Leaving Eden is a blog by an “undercover atheist” attending Wheaton College. It’s an interesting look at what it’s like to be in the extreme ideological minority in a Christian environment, and has some good posts challenging Christians to be more respectful in the way they talk to and about atheists. There’s an interview with the Leaving Eden author (link goes to part 1, here’s part 2) at the FriendlyChristian blog if you want to read more.
Undercover atheist at a Christian college
Thanks for your comments! Comments must be approved by a moderator before
they appear on the site, so be patient if it doesn't show up right away.
To learn how our comment system works and what types of comment are
appropriate, read our discussion
rules and the guidelines at GoodComment.com before commenting.
1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Pingback: ysmarko on December 14, 2007
21 Comments
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.
Loading ...
December 6, 2007 at 13:58
That atheist is a fellow who had light, or at least though he had it. But he left the light, because he decided he liked darkness better. He lost ‘faith’ in the light. Light is not a matter of faith. If he really ever knew Christ, then he would not be confused by the darkness in the human heart. He wouldn’t confuse man’s failure with a failure of God.
We’re told that God is light and that light doesn’t have anything to do with darkness (1Jn 1:5-7). The natural world testifies to this because light is radiation, and a physicist will tell you that you either have radiation or you don’t. You can’t say you have it and don’t have it at the same time.
The Postmodern crowd objects and says, “What about shades of gray and shadows?” That is a matter of the strength of light (white), not of whether there is light (white). God is almighty (2Cor 6:18), and that means strength to the utmost. Therefore shades of gray (black) don’t enter into it. You either believe God is who He says He is, or you don’t.
Light and darkness are in conflict. But man being a rule breaker by nature wants to reject all of the black and white stuff and deal in shades of gray. Don’t blame your confusion on God!
Satan comes as an angel of light, so he’s your guy if you want to play games with shadows and shades of gray (black). It’s only natural, old man. Go ahead and do your own thing! Don’t worry about where that will take you. Feel free to blame God for the end result too.
December 6, 2007 at 16:58
From the articles, I gather this person once professed to be a Christian but walked away and embraced atheism. It makes me wonder whether their experience as a Christian was based on mentally assenting to a set of doctrinal statements or a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Any Christian speaking to a known atheist would naturally have a deep concern for the soul of that person. It’s not about converting them to a way of thinking, but planting seeds of truth. Yes, there are ways to do this – through our lives, and being led by the Holy Spirit in our conversations. However, the atheist is always going to feel uncomfortable in the presence of true Christians. Truth has a way of challenging us.
The atheist proclaims they are “undercover” at the Christian college. What is their purpose for such a position? If you’re bound and determined to be an atheist, why attend a Christian college and pretend to be something you’re not? If you’re there, you can’t blame others for assuming you’re a believer and offering to pray for you.
My heart cries out for this person. I wish they’d had the kind of mentors and Christian brothers and sisters, who could have helped them with their areas of doubt before embracing atheism. If nothing else, their confession will stir others to pray for them.
December 6, 2007 at 19:19
Unlike the blogging Wheaton atheist, I’ve made the round trip. I believe I have a pretty good idea of what is going on with that guy. So, I’m not falling for the “can’t we be friends and come together” routine.
He has a complaint against God and he wants to wallow in victimization. He can deny that until he’s blue in the face (I’ve not found where he is talking about the ‘break’ yet.), but bitterness is at the root of his deconversion. I don’t believe that there is anything you or I could say to change his mind.
And I don’t buy the idea that a Biblically-grounded Christian ought to walk on eggshells around him. He’d rather duke it out.
If he is a son of the Father, then God will deal with him to get him out of the pig pen. He can return to the Father’s house at anytime.
My ‘deconversion’ lasted nearly 30 years. God alone dealt with me in my bitterness (...laughter in the sloppy agape section.) and brought me back. He’ll do the same for anyone who will submit to Him.
December 7, 2007 at 10:38
REB: I think you have a great point that God would gladly take anyone back if they’re willing. I’d be really interested in hearing more about your deconversion. What was it that made you leave? And then what was it that made you come back?
December 7, 2007 at 11:19
It makes me wonder whether their experience as a Christian was based on mentally assenting to a set of doctrinal statements or a relationship with Jesus Christ.
If you’re bound and determined to be an atheist, why attend a Christian college and pretend to be something you’re not?
Anna,
These questions can be answered just by reading the “About” section of Leaving Eden’s blog:
http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/about/
He says that he was “In love with God”. If you ask him if he had a relationship with Jesus Christ, I’m sure the answer would be “of course”. What kind of real Evangelical doesn’t believe they have a relationship with Jesus Christ. LeavingEden was an Evangelical; I am quite certain he had the relationship you are talking about.
However, the atheist is always going to feel uncomfortable in the presence of true Christians. Truth has a way of challenging us.
Yet, you will find that the reason LeavingEden became an atheist was because of his pursuit of truth. So your implication that LeavingEden is running from truth is incorrect.
Best wishes,
Chris
December 7, 2007 at 11:26
He has a complaint against God and he wants to wallow in victimization.
REB,
This is patently false. Again, if you look at LeavingEden’s explanation in his blog’s About tab, you will see that the reason he left theism was because of a pursuit of truth.
He does not even believe God is real. How can you have a complaint against someone who you don’t believe is real? That’s like saying I have a personal conflict with Frodo from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. It just doesn’t make any sense. I believe Frodo is a fictional character. How could I believe that I even have a relationship with him? Let alone a complaint with him? Let alone, by far, that I feel victimized by him?
How could I feel victimized by Frodo? I don’t believe Frodo has any real existence in, let alone power over, the universe. When something bad happens to me, I cannot, sensically, blame Frodo. Frodo is just an idea. It does not make any sense to be mad at him.
This is the same way LeavingEden feels about God.
Best wishes,
Chris
December 7, 2007 at 16:34
Chris Redford,
It doesn’t make sense to you (or LeavingEden right now), but being angry at someone who “doesn’t exist” when that someone is God is a more logical inference than you seem willing to acknowledge.
C.S. Lewis came at it from exactly the opposite perspective, as an athiest trying desperately to justify his ongoing disbelief. He indeed said, “I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing.”
Christians believe that such a painful, contradictory mindset will necessarily result (consciously or subconsciously) when spiritual people deny their Spiritual Creator. I’ve been there myself.
It is curious, why so many (not all) athiests do seem as though they have an axe to grind, all the while adamantly insisting there’s no Being to use the axe on.
Peace, Dan
December 7, 2007 at 19:04
I really appreciated Leaving Eden’s blog, even while I found it disheartening. She (everyone else assumes they are male so why not play devil’s advocate, and I didn’t see anything to the contrary, forgive me if I’m wrong?) Specifically the idea of both “deconverting” (a scary notion) and then that often seemed coupled with a strong stance against religion that functions (philosophically) as a religion. This is not to say I find atheism a religion, but it certainly seems to have those tendencies and because so many atheists define themselves solely against theism (in its myriad forms). All of this makes the idea of deconversion and, consequently, reconversion to something else seem to fit.
I appreciate Leaving Eden’s point of view and find her struggle of leaving the faith in lieu of atheism interesting because she still (seems) to want the same functions of a church… just without God… more that makes me think about an alternative religion. For what that’s worth.
December 7, 2007 at 19:17
Not enough time for my story now.
Chris Redford,
The Wheaton atheist did believe that God exists. He claims he doesn’t now, but he did. Can you at least acknowledge that he may be rejecting the existence of God as a way of trying to deny the existence of his anger?
Your analogy doesn’t about Frodo doesn’t really cover the situation, because you start from the premise that Frodo doesn’t exist. Wheaton atheist started with the premise that God exists. He lived with that premise for a long time. So your analogy is a false one.
As an atheist, do you acknowledge the fact that people lie? If so, do you believe that people lie to themselves?
December 7, 2007 at 23:12
Hi Dan.
“It doesn’t make sense to you (or LeavingEden right now), but being angry at someone who “doesn’t exist” when that someone is God is a more logical inference than you seem willing to acknowledge.”
Dan, it may not make sense to you, but you are putting words in other people’s mouths. If I say I’m not angry at God, I’m not. I feel no more anger towards the person of God than I do for the person of Frodo. I’m not angry at God for not existing. I’m not saying I wouldn’t be happy if there were someone out there protecting me and watching over me. I’m saying, given the evidence, I simply cannot believe that is so. It simply does not seem to be true. And I do myself harm if I believe it anyways.
C.S. Lewis was a very atypical atheist. The atheist C.S. Lewis is NOT representative of the average atheist. That is one very detrimental aspect of Lewis’s testimony: it is very misleading for Christians. They think he was the typical atheist. He was not. The reality is that his position as an atheist wasn’t particularly educated or well-thought-out. I would rank his atheism on the same level as angsty teenage atheists I meet on YouTube.
LeavingEden and I became atheists because of a pursuit of truth. We left God behind because we had to, not because we wanted to. Believing in God just didn’t make any sense anymore. Lewis became an atheist because he was angry. Those reasons are as different as night and day. One is very noble, brave, and well-founded. The other is shaky, juvenile, and unsound.
My point is, Christians should drop this belief that atheists are somehow angry at God. It doesn’t make any sense. C.S. Lewis was probably one of the 0.02% of atheists in history who was actually angry at God for not existing. It is not representative of the average atheist.
“It is curious, why so many (not all) athiests do seem as though they have an axe to grind, all the while adamantly insisting there’s no Being to use the axe on.”
Right. And I can see why the fact that atheists are angry would cause Christians to assume that those atheists are angry at God. They aren’t. They are angry about the supression of critical thinking in society. They are angry most of all about being misunderstood and having words put in their mouths (“you’re just angry at God! Don’t blame God for your blablahblablabhalblah”). While all the time they are SCREAMING that they aren’t atheist because they are rebellious: they are atheist because they believe it is the truth. But people refuse to believe them. They refuse to listen to the real reasons for why they are the way they are. They are treated like second-class citizens who are expected to go along with the national cult or take a seat.
They aren’t angry at God. They are angry at the people who claim to be the children of God. They are angry at these people because these people marginalize them and treat them like their opinions don’t matter.
Now I’m not saying that I think that anger is particularly useful or constructive. I think that atheists should step back and realize that Christians really do just want what is best and that Christians believe that they are following the truth too. But I definitely can’t blame them for feeling angry and culturally supressed. Because they are. Only in the last 3 to 4 years have atheists really had a voice in the nation that people would listen to.
Chris
December 8, 2007 at 12:03
“Your analogy doesn’t about Frodo doesn’t really cover the situation, because you start from the premise that Frodo doesn’t exist. Wheaton atheist started with the premise that God exists. He lived with that premise for a long time. So your analogy is a false one.”
Then let me change it to an analogy that does fit. I once believed Santa Clause was real. After learning that he wasn’t real, I didn’t become angry at him for not existing and not giving me presents anymore. I just came to appreciate the real source of my presents: my parents. It is the same for someone who thinks God is the source of good in their life, comes to disbelieve in God, discovers the real sources of good in their life, and appreciates those sources.
Just so it is clear, I am not trying to convince anyone here that God doesn’t exist. Of course I believe that myself but I want to make it clear that that is not my point. My point is to overturn poor stereotypes about who atheists are. They are not angry at God. If they were, they wouldn’t be atheists: they would be rebelling theists. You can’t be angry at something you don’t believe in.
And to, llawhsoj: that was a very insightful commentary on how some people view their atheism. It is indeed a replacement for religion for some, maybe most. But being inherently negative, it is obviously a less than desirable alternative. That is why I personally identify as a Secular Humanist, not just an atheist. It is a very positive outlook whose tenants can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism#Tenets
Just so you know I wasn’t ignoring your questions, REB, yes, I can acknowledge the possibility of almost anything. Human beings are inherently limited so we can’t know everything. So I must admit the possibility of pretty much anything. But do I find the scenarios you are grasping for probable? No. I find it very unlikely that LeavingEden has or ever had issues with anger toward God since becoming an atheist. Again, it doesn’t make any sense.
Best wishes,
Chris
December 8, 2007 at 14:07
Hi Chris, thanks for taking the time to respond.
It may indeed be presumptuous to consider C.S. Lewis to be “typical” of atheists, but it’s equally presumptuous to propose that he’s “atypical”. Simply repeating unsubstantiated that he’s “not typical” over and over again, while throwing out arbitrary ”.02 percent” figures, does nothing to solidify your case.
The fact is, nobody can see into the mind and heart of any other individual. We can only go on our own experience and observation – both of which are “colored” by whatever worldview we’ve currently embraced. I’ll admit to my bias, and you should freely admit to yours. Being unbiased is certainly not always a virtue.
It’s also dubious to imply that the conversions of C.S. Lewis (or most other Christians?) aren’t “particularly well thought-out”. Many “noble, brave, well-founded” and “critically thinking” Christians (former atheist and otherwise) would respectfully disagree, though I wouldn’t guess on a percentage.
I would agree that atheism has not always been given equal – and equally respectful – voice in the general marketplace of ideas… but in places like universities and media establishments, the reverse could be said. And for far more than 3-4 years.
I suppose one “bottom line” is that neither theists nor atheists have the moral right to be condescending/insulting, or deny the intellectual honesty and integrity of the other’s pursuit of truth. Nor should the other be “denied a voice” – I’m glad your voice has (obviously) been allowed on this board, as I presume mine would respectfully be allowed on yours. If we agree on little else, we could hopefully agree on that.
Peace, Dan
December 9, 2007 at 10:54
The nutshell version on my atheist story is that I was born into a dysfunctional family. My father was a lifelong alcoholic and narcissist and my mother was physically and emotionally abusive. My father was gone by my 3rd year, and I was out of my mother’s hands by the time I was 11 years old, which was about the time I became an atheist. (My mother tried to bring us up in Catholicism before that.)
I grew up as a postmodern boy in a postmodern world. I was processed through a couple of modern social institutions, which were quite beneficial for me. I eventually married a postmodern girl who turned out to be a passive aggressive abuser. I was reasonably happy with her. We had lived together for several years before marriage. She committed a felony shortly after we were married. So we had a supremely postmodern, cubistic marriage. I stuck with her through her (our) legal problems and her lies.
She engineered a marriage to her present husband while we were stilled married. Her lying through that period and my tolerance of it was surreal. She dumped me when she was ready, and her rejection nearly killed me. I thank God we didn’t have any children!
I am not a victim, though. I was a poor son, a poor husband, and a poor excuse for a man. Yet I was able to get a college degree in science and felt that I had a pretty good grasp on the truth. Life was just a cold hard series of facts to be overcome and/or embraced. My only purposes in life were to try to get through it, be the best person I could be, and look forward to death in the vain hope that life-beyond would be better somehow.
People had witnessed to me on occasion, over the years. I was convinced that were deluded. I had become fairly skilled in beating down their arguments or wearing them out with the things that atheists believe in. Science and natural law were my gods.
And then I was faced with the prospect of losing someone, through suicide. He was the only person I cared about more that myself. I was already convinced that my life wasn’t worth anything. I was several hundred miles away, and I was helpless to stop him from hurting himself. So I asked God to take my life instead.
Why would God want my sorry life? He didn’t and He would not. God changed his heart to keep him from killing himself. He’s been changing my heart and my life ever since.
To conclude, this is why I take a hard-boiled stand on Biblical things. I am quite sensitive to deception, but I’m also slow by nature to call a liar out. I’ll keep my mouth shut and while I investigate and review the truth. But when I’m ready, I’m not going to be shy about calling out a lie. Compromise on Biblical truth is very popular these days among professing Christians and Jews. There is no excuse or reason for it.
Modern life has become cubistic. There is a certain cubism in the Bible that makes it perfectly fitted to be proclaimed just as it is. It is all sufficient truth, absolutely. I’ve encountered, seemingly crushing, challenges to the reliability of the Bible and I found out that the challenges come out of verifiable ignorance and subterfuge. Jesus Christ is truth for all times and all people, but especially for a time, a world, and a people who question truth.
The way that truth is being twisted today is surreal.
December 9, 2007 at 12:45
Dear Chris Redford,
Please read some books on atheism, C.S. Lewis, the history of American political thought, the Enlightenment and the modern age and the big contributors to the politics, religion, philosophy and science of it in general (Locke, Descartes, Comte, Hobbes, Voltaire, de Sade [why not?], Rousseau.. just free-associate. they’re all important) , American (and THEN European) religious thought over the past 500 years, a book on American religious history (you’ll laugh, I promise) the history of science since the recovery of Aristotle, and.. oh, I don’t know… some South American authors of fiction.
Then, for fun, not to educate yourself, read up on liberation theology – not wikipedia links, but original works. It’s just interesting thinking.
After that, start getting into philosophy: not early Greek stuff (read that much, much later – start with Seneca and work backwards in time until you, but people who deal with the nature of signs, perceptions, etc, and some sociology too: Berger and Luckmann, Maurice Merleau-Porty, Richard Rorty, Alfred North Whitehead, St. Augustine, William James, etc. and just for fun, some post-modern philosophical fiction – avoid “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” for now (read that one after you reply to my question), but do explore Italo Calvino, read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.. you know, crap like that.
Then start with some pop science. I read The Tao of Physics and Asimov’s Understanding Physics at the same time, and got a lot out of both. Look into whatever popular works on cosmology you can get your hands on.
Then, the philosophy of science! Start wherever. Everybody loves Karl Popper. Go back and find that OLD school philosopher of science: Xeno, and read him, too. I just finished The Social Construction of What? – it’s neat.
After that, some Plato, some Aristotle – the whole Greek world. The great Histories, too! Don’t sleep on the classical myths. By this point, with all your other education, you’ll have all kinds of interesting parallels to make with African, Egyptian, Native American, Indian, Chinese myths and mythmaking cultures in general.
After all that, read C.S. Lewis again, without the notion that you are somehow less angsty and more educated than him – my absolute favorite is ‘Til We Have Faces, which, for my money, is the most nuanced exploration of people I’ve read so far.
If you’re already a feminist, salud then homey – otherwise, start with Backlash by Susan Faludi, keep reading that sociology I was telling you about, which, by now, you’ll be familiar with all the big names, and work your way into the theoretical feminist authors, ignoring everybody after the end of the 80’s. Focus mainly on the lesbian ones first, and don’t be afraid to let your mind wander a little.
Then, if you don’t already have a newspaper subscription, get two – a local paper, and a New York Times.
After that, I’d love to hear you extrapolate this statement into a response to this comment:
”...But I definitely can’t blame them for feeling angry and culturally supressed. Because they are. Only in the last 3 to 4 years have atheists really had a voice in the nation that people would listen to.”
No shots, just trying to keep the conversation going.
December 9, 2007 at 14:12
I appreciate the ecumenical attitude, Dan.
“The fact is, nobody can see into the mind and heart of any other individual.”
Of course this is true.
But we can read the words of many individuals. And of the many, many words I’ve read from many, many atheists, C.S. Lewis is the only atheist I’ve ever encountered who said they were angry at God. I’ve never even encountered a statement that would make me suspect an atheist was angry at God, let alone seen an explicit admission of it. An atheist who is angry at God is not an atheist: they are an angry theist.
“I’ll admit to my bias, and you should freely admit to yours.”
Of course anyone starts with a bias but that bias can be balanced simply by talking. Obviously we’ve adjusted our biases in response to each other’s comments so, we are in the green. This is what dialogue is all about.
“but in places like universities and media establishments, the reverse could be said. And for far more than 3-4 years.”
Yes, in universities, atheists have had a voice. And I have known Christians who, upon going to college, suddenly feel the same way that atheists do in everyday society.
But I disagree that it is the reverse. Atheists don’t have the foothold in universities that Christians do in everyday society. It is just that in a university, atheists (and all religion-related groups) are treated equally. And Christians aren’t used to that. They are used to having a monopoly on what is said about religion.
So what is really happening is not that atheists control the universities. It is that Christians don’t control the universities. And Christians in this country are not used to that.
But that doesn’t mean the Christian presence on campus isn’t still strong. Where I go (the University of Kansas), there are 21 Christian student groups and one secular group. Also, a professor here (Paul Mirecki) was pressured to resign from his position as department chair of Religious Studies because of some brief statements he made about religious fundamentalists on a private forum. The university tried to defend him but ultimately couldn’t bear the pressure from the iron fist of the state’s Christian majority.
I could never see the same happening for a Christian professor who made breif, angry statements about atheists on a private forum. Who would complain? It is a cultural norm to put down atheists. They are in the minority.
“I’m glad your voice has (obviously) been allowed on this board, as I presume mine would respectfully be allowed on yours. If we agree on little else, we could hopefully agree on that.”
Well not exactly. I’ve still got a comment pending that I’m thinking ThinkChristian’s moderators aren’t going to allow.
I’ve never been to a secular board that pre-approves comments. I’ve only seen that on religious forums, specifically Christian ones.
As an example, I’ve been permanently banned from WorthyBoards because I stated I had an intent to persuade people to consider atheism. Which is funny because WorthyBoards explicitly allows atheists; but apparently only atheists who don’t think they are right.
I’m very glad ThinkChristian is posting most of my comments. They are much more liberal than some. But they are still, like all the other Christian boards I’ve encountered, exercising information control to make sure I don’t say things they don’t want said. We aren’t talking about cuss words, porn, or spam here. Just honest philosophical ideas.
So I appreciate your personal attitude of wanting to allow open dialogue on religion. I just want you to be aware that, in my experience, most Christian boards don’t. An example of one that does is FriendlyChristian and I hope they set a trend that will be followed in the future.
Chris
December 9, 2007 at 14:23
Btw: I think this is a great statement and very important. I completely agree with it:
“I suppose one “bottom line” is that neither theists nor atheists have the moral right to be condescending/insulting, or deny the intellectual honesty and integrity of the other’s pursuit of truth. ”
December 10, 2007 at 16:07
“And of the many, many words I’ve read from many, many atheists, C.S. Lewis is the only atheist I’ve ever encountered who said they were angry at God.”
Valid point, except that (to my knowledge) he said that after his conversion, suggesting a hindsight post-conversion realization rather than a self-aware pre-conversion statement. Obviously, it’s quite an obvious and egregious self-contradiction if one literally, consciously says “I’m an atheist who’s angry at God.”
I’ve no doubt you’ve read many atheists who claim zero anger at a presumed non-existent God. But I’ve read at least a few who admitted their atheism (or minimum, agnosticism) was instigated after a painful ordeal in their life caused them to turn away from a God who’s existence they’d previously acknowledged to some degree. Only in the angry aftermath did they then (conveniently?)find precisely the intellectual backing they were looking for. Again, not all, but at least some.
And some who continue their search end up finding the (non-existent) God whom they’d presumed to be the problem, actually exists and is actually the Solution.
Which validates that if you’re looking for God, you’ll find Him. If you’re looking for reasons to deny Him, you’ll find them. The presuppositions and attitudes and emotions we bring obviously influence the conclusions we reach. That makes it difficult, but worth the effort, to do as you suggest and reason out such biases (valid or not) to get at the underlying truth (or Truth).
Peace, Dan
December 10, 2007 at 17:46
Ladhood The Lesser, I could list off all of the religiously and philosophically focused books I’ve read from various time-periods too. Most of them were not on your list and would take up just as much space to list off. But unless I had an actual, lucid, focused point for asking you to read them, I don’t think it would be a reasonable request.
If a quote from one of your sources is immediately relevant to my statement about the treatment of atheists in America, I would be glad to hear it. And just so you are aware, I have, in fact, already read about a third of the authors and topics you listed. As for the rest, I, again, don’t see how they are immediately relevant. I’ll need a little more compelling motivation before I am persuaded to drop my substantial current reading list to read yours.
But trust me, I could overwhelm you with a list equally large. I just don’t think it is relevant. I think it is an easy way of avoiding making an actual focused argument for your case.
“But I’ve read at least a few who admitted their atheism (or minimum, agnosticism) was instigated after a painful ordeal in their life caused them to turn away from a God who’s existence they’d previously acknowledged to some degree.”
Right, right. Actually danr, I do remember an atheist from a long time ago that I saw on like Nightline whose parents had been murdered by BTK who became an atheist upon finding their bodies. But even in that case it wasn’t so much that he was angry as it was that he didn’t think a God could exist and let that happen (he was about 7 and he was the first to discover his parent’s were grotesquely mutilated bodies).
Which I guess isn’t exactly like he found atheism on his search for truth. But it is an intellectual observation (“woah, that doesn’t match up with there being a God”) rather than an emotional reaction (“I’m angry that God did this so I won’t believe in him”).
Chris
December 10, 2007 at 21:22
REB, thanks for sharing your personal story. It was very genuine and insightful. For what it is worth, I’m sorry you had to go through all that.
I would also like to signify that ThinkChristian has posted all of the comments I’ve made so far. So I was wrong about them. They are actually a step up from WorthyBoards
I’m glad that they are taking the responsible position of being honest about what is said on the board.
Chris
December 11, 2007 at 21:15
Chris Redford,
I shared my story, because the other Chris asked me to do it. Thanks for your kind thoughts. I must say that I’m not sorry, because I believe God has a purpose in it all. Lots of people have it much worse.
If you ever find the truth you’ve come to accept can’t get you through, then please remember that there is someone at the right hand of God, who is Truth. You can turn to Him at anytime and He will never cast you out (John 6:37).
December 13, 2007 at 03:21
Chris,
Just to point out an inconsistency, you also post at Leaving Eden, which also regulates posts and, as this dialogue is about, is not a Christian.
And for think given how counter productive some Christian’s comments can be (sad to say) rather counter productive in regards to producing a dialogue. Wish that weren’t the case but it certainly can be.