First off, we need to look at the source of scientific information. Are the people bringing us the alternative to Genesis 1 or scientific discoveries actually and truly Christian? If not then we know that they are being led by evil and are deceived people.
They are the blind trying to lead the blind.
….
God separates education into two distinct categories—true teaching and false teaching. If the scientists are not following God and the Bible then they are not bringing true teaching to the faithful. They may mix some of the truth in with their alternative ideas but as all con men know, to deceive people you need some truth to make the con work.
….
Secular scientists and alternative believers bring a different gospel than the one Jesus and the disciples taught. They are saying that Moses is wrong but Jesus, Paul, and the apostles never corrected Moses and in fact, Jesus stated in John 5:45ff that if you do not believe Moses how can you believe his words? So believing Genesis 1 is important to one’s salvation.
Secular scientists and alternative believers do not believe Moses thus they try to alter the gospel message because they cannot bring themselves to follow God’s rule of using faith to accept a supernatural origin.
….
We have help [God and the Bible]. The secular scientist does not have this aid so we know that whatever they conclude or say is not coming from God but from evil. They do not know what the truth is.
….
There is only one way for secular science to be compatible or harmonized with scripture and that is for those in secular science to repent of their sins and get right with God then toss out all false teachings from the field of science.
God and the Bible do not humble themselves to secular scientists, science, or alternative believers. Those groups are to humble themselves and give up what is wrong. We cannot put the truth into secular science because it is not made new but a very sinful and corrupt field of research and the Bible teaches us.
….
One is not blessed by God for taking sinful words and counsel over God’s words. Here is a question I have asked many an atheist, alternative believer, and secular scientist: Where in the Bible do both God and Jesus give permission to take secular science over their words?
So far not one of the people I have asked has been able to provide an answer.
They can’t because both God and Jesus tell us to follow them over the secular world and to use faith when we believe. We do not have to use secular science and its rules to combat secular science. We just need to know who God is and what happens if he is wrong to see that the truth lies in Genesis 1 and not with those who have rejected that passage of scripture.
It is not the amount of educational degrees behind a name that finds the truth nor is it the amount of expertise or years of doing experiments that lead us to the truth about our origins. It is following the Holy Spirit that gets us to the truth and the Holy Spirit will not contradict God or the Bible.
— Dr. David Tee, TheologyArcheology: A Site for the Glory of Scientific and Theological Ignorance, Harmonizing Science and Scripture, September 3, 2024
Another day, another post by Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, about yours truly. Titled Answering More Questions+, Thiessen used my last five posts to say that I was wrong. Of course, his five readers will not know they are my posts. Thiessen does not link to my articles, nor does he mention me by name or initials.
It is amazing how some unbelievers, like LGBTQ, vegans, and vegetarians [vegans and vegetarians, can’t be Christians?] will always tell you information you do not want to know. The person writing that article [Bruce Gerencser] has reached part two and it is the same story he has preserved on hundreds of web pages on his website, yet he feels he has to write about it again.
This and these types of articles are stories of failures. The lesson to take from them is what not to do when you have doubts or are in a crisis. Failures are not someone you should listen to or follow their examples.
They do not have any answers and they have nothing for Christians except information on what to avoid. Quitters are not role models and while we have empathy for them and strive to see if they can be redeemed again, we do not follow their examples or listen to their words.
These types of people are just screaming for attention, similar to those aging Hollywood actresses who continue to take their clothes off like they are achieving some great goal or making a powerful statement. The only people who like seeing the actresses strip are perverts.
The quitters are embarrassing themselves as they hold their failures up for all to see and ridicule. They are not achieving anything or helping anyone.
From day one of blogging in 2007, I determined to use my real name and write openly and honestly about my life. And that’s exactly what I have done. Have I told readers EVERYTHING about my life? No, and I don’t intend to do so. That said, for the most part, I have been honest and vulnerable, knowing that doing so could lead people to view me in a negative light.
Thiessen, a disgraced Evangelical preacher who abandoned his family and fled the United States to avoid legal obligations, goes to great lengths to hide who he really is. While he is certainly free to do so, I don’t understand why he so vehemently objects to me doing otherwise. Why does my story enflame his metaphorical hemorrhoids? Why does the retelling of my story upset him so? If my writing causes him to reach for his tube of Preparation H, why not stop reading it? Why not write original content instead of repeatedly cribbing my writing and that of Ben Bewwick (Meerkat Musings)? Does Thiessen really believe he is “helping” his fellow believers? Or is he just another pissed-off Evangelical who is upset that I am talking out of school?
Thiessen has countless times over the years called me names. He loves saying that I am a quitter; a failure. Thiessen says I am like an actress who takes off her clothes on TV or in a movie. Those who watch her on the screen are, according to a man with lots of skeletons in his closet, “perverts.” Thus, my writing is akin to a naked actress, and you dear readers are perverts for reading it.
Am I a quitter? Sure. I have quit several things in my life, as all of us have. But I will tell you who I haven’t quit on. Unlike Thiessen, I have never quit on my spouse, children, or grandchildren. I suspect if the truth was ever told about the life of Derrick Thiessen, there would be plenty of quitting for all to see.
Thiessen also says I am a “failure.” Again, all of us fail at one time or another. I have had many successes and failures in my life. So has Thiessen. So what is he trying to accomplish with these slurs? Best I can tell, Thiessen is gaslighting us, projecting his failures on me, hoping to avoid careful examination of his own life and accountability for his actions. I suspect most readers see through what he is doing. Of course, Thiessen could clear all of this up by being open, honest, and forthcoming about his life, from his days in Canada to his present domicile and “ministry” in the Philippines. Of course, he will never do this. Thus the endless stream of blog posts about me will continue.
Finally, Thiessen says I am “not achieving anything or helping anyone.” He knows this isn’t true, but he keeps saying it over, and over, and over again. I will leave it to others to determine whether I have achieved anything or helped anyone. My email suggests that I have helped countless people over the years. Comments on the YouTube/podcast interviews I have done lead me to believe that many people find my story helpful and encouraging. Even Evangelicals who disagree with me find my writing engaging and informative. I have been in talks with an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) pastor about speaking to his church school’s high school students. He asked if I would be willing to take questions from them. “Absolutely,” I replied. Two years ago, I gave a similar talk to a young men’s group at a Mennonite church in Pennsylvania. If I am not achieving anything or helping anyone, why do even Evangelicals find my story interesting?
I know nothing I say will make one bit of a difference when it comes to what Thiessen says about me. I just want him to know I see through his bullshit, as do many, if not most, of the readers of this site.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
The decision to have children should be made long before the couple has sex and long before they get married. As believers of sex after marriage, we do not accept adulterous affairs of any sort. However, we recognize that they do take place.
But, those adulterous affairs do not change the status of the new life developing in the mother-to-be. If the men are going to participate in out-of-marriage sexual encounters, then they need to be prepared to care for the life they have generated. The same thing applies to women.
Everyone knows by the time they are 16 what happens when a man and a woman have sex. They should be strong enough to hold off temptation and prepare themselves for parenthood. Unfortunately, the West and some countries in the East have placed such a high priority on sex that too many people fall to temptation.
They have ignored biblical teaching to pursue their own desires and we are left with the family mess we have today. If you think the Bible does not relate to today’s culture, think again.
The biblical instructions apply to all cultures no matter where they are located. In reading the Bible, specifically the verses about Jesus’ interaction with Mary Magdelene and the verse that says Jesus was tempted in all areas of life, we have come to the conclusion that Mary was his adultery temptation. [Did Jesus get a boner?]
— Dr. David Tee, TheologyArcheology: A Site for the Glory of God, When Does Life Begin, July 24, 2024
Over the years, we [I] have written more than enough articles proving that the theory of evolution is not true.
….
Evolution is what anyone decides it to be and then changes the physical evidence to fit their particular version.
….
The Bible has the theory of evolution beat no matter how you look at this issue.
Geoff Toscano, a long-time reader of this blog and a personal friend replied:
Oh brother, I’ve wasted at least 5 minutes of my life reading Tee’s article! Just when I thought the fool couldn’t get any more stupid, he proves me wrong, once again! The irony is that he accuses evolutionary scientists of creating fairy stories along the lines of Hansel and Gretel, when it’s actually a book of fairy tales that he seeks to defend.
He misses the most basic understanding of why evolution must be true, and that is its explanatory power. Take away all the evidence we have in terms of DNA, the fossil record, variation, adaptation, and so on, and still we have the explanatory power. Evolution provides an explanation of features we observe in every life form that special creation cannot begin to approach. It explains biodiversity, vestiges and atavisms, bad design (if god designed humans then he did a terrible job!), and especially the manner in which life forms seem strangely to conform to their varying environments. An educated person cannot deny evolution: they are mutually exclusive.
Thiessen refuses to comment on this blog, choosing instead to “answer” comments on his site. Of course, Thiessen refuses to let people comment on his blog, nor does he have a contact page. You can, however, email Thiessen at kinship29@yahoo.com.
Titled Responding to Comments 4, Theissen “answered” five comments from this site. He had this to say to Geoff:
The person missing the point is the quoted commentator. Explanatory power means absolutely nothing. There is nothing to support the ‘explanatory power’. If you remove the made-up evidence, then the explanation makes no sense.
Also, explanatory power is not exclusive to evolution. Any alternative can have the same explanations credited to it. In fact, creation has the exact same explanatory power with one exception. Creation has all the evidence supporting it.
Like the late George Carlin, the commentator is judging God from only seeing humans and creation from the results of the fall and corruption that entered in at Adam’s sin. he did not and cannot see humans and creation as God created it.
God did a perfect job, but sin and corruption ruined what he did. The quoted commentator should blame evil not God. He also says that creatures adapt to different environments.
We have yet to see humans adapt to living underwater and fish to living out of water. Those are different environments. Moving to a different place on the dry surface of the Earth is not moving to a different environment.
It is simply moving to different weather patterns and temperatures. Nothing needs to change for adaptation to take place in that situation. Also, we have not seen one person adapt to the environment on the moon or in space. They still need protective gear to live.
This fact proves evolution false.
Geoff sent me a response to Thiessen that follows below. Geoff responds to Thiessen’s reply to him and several other commenters.
David Tee’s first comment makes no sense. I pointed out the explanatory power of evolution, and he countered with “There is nothing to support the ‘explanatory power’. If you remove the made-up evidence, then the explanation makes no sense.” He either didn’t read my comment properly or he didn’t understand it. Explanatory power IS the evidence so his reference to other evidence for evolution being made up is irrelevant. For example, the laryngeal nerve is explained perfectly by evolution, but makes no sense in his creation beliefs. That is the evidence, end of story.
As for his nonsense about humans adapting to living under water, he gets to be equally silly. Animals adapt to their environment, humans included. Life originated in the sea, then slowly started to move out of it onto dry land many millions of years, perhaps billions, of years ago. Animals that emerged evolved until they were able to live on the land without recourse to water. This explains why humans still have vestiges of gills (tail bones also, I might add). He’s also ridiculous in saying that different parts of dry land on Earth do not represent different environments. Really? Arctic versus the Sahara Desert? They aren’t just different weather patterns or temperatures, they require adaptation in a way almost as great as leaving the sea.
His point about not adapting to living in space or on the moon? (Ignoring that we’ve been able to access space for only a very few decades, whilst evolution requires thousands of years to make significant differences on the scale required). He really knows nothing about evolution. In fact, this comment is perhaps the most stupid I have ever seen from a creationist! It’s precisely because we haven’t adapted to such hostile conditions that we are unable to live in them! Should we be forced through circumstances one day to live on the moon then our bodies would adapt to the conditions, especially the gravity, but it’s unlikely we would ever be able to adapt to the lack of oxygen, which is essential for human existence, indeed all life (there are apparently tiny multi cells that exist without oxygen in parts of the ocean, but these aren’t relevant to Tee’s point). Plus, of course, we’d need water. There are technical ways of producing these but then we’d be adapting the environment to us. We can do this because we’ve evolved to be able to do it!
He says there are thousands of Christian biologists who reject evolution. False, there are almost none. Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute is the only seemingly qualified scientist who makes the claim and he’s not a biologist. Michael Behe, who really formalised Intelligent Design, has since retreated and I think has either reverted to accepting evolution or at least gone very quiet. The thing is there are always outliers. People who are anti-vaxxers, or moon landing deniers, flat earthers, and many others can appear to be carrying some kind of qualification to lend them credibility. Even so, they remain outliers. They aren’t taken seriously by the scientific community, not because the scientific community is conspiring against them, but because the scientific community exists only because it is historically the only method whereby humanity progresses. Science works (and I define science widely in this regard, to include all methods of reasoning), where faith does not. Faith recently murdered a small child in Australia, a child who had every right to depend on her parents and other guardians for protection, but who was betrayed because her protectors thought the power of God was greater than the power of medicine.
Tee claims that unbelievers seek to exclude God from their work. Ignoring the fact that a very large proportion of scientists are themselves religious believers (though it is a much lower proportion than that found in other areas of life) the fact is that science excludes nothing, not even God. The point is that good science leads where it leads. Isaac Newton was a great scientist, but he was also a fervent believer. When he constructed his theory of gravity it was hailed as, rightly, one of the great scientific achievements of all time. Even so, he knew there was a small error for which he couldn’t account, so he attributed this to God keeping ultimate control of his creation. He was wrong because he didn’t know, and at the time couldn’t possibly have known, of relativity, something Einstein demonstrated centuries later. So God figured in the thinking of one of the greatest scientists of all time, but unfortunately God proved not to be the answer. If God is ever the answer, then science will discover this, it won’t be through faith.
On top of this, many attempts have been made by science to ‘find God’. There have been four peer-reviewed studies that have attempted to establish whether prayer is of any benefit in assisting ill patients to recover. Three indicated it provided no benefit greater than chance, whilst one suggested there may even be negative benefit. Indeed, every aspect of supernatural claim has been carefully investigated by science. Miracle claims, so-called paranormal events, weeping statues, hauntings, exorcisms, NDEs, etc., all have been studied and no evidence of anything other than perfectly natural explanations has ever been found.
Matt Ridley’s main claim to fame is that he was chairman of the bank that initiated the financial collapse in the UK in 2007 (a full year before Lehman Brothers failed) and had to give evidence to a Parliamentary Committee that wanted to know where he was whilst all this happened. He admitted that he didn’t really involve himself, rather it was his name that was important to the bank (he is actually Sir Matt Ridley, and part of a wealthy landowning family). He’s written some good science books aimed at children, but he’s verging on denialism in much of what he writes. His religious beliefs, however, are irrelevant to his science writing.
It is easy to conclude that Tee is simply delusional (which he undoubtedly is) but it’s much more than that, and I think he has to be regarded as an outright liar. He keeps insisting that there’s no evidence for evolution. He’s simply wrong. Evolution is supported by more evidence than any other branch of science. It is now such a vast subject that it has to be subdivided for study purposes. No serious scientist in the world denies it, and certainly no biologists, whether religious believers or not. He insists the bible is true, in the face of all the evidence that proves it is not, other than in minor, trivial, ways. Most believers, and certainly most religions, have come to terms with the realisation that evolution is a stark fact.
Tee yet again demonstrates the impossibility of his ever having obtained a legitimate doctorate. I’ll go further and allege that he’s never passed any formal academic examination in his life. It’s significant that he chooses to limit his reply to the comfort of his website, protected from comments, and certainly not daring to risk direct interaction on Bruce’s forum.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Young earth creationists believe the universe was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days, 6,027 years ago. Everything science tells us about the universe says this view is wrong. For most Evangelical Christians, what science says doesn’t matter. Evangelicals always defer to the Bible when confronted with conflicts between science and the Bible. Why? In their minds, the Bible is a supernatural text written by a supernatural God. It is the book above all books, different from all the books ever written. It is an inexhaustible book that can be read countless times without exhausting its teachings. It is inerrant and infallible in all that it says, and Evangelicals believe every word in the Bible is true. When confronted with the plethora of errors, contradictions, and mistakes found in both English translations and the underlying Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts, Evangelicals are fond of coming up with novel, and, at times, irrational, ways to defend inerrancy.
Evangelicals tend to be Bible literalists. “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent,” Evangelicals say. Of course, for those of us raised in Evangelical churches, we know this sentiment is a crock of shit. We heard preacher after preacher mold, shape, and reinterpret the Bible so as to gain a particular interpretation or meaning. Put one hundred Evangelical preachers in a room and ask them to interpret a particular passage of Scripture or defend a peculiar theological position, you will end up with numerous explanations and interpretations. Why is this? If there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism; if the Holy Spirit lives inside every Christian as their teacher and guide in everything pertaining to life and godliness, why can’t Evangelicals even agree on the basics of Christian faith? Evangelicals would agree that salvation is THE most important thing, yet ask them what a person must do to be saved or what are the prerequisites for salvation, be prepared for a litany of answers. If Evangelicals can’t figure out the nature and mode of salvation, how can they expect unregenerate people to figure it out?
Last week, I wrote a post titled Evangelical Literalism: A Day is a Day Except When It Isn’t. I showed that Evangelicals are only Bible literalists when it is convenient. As I previously stated, the Bible says God created the universe in six literal twenty-four-hour days. On this point, most Evangelicals agree. However, when the Bible says in Genesis 2:15-17:
And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it, And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The word day — which is the same word as used in Genesis 1, clearly teaches that on the day Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree, they would die. Did they die? No. According to Genesis 5:5: . . . and all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. This means that there is an insurmountable contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 — one of many, by the way. Evangelicals have no room for Bible contradictions in their worldview, so they come up with novel explanations to explain why “day” in Genesis 1 is a literal twenty-four-hour day, but day in Genesis 2 is not. Instead of letting the text speak for itself, Evangelicals are duty-bound to defend the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible at all costs.
Dr. Dan McClellan talked about this issue in several short videos which follow. McClellan’s areas of specialization are Second Temple Judaism, early Israelite religion, textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, early Christology, the cognitive science of religion, cognitive linguistics, and religious identity. He earned his PhD at the University of Exeter.
Another “doctor,” Dr. David Tee (whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen), weighed in on my post. Tee allegedly has a doctorate, albeit from an institution he refuses to name. When asked about his refusal to share his academic credentials, Tee replied, “God knows, and that is all that matters.” Make of that what you will. Tee’s areas of expertise are “the Bible says,” “I am right,” and “unbelievers don’t know anything about the Bible.” Tee has been studying these issues his entire life, so much so that if Jesus himself came back from the dead and told him he was wrong, Tee would reply, “You aren’t a Christian, so you don’t know anything.”
Tee recently published yet another missive about me titled It is a Waste of Time. Here’s an excerpt from his post:
We wrote a guest post for the BG [The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser] website talking about how it is a waste of time to present real physical evidence to many unbelievers. You do not even have to present it to them but write about it and the naysayers come out of the woodwork.
Unbelievers will find a way to dismiss any evidence presented to them even when the evidence has been accepted by both Christian and non-Christian scholars, archaeologists, and other scientists.
….
The evidence for what we have just said is found in the title of an internet article written by an [Bruce Gerencser] atheist after he read our post on Answering Issues From Science. His title is- Evangelical Literalism: A Day is a Day Except When It Isn’t.
His first line is:
All young-earth creationists are literalists, that is except when they aren’t. Let me illustrate this for you.
Despite thousands of years of accepted scholarship on the meaning of the word ‘yom’ and the words ‘evening and morning’ the unbelievers try to dismiss the evidence supporting the correct translation of those words.
Not only have we studied these words since Bible College days but we also rechecked what we knew and almost every website that came up in our search said the same thing- these words refer to a 24-hour day.
Accepting this correct rendition of those words is NOT being literal but holding to the truth. Unbelievers like to call Evangelicals literalists because that label helps them hide from the truth.
Sigh.(Why I Use the Word “Sigh.”) I believe I said in my post that the word day means a literal twenty-four-hour day. That’s the literal, actual definition of the word. So what’s Tee’s beef? That he is not being “literal” but “holding to the truth.” Huh?
Tee says my article is a response to a post of his, Answering Issues From Science. This is untrue. Tee wrote his post in July 2024. My post was originally written in September 2020.
First, he attacks us for the correct and truthful rendition of the word yom when it means a 24-hour day and then he attacks us for the correct rendition of the word yom when it does not mean a 24-hour day.
This person is just being irrational, and illogical and needs to say something outrageous to get Christians upset. When Christians are going for the truth, they are not being literal, they are being accurate. The word ‘yom’ has several meanings, just like the English word ‘day’ has.
It all has to do with context. The words ‘evening and morning’ provide the context to translate the word yom as a literal 24-hour day. The verse quoted above has the context that tells translators and students of the Bible to not translate the word yom as a 24-hour day.
The person who wrote that article flies in the face of accepted and legitimate scholarship and not just from the Christian side of the debate. There are those people claiming to be Christian who will side with the author of those quoted words. Augustine of Hippo was one of them and they are all wrong.
The reason they are wrong is because they do not want to accept God’s words but have already accepted what secular science and scientists have said. Instead of believing in an all-powerful God who can create in 6 24-hour days, they prefer to accept the words of dead humans who were unbelievers.
Tee proves my point, as does Dr. McClellan above. There’s no justification for “day” meaning a literal twenty-four-hour day in Genesis 1, but meaning something different in Genesis 2. The only reason Evangelicals are forced to interpret these verses differently is their commitment to Bible inerrancy. Adam and Eve, according to the inerrant, infallible Word of God, should have died on the very day they ate the fruit from the tree. That they didn’t means there is a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.
Those words show a complete misunderstanding of bible translation, hermeneutics, exegesis, and other scholarly biblical tools. They are spoken to protect the speaker from realizing the truth of Genesis 1 & 2.
Who is trying to keep people from the “truth”? It is Tee and his fellow inerrantists who are trying to force the Bible to fit their peculiar theology. Instead of letting each book of the Bible and each author speak for themselves, Evangelicals are duty-bound to make all the puzzle pieces fit. This is called univocality. In August 2009, Dr. McClellan wrote a short article titled On the Univocality of the Bible. Here’s what he had to say:
A common misapprehension among amateur and some professional Bible scholars is the assumption of the univocality of the Bible. According to this assumption, the Bible manifests a single theological and ecclesiastical paradigm which allows exegetes, in their minds, to appeal to and synthesize texts separated by several centuries and virtually irreconcilable worldviews in the interest of the extrapolation of doctrine and, secondarily, administrative guidelines.
I believe the root of this assumption is the belief that the Bible contains all the necessary information for the institutionalization and administration of a community of faith, which, in my opinion, seems to be related to the idea of biblical inerrancy. After all, conflicting theologies would all but undermine the “God-breathed” nature of all scripture, according to the more conservative definitions of inerrancy.
….
I take a different approach to interpreting doctrine in the Bible. I make no confession of biblical inerrancy, and I believe the biblical texts are in no way free from theological speculation, propaganda, polemic, rhetoric, and human error. I think that asserting the univocality of the Bible tangles up the exegete in the hermeneutic circle and in attempts to reconcile theological and administrative inconsistencies to contemporary dogmas.
While most Bible scholars aren’t often caught up in bickering about contradictions in the Bible and other apologetic arguments, I believe the assumption of biblical univocality still wriggles its way into academia. It is primarily manifested in attempts to homogenize or reconcile the theologies of diachronically distinct cultures and peoples. Early monarchic perspectives on the divine council, for instance, were not identical to those of Second Temple Judaism, which incorporated a conflated pantheon, an expanded angelology, and a more transcendant view of YHWH. Anthropomorphic perspectives of deity changed, as did ideas of monotheism, salvation, the source of evil, corporate responsibility, law, scripture, priesthood, nationalism, cult, and pretty much everything else. The New Testament, in and of itself, is no exception. I think these considerations need to be addressed before one can assert that “the Bible says” one thing or another, or that a scripture in John or the Psalms should be interpreted according to a specific paradigm because it is expounded upon that way in Genesis or Isaiah.
By the way, Dr. McClellan has had his own run-in with “Dr.” Tee. Tee, using a plethora of aliases, has spread his academic “expertise” far and wide across the Internet. Typically, he wears out his welcome and is sent packing. This, of course, appeals to his persecution complex. Tee reminds me of Evangelical street preacher, the late Jed Smock. (Please see My Life as a Street Preacher — Part Three) Smock and his wife, Cindy, preached on college campuses. Smock, who told me he hadn’t sinned in years, was famous for calling women wearing clothing he deemed sinful whores. On occasion, Smock’s vulgarity led to someone kicking his ass. Smock considered his beatings persecution. They weren’t. Smock got his ass kicked because he was a bully. Tee goes to Christian and atheist websites alike to share his Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. When rejected, he continues to “defend” what he calls the truth. Inevitably becoming argumentative and disparaging those who disagree with him, Tee ends up getting banned. In Tee’s mind, he is being persecuted for standing up for the truth.
For those of you raised in Evangelical churches, how did your pastors explain away the contradiction regarding the word “day” in Genesis 1 and 2? Please leave your astute observations in the comment section.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, has spent the past three years personally attacking not only me, but my British friend, Ben Berwick. Ben, an author, blogs at Meerkat Musings and Coalition of the Brave. Several years ago, Ben told me that he thought Thiessen was misguided, but friendship with him was possible. Having experienced firsthand the depths of Thiessen’s bullying and lies, I doubted whether this was true, but I considered that I could be wrong; that I had waded through so much of his bullshit that I couldn’t see whatever minute goodness the man might have.
Ben is a decent guy who genuinely tries to see good in others. I am much more cynical than Ben. Besides being old enough to be Ben’s father or even grandfather, I suspect this is due to seventeen years of experiences with the Derrick Thiessens of the world; people who claim to be Christians, yet show, in their behavior and words, that they are not followers of Jesus. Long-time readers of this blog remember Jesus-loving miscreants such as Revival Fires, John, Charles, Daniel Kluver, Victor Justice, Steve Ransom, and others dumping loads of shit on my doorstep, savaging not only me, but also my partner, Polly, our children, and grandchildren, Facebook friends of mine, and the readers of this site. For those of us who used to be Evangelicals, we find their behavior baffling, contrary to the teachings of Jesus. How can these men dare to claim faith in Christ, while at the same time not loving their neighbors as themselves? Thiessen, in direct contradiction to Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount, takes an eye-for-an-eye approach toward those who disagree with him. Turn the other cheek? Love your enemy? Not according to Thiessen’s bastardized version of Christianity.
During the month of June 2024, Thiessen wrote over thirty posts about Ben and me. Both of us ignored him for months, but his hostility and defamation have reached levels where silence is no longer possible. My skin is thick and impenetrable when it comes to Thiessen’s abusive behavior, thanks to three years of non-stop “teachings” and “critiques” from him. Others who have faced fewer of Thiessen’s attacks might be more sensitive to his cuts, slights, and assaults.
Recently, Thiessen wrote a post titled We Have a STALKER!!! Here’s what he had to say about Ben:
He [Ben Berwick] follows us [me] everywhere now making his distorted and misleading comments. We [I] do not comment on his website nor do we [I] mention him in any of our [my] posts elsewhere on the Internet yet he somehow finds the time and the need to track our [my] movements and leave these hate-filled comments about us [me].
I am sure he has better things to do than to trace our [my] footsteps. it certainly makes him look bad and worse than how he describes us [me].
Thiessen doesn’t mention Ben or me by name in his writing, nor does he follow Internet etiquette and properly hyperlink to our blogs when he uses our content on his sparsely read site. Instead, he calls me BG and Ben MM. Just last week, Thiessen cooked up a new reason for why he does this: he wants to focus on our content instead of our personalities. This claim, of course, is absurd. He does this because he knows it irritates us; while his use of our content technically falls under Fair Use, his refusal to use our names and provide proper attribution is for no other reason than that he can. That’s what bullies do. “Make me stop,” Thiessen says, knowing that he is safe from accountability, both personally and legally. He hides in the Philippines with his newest wife, safe from being held accountable for his behavior.
I should note that Thiessen has a long history of bullying and badgering people he disagrees with — including fellow Christians. He has been banned from numerous blogs, websites, and forums, always claiming he is a victim. Thiessen is not a pastor. It’s been years since he found a group of people willing to call him their shepherd. He claims to be in the ministry, however, his “ministry” seems to be writing self-published short books, publishing Fundamentalist teaching materials, writing travel articles, and blogging. How he makes his living is unknown. In years past, he has mooched off of others, having little visible means of support.
Is Ben stalking Thiessen? Of course not. Just because Ben responds to comments Thiessen made on other blogs, websites, and forums doesn’t mean he is a stalker. These are public sites. Anyone is free to comment, and I have, at times, done the same. People need to know who Dr. David Tee really is. I notified several Christian ministries in the Philippines that the Dr. David Tee they admire is not who they think he is. Thiessen is a fraud who hides behind numerous aliases, presenting himself as a college-trained academic who earned a legitimate doctorate. Thiessen does have at least one degree from an Evangelical Bible college, but he refuses to say where he received his master’s and doctorate. When asked to provide credible evidence for his academic claims, Thiessen refuses, saying, “God knows, and that’s all that matters.” Ask yourself, do you know anyone who has an earned doctorate who doesn’t want to tell you where they got their education? Of course not. Most people are proud of their academic achievements. Thiessen, of course, knows his academic achievements would be mocked if he let it be known where he went to school.
Note that Thiessen provides NO evidence for his claim that Ben is leaving “hateful” comments about him on other sites. Why is that?
It is hard to know where exactly to begin. As we mentioned in a previous article, we now have a stalker. We know he is a stalker because he suddenly appears on different websites where we participate and makes insidious comments about us.
….
He [Ben] seems to be very thin-skinned and there is an old saying that he should consider- if you cannot stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen. He was in the kitchen the moment he publically [sic] published his content. If he does not like criticism, maybe he should stick to what he knows or stop putting content on the Internet.
….
There is something that he should consider applying to his life as well. This was taught to us about 60 years ago– toughen up. If he is that sensitive, then publishing his thoughts publically [sic] is not for him
What his email has done is made MM look very bad. It does not harm us as people have been saying bad things about us for over a decade. His email paints him in the following ways:
A bully – he has to beat up on others to feel good about himself
An extortionist- he has to threaten harm against others to get his way
A spoiled child- throws tantrums because he is not getting his way
A whiner- he can’t handle criticism
A crybaby- he has to have everyone doing what he wants or he is not happy
A complainer- he takes issue with critiques because they expose his erroneous thoughts
The kid who takes his ball and goes home- he refuses to let people do what he does and has to try and take the opportunities away
A distorter- he is dishonest and manipulative and changes the content to fit his narrative
Self-important- he thinks he is something he is not
Thinks his way is the only way – he thinks he gets to tell millions of others what they should be thinking, doing, and supporting. He forgets he is just one person with one subjective opinion
An abusive person- he will treat others in very negative ways
Hypocritical- he treats others in the same way he complains about
Vengeful- likes to get back at others for perceived slights
Likes to take revenge- he wants to get back at others instead of letting roll away like water off a duck’s back
Those are just some of the negative attributes his email describes him as being.
Both BG and MM should man up and toughen up and stop their whining. if they are going to publish erroneous content and make extraordinary claims then they will be called out for those statements.
As we have explained ad nauseum we use their content to present our material in a very relatable manner. And as we said in a previous post, we hold nothing against them no matter how bad they get.
There is a reason we do not allow comments on this website anymore. It is people like them, not just them, who do not know how to discuss or debate correctly and use verbiage that is not acceptable in common debates or discussions.
Many people who comment cannot follow the rules we have set up for commenting, including BG and MM who have created their own rules for comments.
We do not care what MM is going to publish. He has crossed the line again and taken steps that non-Christians may find worth physically fighting him over. We are not that way. We will just turn the other cheek and let it go.
We will publish the content we want because we have the right and freedom to do so. It is our website and what MM wants does not matter. He is the one in error with his actions and overreactions and he needs to get help.
We have forgotten a couple points we were going to include here and may remember them later. We wonder where he gets the right to dictate to others what they can & will say on their websites? He put the information into the public domain so he only has himself to blame.
….
Also, we do not trust his content because he is a known distorter who manipulates content to fit his purpose. He is dishonest and does not own up to his manipulative and distorting ways. He will say he is quoting exactly what was said to him, but that is not the problem. It is his commentary that creates the distortion and dishonestly represents what was said.
If he uses interpretation, then he is not attacking us but his own ideas. In that email, you will see many false accusations made against us. He should take his own words as good advice and follow them instead of threatening others he does not agree with.
We cannot change the past and it is useless to try as unbelievers always find a way to bring the past up and use it against a believer. We make mistakes and often say something we shouldn’t but we also have God reminding us of that and directs us to make changes.
MM and BG do not have that aid and often continue to be abusive, mean, insulting, and more negative terms. We thought of responding to the content of that email but it would not do any good, MM has created a fantasy in his mind that he will not let go. It is a waste of time responding to his words.
….
We did think of something after we posted this. If MM was decent, and had values, dignity, honor, integrity, and so on, he would not have written the email, the post nor resorted to extortion.
Fair-minded readers will readily see that Thiessen is gaslighting Ben. Thiessen takes behaviors that are attributable to him and uses them to attack others. Either Ben has pulled the wool over my eyes and is an awful human being, or Thiessen is gaslighting not only Ben, but the rest of us. I’m putting my money on the latter. I have seen nothing in Ben that suggests he is anything other than a decent bloke, someone I would enjoy having a beer with at the pub on Friday nights.
For readers who are unfamiliar with Dr. David Tee, I encourage you to read the following posts:
I have, at times, stopped responding to Thiessen. However, his words can be so egregious and offensive that saying nothing is, at least for me, impossible. I know nothing I write will stop Thiessen’s attacks. He will rage against this post, uttering more invectives, hoping to wound me. The good news is that his words no longer sting or cause harm. Thiessen has become an illustration of what happens when Christian Fundamentalism rots your mind, rendering you unable to be a decent human being. Sadly, Thiessen can’t even see how much harm he is causing Christianity; how his words turn people away from the Jesus he says he loves. I have called on him to repent, but he refuses to do so. Is there not someone, anyone in his sphere of influence, who can get him to see the damage he is causing to Christianity?
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Evangelicals “say” they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. He is their teacher and guide, giving them everything necessary for life and godliness. Galatians 5:22,23 says the fruit (evidence) of the Spirit is
Love
Joy
Peace
Longsuffering
Gentleness
Goodness
Faith
Meekness
Temperance
in the lives of believers. People say they are followers of Jesus, yet when you examine their lives for evidence of the fruit of the Spirit, they are sorely lacking, if not altogether bereft of any evidence of God living inside of them. The evidence of true faith is not what you believe, but how you live. Jesus had a lot to say about how Christians should treat their enemies. It seems that most Evangelical Bibles are missing the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7 and Matthew 25).
Think about the countless Evangelical apologists who have commented on this site, contacted me on social media, or emailed me directly. What conclusion would we come to if we judged them by their works (fruit)?
Yesterday, I wrote a heartfelt, personal post about my health problems and my struggles with suicidal thoughts. Readers responded as decent, thoughtful people would; with love, kindness, and compassion. Of course, Revival Fires and Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, weighed in too, but their words lacked empathy.
3. We thought we gave BG [Bruce Gerencser] a reason to live 🙂
BG [Bruce Gerencser] whines in another post about why he has not taken his own life. He thinks about it because of all the pain he is in and all the medical problems he has. Now he has to face an operation and we do not gloat or make fun of these troubles.
While we [I] thought we [I] were [was] giving him good motivation to live. In atheists’ minds, there are few better reasons to live than to attack a Christian fundamentalist or EvangelicaL [sic] Seriously, he lists some very good reasons why he endures the pain and ailments he suffers from.
In our [my] hearts today, we [I] feel empathy for him and wish we [I] had the gift of healing. Then we [I] would ask God to heal BG for pure reasons, one being to finally show BG that God exists. Since we [I] do not have that gift, we [I] ask those who do to prayerfully consider bringing God’s healing to BG [Bruce Gerencser].
It would be nice to see him have a pain and sick-free end of life and make the quality of his life better. We hold nothing against BG [Bruce Gerencser] or MM [Ben Berwick] and do not want to see them come to any harm. For those who have doubts about doing this, I remind them of the example Jesus provided. People brought their suffering friends and loved ones to Jesus and he healed them all.
BG [Bruce Gerencser] qualifies for healing because he is not excluded from the term ‘everyone’. It may be too late for BG [Bruce Gerencser] and his wife to return to the faith, but his healing would greatly influence his children and grandchildren giving them the opportunity to see that God exists and make the right decision to go to heaven.
Right out of the gate, Thiessen says I am whining about my pain and suffering. Anything he says after this is meaningless. Who says to a sick, dying man, “Stop whining”? Thiessen has repeatedly hurled the “whining” accusation at me over the past three years. Any openness and honesty about the physical difficulties I face is whining in his book.
Thiessen says he is not gloating or making fun of me, but he is not being honest. He believes my pain and suffering are God’s way of getting my attention or punishing me. (Jesus could email or text me.) It is far more likely that Thiessen prays, “Pour it on, Jesus.”
Thiessen says he would pray for my healing, but since he doesn’t have the “gift of healing,” he can’t do so. He asks Christians with the “gift of healing to pray for me.”
This is a testable claim. Readers know that I have fibromyalgia, gastroparesis, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, osteoarthritis, numerous herniated discs, and other structural problems in my cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. I have a tear in my right shoulder labrum, diabetes, and high blood pressure. I have plenty of problems for Jesus to work with. With God all things are possible, so if Christians with the ‘gift of healing” prayed for me, I’m certain God answer their prayers.
Thiessen is right. God healing me would be a big deal. So pray away, Christians. If God answers your prayers and heals me, I will renounce my atheism and return to Christianity. If God doesn’t help me, I will assume that either God isn’t listening to your prayers or he doesn’t exist. I have prayed thousands of prayers for my healing, without success. My partner, Polly, has prayed for my deliverance too. Still more crickets. It’s hard not to conclude that God is either pissed off at me, or he doesn’t exist. My money is on the latter.
In June, Thiessen wrote thirty posts about me and/or my British friend, Ben Berwick. Can anyone say “obsessed”? I offered to send Thiessen a semi-nude photo of me wearing my rainbow suspenders. He could either put my picture on his bedroom ceiling or his nightstand. Both of us have written posts that mention Thiessen, but our posts are responses to his incessant personal attacks or misuse of our content. If Thiessen would stop stealing our content and move on to other subjects or people, neither of us would mention him again. Trust me, contrary to Thiessen’s delusions, responding to him doesn’t give me a reason to live.
Thiessen has permitted me to share his email address: kinship29@yahoo.com. Since Thiessen doesn’t allow comments on his blog and doesn’t have a contact page, I encourage readers to send him an email and let him know what you think about his writing. 🙂
Yes, maybe whining was too strong of a word but his content comes across as major whining to us. After all these years, one would think he had adjusted and could talk about something different than his pain, illnesses, and the fact that he was in the church for 50 years, etc., etc.
One does not have to whine to be open and honest but his Type A personality may not let him tone it down some. Maybe it would do him some good to learn that he is not the only one who suffers from chronic illnesses and pain.
We do not mean anything bad by our terminology but we are sure, he took it that way. We have been told the same thing for years starting from many decades ago so it is a casual comment to us.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Recent allegations of sexual misconduct by notable Evangelical pastors have led to a lot of controversy and outrage among Evangelicals. Such behavior is not new, so I am wondering where the outrage was years ago when Evangelical and Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) preachers were accused of rape, sexual assault, and other heinous crimes? Better late than never, I suppose.
Robert Morris, the pastor of Gateway Church in Southlake, Texas — a megachurch with over 25,000 members — was recently accused of and admitted to sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl in the 1980s. The abuse went on for several years. Church leaders knew about Morris’ sordid past, believing he had an inappropriate relationship with a “young woman” — as if, somehow this is better. Now that leadership knows the “truth,” they are expressing their own outrage over Morris’ crimes — and yes, his behavior was criminal, even if he cannot be prosecuted due to the statute of limitations. Give me a break. These are the same leaders that should have fired Morris on the spot, but let him resign instead. They, themselves should either immediately resign, or be booted out of office.
Central to this story is the church handling the original sexual abuse allegation in-house. Morris’ crime should have been immediately reported to law enforcement, both by the girl’s parents and the church board. That they chose to keep the abuse secret and slap Morris on the hands after he promised to never touch the cookie jar again is inexcusable.
I was part of the Evangelical church for fifty years. Twenty-five of those years were spent pastoring churches in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. I saw a lot of stuff swept under the rug, so much so that the rug is now 20 feet high. Since 2007, I have been an advocate for people who have been sexually assaulted and abused by Evangelical preachers. I have posted over 1,000 stories in the Black Collar Crime Series — a series that focuses primarily on sex crimes committed by preachers and other church leaders. These stories must get wide exposure. Why? Denominations, churches, and preachers do everything in their power to bury these stories, including not reporting sex crimes, as they are required to do by law in most states. All that matters to them is protecting the church’s name and testimony. They know that exposure leads to membership loss, which leads to income loss, which leads to loss of power. Victims/survivors don’t matter; the church does. And that’s why churches handle allegations themselves, hoping to keep offenders from being arrested or publicly outed. If allegations can’t be swept under the proverbial rug, criminal preachers are quietly encouraged to resign or retire. When a big-name preacher all of a sudden resigns, saying God is leading them somewhere else, the first question should be “Why?” None of that “God leading” nonsense. More often than not, the real reason is criminal in nature, or at the very least, conduct that should disqualify a man from the ministry.
Churches should NEVER be permitted to investigate sexual abuse claims in-house. Let me illustrate why. What follows is a quote from an Evangelical preacher about Morris’ assaulting a 12-year-old girl and how Gateway Church should have handled the woman’s allegations. In his mind, his “advice” applies to all Evangelical churches. I should note that this man is a notorious defender of men accused of sex crimes, often attacking victims in his defense of despicable, vile so-called men of God.
We [I] disagree with this move [appointing an outside firm to investigate] because the law firm is not skilled or experienced in sexual assaults or their investigations (we looked them up) and they are not believers. Will they apply the Bible correctly or merely be lazy and do what they did to Mr. [Ravi] Zacharias and create a very one-sided, biased report that avoided the truth?
Since church people are involved, then the Bible has jurisdiction and a prominent role in guiding the investigation. If it is left out we can be assured that the truth may not be heard but subjective opinion will be published.
Christians should not be afraid to practice true justice and do biblically guided investigations as the opinion of the unbeliever does not matter. What matters is that all of scripture is followed correctly and not followed to show people they are being spiritual in these matters.
Obeying God is more important than appeasing unbelievers, especially those who make false claims and bear false witness against believers. These words hold true when believers make accusations against other believers or unbelievers.
According to this man, since both the perpetrator and the victim are Christians, the church should investigate and render judgment. If law enforcement is involved, they must, according to him, follow the Bible. Fine, the Bible says adultery and fornication are capital crimes. I expect him to come out supporting the immediate stoning of Robert Morris. Of course, he thinks the victim is culpable too, so I suspect he would call for her stoning too.
Memo to this preacher: The United States is a secular nation. We are a people ruled and governed by laws. What the church says doesn’t matter. What the Bible says doesn’t matter. What does matter is the law and proper enforcement of said law. What does matter is justice. Obeying God, the church, or the Bible should play no part in our legal system. You are free to continue defending sexual predators, but this does leave me saying, The preacher doth protest too much, methinks.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
