Responding to a Response to a Response

Well, this is entertaining. TEWSNBN devoted a not-insignificant portion of his time to ‘responding’ to Bruce Gerencser and myself, over what I always believed to be one of Christianity’s most holy and important times of the year. I dare say Bruce copped more flak than I did, because Bruce (unlike myself) has a deep understanding of the Bible and Evangelism, having lived it for many years. It appears Bruce speaking about his life and experiences with Christianity frequently unnerves and provokes TEWSNBN into all kinds of remarks that, when examined to any degree, fail under scrutiny.

Take for example, his post dated the 11th of December, which was a quickfire response to this post from Bruce.

We have let a couple of responses by BG and MeerKat Musings go unanswered simply because there was no benefit in talking about their wild assumptions and leaps to conclusions.

We can call those responses assumptions and leaps to conclusions as neither of those people took the time to confirm with us what they thought they read. But that is par for the course. Atheists do that all the time.

These two people are not the first atheists we have dealt with over the years. Plus, we have gone to atheist blogs and participated in discussions on those websites. We are not making things up as we go or just because BG said something on his website.

You can read his responses to our posts at this link. Our question is, if there is no God why is he so afraid of what we say? it would all be meaningless and we as well as all evangelicals would not be a threat to anyone.

Yet, he and Meerkat Musing continue to read our blog and make comments on their websites when they do not like what we have said. Their comments continue to provide evidence and support that our points are true and correct.

What makes TEWSNBN think responding to his spurious claims and arguments is a sign of fear?! I can cut that argument both ways – he responses to Bruce and I because our arguments – particularly Bruce’s, for they are founded on direct, lengthy experience of Christianity – trouble and worry him. TEWSNBN has devoted a lot of time to commenting on what I have had to say, including leaving comments (though his go-to ‘point’ is to claim I distort his words, then claim there is no point in explaining why, a convenient excuse to avoid discussion). ‘His comments continue to provide evidence and support that my points are true and correct’. See? I can use exactly the same argument as TEWSNBN – what are the odds it won’t be fair when I do it?!

I need to address another point – I am not an atheist. Agnostic yes, for I do not definitively claim there is no god, but I do not know either way.

No matter how mean and insulting BG gets, we do not insult him or where he lives. If you are going to show that you have a better lifestyle than those you disagree with, then you should not insult or put those people down.

Whilst I would not respond in the exact manner Bruce chooses, I can understand where he is coming from. Bruce, and others, cop a lot of flak from religious fundamentalists. Because Bruce has had the nerve to speak openly and honestly, people like TEWSNBN direct never-ending critiques at him. When you frequently poke someone, you cannot be surprised if their patience wears thin, and at any rate, TEWSNBN can be as insulting and rude as the best of them – you need only look at the some of the comments he has directed at me over the years, and I consider dishonesty a form of rude behaviour too – I have not forgotten our very first conversation, concerning employment law and discrimination, where he deleted proof of his error rather than admit he was wrong. I dare say that rather set the tone.

Part of what prompted TEWSNBN to write a string of posts attacking Bruce can be found here, in a post where a guy called Donald decided to give Bruce grief. Naturally TEWSNBN could not resist yet again passing comment.

Are Evangelicals Responsible for the Culture Wars?

The answer according to BG and other atheists seems to be a resounding ‘yes’.  Just read his words as BG speaks for himself and other atheists:

It seems that Donald can’t or won’t understand why atheists might want to challenge Evangelical beliefs, especially since those beliefs directly affect and harm unbelievers.

This concept is held by atheists world wide. Instead of taking the blame for their own actions, it is easier and more convenient to blame someone else. The easiest target is the Evangelical or the RCC or some other protestant religion that goes against atheist ideals.

Look at history. In England, 500 people, 90% of them women, were executed for witchcraft. On the basis of paranoid superstition, people were killed, and this was a problem across Europe and later, the Americas. Among the punishments, people were burned alive. In early Christian Rome, homosexual sex was declared illegal and anyone caught was to be burned alive. Similar laws existed throughout Europe during the Middle Ages. Even as violence faded, the conservative Christian communities around the world have strived to deny LGBT people their civil rights, in a form of bigoted selfishness. So yes TEWSNBN, it is only right that the non-religious challenge Evangelicals. Throughout history, there has indeed been direct harm done to those who do not believe.

To return to the original post for a second…

#1. The history of the modern culture war is clear. One need only look at the history of the Moral Majority and other Evangelical groups who followed in their steps to see the people and beliefs behind the current iteration of the “culture war.” The same can be said of conservatives within Roman Catholicism and Mormonism.

BG, why should we risk mis-spelling his name when we will be taken to task by BG for doing so accidentally, does not know history. Not only was the first shot in the culture war was fired back in the 19th century when the concept of separation of church and state was mentioned in a letter NOT the constitution.

Atheists and unbelievers have been using that non-constitutional point for decades keeping Christians and other religious people from making the country better through better government.

We are referring to the establishment clause and it is not written in the constitution at all. It is READ INTO the 1st amendment not taken out of it. That is the first sign of trouble. People do this to the Bible as well and it has always been deemed as wrong. It is wrong to do to the constitution also (1 &2).

Does TEWSNBN know what the Constitution does say?

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s pretty clear. Congress is a major part of the US governmental system, and nowhere does the Constitution say everyone must be forced to live under the rules and ideals of any one faith. There is no evidence that theocracies or religiously-inspired monarchies or other forms of government work better when everyone is forced to live under the directives of any given religion. Indeed, for many the ‘state’ religion would be the ‘wrong’ religion, and for many others they would lose rights and freedoms.

The people doing harm on the political front are the unbelievers as, like scientists, they do not want God to be part of their lives or work That makes all their work tainted, corrupt, unfair, and so on.

As we said in another article, the unbeliever has tried for 6 to 10,000 years to run things their way and they have failed each and every time.

This comes across as very whiny. Not for the first time TEWSNBN goes after scientists as part of his ‘unbelievers category’. TEWSNBN ought to remember that the reason he has access to things like a fridge, a freezer, electricity, a car, the internet, a computer, a phone and a whole host of other technologies is because of scientific endeavour. Scientists are another group persecuted by Christians for having the audacity to present facts – Galileo comes to mind.

If all scientific work is unfair and tainted, perhaps TEWSNBN will give up his website, phone, and indeed his very home?

Moving a bit further on…

#4. Everywhere I look, I see Evangelicals who want to cause harm to others: women, LGBTQ people, immigrants, atheists, and Muslims to name a few. 

This is one of many examples of why we call BG and Meerkat Musings distorters. They are distorting the issues and not being honest in their presentation.

Just because the atheist does not accept the biblical role for women does it mean women are being harmed. There are plenty of opportunities for women as long as they stop usurping authority from a man.

TEWSNBN uses the word distort a lot, without explaining why, which leads me to believe he doesn’t know what distort actually means. His own words (emphasis mine) offer a clue to precisely the sort of misogyny Bruce is referring too – women should know their place and it should be behind the man. This idea has been part of Christianity for centuries, and it has manifested itself in various ways. Christian persecution of the LGBT community has already been referenced in this post, and the desire to impose Christian ideals upon other groups is well-established.

Of course, none of this is likely to shift TEWSNBN’s opinions one tiny jot, but I feel it’s important to issue a counter-weight to what he has to say, particularly where it concerns myself and where it concerns my friends.

Please follow and like us: