Matt W Cook

Shan’s back was to the massive, winking eye-lid, so at first he didn’t notice it (being intent on the indescribable creature). Suddenly, Shan heard a faint, whirring noise, and felt goosebumps rise on his skin. Turning his head over his right shoulder, Shan finally saw the great eye-lid, and jumped with terror from his seat. His heart shot his blood through his body at triple the normal speed, and he ran behind a nearby tree for cover. Sweat had soaked through the back of his shirt, and he had to wipe his brow more than once before he had calmed down enough to think. In time, Shan wandered back over to the eye-lid, and realized that it didn’t pose much of a threat. He attempted to communicate with the eye, but of course it didn’t have ears, and was not very good at reading such tiny lips. Shan attempted to communicate with the eye for about twenty minutes, opening his mouth as wide as he could to show the shape of the words. In the end though, Shan became very frustrated, and the eye resorted to sharp movements to the right (from Shan’s perspective). Then it dawned on him. Why was there only one eyeball? “I suppose,” he thought, “that if it is a strange enough thing for me to find an eye this big, and stuck in the ground, there may be things that only have one eye.” On further speculation he decided to try asking the massive eye. Once he had its attention, he repeatedly pointed to his own eyes, alternating between pointing at one then the other, and pointing at both at the same time. The eye squinted to take in the sight, and one might speculate that, had it at some time possessed an eyebrow, it would be raised in expression of curiosity. In response to Shan the eye continued jerking the pupil to the right. In turn Shan pointed to the right. The eye blinked furiously. Shan pointed again. Furious blinking. Point. Blink. Shan walked three or four paces to the right of the eye and felt the ground with the plunger stick; It was very soft, like mud (except less wet). He jabbed the pole as far as he could into the mud (about one foot) and hit something. He looked over at the massive eye-ball, but it had not seemed to notice. He moved over a foot closer to the eye and jabbed again, hitting nothing. He moved to the other side of his first attempt, and (being tired and a good deal muddy by now) threw the pole into the ground once more. It almost disappeared from his hand (being an extremely long plunger of five feet, for those extra messy days). The eye spasmed and blinked with the furious vigor and hate that it had shown when it had first seen Shan.

Shan began shovelling as best he could with the plunger stick. Mostly it churned up the ground so he could get his hands on the moist soil and move it away. He worked for well over three hours without stopping, and having found nothing continued to work on and off for another three hours, taking breaks whever possible. By this point Shan was beginning to wonder if there was an entire giant buried beneath the forest, and was puzzled about why he hadn’t hit a nose, or any other body part. By the end of the six hours though, he had his answer. He was attempting to pry a very stubborn rock from the bottom of this now gaping hole, when he realized that it was writhing. He cleared away the dirt from around the rock, and found that it was indeed the other eye.

6) Christianity breeds authoritarianism

The problem with authoritarian governments is that there is no leader on the planet who is good enough, strong enough, informed enough or wise enough to wield ultimate power. Some leaders are better than others, but none have ever been worthy of complete trust and absolute power. Therefore authoritarianism, as a government model, will never be adequate for running a country. If a Christian tries to make his government move toward this system there will be problems, always.

But that’s not really what this article is talking about. It seems that he’s really condemning Christianity for forcing non-Christians to adopt Christian morality.

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. – 1 Cor. 5:12,13

It is not for the Christian to judge the morality of those outside the Church. Christianity was never meant to wield power in a government. In its inception Christianity was marginalized and it seems, through Church History, that the times when the Church is marginalized and deprived of worldly power are the times when it is spiritually the most alive and vibrant.

I do not think it is the place of the Church to dictate certain points of morality to those outside the Church. I do believe that Christians always have a responsibility to preach love, truth, justice, purity and (above all) the Gospel. But it does not seem right to convince the government to outlaw premarital sex because the vast majority of people do not follow the Leader we follow. I would point out to a friend that fornication is against God, but I would not have him thrown in jail. There are no Christian countries today, we cannot expect them to have Christian laws.

The Christian nations of the past were populated by and run by Christians. It was their responsibility to make laws; obviously they based their laws on their worldview. In the same way secular lawmakers today base their laws on a secular worldview.

In some cases, however, I think Christians should speak up. Matters like abortion are not strictly moral concerns. The life of a child is at stake and anyone (Christian or not) who believes a fetus is a human being should be concerned in this. The article mentions prostitution as a victimless crime. I disagree. Anyone who has known a prostitute or has heard a prostitute’s story will know that the victim in this crime is the prostitute herself.

It seems I should mention homosexual marriages as well. I think Christians who oppose homosexual marriage should think about why. I disapprove of homosexuality (though not of homosexuals). While I believe homosexual acts are sinful I do not suggest that homosexuals be punished by the government in any way. And yet I would still argue against homosexual marriages. Not because gay people should not marry, but simply because a conjugal union of two men is not marriage. It is something else.

But on the other hand, many people talk about the sanctity of marriage even though they have been divorced many times and committed adultery. I think that marriage is not longer a sacred thing in the west. Which is actually consistent, because secular governments, by their definition, deny the sacred. Morally and spiritually, I do not believe that men should marry men. Nor do I believe people should engage in premarital sex or any of the other things God says he is against. But as regards government, I do not think the legislation of a secular country should be involved in this.

Does Christianity promote authoritarianism? Yes, it certainly does. But the authority is God, never men. Men are never trusted to handle the legislative power of God. This is why God tells us again and again to never take matters in our own hands. He will take care of things himself in his own way. Christians are, indeed, to be positive influences in society, but we are not meant to be kings here.

6) Christianity breeds authoritarianism

The problem with authoritarian governments is that there is no leader on the planet who is good enough, strong enough, informed enough or wise enough to wield ultimate power. Some leaders are better than others, but none have ever been worthy of complete trust and absolute power. Therefore authoritarianism, as a government model, will never be adequate for running a country. If a Christian tries to make his government move toward this system there will be problems, always.

But that’s not really what this article is talking about. It seems that he’s really condemning Christianity for forcing non-Christians to adopt Christian morality.

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. – 1 Cor. 5:12,13

It is not for the Christian to judge the morality of those outside the Church. Christianity was never meant to wield power in a government. In its inception Christianity was marginalized and it seems, through Church History, that the times when the Church is marginalized and deprived of worldly power are the times when it is spiritually the most alive and vibrant.

I do not think it is the place of the Church to dictate certain points of morality to those outside the Church. I do believe that Christians always have a responsibility to preach love, truth, justice, purity and (above all) the Gospel. But it does not seem right to convince the government to outlaw premarital sex because the vast majority of people do not follow the Leader we follow. I would point out to a friend that fornication is against God, but I would not have him thrown in jail. There are no Christian countries today, we cannot expect them to have Christian laws.

The Christian nations of the past were populated by and run by Christians. It was their responsibility to make laws; obviously they based their laws on their worldview. In the same way secular lawmakers today base their laws on a secular worldview.

In some cases, however, I think Christians should speak up. Matters like abortion are not strictly moral concerns. The life of a child is at stake and anyone (Christian or not) who believes a fetus is a human being should be concerned in this. The article mentions prostitution as a victimless crime. I disagree. Anyone who has known a prostitute or has heard a prostitute’s story will know that the victim in this crime is the prostitute herself.

It seems I should mention homosexual marriages as well. I think Christians who oppose homosexual marriage should think about why. I disapprove of homosexuality (though not of homosexuals). While I believe homosexual acts are sinful I do not suggest that homosexuals be punished by the government in any way. And yet I would still argue against homosexual marriages. Not because gay people should not marry, but simply because a conjugal union of two men is not marriage. It is something else.

But on the other hand, many people talk about the sanctity of marriage even though they have been divorced many times and committed adultery. I think that marriage is not longer a sacred thing in the west. Which is actually consistent, because secular governments, by their definition, deny the sacred. Morally and spiritually, I do not believe that men should marry men. Nor do I believe people should engage in premarital sex or any of the other things God says he is against. But as regards government, I do not think the legislation of a secular country should be involved in this.

Does Christianity promote authoritarianism? Yes, it certainly does. But the authority is God, never men. Men are never trusted to handle the legislative power of God. This is why God tells us again and again to never take matters in our own hands. He will take care of things himself in his own way. Christians are, indeed, to be positive influences in society, but we are not meant to be kings here.

5) Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality.
There’s no denying that the Bible gives special terms to the people who follow after Christ. Peter calls believers a holy nation and a people for God’s own possession. The Old Testament says that the people of God were his special people, set apart from the rest of the world. It’s obvious that there is something supposed to be special about the people who claim to follow God. But I think there are two big reasons why this should never breed arrogance or a chosen people mentality.

One, the reason God gives his people these names is not so that they feel good about themselves. Look at the context when Peter calls believers a chosen race, a royal priesthood and a holy nation: ‘that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.’ Believers are not special because of anything they have done, rather because of what has been done to them. Neither are they simply chosen and that’s the end of it. They are chosen to live holy lives and bear fruit. If a believer does not live a life of kindness, humility, mercy and love, then he has little reason to take pleasure in his election.

Secondly, the attitude of election should be a vertical one, not horizontal. That is, a believer should never say to himself ‘I am better than the rest of mankind because I have been chosen out of them. I am holy, they are not. I am elect, they are not.’ Rather he should consider his election in relation to God. He should be humbled that God would choose him and not cast him aside. If a believer’s election or position in Christ leads to arrogance he really does not understand it at all.

I cannot deny that many people who hold to Christianity are arrogant in their place and have a chosen people mentality. There is no excuse for this. But I need to point out again that this is a problem with the practice of Christianity, not with Christianity itself. Our position should make us humble, not arrogant.

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God?

3) Christianity is based on dishonesty
This point is not backed up well. His claim first hinges on Christianity being based on fear, which it is not. Second he points to dishonest clergy, but that is a problem with the practice of Christians, rather than objective Christianity. Lastly he points to Pascal’s Wager (which I think he really misunderstands). It’s dishonest for him to claim that it is one of the most popular arguments for belief in God. Of course the wager, as he describes it, has nothing to do with Christianity. No serious Christian would use such an argument as he defines it.

4) Christianity is extremely egocentric
Religion’s strongest appeal may be the promise of heaven; as I see it, the strongest appeal of Christianity is gaining Christ Himself. Is this egocentric? Is it egocentric to desire the greatest thing in the universe? Not at all. Christianity points completely away from self and toward Christ. It is not centered on Man, it is centered on God. Rewards and gifts and the attention God gives to man does not change this. Christianity does not teach a man to look at himself, but to let self go and run to God.

3) Christianity is based on dishonesty
This point is not backed up well. His claim first hinges on Christianity being based on fear, which it is not. Second he points to dishonest clergy, but that is a problem with the practice of Christians, rather than objective Christianity. Lastly he points to Pascal’s Wager (which I think he really misunderstands). It’s dishonest for him to claim that it is one of the most popular arguments for belief in God. Of course the wager, as he describes it, has nothing to do with Christianity. No serious Christian would use such an argument as he defines it.

4) Christianity is extremely egocentric
Religion’s strongest appeal may be the promise of heaven; as I see it, the strongest appeal of Christianity is gaining Christ Himself. Is this egocentric? Is it egocentric to desire the greatest thing in the universe? Not at all. Christianity points completely away from self and toward Christ. It is not centered on Man, it is centered on God. Rewards and gifts and the attention God gives to man does not change this. Christianity does not teach a man to look at himself, but to let self go and run to God.

The creature his attention was fixed on was rather hard to describe. So hard, in fact, that I’ll not bother trying to describe it. I understand this may prove frustrating for many readers, but such frustrations are ill-founded. In fact, when an author declines to fully describe something it is a bit of a bonus for a reader because he (or she) is given the opportunity to come up with a mental picture of this creature without being hampered by any pre-described notions about it. So please, dear reader, do your best to picture a creature that cannot be accurately described. Picture it, but do not devote too much time to it, because it actually has little to do with this story.

Shan’s attention was completely fixed on this strange, linguistically elusive critter. For a moment everything else he had ever considered in his life ceased to be important. Only this funny little thingy of an animal mattered. It was unfortunate that he placed so much attention on the creature, he soon found out. For the blue rock that he chose to sat near eventually turned out to be no rock at all, but a giant eyelid (scary, eh?)!

The eye opened and looked at Shan. Shan didn’t really notice, busy as he was trying to describe the indescribable critter (silly boy). For a while the eye just looked. It had malice in its eye, but it lacked the power to do anything about that malice, being only an eye after all. It tried winking angrily at Shan, but it had no affect. It tried throwing rocks at Shan, but gave up as soon as it realized it had no arms. It almost tried to come up with an elaborate plan to capture and eat Shan, but gave up after decided it possessed neither the brain with which to plan nor the mouth with which to eat. So it mostly just sat there, winking in utter anger and frustration.

When Shan scoured the island in search of materials for an ultimate weapon, he didn’t pay very much attention to the fact that other sentient beings could be on the island too. In the shallow recesses of his mind, right below the general concept thinking, but on the other side of the fiery concept called analyzing, rested the dull, much-abused concept of memory. For you see, Shan’s memory had had a rough little existence. It was born in a weak sort of way, which is to say that its conception is rooted in fairly painful and bizzare circumstances. Literally. His first memory was of his entire body being covered in gooey Hythranian boogers after he and a few of his friends had upset a Hythran nest. The strange thing about Hythranian boogers are that they sting like hot chili’s and immediately erase any and all previous memories from one’s brain.

(In recent years scientists studying the Hythranian biomolecular structure developed a way to reverse engineer the function of the organ responsible for producing the gooey boogers, effectively restoring lost memory. This was eagerly marketed to the elderly and with great effect. However, there has been an astonishing number of complaints and lawsuits against pharmeceutical companies who manufacture Mem-X who demand a refund or a drug which reverses Mem-X’s effects. The basic nature of the complaint is that they really didn’t want to remember as many things as the drug allowed them to. [In some rare instances Mem-X has been known to draw from the brain memories at pre-conscious periods, such as circumcision])

Needless to say the painful re-beginning of Shan’s memory was a significant factor in its currently sub-par performance. The other significant factor is the regular abuse his memory receives from the concepts Perception and Will; mostly it is just Will. These two things, coupled with frequent visits from Mr. Forgetful of Doubting Lane, are the main contributions to the current state of Shan’s memory. So it is not suprising when, having called to memory for aid to determine whether there were any significant life forms on the island, Shan was given a blank stare followed by a brief eye-brow raised about a quarter-of-an-inch above the eye.

So he treked off across the island once more, having decided (quite shrewdly I think) to leave the sand where it lay, apply the itching powder to his ailing scalp, and call out in general statements of “Hello there!” by means of the rubber plunger head. After several hours, Shan sat down by a blue rock in the middle of the deepest part of the forest. His eye was drawn to a tiny creature climbing a tree two yards away.

Marvelling at this newfound life, the first thing Shan did was to reach in his green pants and pull out his blackberry which, miraculously, had survived the incineration. There was only one thing on this crazy island that was for sure. . .he needed to check his schhhedule (with the sch pronouced shh, as in shhheep.)

“Hmm,” he said aloud to himself. “According to this electronical planning device(or EPD), the first thing I have to do is fashion a rather large weapon with which I can unleash particularly devasting critical attacks against my foes,” Shan said the words slowly to himself, making sure to enunciate. “Perhaps if I scrounge around long enough I can come up with the materials needed to make one, with which I could quite possibly become the deadliest person on this island.”

Shan spent the next few days looking everywhere for the perfect ingredients. However, at the end of it, all he had managed to come up with was the following items: Lots of Sand, Gold-bond medicated itching powder, and the rubber part of an old toilet plunger. He also found some twigs. . .but they weren’t dry enough to be fatal.

At that moment, Shan came to the painstaking realization that the only thing he could make with these ingredients was a weapon of minor annoyance. .capable of unleashing only very unworthy attacks.

He needed to find a friend. .fast.

2) Christianity preys on the innocent
It is quite true that Christianity reaches out to children, though I would hardly call it preying on them. “Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them, for such is the kingdom of heaven.” It seems that the Bible, in many ways, favors children over adults.
To me, the word prey signifies the goal of causing damage and distress. Christianity certainly does not have this attitude toward children. Sure, there are many warnings given to children, but the end is not to push the child down but to bring him up. I give stern warnings and punishments to my son, but not because I enjoy doing it. Neither do I give them because I want him to conform to a certain mode of behavior. I do it for his joy. I make him cry sometimes so that he will cry less in the future. If he never learns to fight against the wrong impulses that live within him he will never be happy. Cruel people are rarely satisfied people. When we live in opposition to God we are rarely happy in life. If he steals something today the natural consequence will be very small. But if he steals when he is sixteen the consequence could be very great. So I intensify the consequences of his actions now so that he won’t make a big mistake when the stakes are higher.

In dealing with children, if the end of our actions is to make the kids conform to a certain way of thinking or way of living, we are misguided and perhaps even preying on the children. But Christianity’s goal is not this. It is holy happiness. A happiness that can only be achieved through Christ. I discipline and teach Joseph toward this end. If I were to teach a class of children I would do the same – guide them toward better lives, not toward acting right. Right living is more a secondary goal or a symptom of the main goal. The main goal is the happiness of the individual and the glory of God. And in the end these two goals are almost one, if we find the real happiness.