves is ‘Why would unbelievers know more about the bible than Christians or God do?‘ They do not believe, thus how would they have the truth about the bible?
Shouldn’t the first question asked by Christians be, “How can anyone empirically know that the Bible is the Word (s) of God, and is inerrant and infallible in all that it says?”
In other words, Thiessen, knows more than renowned scholar, Dr. Bart Ehrman. In fact, he knows more about anything compared to what unbelieving experts know. Imagine all the unbelieving experts Thiessen dismisses with a wave of the hand, all because they are either atheists or worship a different deity from the Christian God. Imagine how empty and ignorant life would be if we automatically dismissed every expert that didn’t hold to the same beliefs as ours. For example, most of my doctors are religious. My primary care physician is an Evangelical Christian. Outside of comments made that assume I am a Christian, I have never questioned the knowledge and skill of these doctors. All that matters to me is their competency. I couldn’t care less about where they sit their asses on Sundays.
Unbelievers deny clear evidence supporting the bible, so how would they be in a position to determine if the Bible is accurate or true or not?
Time to put up or shut up, what “clear” evidence supporting the Bible am I ignoring? I have challenged Thiessen several times to a written or public debate on these and other issues. Instead of justifying his claims, Thiessen’s dismisses all challengers by asserting that unbelievers don’t know anything about the Bible. This, of course, is empirically untrue. One can know the Bible inside and out without ever being a Christian. And when I deconverted, I didn’t magically lose all the Bible knowledge I gained from fifty years in the Evangelical church. I am sure it pisses Thiessen off when former Evangelical preachers, missionaries, and professors speak authoritatively on the Bible. He’s convinced himself that he is intellectually superior to these men and women, despite giving evidence for being anything but.
They do not, and they are not. It is the unbeliever who is deceived and blinded by evil, so how would they know the Bible is false?
I know the Bible is errant and fallible based on extant information available to us; a position held by almost ALL Bible scholars apart from those who are Evangelicals. I know that the claims Thiessen and other Fundamentalist Christians make for the Bible are false because the evidence at hand says so. For Thiessen, the issue is not evidence as much as it is fealty to certain Evangelical dogmas. Simply put, Thiessen’s circular logic leads him to believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible because it (allegedly) says it is. No amount of evidence will change his mind. Why? Because the Bible says, Let God be true and every man a liar.
The Christian is the one who is free from deception and lies and knows the truth; thus, any Christian who takes an unbeliever’s word over God’s is asking for destruction and other trouble.
Thiessen defines Christian thusly: a person who is free from deception and lies and knows the truth.🤣 This definition is found nowhere in the Bible.
Thiessen assumes there is one truth [his]. Believe as he does and you will not be deceived. Now, he will object to me saying this, but did he not say that his intellect and knowledge is superior to that of ALL unbelieving Bible scholars and scientists?
Here’s a man with only a Fundamentalist Bible college education and (allegedly) a ThD (not a PhD)from an unaccredited Christian college he refuses to name, declaring himself smarter than thousands and thousands of non-Christian Bible scholars and scientists. Thiessen thinks his wooden, literalistic interpretations of the Bible are superior in every way to the intellectual giants of this and past generations — the unsaved ones, anyway.
Time and again all the sciences have proven the Bible true and have failed to find one error or contradiction.
Anyone with a modicum of understanding of the Bible and science knows that Thiessen is either delusional — the result of seven decades of Evangelical indoctrination and conditioning — he’s secretly an atheist trying (and succeeding) to make Christianity look bad, he suffered brain damage as a child and never recovered, or he is a liar.
Thiessen claims that no one — not one time — has ever found an error or contradiction in the Bible. This, of course, is patently false. I have pointed out a few of these errors and contradictions over the years, and there’s a plethora of blogs, videos, and podcasts that disabuse Evangelicals such as Thiessen of their beliefs about the Bible. Just remember, Google is God. Pray to it and it will answer your prayers.
Granted, Evangelicals have “explanations” for most Bible contradictions and errors — but not all, and many of these explanations are intellectually lacking, and, at times, fantastical. And we must always be aware of the answer to every question and challenge Evangelicals can’t answer: Faith. Faith is a discussion stopper because it is belief without evidence (as taught in Hebrews 11).
….
We have recorded in our books our words which state that . . . no archaeological discovery has been made that proves the Bible false.
Dr. Ehrman and other unbelievers are all part of that system of ideas, creating false tales about the bible, not out of facts but out of their unbelief and denials.
According to Thiessen, unbelieving Bible scholars create false tales about the Bible, not based on facts, but on their unbelief and denial of Biblical truth.
….
Why would Christians lie [about the Bible]? Every Christian knows that if they lie, they will lose souls, so what is the purpose of lying about God’s word? Plus, the Bible tells us in both the OT and the NT not to bear false witness or lie one to another, so why would Christians lie? They would be committing sin and ruining the work God wants them to do.
A “lie” is an untruth. People can and do lie without intending to do so. Christianity is a 2,000 year old lie; one passed on from generation to generation, with each generation interpreting the Bible differently from previous ones. Sunday after Sunday, preachers preach this lie as supernatural truth, and those sitting in the pews say AMEN with nary a thought about whether what they are hearing is true. This process of indoctrination and conditioning has been going on since the Bible was written.
Sometimes, Evangelicals deliberately lie. I have caught more than a few Christians telling lies on this site; making claims they knew were wrong. Preachers, in particular, can lie to keep their jobs, pacify their congregations, or make themselves look like “experts.” With fingers crossed behind their backs, these so-called men of God preach one thing from their pulpits and believe something different when in the privacy of their studies or when shooting the breeze with their colleagues in the ministry.
There is no point in lying to anyone about the Bible. If anyone is going to lie, it would be the unbelievers who have no objective moral code to live by.
Thiessen has a lack of imagination if he can’t think of any reasons preachers might lie about the Bible. Unbelievers are the liars, according to Thiessen, and we lie because we have “no objective moral code to live by.”
Thiessen thinks he lives according to an objective moral code; that code being his personal, and, at times, perverse interpretations of the Bible. However, like all of us, Thiessen has a subjective moral code. If Thiessen disagrees with me on this claim, I am more than happy to disabuse him of his moral claims.
This brings up the problem of young Christians who lose their faith because of what their unbelieving professors say in class.
The young Christians take the word of the unbelieving professors over God and their pastors because they have been taught wrong about science and scientists. They also did what BG [Bruce Gerencser] did, take the word of unbelievers over the Holy God of the Bible.
There’s an obvious problem with Thiessen’s claims. I was not a young Christian when I deconverted. I was a fifty-year-old man when I walked away from Christianity, after having spent twenty-five years preaching and teaching the Bible.
Unlike Thiessen. I value expertise wherever I find it, regardless of the religion of the expert. Of course, Thiessen grants the Bible supernatural power it does not have. The Bible is an ancient religious text written largely by unknown authors. There is no evidence for God’s authorship of the Bible, other than a handful of Bible verses that claim at least parts of the Bible are supernatural in origin.
How would unbelievers know if God lied? Science and scientists cannot see into the past and cannot tell anyone what did or did not take place. Dr. Craig Evans and many other Christian scholars have proven Ehrman to be wrong every time they discuss the latter’s points.
Thiessen can’t see into the past and cannot tell anyone what did or not take place either, but he believes he can when it comes to the creation of the universe and other Biblical claims.
If God wrote the Bible, as Thiessen claims, then God repeatedly lied about all sorts of things. Again, there is a plethora of evidence available that shows God saying one thing in one place in the Bible, and something completely different elsewhere.
As far as Dr. Ehrman is concerned, most of his scholarly critics — which doesn’t include Thiessen — agree with the data he presents, but disagree with his interpretations of said data. Is Ehrman wrong just because he is an agnostic atheist? Of course not. Instead of wallowing in the meta, Thiessen would better serve Christianity if he responded to Ehrman academically. If Ehrman is wrong, show it. Instead of focusing on inconsequential minutiae as Thiessen is wont to do, how about directly and comprehensively challenging and rebutting his claims? I doubt if Thiessen is up to the task. I know I am not. While I have extensive knowledge about Evangelicalism and its doctrines, I don’t know everything there is to know about Christianity. And this is why I rely on experts such as Ehrman to fill in the gaps in my understanding.
The unbelievers do not have the truth about the past or the Bible. It is only fools who stop listening to God and listen to those who do not believe. God is the only one who knows what took place in the past, and it is better to listen to him than those who have no knowledge of past events and reject the evidence supporting the Bible.
According to Thiessen, only the God of the Bible knows what happened in the past. What he means is that only his peculiar God knows the past. This, or course, is untrue. Thanks to science, we can peer into the distant past and make observations about the universe. Now, if God wrote a book that detailed what took place millions of years ago, I would read it, but God (nor Jesus) has never written one word about anything. All we have is what humans say about God. God, himself, is silent. So the question that must be asked is WHY should we believe anything the authors of the Bible say?
If you want the truth, then you follow the Holy Spirit to it, leaving behind interpretation so you can see the truth clearly. The physical evidence does not support unbelievers’ alternatives. It only supports the Bible.
I thought the Bible was “truth,” and all we had to do is read it to get understanding? Thiessen is now saying that understanding the Bible requires the Holy Spirit (God) leading us to the proper interpretation of the Good Book. Don’t you have to have the Holy Spirit living inside of you to be a Christian? This means, then, that no unbeliever, according to Thiessen, can understand the Bible. This also means that the moment I deconverted, God wiped my mind of all knowledge of him and the book he allegedly wrote.
I am not sure what we do with someone that says, “The physical evidence . . . only supports the Bible.” This statement is not a matter of difference of opinion; it’s a delusion, one born out of a lifetime of Fundamentalist indoctrination and conditioning. No amount of contrary evidence will change Thiessen’s mind, so I no longer try to do so. The main reason for sharing his post on this site and replying to it is to give readers examples of the bad thinking that permeates Evangelical Christianity,
Why do you think there are over 150 ancient flood and creation myths and not one ancient evolutionary myth? Any ancient person mentioning a non-supernatural creation does so without any physical evidence and only uses personal denial and unbelief to make their claims.
The Bible is true and unbelievers should never be listened to as they do not have the truth about the Bible.
Is Thiessen really this stupid? Of course there is “not one ancient evolutionary myth.” Our understanding of evolution only dates back to the nineteenth century, so it’s impossible for there to be an evolutionary myth. Creation stories are based on pre-science myths, evolution is based on a progressive, scientific understanding of our biological world.
Note that Thiessen claims there is NO physical evidence for evolution, only young earth creationism — the universe was created 6,029 years ago in six literal twenty-four days. Science tells us these claims are false, but until Thiessen grants science its due, he will continue to believe one of many mythical creation stories.
Derrick, please say Hi to Fred and Wilma. 😜
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Many Evangelicals wrongly believe that indoctrination and conditioning are tools used by cults to manipulate people into believing certain beliefs. Evangelical churches and preachers don’t indoctrinate and condition people. All they do is preach and teach THE truth, or so the thinking goes, anyway. Indoctrination and conditioning are what false religions do, and not the one true religion — Evangelical Christianity.
Take Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen. Thiessen continues to steal my content and use it on his site. He refuses to provide his readers context when using my writing, and now he has stopped linking to my posts or mentioning my name or the name of this site. Why he does this is unknown. You would think Thiessen would want to be known as a fair, honest man. He knows how he should properly provide attribution, but he refuses to do so. If Thiessen lived in the United States, I could do something legally about his theft, but since he lives in the Philippines, I can’t touch him (and neither can American law enforcement).
As far as I know, Thiessen was raised in Evangelical Christianity, attended an Evangelical Bible college, and has spent his entire life defending the extremes of Fundamentalist Christianity. Whether he actually had a “ministry” or pastored a church is unknown. Thiessen claims to be a preacher, but provides no evidence that he actually is.
There was a time that I thought Thiessen could be reasoned with, but I now know that after seven decades of conditioning and indoctrination, there’s little chance that Thiessen will abandon his peculiar version of Christianity. And I mean it when I say “peculiar.” While I can see an Evangelical framework in his beliefs, it is evident, at least to me, that Thiessen has cobbled together his own version of Christianity. In particular, his many statements about Christian salvation reveal that Thiessen has a warped — sometimes heterodox — view of what is required to be a Christian. Of course, this is no surprise. Put a hundred Evangelicals in a room and ask them to theologically define words such as sin, salvation, and faith, and you will hear different definitions from each of them. Thus, Thiessen’s scrambled eggs beliefs are par for the course among Evangelicals.
Thiessen is upset that I continue to say that Evangelicals are indoctrinated and conditioned, so much so that he wrote a post about the matter. What follows is an excerpt of Thiessen’s post with my response below each paragraph. All spelling, grammar, punctuation, and irrationality in the original.
Thiessen writes (see how easy it is to provide attribution, Derrick?):
Unbelievers like to accuse Christians of doing this when they teach the Biblical doctrines of the Bible, including inerrancy.
….
Indoctrination is found everywhere outside of the truth.
Notice what Thiessen is saying here. Evangelical churches and pastors don’t indoctrinate people, but everyone else does. And with a wave of the hand, he dismisses all beliefs but his own.
Liberals, democrats, progressives, communists, and leftists all participate in indoctrination because they do not want their ideologies questioned. A few examples would be the blind acceptance of BLM, D.E.I., PC, cancel culture, and other favorite ideologies championed by those who do not like right and wrong, etc., unless they get to set those standards.
I am a liberal, Democrat, progressive, and a leftist. While I am not a communist, I am a socialist. I am also an atheist and a pacifist. Have I ever demanded that my beliefs (ideologies) not be questioned? Of course not. I am a skeptic and a rationalist; a seeker of knowledge and truth. Want to challenge my beliefs? That’s what the comment section is for. Or a critic could submit a guest post that I will gladly publish as long as it is not inflammatory.
Thiessen wrongly claims that I do not like right or wrong; that I demand everyone follow my moral standards. This, too, is untrue. As a humanist, I have a moral and ethical standard; one that is superior to Christianity in every way. How I authentically and morally live my life matters to me.
Indoctrination should not be a term used loosely by unbelievers. It can be turned around and used against them in everything they say and teach. When it is, it is then true. But when unbelievers use it against Christians, it is usually a wrong application of the term.
Note what Thiessen says. If he says unbelievers indoctrinate people, he is right, but when unbelievers say the same about Evangelical Christians, they are wrong. And his evidence for this irrational claim? None. It is just so because he says it is.
One cannot indoctrinate in the truth.
Sigh. According to Thiessen, Evangelicals can’t indoctrinate people because they have the truth. Thiessen never defines the word “truth,” but I think I can safely say that, for Thiessen, “truth” = his beliefs — a claim most atheists would never make.
Yes, cults do indoctrinate their members, but then, cults aren’t teaching the truth. They are teaching personal ideologies and beliefs that carry enough truth to con unwary and unknowing people.
All religions, by definition, are cults. From the cradle to the grave, Evangelicals are taught what to think, and not how to think. Sunday after Sunday, preachers reinforce core Evangelical beliefs, as do evangelists, youth pastors, Sunday school teachers, and missionaries.
It amazes me how unaware Thiessen is of the fallibility within his worldview. In his mind, his beliefs are superior to all others. Which is not surprising when you think your beliefs perfectly align with God’s revelation.
When a person teaches the truth, for example, the Bible is inerrant, creation only took 7/24 hour days, there was a global flood, and more biblical events, one is not indoctrinating but freeing people from indoctrination.
Notice Thiessen asserts (without evidence other than Bible proof texts) that his peculiar beliefs are true, and when he preaches them or writes about them, he is freeing people from indoctrination. His beliefs, by the way, are minority positions within Christendom. Most Christians believe differently from Thiessen, including many Evangelicals. This matters not. Thiessen is certain he is right; that his theological beliefs are straight from God. How he knows this is unknown.
Those who disagree with those and other biblical truths are indoctrinating anyone who will listen to them or are forced to listen to them. The Bible says we shall know the truth, and the truth shall set everyone free. This type of freedom is not indoctrination but the good news.
This little ditty explains Thiessen’s worldview: God said it (in the Bible), I believe it (when it is convenient for me), and that settles it for me (unless I have a different interpretation).
When Evangelicals such as Thiessen stupidly and ignorantly believe that the Bible = Truth, there’s not much that can be done to refute their beliefs. Once Evangelicals make faith claims, no honest, thoughtful discussion is possible.
Has the “truth” really set Evangelicals free? All we need to do is look at the behavior of Christians such as Thiessen, Revival Fires, Jaisen, John, and a cast of thousands, to see that, for all their talk about the transformational power of the gospel, their lives are no different from those of the unwashed, uncircumcised Philistines of the world. In fact, many non-believers live morally superior lives compared to the likes of Thiessen, Revival Fires, Jaisen, and John. I can confidently say that many of the unbelievers who read this blog are, in fact, outstanding unbelieving Christians.
Unbelievers like to assert that those truths are not true, but they have failed to prove their assertions true. The unbelievers like to say science has proven those biblical truths false, but science is based on assumptions and faulty physical evidence, and does not know the truth because it does not seek it.
Derrick, I once again challenge you to a public debate or a written Q&A about your assertions about unbelievers. I am not a scientist. I am smart enough to stay in my own lane, but I will gladly set up a debate between you and one of my science-literate friends. Time to put up or shut up, Derrick. You claim you have the “truth.” To that, I say, “Prove it.” I will offer you the opportunity to write a fact-based rebuttal article for this site. Factually and scientifically (not Biblically, because most readers of this site don’t give a shit about what a contradictory, errant ancient religious text says). And before Thiessen whines about me not posting his last guest article, I didn’t do so because of his transphobic statements. Two things will get you sent to Gerencser Hell: derogatory statements about LGBTQ people and personal attacks (both of me and the readers of this blog).
Most of science is run by unbelievers who have rejected the truth and seek something to replace it with, even if it is a far-fetched idea like evolutionary processes. Christians do not indoctrinate because they allow people to examine all the information before the latter make up their minds.
That most scientists are non-Evangelicals and more than a few of them are atheists, is evidence to Thiessen that they have rejected the “truth” (truth meaning Thiessen’s peculiar religious beliefs and practices) and have replaced it with science. This, of course, is absurd. More than a few unbelieving scientists read this blog. Perhaps they can explain to Thiessen why they are unbelievers. Will doing so change his mind? Of course not. Outside of some sort of “Come to Jesus” moment, Thiessen is beyond help. He knows what he knows, end of discussion.
Thiessen has said a lot of bat-shit crazy stuff over the years, but what he says in this paragraph takes the proverbial cake. Thiessen arrogantly states, “Christians do not indoctrinate because they allow people to examine all the information before the latter make up their minds.” Is he fucking kidding?
Do Evangelical churches and pastors provide congregants with all the information necessary to make up their minds about Christianity? Of course not. Most Evangelicals become Christians before their minds are mature enough to rationally examine the central claims of Christianity. Most Christians couldn’t define and explain core Christian beliefs if their lives depended on it.
Once people have the truth, they do not need to question it again. They have found it, and their search for truth is over. Only those who reject the truth demand that believers follow their example and continue questioning the Bible, etc.
The questions and the search stop when one has found the truth. One only humiliates and embarrasses oneself by always questioning the truth, then rejecting it for a false gospel or false scientific information.
According to Thiessen, once Evangelicals know the “truth,” there’s no need for them to ask questions or search further. This is common thinking among Evangelicals. Once you know the “truth,” you have been set free.
One is not indoctrinated when they embrace the truth. The truth is God’s objective truth, not the unbelieving world’s idea of truth, nor is it his, her, my, or their truth. The truth stands alone, and it is for everyone to find and receive.
Thiessen says truth stands alone. He provides no evidence for this claim other than his own opinions. If the Bible = truth, then why are there so many errant, contradictory claims within its pages?
Plus, the truth never changes, which is why so many Christians have found peace of mind when they come to Christ. The unbelieving world is never at peace because its scientific and other ideologies keep failing and changing.
The truth remains the same from day one to day last. This is why the Bible is so important. It has never changed and brings not only the truth but peace. People may like science because it is always changing; however, that constant change does not bring peace of mind because no one knows when science will actually find and report the truth.
To Derrick, I say, comprehensively define “truth.” Don’t tell me to read your blog. Write a blog post that sets forth “truth” so we all can know what to believe. Pretend I want to know your version of “truth,” Derrick. What would you say to me? You attack and condemn instead of presenting your brand of Christianity in its best possible light.
Thiessen doesn’t like change, and that is one of the reasons he is so set in his beliefs. Fundamentalists are known for bullheaded certainty (as I was, at one time). As you can see, Thiessen doesn’t know much about the scientific method either. Science is about hypotheses, theories, evidence, and probabilities, and not absolute truth. None of us has absolute truth. The best any of us can do is to examine the relevant evidence and come to a rational conclusion. Thiessen doesn’t do this. He knows he is right, so there’s no need for him to examine evidence or rationally re-investigate his beliefs and practices.
Who can believe or accept what science says when it is always changing? Unbelievers use the thousands of denominations as stumbling blocks to belief in Jesus, yet they embrace the thousands of different scientific ideas that contradict or disagree with each other.
The fact that there are tens of thousands of Christian sects, each with their own beliefs, is an indictment of Thiessen’s claim that the Bible = truth. Instead of addressing and explaining these contradictory claims, Thiessen plays the whataboutism game. Science has competing views, so why can’t Christianity? The problem,of course, is that science never claims to be big T truth as Thiessen claims for his beliefs.
And in closing, I ask Thiessen to list a hundred of the thousands of scientific ideas that allegedly contradict each other. I suspect he is being hyperbolic. Sure, there are competing scientific beliefs, but thousands of contradictory beliefs? That’s unlikely.
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
David Tee/Derrick Thomas Thiessen is the tall man in the back
Dr. David Tee, an Evangelical preacher whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, thinks my friend Ben Berwick (MM) and I owe him an apology for some sort of offense that resides only in the dark, empty depths of his mind.
We are still waiting for both MM and BG to apologize and take responsibility for the foul things they have said about and to us. They won’t do it because in their minds, they think they are doing what is right.
I think I speak for Ben when I say that we haven’t done anything worthy of an apology, so one will not be coming anytime soon. Both of us work very hard not to cause unnecessary offense, but when it comes to Thiessen, to speak the truth about him means causing him to “feel” offense. Thiessen speaks in the plural, saying “we are still waiting” for you to apologize. Who is the other person or persons we allegedly offended? Or is this feigned offense all about a butthurt preacher getting upset by something we may have written that he disagrees with?
Memo to Derrick Thiessen: No apology will be forthcoming. Do I regret a few things I have said about you over the years? Sure, but on most accounts, I have written about you truthfully and honestly. You have been given ample opportunity to set the record straight or defend your beliefs, but you choose not to do so, painting yourself as a martyr who is being wrongly “attacked” by atheists and agnostics. You typically write several posts about Ben and me every week. Never charitable, never honest, you choose to paint both of us in a negative light. That’s fine. Such is the nature of the Internet, right? Yet, shouldn’t we expect better behavior from one of God’s chosen ones? Especially, a so-called man of God? What would Jesus do (WWJD), Derrick? Not write two posts a week about two bloggers who, according to you, no one reads (another lie you repeatedly tell).
These days, I rarely respond to the basement-dwelling Thiessen. This post is my reminder to him that he should not expect an apology from me. I sent Derrick a 20″x30″ glossy photo of me pole dancing in the nude. I thought that would satiate his call for apologies and other desires he may have, but alas, Bruce Gerencser swinging in all his glory didn’t do it. Oh well, I tried. (In case Derrick has a hard time with sarcasm and satire, this last paragraph was both.)
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
This cookie is set by X to identify and track the website visitor. Registers if a users is signed in the X platform and collects information about ad preferences.
2 years
personalization_id
Unique value with which users can be identified by X. Collected information is used to be personalize X services, including X trends, stories, ads and suggestions.
2 years
external_referer
Our Website uses X buttons to allow our visitors to follow our promotional X feeds, and sometimes embed feeds on our Website.
