I listen to a plethora of YouTube channels, particularly call-in shows whose hosts attempt to engage and debate Evangelicals, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews. Evangelicals, in particular, often appeal to “divine command theory” to justify their God’s behavior.
the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands.
In other words, whatever God does is right. And I mean whatever . . . I have listened to countless Evangelicals defend everything from owning people as property (slavery) to rape to genocide. From philosophical arguments to appeals to the supremacy of “God’s ways,” God is vociferously defended by Evangelical apologists. No quarter is given. God’s holy name must be defended at all costs. And defend it they do, with justifications, excuses, and bizarre interpretations.
Underlying the notion of divine command theory is the claim that God is ALWAYS good; that whatever God does is, without exception, good. This means that when God ordered the genocide of the Amalekite people, it was a moral, just, and good command. When God ordered the slaughter of infants, no fault can be found in what followed.
Sensitive to being accused of promoting and justifying genocide, Evangelicals often cook up all sorts of explanations that allegedly protect God’s name against accusations of immorality. “God knew all those babies were going to go to Heaven anyway, so babies having their heads dashed upon the rocks is “good.” Of course, this means Evangelicals should be pro-abortion, killing fetuses before they are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. Most Evangelicals believe fetuses and babies go to Heaven when they die. so it stands to reason that abortion (or slaughter by the Jews) is good as the result is eternity in Heaven. In other words, the end justifies the means. Wait a minute, I thought Evangelicals oppose situational ethics? Oh that’s what they say, but when defending God, absolute morality becomes an ever-moving target. The Ten Commandments say “Thou shalt not kill (murder).” Yet, it seems that when God is doing the killing, the supposedly “moral law of God” is massaged or ignored. Just remember, God’s ways are not our ways. In the minds of Evangelicals, whatever God does is moral and right, even when it seems that what he is doing is immoral. Just because rape, slavery, genocide, and murder are “sins” to fallen sinners, it doesn’t follow that those same acts committed by God are just, moral, and right. The Evangelical deity is never held accountable for his actions. How can mere mortals judge God? Evangelicals say, carving out an exception for God. This means that despite claims of having objective morals, Evangelicals, as do all of us, actually have subjective morals
Most Evangelicals believe the Bible was written by God, inerrant and infallible in all it says. This core belief forces Evangelicals to commit to defending the Bible regardless of what it says. No evil is beyond justification if God did it. Remember, this is the same God who created Hell/Lake of Fire, the final resting place for all non-Evangelicals. As eternity rolls on, unbelievers will be tortured by God for one simple reason: they didn’t believe in Jesus.
Here’s the thing, belief isn’t a choice. Either you believe or you don’t. We cannot genuinely believe if we are not convinced that a claim is true (I speak generally). Yes, this is a complex issue, especially when you consider human free will. Do we have free will? I’m inclined to think that we don’t; that our lives give the appearance of free will without actually being “free.” The notion that we have libertarian free will cannot be rationally sustained, though I am sure that some commenters want to disabuse me of this notion.
The Christian God is neither just, moral, nor good. I have seen no evidence in the Bible that would suggest I am wrong. If you disagree with me, please defend your God or divine command theory in the comment section. I await your defense of a “good” God.
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.
Having engaged in discussions and debates with Evangelical apologists over the years, I’ve found that many of their arguments are irrational, inconsistent, and contradictory. Take the “law of God.” According to Matthew 5:17-20:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5-7 records what is commonly called The Sermon on the Mount. Preached by Jesus himself, the Son of God told the gathered crowd that until heaven and earth pass, every letter and stroke of a letter of the law remains in force. Jesus was clear, the Law of God remains in force until heaven and earth pass away. Have heaven and earth passed away? No, so that means the Law of God is valid, binding, and in force. Disagree? Take it up with God. 🙂
The problem, of course, is that Evangelicals don’t agree with one another as to what, exactly, the Law of God is. When Jesus allegedly uttered these words, the Law of God was the Old Testament; the 613 laws of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). According to the aforementioned quote, are all of these laws in force today? Most Evangelicals say “no”; they are New Covenant (New Testament) Christians, so only the laws in the New Testament are binding today. When pushed on this matter, you will quickly find that most Evangelicals ignore the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, picking and choosing which laws apply to them today. Evidently, what Jesus said doesn’t matter.
Some Evangelicals think the Law of God is the Ten Commandments. There are several renderings of the Ten Commandments, none of which agrees with the others. Typically, Evangelicals consider the Exodus 20 rendering of the Law to be the official Law of God, ignoring the irreconcilable discrepancies between the versions.
Do Evangelicals really believe and practice the Ten Commandments? Of course not, silly boy. I have yet to meet an Evangelical that keeps all ten commandments. I am sure they exist, but I just don’t know any. Ask yourself, do you know of a Christian that keeps these commands?
Then God spoke all these words,
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth.You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.
Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female slave, ox, donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
I don’t know of anyone who keeps all of these laws. I know, as an Evangelical Christian, I was moral and ethical, but I did not keep all ten commands. I suspect Christians who frequent this site will say the same.
Many Evangelicals believe the Ten Commandments are the law of God written on the hearts (consciences) of all humans; that all of us intuitively know to keep God’s laws. Why, then, are Evangelicals, who allegedly have God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, living inside of them as their teacher and guide, lawbreakers? Only ten commandments. How hard can it be, right? Evidently, too hard for Evangelicals to practice and obey.
Certainly, moral and ethical teachings can be found in the Bible, including the Ten Commandments. However, in this modern age of the printed page and the Internet, we have many sources of moral and ethical wisdom and teaching at our disposal. All of us pick and choose what laws apply to us. I don’t know one Evangelical who keeps the law to “remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.” The “Sabbath” in Jesus’s day was a twenty-four-hour period of work cessation and worship. This is far different from what Evangelicals do today: two hours of church on Sunday mornings, and then off to Bob Evans to eat before going to work, shopping, or the ball game. If this law is written on the hearts of Evangelicals, why don’t they practice it?
I deconverted from Christianity almost seventeen years ago. One of the first things I had to do, and continue to do today, is determine the moral and ethical foundation for my life. The Bible was no longer a sufficient guide, and I had come to see that more than a few of God’s commands were immoral. Other commands were contrary to my values. The Bible spends a lot of time talking about sex; who can do it with whom, when, where, how, and why. Those of us raised in Evangelical churches heard a lot of preaching about sex. And I, as a pastor, preached a lot of sermons about the subject. Today, as a humanist, I reject what the Bible says about sex. Instead, values such as consent and bodily autonomy govern my views on human sexuality. What two (or more) consenting people do sexually in the privacy of their homes is their own business. Not mine, not yours, not the local preacher’s, and not God’s.
My moral and ethical views continue to evolve to this day. My list of thou shalt’s and thou shalt not’s is quite small. I subscribe to the Humanist Manifesto:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
Humanists are concerned for the well-being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.
As you can see, the Humanist Manifesto III conflicts with how Evangelicals interpret the Bible; that its moral and ethical teachings are different from what’s found in the Ten Commandments and other Biblical laws. Generally, I govern my life by four maxims: Don’t be an asshole, Do good to others, Lessen suffering for all living things, and love others (in thoughts, words, and deeds) as much as lies within me.
I don’t need the Bible or the Ten Commandments to know how to live and treat others. I spent fifty years in Evangelicalism, so even though I no longer believe in the existence of the Christian deity, what I learned at church and from the Bible still informs my morals and ethics. The difference now, of course, is that the Bible alone is no longer the foundation of my life; not that it ever was. All of us frame our moral and ethical structure based on a variety of experiences. That’s why none of us has the same moral and ethical foundation. Morality is inherently subjective, even if one is a Christian. The best we can do is to agree on a basic moral and ethical framework by which we govern our society.
How do you determine what is moral and ethical? Does the Bible and/or religion play a part? If you are no longer a Christian, have you found it difficult to determine your moral and ethical values? Please share your thoughts in the comment section.
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.
It’s been years since I have had an Evangelical Christian ask me a question I haven’t heard and answered before. But, Evangelicals keep asking, so I will keep answering. Perhaps, “in the year 7510 — if God is going to make it, he ought to make it by then” — Evangelicals will discover and use Google search or the search function of this blog. (Please see Curiosity, A Missing Evangelical Trait.) Until then, I will patiently answer their questions.
Today’s interlocutor is a Canadian Evangelical named Anna. Anna read two posts:
Question Number One: What if you are wrong? Then what happens?
Wrong about what, exactly? There’s so many things that I could be right or wrong about, so what is it that Anna thinks I am wrong about? I think I can safely guess the she thinks am I wrong about God/Jesus/Christianity/The Bible/The Reds making the playoffs. And, if I am wrong about Jesus, why I will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire being tortured day and night for my refusal to buy what Christians are selling.
However, I am not wrong. While I am agnostic on the God question — an as-yet-unknown deity could exist and reveal itself someday — I am confident that Christianity and its two sisters, Judaism and Islam, are nothing more than ancient tribal religions that can rationally be ignored. I am also confident that the Protestant Christian Bible is a collection of myths and fables; that Jesus was a mere man who lived and died in Palestine 2,000 years ago; that the central claims of Christianity do not make sense. (Please see The Michael Mock Rule: It Just Doesn’t Make Sense.)
I would ask Anna, what if YOU are wrong? How do you empirically know that the triune Christian deity is the one true God? How do you know the central claims of Christianity are true? How do you know the Bible is an inspired, inerrant, infallible book? What evidence do you have for these claims. Why is Christianity true, and not Islam? Why is Christianity true, and not Buddhism? Why is Christianity true, and not Mormonism? Why is Christianity true, and not Paganism? Why is . . . well, you get my point. Have you thoroughly investigated these other religions?
If anything, Anna should be practicing a new rule I am introducing tonight, “The Edgar Rule.” Edgar was a banker at the financial institution where the church I pastored at the time — Somerset Baptist Church — did business. Edgar was a delightful man to work with, a talker, as was I. The church I pastored did a lot of loan business with Edgar’s bank over the 11 years I pastored the church — from short-term loans to car loans to our mortgage.
One day, I was talking with Edgar about getting a short-term loan. Edgar said:
Bruce, you would be shocked to know how much money some of the local churches have on deposit. I like to loan money to churches, covering all my bases, ya know.
And then, he laughed.
“Covering All Your Bases.” That’s the “Edgar Rule.” You see, shouldn’t this be the default position for those who pose the question, “what if you are wrong?” question. Isn’t in their best interest to be a BaptoCathoPentoMusolBuddo universalist?
Remember, almost every religion believes in Hell, annihilation, or some sort of temporary/permanent punishment for non-believers. Shouldn’t Anne and her fellow Evangelicals fear being wrong and ending up in a different religion’s Hell?
I don’t worry in the least that I am wrong about the Christian God/Jesus. I have weighed this religion and its deity in the balance and found it wanting. I gladly await any new evidence that might be provided to disabuse me of my atheist/humanist beliefs, but so far, all I have received are tire, worn-out, stale, irrational arguments.
Question Number Two: Do You Believe in Right or Wrong? Good and Bad?
Again, Anne’s question lacks specificity, so I am left to guess her meaning. I suspect she wants to know if I believe in Biblical morality? The short answer is no. While the Bible does have some good moral and ethical values, it also has a number of reprehensible and immoral teachings. It is not a book that can be in any way relied upon as an objective, absolute standard of morality. Only those who read the Bible with rose-colored glasses can suggest otherwise.
Do I have moral and ethical beliefs? Yes. Four beliefs come to mind:
Love your fellow man
Do good to others
Stand up for the weak, powerless, and disenfranchised
Don’t be an asshole
I believe it is morally wrong to murder, rape, molest children, destroy the property of others, vote for Donald Trump, and drink Bud-Light.
I also believe than morality is inherently subjective; that it changes over time; that it is culturally, socially, and religiously influenced.
Further, I have concluded that some of the behaviors considered immoral by Evangelicals, aren’t. For example, I don’t think premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexuality, transgenderism, divorce, wearing polyester shirts, eating shrimp, women wearing pants, men wearing skirts, long hair on men, short hair on women, and eating at Taco Bell — all sins condemned by the Bible — are morally wrong. Well, except eating at Taco Bell. Talk about killing one’s self, one crunchy taco and soft burrito at a time.
Fundamentally, it is humanism that best explains my morality. The Humanist Manifesto III states:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.
I hope my answers adequately answer Anne’s questions. If Anne reads this post — and I will make her aware of its existence — I hope she will practice Matthew 7:7, seek and ye shall find. I have written almost 4,000 posts on this site. I also have a page, Why? that lists numerous posts for people who have questions about my deconversion to read. To quote Fox Mulder:
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.
Imagine for a moment that you find a wallet someone has accidentally dropped on the ground. In the wallet are the person’s ID, credit cards, and $300. What would you do?
I suspect most of us would attempt to track the person down and return the wallet. Why? Because it is the right thing to do.
The Christian Post reported a story about an anonymous Christian finding a wallet and returning it to its rightful owner. The Christian did the right thing and he should be commended for doing so. If you have ever lost your wallet or ID, you know how stressful and gut-wrenching the experience is, especially in this day of identity theft.
The problem I have with the Christian Post story is the motivation the Christian had for returning the wallet. Instead of it being a good, decent, honorable thing to do, the Christian had a “Biblical” reason for returning the wallet.
The Christian attached a Post-it note to the wallet:
The Christian who returned the wallet stated that the following verses were his reason/motivation for returning the wallet:
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. Luke 10:27
He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. Luke 16:10
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth. Psalm 83:18
In other words, the Christian’s act of decency and kindness was all about God.
From my seat in the atheist pew, it seems to me that religion and the Bible complicate the issue. Would the Christian have returned the wallet if these verses weren’t in the Bible? Would he have returned the wallet if he weren’t a Christian? While these questions might be viewed as trying to turn a good deed into an argument, I think motivations are important.
This story is connected closely to arguments over morality and ethics. Most Christians think morality and ethics require religion — theirs — and a supernaturally written book, the Bible. They think they do good because of their religion and its teachings. It is God that keeps them from being bad people. If it weren’t for Jesus, the world would be overrun with thieves, rapists, and child molesters.
It is not enough, then, for an act of goodness to be performed just because it is the right thing to do. Instead, it is God who gets all the praise and glory because, without him, humans would do bad things. In other words, without God, the Christian would have kept the wallet.
If the Christian had left a Post-it note with these two verses:
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. Luke 6:31
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Matthew 22:39
. . . perhaps I would see this story differently.
All of us should treat others as we would want to be treated. Isn’t that a universal moral value?
I commend the Christian for returning the man’s wallet. It was the right thing to do, whether the man was a Fundamentalist Baptist, an Episcopalian, or an atheist. Would an atheist have returned the wallet? I’d like to think so. But I know among atheists and Christians alike, some would have viewed the lost wallet as an opportunity to steal. Finders keepers, losers weepers, right? As we all know, religious belief does not inoculate someone from being a bad person. (Please see the Black Collar Crime Series.) The religious and godless alike have the capability and power to do bad things. Why? Because bad people do bad things. A narcissistic view of the world often motivates people to only think of self. When presented with an opportunity to return the lost wallet, the narcissist is only concerned with what he can gain. In this case, he gains the money that is in the wallet.
We should all strive for a higher ideal regardless of our religious beliefs. As a humanist, I try to treat others as I would want to be treated. If I lost my wallet, I hope someone would return it and I would gladly offer the finder a reward. Far more important than lost cash is lost ID. And I know if I found a person’s wallet, I would return it to the owner. How do I know I would do this? Because that is what I have done in the past. It is the moral/ethical code I live by. I know how panicked I get when I can’t find my wallet in the house, and I can only imagine how stressed out I would be if I knew I had lost it at a store or parking lot somewhere.
Here’s the point I want to make — good people do good things. Yes, sometimes good people fail and might, at times, do bad things, but the arc of their lives is toward good. The same can be said of those who lack moral and ethical character. They may sometimes do good things, but the arc of their lives is toward bad. Religion does not determine goodness or badness, though it certainly can, for some people, play a part. What determines the kind of person we are is our character. People with good character do good things like returning a lost wallet. People with bad character, don’t.
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.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)
It is not uncommon for Evangelical zealots to tell atheists that their real father is the Devil, old Satan himself. What naturally flows from this line of thinking is that atheists live lustful, licentious, lives; that atheists are liars because there is no truth in them. No matter how atheists live; no matter how atheists treat others; no matter how kind, decent, thoughtful, and loving atheists might be; they are, without exception, the lying, deceitful children of Satan.
The only way atheists can change their family designation is to be adopted into the family of God through the merit and work of Jesus. No matter what atheists say or do, Evangelicals consider them enemies of God and the one true faith. If only atheists would admit the existence of the Christian God, pray the sinner’s prayer, and vote Republican, they would, with open arms, be welcomed into God’s blood-washed family. Because atheists refuse to bow to Jesus, they are forever condemned not only to the Lake of Fire, but also to being disparaged and lied about by so-called men of God.
All atheists can do is live according to the humanist ideal. Several years ago during the Pandemic, I bought groceries at the local Meijer. The store was jammed with panicked, irrational shoppers. The shelves were empty of items such as toilet paper, paper towels, bleach, hand sanitizer, Lysol, water, and, oddly, chicken. Yes, chicken. There wasn’t a piece of fresh chicken in the entire store. Checkout lines were backed up, and over the store intercom came messages asking shoppers to please be patient. The humorous part of me want to scream, “WHERE’S THE CHICKEN? I WANT SOME FUCKING CHICKEN RIGHT NOW!” I said nothing, thinking to myself about how irrational many people are when facing a crisis. I have seen this kind of panic numerous times over my sixty-sixty years of life on planet Earth. Seemed a little more intense this time.
As I was pulling out of my handicapped parking space, I noticed that a young woman had dropped a 24-pack of diet Coke and the cans were rolling everywhere in the parking lot. Several people drove by the frustrated woman. I put my Ford Edge in park, told Bethany I’d be just a minute, and got out and helped the woman retrieve her pop cans. She sheepishly said, “Thanks.” I replied, “No problem. Have a good night.” And with that, I got in my car and drove off to the gas station before heading home to Ney, nine miles away.
If, as an atheist, I am, to quote the song by George Thorogood and the Destroyers, bad to the bone, why didn’t I selfishly ignore this woman’s plight and drive away? Here’s why: I am a decent person. When I see someone in need of help and I can help them, I do so. I ALWAYS do so. Picking up pop cans in a store parking lot for someone is a trivial act of kindness, but what kind of person would I be if I didn’t at least try to help? I am often given opportunities to help and be kind to others. I want to go through life treating others as I would want to be treated, hoping that when it is Polly or my daughter trying to chase down pop cans, someone will stop and help. Small acts of kindness make all the difference in the world.
When Evangelicals try to tar me with the Satan brush and say that I am a vile, evil man, an enemy of God, a hater of all that is good, in my mind I just laugh and give them the finger. Sometimes, I even speak my mind. 🙂 I know the cut of my character. I know what kind of man, husband, father, and grandfather I am. I don’t care one whit what the Bible or Evangelical preachers say about me. Instead, to quote an Evangelical children’s church song:
This little (atheist) light of mine,
I’m going to let it shine.
This little light of mine,
I’m going to let it shine.
This little light of mine,
I’m going to let it shine,
Ev’ry day, ev’ry day,
Ev’ry day, ev’ry day,
Gonna let my little light shine.
I don’t need religion to be a good person, and you don’t either. In fact, I would suggest that Fundamentalism often turns people into arrogant, hateful, belligerent, self-centered assholes. Remember, the goal of Evangelicalism is to exclude; to separate the saved from the lost, the sheep from the goats, the sinners from the saints. How can such exclusion not lead to bad behavior? Humanism, on the other hand, says, “We are all in this together.” There’s no Heaven, no Hell, and no God coming to deliver us. It is up to each of us to do what we can to make the world a better place to live. And, may I humbly say, it begins one pop can at a time.
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.
Biblical Marriage, God’s Unchanging Moral Standard
According to Jessilyn Justice, a writer for Charisma News, the United States is facing a perversion tsunami. Several years ago, the Daily Mail reported that a man who was given up for adoption now wants to have a sexual relationship with his birth mother. Monica Mares, 36, gave Caleb Peterson, 19, up for adoption at birth. She was sixteen at the time. Nineteen years later, mother and son reconnected, fell in love, and are now facing criminal charges due to their incestuous relationship. Here’s what the Daily Mail had to say about their relationship:
GSA [genetic sexual attraction] is defined as sexual attraction between close relatives, such as siblings or half-siblings, a parent and offspring, or first and second cousins, who first meet as adults. Mares said: ‘He is the love of my life and I don’t want to lose him.My kids love him, my whole family does. Nothing can come between us not courts, or jail, nothing. ‘I have to be with him. When I get out of prison I will move out of Clovis to a state that allows us to be together.’
Incest is a crime in all 50 states, but the specifics of the laws and punishment vary greatly from state to state. Mother-of-nine Mares said she would even give up the right to see her other children if she was asked to choose between them and her lover. The couple who currently live separately in Clovis, New Mexico – and are banned from having any contact with each other by the courts – first embarked on their love affair towards the end of last year. …. The couple was charged with incest – a fourth-degree felony in New Mexico – following the February 25th incident. They were arraigned and appeared jointly in court in April – but were held in custody for breaching their no-contact order. They were released on $5,000 bond and now face a trial by jury in September.
Currently Mares is not allowed to see any of her children or have any contact at all with Peterson.Yet she maintains that is has all been worth it. ‘It is every bit worth it,’ she said. ‘If they lock me up for love then they lock me up. There is no way anybody could pull us apart, and I really do love him. ‘It hurts he is far away. It hurts really bad. I wish I could see him, talk to him, but I can’t risk it.’
Peterson said he started falling love with his mom about a week after meeting her – but claims as he grew up with an adopted parents he never really saw Mares as his mother. ‘I never had anyone cook me meals or give me anything,’ he said. ‘I never got anything my entire life and she went out of her way to make me happy and after about a week or so I started having feelings for her and I guess I fell in love. ‘It went beyond a mother-son relationship I never really viewed her as my mom. In certain aspects I do but mostly I don’t. ‘I never thought I was crazy for having these feelings because I didn’t see her as my mom, it was more like going to a club and meeting a random person. It didn’t feel wrong, it felt normal.’
Peterson claims it was him who made the first move not his mom. He recalls: ‘We were hanging out just talking and I looked at her and she looked at me and I kissed her. ‘It was a real kiss it had feelings behind it, there was a spark that ever since then it just stayed. ‘Honestly I never thought we would get into trouble for our relationship. We were both consenting adults – when it comes down to it.
‘She’s adult I’m adult I can make my own decisions. I never thought it would blow up into something like this.’ …. Despite the immense opposition to the couple’s relationship, Mares and Peterson do have supporters in the community – including Dayton Chavez, Mares’ ex and father to two of her sons Moses, nine, and Joseph, 12.
He said: ‘I’ve told them I still love you guys either way. I support them. ‘I would like to see the government get out of their business and let them live a normal life – let them live how they want to live. ‘It would be different if it was a domestic violence situation but it’s not. ‘My point of view is they need to be allowed to live just how they are that’s what America is built on.’ …. The couple – who both have roots with Native American Apache tribes – is also being supported by Cristina Shy who runs www.lilysgardener.com, a support and advocacy website for related couples, also known as consanguinamorous people.
Cristina, who is involved in an illegal relationship with her half brother in Minnesota, said: ‘Our whole community is watching this case and looking for updates. ‘It needs to be brought to the attention of everybody in the country and people need to start thinking differently. ‘It was the same with gay people just a few years ago and now they can get married they are accepted. ‘Well why not consanguinamorous people like us? We are all adults. We are not pedophiles, there’s no domestic issue we are in love, we want to be together but we are related. That shouldn’t be a deciding factor.’
Most readers of this blog likely think — at the very least — that this is a bizarre story. I have mixed feelings about the mother/son sexual relationship, but I suspect my discomfort is the result of my Fundamentalist Baptist upbringing. If I believe that consenting adults should be free to have sex with whomever, wherever, and however, then, despite my conflicted feelings, I really should have no legitimate objection to Mares’ and Peterson’s relationship.
As soon as this story hit the news wire, Christians such as Jessilyn Justice were screaming, SEE! This is what happens when we let same-sex couples marry, legitimize homosexuality, and allow Transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice! Unable to comprehend any other sexual relationships besides what they “think” is decreed in a bronze age religious text — the Protestant Bible — people such as Justice warn others about the dangers of the slippery slope that ultimately leads to every sexual perversion imaginable. Why, what’s to stop people from marrying their dogs, right?
Paul specifically warned about the evils of sexual immorality throughout his letters to the Corinthians and Romans.
Now, perversion rises as a mother wants an incestuous relationship with the son she gave up for adoption, according to The Daily Mail.
“If they lock me up for love then they lock me up. There is no way anybody could pull us apart, and I really do love him,” 36-year-old Monica Mares tells the online paper of her son, Caleb Peterson.
The couple faces a charge of incest, according to the Clovis News Journal. If convicted, they face hefty fines and years behind bars.
“I never had anyone cook me meals or give me anything,” Peterson tells the Daily Mail.
He continued: “I never got anything my entire life and she went out of her way to make me happy and after about a week or so I started having feelings for her and I guess I fell in love. It went beyond a mother-son relationship. I never really viewed her as my mom. In certain aspects I do but mostly I don’t. I never thought I was crazy for having these feelings because I didn’t see her as my mom, it was more like going to a club and meeting a random person. It didn’t feel wrong, it felt normal.”
Perhaps the book of Romans is at play here, as Paul warned in chapter 1 that God would give people over to the lust of their hearts.
I find it laughable and quite entertaining that Justice opposes incest, yet she worships a God that used incest to advance his divine agenda on earth.
The Bible — the original Kinsey Report — certainly condemns incest. God, the arbiter of all things sexual, had this to say in his inspired, inerrant, infallible word:
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman.Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. Leviticus 18:6-18
See! God says incest is a sin! Right there in the B-i-b-l-e. End of story. Later in Leviticus 18, God also condemns homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and having sex with a woman when she is menstruating. In Leviticus 20, God says certain incestuous relationships — along with adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality — are capital crimes punishable by death. Strangely, if a man has sex with his uncle’s wife or has sex with his brother’s wife, their immorality is not punishable by death. (See Wikipedia article on Incest in the Bible.)
In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul rebukes the Church at Corinth for having in its membership a man who was having sex with his mother. 1 Corinthians 5:1 states:
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
Paul commanded the church to excommunicate the man, delivering him to Satan for the destruction of his flesh. Surprisingly, Paul considered the incestuous man to still be a Christian (to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus).
The Apostle Paul, along with Jessilyn Justice and others like her, seems to be ignorant of the fact that the Big Man Upstairs approves of incest — at least in certain circumstances. Here are six of the numerous incestuous stories recorded in God’s perfect Word:
Genesis 4 — Where did Cain’s wife come from? Either Cain had sex with an unnamed sister or he had sex with his mother Eve.
Genesis 9 — Ham has sex with his father, Noah.
Genesis 19 — Two daughters have sex with their father, Lot, a man the Bible says was a righteous man.
Genesis 20 — Abraham has sex with his half-sister Sara.
Genesis 38 — Judah has sex with his daughter-in-law Tamar (the daughter of adulterous, murderous David, a man after God’s own heart).
Exodus 6 — Amram has sex with his father’s sister Jochebed. She bore him two very famous sons, Aaron and Moses.
How Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis “Answer” the Incest Question. Incest was okay until it wasn’t.
Christians are certainly free to object to incestuous relationships such as the one mentioned in this post. However, they don’t get to claim the high moral ground, saying that God says incest is a sin punishable by death. As I have clearly shown, God, at certain times and in certain circumstances, approves of or ignores incest. So much for God’s law being the perfect moral standard for all peoples, at all times. Evangelicals box themselves in when they demand that the Bible be recognized as the sole arbiter of morality. They are forced to come up with all sorts of creative ways to “explain” away the contradictions and absurdities found in the Bible. Christianity would be better served if Christians just admitted that there is some crazy shit in the Bible — especially in the Old Testament; and that the morality code of ancient sheepherders and fishermen has little relevance today.
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.
Over the weekend, I received an email from a man named Quinn that asked me several questions. Here’s what he had to say:
Hey Bruce, I thought I’d ask about your conscience: Do you still feel conviction? Or does everything just feel numb? No matter where you go or what you do, just no emotion? Even when you hug loved ones?
These questions seem loaded. Is the writer an Evangelical Christian? Does he think I no longer have a conscience now that I am an atheist? Or does he think I have a seared conscience or that I am a reprobate? I could address the absurdity of such claims, but I won’t. Instead, I will focus on the four questions asked by this man.
First, let me define several words:
Consciousness: at its simplest, is awareness of internal and external existence. (Wikipedia)
Conscience: a cognitive process that elicits emotion and rational associations based on an individual’s moral philosophy or value system. (Wikipedia)
Atheism: the absence of belief in the existence of gods. That’s it. Atheism provides no moral or ethical foundation.
Secular Humanism provides me with a moral and ethical foundation by which to govern my life. The Humanist Manifesto describes Humanism this way:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone. (American Humanist Association)
Simply put, I am a conscious human being with a conscience who is an atheist and a humanist. I strive every day to be a kind, loving, thoughtful, helpful person; one who desires to leave a better world for his progeny.
On the About Page, I answer the question, If you had one piece of advice to give me, what would it be?
You have one life. There is no heaven or hell. There is no afterlife. You have one life, it’s yours, and what you do with it is what matters most. Love and forgive those who matter to you and ignore those who add nothing to your life. Life is too short to spend time trying to make nice with those who will never make nice with you. Determine who are the people in your life that matter and give your time and devotion to them. Live each and every day to its fullest. You never know when death might come calling. Don’t waste time trying to be a jack of all trades, master of none. Find one or two things you like to do and do them well. Too many people spend way too much time doing things they will never be good at.
Here’s the conclusion of the matter. It’s your life and you best get to living it. Someday, sooner than you think, it will be over. Don’t let your dying days be ones of regret over what might have been.
With these facts entered into evidence, let me now answer the four questions mentioned above.
Do you still feel conviction?
If Quinn is asking whether I feel “conviction” in a Biblical sense, the answer is no. A related (and perhaps more relevant) question is whether I feel guilt, and to that I say yes. I still battle unjustified guilt, a leftover from fifty years in the Evangelical church and twenty-five years as a pastor.
The two pillars of Evangelicalism are fear and guilt. The Evangelical deity is a myth, so I no longer fear him. What I do have is residual guilt from five decades of being told this or that behavior is a sin. After I deconverted, I had to rethink what human behaviors I considered “sin.” (Sin is a religious construct, so I don’t use the term. I speak in terms of good and bad behavior.) Over the past fifteen years, I have constructed a list of human behaviors I think are “bad.” This list is small, much smaller than the War and Peace-sized sin list I had back in my Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) days.
When I cause harm to others, I generally feel guilty. When I feel guilty, I admit my “sin” and try to make restitution. When warranted, I ask for forgiveness, not from God, but from the person I have hurt/offended/harmed. God is an unnecessary middleman.
Yesterday, Polly and I, along with Bethany, and our fifteen-year-old grandson, traveled to Cincinnati to watch the Reds play the Colorado Rockies. It was my sixty-sixth birthday. We had a delightful time. The Reds won, and we got to see Joey Votto play his first game of the year.
For much of our forty-five years of marriage, I did most of the driving, especially when in major cities. I averaged 50,000 miles a year — Polly a couple of thousand. This all changed when Polly started working for Sauder Woodworking in 1996. Today, she drives forty-five miles a day to work and back. As my health continues to decline, Polly has had to do more and more driving. In March, 2020, I stopped driving, knowing that I no longer had the requisite motor skills necessary to safely drive a vehicle.
When we travel to Cincinnati, Toledo, Fort Wayne, Detroit, Columbus, and other major cities, Polly has to do all the driving. She doesn’t want to, but she has no choice. She’s never been comfortable driving in bumper-to-bumper city traffic. Polly lacks that aggressive killer instinct necessary when jockeying for position on busy streets and highways. She’s gotten better, but I can be a nag when she is hesitant or lets people take advantage of her.
Often, Polly and I banter back and forth while she’s driving. Typical old married couple stuff. There are occasions, though, when my criticism crosses a line, and when it does, I feel guilty, knowing Polly is doing the best she can. When I feel guilty, I apologize, promising to keep my mouth shut in the future. Polly graciously accepts my apology, saying to herself, “sure, buddy, sure.” 🙂
Outside of this, there’s nothing I did yesterday that rose to the level of “guilt.” I didn’t do anything yesterday (or today) that I should have felt “conviction” over. I reject the notion that we sin daily in thought, word, and deed. This allows me to live freely without wondering what God thinks, or the Bible says about a given matter.
Or does everything just feel numb?
This question tells me that Quinn is likely an Evangelical Christian. I searched for his name and found someone who is an Evangelical, but I am uncertain as to whether it was him.
The only things that feel numb to me are my legs, feet, and hands, thanks to nerve damage. Believe me, I wish I were numb some days. I live with unrelenting chronic pain — severe pain from the top of my head to the bottom of my feet. And after a six-hour car ride to Cincinnati and back yesterday? My whole body is screaming, “Please let me die!”
I suspect Quinn is not talking about physical numbness; but psychological numbness. To that, I say, no. Psychologically, I am very much alive. I involve myself in things that matter to me. I have passions in my life that drive my writing and fuel my involvement in politics and social movements.
I can’t think of a time when I ever felt “numb,” not even when my mother killed herself.
No matter where you go or what you do, just no emotion?
Of course, I have emotions. I am a passionate, emotional man. On Sunday, my six children, their girlfriends and spouses, and my thirteen grandchildren were over to celebrate Father’s Day and my birthday. I had a delightful time. I hugged most of my children and their significant others and all of my grandchildren when they left to go home. I freely express love to my family, though we don’t do the kissing thing. Sorry, that’s a bridge too far. 🙂
Anyone who really knows me knows I am an emotional man. Shit, even passersby who read my writing can discern that I am an emotional, passionate writer. I don’t need Jesus or Christianity to fuel my emotions. No Holy Ghost Crack® is necessary for me! If anything, Evangelicalism stunted my emotions, telling me that certain human passions were “sins.” Now that I have been delivered from the bondage of Egypt, I am free to be my authentic self.
Even when you hug loved ones?
See the answer above.
Saved by Reason.
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’ll weigh in! So I’m reading that the Bible nor God is your source of moral authority or any type of authority,for that matter, on anything. Got it! That’s entirely up to you!
Christianity is a text-based religion. Without the Bible, Christianity wouldn’t exist. Everything we know about God and Jesus comes from the Bible. Evangelical Christians believe that the Bible is supernaturally inspired, inerrant, and infallible. Thus, Evangelicals see the Bible as a divine moral code by which sinners and saints must govern their lives. Failing to do so puts people in danger of judgment and eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire.
Dilliard intimates that she derives her morality from God and a supernatural book allegedly written by him. Christians generally think everyone can know God through divine revelation: conscience, nature, and the Bible. Thus, atheists deliberately deny and reject what is clearly known to them. Atheists, according to the book of Romans “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”
Atheists see the Bible as an errant, fallible ancient religious text written by fallible, frail (mostly unknown) men. Many atheists, myself included, find some value in reading the Bible — say the Book of Ecclesiastes, the Sermon on the Mount, and Matthew 25 — but treat it as any other book. Evangelicals, on the other hand, believe, in theory anyway, that every word of the Bible is true; that we are duty-bound to obey and practice the teaching of the Bible — as interpreted by each Christian, preacher, and theologian. In Evangelical Christianity, each Christian is a Pope — an infallible interpreter of the Bible.
In the real world, Evangelicals are buffet believers, picking and choosing what Bible commands, laws, and precepts they want to believe and practice. No Christian believes and practices all of the Bible. Their morality is just as subjective and conditional as that of the unwashed, uncircumcised Philistines of the world.
Dilliard needs a divine lawgiver outside of herself in order to be moral. Without this lawgiver, she wouldn’t be moral. The only thing keeping her from being a murderer, rapist, kidnapper, or thief is her peculiar version of God. Without God, she would do all sorts of heinous, evil things.
If this really is the case, then by all means she should keep believing in God and following the teachings of the Bible. For me, I don’t need a source outside of myself to be moral. I don’t need a deity telling me what is right and wrong for me to be a moral and ethical human being.
Dillard provides no evidence for the existence of God and the claims she makes for the Bible. I suspect she’s a presuppositionalist, presupposing that her deity exists and the teachings of the Bible are true. I am, for the most part, an evidentialist. I want to believe as many true things as possible. If someone wants me to believe something, she must provide sufficient evidence for her claim.
So let’s talk about where YOUR moral authority comes from , then. Do you believe there’s a right or wrong?
All morality is inherently subjective. There are a plethora of views on morality. As an atheist, I don’t think morality exists outside of self. Some atheists believe that there are moral absolutes, but I am of the opinion that morality is subjective. That said, we live in societies that benefit from commonly held moral beliefs. As with the U.S. Constitution, “we the people” decide the moral standards by which we will govern our societies. That’s why we have laws, rules, and regulations. As a member of a particular society, I consent to adhering to and obeying these things, knowing that if I don’t, I could be punished or imprisoned. Productive, happy societies depend on the consent of the governed. Christians and atheists agree that certain behaviors are wrong. If we don’t like certain laws, rules, and regulations we, through the ballot box, change them. We are seeing this played out with abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022. Now we are seeing moves in a number of states to enact laws and state constitutional amendments to reverse the damage done by the Court’s decision. That’s how it works in democratic societies. WE THE PEOPLE decide the laws, rules, and regulations we want to be governed by. If our elected leaders don’t do our bidding, we vote them out of office, replacing them with someone who will.
Dilliard seems to want an autocratic or authoritarian society; one where her God and interpretations of the Bible are the law; the determiner of what is moral. Instead of “we the people” deciding how we want to be governed and live, Dilliard believes a supernatural authority outside of us is the one and only authority on morality.
There are thousands of religions and deities, each believing they are right; that their god is the moral arbiter of the universe. How do we determine which religion/deity is right? How could we possibly know that Dilliard’s peculiar deity is the one true God; the moral arbiter of the universe? I know of no way to determine whether her God is the right one.
Thus, I believe that determining what is moral rests on the individual and the societies to which they belong. How can an individual or a society determine what is moral? The best way, in my humble opinion, is to determine what best promotes flourishing, happiness, prosperity, and peace.
If so, who told you lying is right or wrong? Who told you stealing is right or wrong? Who told you to teach your kids not to be selfish? Where did they learn to be selfish,( or not) did you teach them? Why is being selfish wrong or could it be right? Selfishness is a character flaw but how do we know that? How do we know? How do you know cheating on your wife is wrong?
As it has for all humans, including Dillard, my morality has evolved over my sixty-six years of life. Certainly, my parents, church, and the Bible played a big part in the formation of my moral beliefs. Over time, I have learned that my parents, church, and the Bible were wrong about some (many) things. When I deconverted in 2008, I was given a new opportunity to determine what, exactly, were my moral and ethical values. I reevaluated my moral beliefs, holding on to some of them and casting aside others. This, of course, is hard work. Christians don’t have to think about their moral beliefs. God said it, that settles it, Evangelicals say. That’s why we see such hateful behavior by Evangelicals towards LGBTQ people, liberals, atheists, and anyone else who is different from them. God has spoken, end of discussion. Human flourishing never enters the discussion. All that matters is what is written in ink on the pages of the Bible — as interpreted by individual Christians.
Could it be wrong for you but right for someone else? … On and on…. If you are your own moral authority ,or believe our government is your moral authority, how do you know you are right or the government is right and why should I believe you?
I have moral beliefs that conflict with the beliefs of others. For example, I am a pacifist. On principle, I oppose all war. I oppose the death penalty too. I believe it is immoral to kill people. Yet, I recognize that there are times when killing someone might be justified, say in defensive wars or defending one’s family. Each of us decides what we consider moral/immoral. How can it be otherwise? Interjecting God into the discussion changes nothing. Many of the wars humans have fought were initiated and prosecuted by people who believe in God; people who ignored the pacifistic teachings of Christ to win their objective.
I am a rationalist, a skeptic, and a humanist. I use these prisms to determine whether I am justified to believe things. I am humble enough to admit that I could be wrong. Unfortunately, Evangelicals are an arrogant lot. Armed with certainty, they lack nuance, seeing everything through a black-and-white lens. That’s why the culture war is raging in every corner of our republic.
How can you say Ray Boltz is right or wrong in his own belief system? Does the Universe tell you these things? Does the culture/civil society teach you these things but how do you know that if right, not wrong?
I make no judgment of Ray Boltz’s life. His sexuality is his business, not mine, or anyone else for that matter. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my business. Evangelicals, of course, want to criminalize any sex that is not married, heterosexual, and monogamous intercourse in the missionary position. Okay, maybe not that last one, but many Evangelicals think blow jobs, anal sex, or sexual aggression by a woman are sins. There are no cowboys to ride in Evangelicalism. 🙂 Worse, many Christians think using birth control is a sin; that the goal of all sex is procreation.
Or is there some hidden moral code/authority that only atheist’s are privy too? Inquiring minds want to know…
Dilliard is being disingenuous when she says “inquiring minds want to know.” I suspect she already “knows”; that there is nothing I can say that will change her morality and worldview.
As I made clear in this post, most atheists think the locus of morality is self, both individually and as a society. There is no Atheist Ten Commandments or Atheist Bible. As someone who has spent the past fifteen years swimming in atheist waters, I can tell you that atheists vigorously debate the subject of morality. There is no Atheist Morality. All I can say is what I believe on any given subject. I suspect most of the atheists who frequent this site will generally agree with me on the subject of morality, though I know there are some who don’t. And that’s okay. The only way we can come to a consensus is to debate these issues. “Iron sharpeneth iron” the Bible says, and I think that applies to discussions among atheists too. Sadly, the same can’t be said for discussions with Evangelicals. Most of them aren’t open to honest discussion and faith. They KNOW they are right, so their goal is to get people who disagree with them to tap out. Faith, presuppositionalism, and certainty make it nigh impossible to have meaningful discussions with Evangelicals on virtually anything, including morality.
Maybe Dillard is different. We shall see.
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.
According to Joseph Parker, director of outreach and intercession for the American Family Association and host of the “Hour of Intercession” radio program, the Bible is the answer to E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G. Not just questions about God, Christianity, or faith, but E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G. Parker, like every Fundamentalist who spouts such nonsense, doesn’t really believe this, but it is a great slogan to rally the troops around. In Parker’s Bible-saturated mind, secularists, atheists, humanists, evolutionists, homosexuals, abortionists, socialists, communists, Democrats, liberals, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden work day and night to destroy Christian America, and the only way to combat this onslaught is to return to a steadfast, ignorant belief that the Bible is some sort of divine answer book. All we need to do is check page 34 or some other page and we will know exactly how the Christian God wants us to live.
Parker writes (link no longer active):
Who decides what is right and what is wrong? The Government? Men? Women? White people? Black people? Hispanic people? Asian people? Wise people? Rich people? The majority? The minority? Who?
Who decides what is true and what is not true? Would it be any of the above mentioned people? What do you think? Well, does truth vary from one person to another? Does it vary from one group of people to another? Is it relative to the situation and the group involved?
Truth is not relative. Truth is God. Truth is Jesus Christ. Truth flows from the mind and heart of God. And truth does not change. Truth is what it is. Truth is right and good and fruitful. Truth is good for us. Truth sets people free.
The Word of God is truth. It teaches us what is right and what is wrong. It teaches us what is good and what is evil. It teaches us about reality. It teaches us about life, people, and human nature. The Word of God teaches us and helps us understand the laws of nature, the laws of the universe, what is correct and what is false. The Word of God is our instruction manual for life.
When people or governments or societies try to ignore God and the Word of God, they get in trouble. When men and governments avoid the wisdom of God’s Word and try to make up their own rules, it will lead to disaster one hundred percent of the time. We as human beings, often think we know what is good for us, what is in our best interest, and what will “make us happy”. Often, we think that behavior that we want to carry out, though it may go against the Word of God and the wisdom of God, should be okay. Behavior that goes against and violates God’s Word is sin. And, the truth is that sin, sooner or later, will lead to death.
The Word of God is good for you. The Word of God is good for your marriage, and it is good for your family. It’s good for your children’. It’s good for you physically, mentally, spiritually, etc. The Word of God is full of grace and truth. The Word of God is anointed. God’s Word is PREGNANT with the ability to bless.
So, because God’s Word is all of this, we must be very serious about reading and meditating on and studying God’s Word. God’s Word has wisdom, counsel and insight, in direct statement or in principle, about everything, every situation and every matter…
…there are many other topics and issues anyone could look at and find out what the Word of God has to say about them. But , basically, there is simply a great need for us to read the Word of God and listen to its wisdom and counsel. Once, again, we should be mindful that in direct statement or principle, God’s Word speaks to every issue, every topic, and every concern in life.
We are wise to make a habit of reading the Word of God daily. Reading at least three or more chapters a day is a good spiritual “diet” to help us grow in our understanding of God’s Word consistently. And the fact is, we NEED to be faithful students of God’s Word. It is a guide book for life and it is a source of spiritual nourishment that we desperately need every day of our lives.
Equip yourself daily by spending time reading the Word of God. Parents, help to equip your children daily by having them to read the Word aloud to you every day. Encourage others you know to make it a habit to spend time reading God’s Word every day. Nothing will prepare and equip you better for the challenges and issues of life than – the Word of God.
Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble, authors of Genesis and Exodus?
There is absolutely no way to reach people who think like this. Their minds are walled off from reason and reality, in bondage to the ancient ramblings of unknown authors from the era of Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble. If this belief is taken to its logical conclusion, it can result in emotional and psychological harm, and in some cases child abuse, spousal abuse, rape, and murder. Think I am being hyperbolic? Consider this news report about Rob and Marie Johnson:
21-year-old Indiana woman has accused a couple who she lived with in Port St. Lucie, FL of physically and sexually abusing her for five years and using scripture from the Christian Bible’s Old Testament to justify it.
WPTV News reported that the accuser says that she was sent to live with Rob and Marie Johnson after the death of her mother nine years ago. The then-13-year-old was sexually abused by Rob Johnson virtually from the day she arrived in the home.
Detective Daniel Herrington of the Port St. Lucie Police Department told WPTV that the woman first went to the police in Indiana where she lives now.
“She ended up hearing stories of other women who had come forward, hearing also the stories of women who did not come forward, to tell about their abuse,” said Herrington.
Rob and Marie Johnson reportedly believe in Old Testament law regarding marriage, under which a man can have many wives who are ultimately his property. The girl was ordered to call Jeff “Master” and to submit to his and Marie’s sexual advances whenever they ordered her to.
The Johnsons reportedly preyed on the young girl’s fear of being abandoned by telling her that if she wanted to be part of their family, she had to have sex with them…
While I certainly think the Bible can provide *some* spiritual value and moral instruction, it is filled with behaviors and practices most of us consider barbaric and immoral, and when in the hands of a literalist it can be deadly. While many Christians do their best to perfume the manure pile, a shovel and five minutes quickly reveals God-approved immorality and abuse. From incest to polygamy and from rape to genocide, God’s answer book rightly deserves every bit of the scorn we skeptics heap upon its God-inspired, inerrant pages.
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.
Published on August 17, 2000. At the time, I was the pastor of Our Father’s House in West Unity, Ohio. This is a good example of how I used to think about life, God, the Bible, sin, and culture. This was not a Letter to the Editor. I wrote it for the Community Voice editorial column on the editorial page of The Bryan Times.
It is time that we make some radical changes to our printed money and the pledge of the Allegiance. Both our printed money and the Pledge of Allegiance give testimony to the historical truth that the United States was a country that believed in God. Not just any God, but Jehovah God, the God of the Christian Bible.
Sadly, we as a nation no longer believe in Jehovah. Due to misguided thinking about pluralism and tolerance, we have become a nation of many gods. Those that dare assert that we were founded as a Christian nation (and a Protestant Christian nation at that) are labeled narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant miscreants.
The God attested to on our printed money and in the Pledge of Allegiance is no longer allowed to be mentioned in our Country. Recently, a young girl wanted to sing the song Kumbya at a camp talent show. She was not permitted to sing this song because it mentioned the word Lord. Government schools have eradicated every vestige of God from the classroom. The very schools that were founded on Christian principles (Just look at a set of McGuffey Readers) have not only left that foundation, but try to insist such a foundation never existed. School officials are so afraid of God (or is it the god called the ACLU) that children no longer have Easter break. Instead they have spring break. Children are given two weeks off at Christmas, yet they are never told what Christmas is. Attend the average government school Christmas program and you will come away with the conclusion that Christmas is all about snow, Rudolph, Frosty, et al. Pages could be written on the deliberate banishment of Jehovah from every aspect of public life.
What are the reasons for this happening? They are several. First, there is the mythical, so-called “separation of Church and State.”The separation clause is routinely quoted by government and school officials when they want to dismiss the religious requests and activities of others. Truth is, what is really happening is that Jehovah is the only God not welcome. All other gods are quite welcome.The god of humanism is quite welcome.The new age god is welcome.This past school year, in a Williams County elementary class room, a teacher took class time to teach the children about serial killers. Our children can be taught about such perverse things but they can not be taught the solution to serial killing (faith in God)? Schools try to enforce a moral and ethical code yet they fail. Why? You cannot have morals and ethics without a religious foundation. Morals and ethics demand an answer to the question “WHY is this wrong?” Why is it wrong to have sex before marriage? Why is it wrong to steal? Without God and His standard, the Ten Commandments, we have no foundation for morality and ethics.
Another reason is the myth called toleration. Liberals and conservatives alike bandy about the thought of toleration. The foundation of toleration is that all truth is equal and that all viewpoints are valid. Our country has become one big comparative religion class. Truth is, there is no such thing as true toleration, nor can there be. Christians believe the Bible to be their standard of morality and ethics. They believe the Bible to be, not just one truth among many, but THE TRUTH! Christians are called on to love what God loves and hate what God hates. Yes, we are a narrow, intolerant bunch because we dare suggest there is but one God, one way to heaven. We dare suggest there is but one moral and ethical code, the Bible. We dismiss arguments couched in words “well that’s your opinion“ and we reply by saying “Thus saith the Lord.” Matters such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, drunkenness, abortion etc. are not matters for political debate. The Bible is clear on such matters.
It is amazing how we have redefined that which God calls sin. Homosexuality is called an alternative lifestyle. Drunkenness is called a disease. The adulterous partner is now called the significant other. On and on and on it goes. God said “Be not deceived…For whatever a man sows that he will also reap.” We are reaping our harvest in America. The foundations are crumbling. Is anyone paying attention?
It’s time we either admit that Jehovah is dead and remove His name from our money and the pledge of allegiance or perhaps it is time we reassert the kingdom rights of the true and living God. God’s people need to stand up and be counted. Not in Marches for Jesus, but in the workplace, the school. the government and in every public arena of life. We need to sound forth that name which is above every name. That name, and only that name, by which men shall be saved.
Notes
This article might shed some light on why local Christians don’t know what to do with my defection from Christianity. I was a leader, a spokesman for the faithful. I wrote what they wished they could say. And now? An atheist? How can such things be?
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.
