TheCreature’s blog

Would but I could look in her eyes
Would but I could woo her
would but I could read her mind
would but I could sir

Would but I could leave this place
Would but I could save it
Would that I could leave myself
would that I could find it

Would that I could tell a soul
would that one would hear it
would that I could hear a tale
and would that I could feel it

Would that heart were made of stone
would that I could dull it
would that I could wield the stone
that pelted death upon it

Would that I could run away
would that I could rule the day
would that I could sail away
would that I could...

So it is
and so it shall be

So the ontological argument seems to proceed with the premise that

"It is possible for a maximally great being to exist"

As a mathematician, and as a reasonable person in general, I have problems with this premise, though I can construe ways that this could be made reasonable, but in such ways it destroys the argument it is trying to makes.

First and foremost, is "maximally great" well defined? This is not obvious. Taking math as my example, while it is true to say that the maximum in the set of [0, 1] is 1, it is false to say that there exists a maximum in (0, 1). That is, in the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 containing 0 and 1 the maximum is one, and in the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 exclusive of 0 and 1, there is no maximum. In fact in the second set there is no minimum either.

Second, this idea of "maximal" depends on some idea of "greater" in the first place. For an easy example of where this does not make sense, consider the complex numbers. There is no way to order to complex numbers w/o taking some sort of magnitude, and there is no way even with taking a magnitude to state a maximum without previously stating what number has that maximal magnitude. Another example would be the set of sets of two real numbers, i.e. R^2, which has the same problem. You could impose a magnitude of course that set one of these to yield a "maximal greatness" but it would be trivial to construct another magnitude that yielded a different maximal greatness and in fact equally trivial to construct a magnitude so that the point of "maximimal greatness" was conceived to be the point of "minimal greatness".

Thus all we can really say is that we have the linguistic conventions that allow us to piece these two words together in a phrase and mean something because both words are defined arbitrarily by some standard. But this is so short of the mark wanting to be achieved by this argument that there is no reason to continue from this point. 

So where does one begin with an essay on a conservative Christian hell and it's implications? I will attempt to show how this idea intersects with conservative Christian behavior and ideaology as best I can, and welcome comments from conservative Christians and others alike. I just want to make clear that this is my own experience, and I can't say concretely that it applies to every conservative Christian, though I have been to several churches and have gotten similar ideas from all of them.

First, what is the conservative Christian hell? Well, it's hard to say. There's a lot of disagreement here. The theology that always seemed best to me and does coincide with certain veins of conservative Christian theology is that of annihilationism. This doctrine says that those who do not accept Jesus will not be sent into hell, but rather completely destroyed, into nonexistance. Personally I don't fear nonexistance especially, so this was much easier for me to stomach than the alternative. Unfortunately most conservative Christians I have met do not agree with this doctrine. Using a very literal interpretation of the Bible, this was necessary for me because if one reads Hebrews 6 and parts of the gospel a certain way it becomes evident that A) there exists an unforgivable sin, and this will damn the soul to hell, and B) if one backslides and leaves the faith, then one can never come back, one is damned to hell EVEN IF one at a later date wanted to come back. This is not an uncommon view, and I can attest that many do believe it strongly. This unfortunately was the object of my own rather tragic case of obsessive compulsive disorder. The disease generally presented itself as an ideaology that suggested that even the most minute of tasks could be detrimental to salvation. This was taken to the absurd in my case, and I my mind would suggest that if I did not do something completely unrelated to religion that I would be damned to hell. Is this totally against conservative Christian teaching? The simple answer is... no. Jesus tended to speak hyperbolically at times, and this hyperbole, when interpreted literally and not as hyperbole, can lead to the idea that sins abound everywhere. The idea of "inaction is action" is fully present here, and it is seen in the general confessions of sin used in even more liberal churches today, as they often state "we confess that we have sinned, in what we have done, and what we have left undone". What I point out here most fervently is that taken ad absurdum, especially in conjunction with St. Paul's proclamations that anything not done in faith is sin, this leads to a state of what might be called analysis paralysis. It is impossible to do everything that can possibly be construed as "right". For example, take walking past the homeless every day, something that is quite common in Berkeley. Charity is considered a virtue, so would it not be virtuous to give EVERYTHING one has to the poor? Jesus even made this clear when talking to the rich man. Granted, some would say that by grace we are relieved of this impossibility, but that is not AT ALL clear from the passage.

So, post that tangential discussion, how does the idea of hell interact with ones interactions with others. It really depends on the person. I have met conservative Christians who have no qualms with the idea of hell, and may in fact go somewhere near Tertullian when he said that the greatest pleasure in heaven will be to watch the tortures of the damned. Some people glory in hell's "justice" or so they might call it. Others are highly disturbed by the idea, and often get around it by simply not thinking about it much. But then why do they accept it if they do not find it to be "just"? There are two main reasons for this. One, this idea of hell is a source of doubt, and in most conservative Christian circles, doubt is considered normal, and is in fact a "test" from god, that will strengthen the faith. This is basically cult psychology, knowing that the absurdity of the belief will be questioned, but stating that questioning is good, but not in the sense of real questioning, rather in the sense that all questioning should lead back to the beliefs, and any other conclusion is the work of Satan and is the product of someone not thinking enough, someone not contemplating enough. Two, hell is often considered part of a package deal. The idea is that if you are a conservative Christian and are convinced by some of the literal interpretation of scripture, you have to take it all literally and accept all conclusions even if you don't agree with them or else you are a hypocrite, and are picking and choosing your theology (which, in my opinion, really isn't a bad thing). For me this, and the fact that god did not intervene when I became very ill, led to the conclusion that god is much like he is in Ecclesiastes and Job, seemingly uncaring, seemingly random, and that the we should worship him simply because he is god, i.e. his marvelousness demands worship. I had a conversation with someone once who stated that if I had experienced the conservative Christian god then I would do what he told me to do, making the comparison to Abraham's near sacrifice of his son. And I replied, quite strongly, No, I would not do such a thing, because any god who would demand it is not worthy of my worship, and I would never serve such a god even if he did exist. Many do not take this view, they simply see the nonexistance as reason enough and do not feel they need to consider the possibility of the conservative Christian god's existance. I have generally agreed with these people, but as the question often comes up in conservative Christian circles, I am equipped with that answer, I believe, as the father of one famous poet did that "He did not look at Christianity as a delusion, but as a moral evil". Granted, I do not impute the immorality or unethicalness to all churches, as many do not believe the things that I am saying here. But I do say that if these are believed, then I believe the belief is unethical, and would not follow such a god even if it were proven that he existed. If he was anything like how many think of him, I would consider it an unethical, immoral choice to follow him, even if that choice resulted in the greatest punishment imaginable. I will not compromise my morals in my religious ideas, if and when I have any.

So, some may ask, why is it that conservative Christians can still talk to nonbelievers normally, if it is believed that God will damn them to hell? Well there are a few answers to this. I heard it often stipulated that the best way to convert someone was to gain their trust by befriending them. This was said in a noncultic manner, but it is obviously cultic to any outside observer. The justification is of course that conversion will save them from hell, and therefore the atempt to convert someone is really a form of loving that person. I did not find this a immoral at all when I first heard it, and throughout my stay in the conservative church I felt the same way. What is quite easily obtained from this doctrine is that dating someone of a different religion, interreligious romantic relationships, are most definitely out. And I strongly agree with this doctrine, even after I have left the conservative church, because you CANNOT realistically have a relationship with someone who believes that you are going to hell. There is of course the idea of dating with hopes of converting the person, but that was unanimously decried in my church, as it should be. But this is quite revealing. It shows that emotional entanglements with those outside their ideaology leads to problems. This is to be expected, as how is it possible to be strongly in love with someone, thereby finding them to be a good and decent person, worthy of ones love, and yet believe that they are not worthy of heaven? It is something like that that breaks the faith. However, the church usually makes a point of demonizing other religions, and making large, dubious claims of the differences between themselves and everyone else. This is, of course, absurd, and anyone remotely familiar with religious studies will realize this, anyone who has read the Bible will instantly see that it is a religious document, and that it is not unlike other religious documents, the same prejudices are there, the same ideas of hell for the outsider are there, the same cultic practices to keep people within the religion are still there. The Bible is not, though it is often said to be, the "good book", it is in fact a document written by many authors with different agendas and prejudices and this is quite evident on a disinterested reading of the text.

Perhaps I will extend this later. I welcome any comments, especially those that insist that I have left something out that should be in here.

During the days

when darkness shines brightest

against the black haze of day

that penetrating haze

everlasting

or so it seems

when it invades the soul

Such days are at times innumerable

and seem to have no end

In other times they are quite countable

and negligable for the moment

This is the fate of man

to walk about this earth

in days of darkness and light

in darkness his mind forgets the light

and in light his mind forgets the darkness

our selective memory spells both our doom

and our salvation

Do not fear

as you enter these dark times

for though they seem to never end

though the end is not clear

and though you cannot help but cry

a thousand tears in these times

do not store these tears

think not of them

let each pass from your eyes

and with it a piece of the sorrow pass from your memory

keep only the lesson of the times

we do not at first attempt this

nor in our second or third attenuations to the moment

but as time passes

so does pain

though our hearts grow weary

they will be young again

and though our tears outnumber the grains of sand

so our joys will soon overcome them

Is it not possible that in an altered state of consciousness one might be able to better approach abstract space?

Is it not also possible that this altered state of consciousness has been achieved but no one has used it for such purposes? Or if someone has it has not been well reported?

If we think of an abstract problem, is it not conceivable that that problem would be better approached outside of our concrete literal interpretation of reality that is most familiar to us? That is to say is it possible to relieve ourselves of this barrier of experience, the barrier of heuristic intuition, and approach the problem from an abstract point of view if such can be achieved?

Is it possible that the greats of science and mathematics have achieved this before, and it is in this way that they can "see" the problem? Though they have not attacked the problem of understanding their problem solving techniques, and have not actively worked to show how to reproduce such an effect, this does not mean that such an endeavor is impossible.

If we could relieve ourselves of physical intuition and simply grab for true understanding, beyond even linguistic convention, to perhaps understand the abstract to the same degree that we see the concrete, one might even say "see" the abstract, but such an idea is odd in the sense that we are trying to relieve ourselves of physical experience and not extend it, thought such extension might also be worth examining, though it seems so long as we are tied by physical three dimensional experience, we could not extend into the fourth dimension or higher or abstract spaces because we have no grounding in such ideas.

And so I intend to do as follows. Use legal methods of altering consciousness in an attempt to approach a problem and see if my problem solving abilities can be improved. I will skip narcotics because of their illegality, even though they could possibly be useful, and because of my petty supply of finances. Instead we can approach this by herbal experiment, meditative experiment, experiments in certain kinds of deprivation, i.e. light/sight deprivation, sound deprivation, perhaps even sensory deprivation entirely. I will not extend into physically harmful forms of deprivation including sleep deprivation or long term sustenance deprivation, though it is thought by some that fasting can be at least used for reasons of concentrating on the god figure of their choice, why is it not so that this cannot be used to concentrate on something of actual value, say the scientific/mathematical problem at hand? Is this not at least somewhat worthwhile? Again, is it not possible that hard excercise, to the point of exhaustion, could allow for an altered state of consciousness? Of course being watched by another to avoid the onset of a neurosis of some kind, as this would be a most terrible result.

It seems that some people do this without knowing what they are doing at a low level. There are those that close their eyes to visualize, there are those that manipulate unseen abstract objects with their hands as though they existed (apart from severe neuroses, again). Perhaps this experiment is nothing but the logical conclusion of such techinques.

What is attraction?

What allows it to occur?

If the ability to become attracted is minimized is this a good thing or a bad thing or both?

In what ways?

What causes such minimization?

Is it merely medication or is it also a psychological mindset?

Recently I experienced a situation where I found someone quite attractive (in the sense of aesthetically pleasing, not in the sense of true attraction like I talk about here), quite nice, and quite interesting, and yet did not have much interest in her, at first I had almost no interest even as a friend.

Why is this the case? What causes this lack of attraction? The easiest answer is that this was a case where the chemical reactions that would normally cause strong attraction were not there for physiological or medicinal reasons. Though this goes deeper I think.

I have, on more than one occasion, expressed the will to be neuter, to be without gender, neither male nor female. The standard reply to this is that sexuality is a part of life, that it should not be abandoned. This seems all well and good, but I do not always see the necessity of this aspect of life.

It could be argued that earlier relationships caused this as a defensive mechanism. This would fit well with my past, and would not seem out of place. This is portrayed well in the song by Billy Joel entitled “And so it goes”. This also seems problematic as it contradicts my actions in other arenas. At times I have actively sought out women that I could develop a relationship with, though in this case, which , granted, was entirely platonic as far as I was concerned, I had no interest in such a connection, for no reason I cannot rightly fathom. This is in opposition to earlier acts in which, with far less reason, I became attracted to women I hardly knew. The queerness of this whole situation is that I did not emote in any particularly way, though I believe I put up a façade of doing so. Do not take me wrong though, I did enjoy the conversation, but there was something in me that was not particularly interested in doing anything beyond that.

Perhaps this is a developmental issue. That is, post some very bad relationships, I have developed a better sense of what I want in a partner, and this individual did not have those characteristics. But it would be hard for me to qualify how that is true in this case. Granted she does not share my interest in my academic arenas, but this always seemed a small thing to me, and that interesting conversation was far more important.

The medical issue always seems prominent. The medications I am on are known to cause apathy in the realm of romance and in the bigger realm of sexuality in general.

But the queerness is this

I am not sure that what I am going through is particularly bad

Though it seems that it is not particularly good either.

Perhaps this is not queer to the reader. Perhaps the reader immediately assumes that, because I am mentally ill, such irregularities are to be expected, and the queer is truly not queer at all. But I am currently stable, so far as I am aware. It is not a point, in my mind, that is up for debate. I have had no major episodes of depression for quite a while, and have generally been quite productive when I have needed to be. So I would argue that in this case, though it may not have been before, the queer is truly queer.

For what reasons would this be considered bad?

Well, first and foremost it seems that I am neglecting a part of my existence.

But am I truly? Many have thought through the ages that total abstinence from any sexual activity is a sign of saintliness, a mark of those in religious orders. The monk is often of this type. He is the man (though I see no reason why a woman could not perform the same feat) that is totally focused on his work, in this case generally the work of the lord, or so he thinks. Though it must be said that even in the early years AD at least one church father was accused of having castrated himself as a jab against him, I assume as a way of proclaiming the absurdity of the new religion, and the extremism inherent in it. Was it not Jesus who proclaimed that if the right eye sins, cut it out, for it is better to go into the kingdom of heaven blind than be thrown into hell altogether? Similarly with the arm, and so it would follow similarly with the sexual organs. Though there was a myth that a man plucked out his eyes in an attempt to destroy his lustful feelings, and it is said that he came back to his priest and said that this extremism had not stopped his lust, indeed I believe he claimed that it had made it worse.

It is well known that castration is deeply harmful to the person who is being castrated. A quick drop in testosterone is known to cause a deep depression, and if the act is physical the damage associated with such an act is enough to kill a man. Chemical castration has yielded similar results with depression, and has been shown to not always be effective in violent sexual offenders. It seems that their sexual violence did not arise solely from an overproduction of testosterone, or something similar. Could it be that man is simply wired to need attachment, and that that wiring can be disfigured into a violence, and that testosterone, though perhaps it creates a sexual libido, does nothing for the human need for companionship? The very idea that this need exists is in opposition to the idea that testosterone is the sole proponent of sexual desire, for it can easily be argued that sex is the closest connection one can have with another person, so sexual desire may not be produced totally via testosterone.

To refer back to the Biblical example, we have St. Paul saying that those who do not have the fire in their loins (or something similar) should abstain from sex. This seems to indicate that some men simply do not need such companionship. It is even suggested in some places that the marriage still happens but there is no sex within it. But this neglects my point above that perhaps sexual connection is the deepest personal connection one can have with someone.

But perhaps it isn’t. We know that some people are promiscuous and it is a foolish thing to assume that all of them are necessarily depressed with their actions, though Johnny Cash opines of this distress in some song speaking of the agony of having a different woman every night.

But this idea only furthers my claim of the need for companionship being of great importance. Promiscuousness (in its true form) ends up destroying any form of real connection between the two individuals that have sex. This may in fact be tantamount to ripping themselves apart even as they are connected by a physical bond. This does not, however, put me in the same position as conservative Christians who argue that abstinence before marriage is the only moral choice. I refuse to say this. However I would posit that sex without commitment of any sort can be damaging to the individuals involved. It does not seem unreasonable that, just as one needs to see if one meshes with ones partner emotionally and intellectually and possibly spiritually if one wants to think in that term, is it not possible that meshing physically is of supreme importance, and that without this a marriage will not be as it should be, or a long term relationship will not be as it should be. As Lewis Black pointed out, those who practice total abstinence “Are gamblers on a level that I cannot conceive”.

But again I ask myself if it is so bad that I lack the sexual desire that seems to be inherent in the idea of a romantic relationship. I don’t believe this is the case. If I could find a woman who is in a similar position, I would assume that a relationship could work out, and that our mere need for companionship could give the necessary fuel to the relational commitment. Sex may even still occur, without the libido aspect but purely as a physical connection. This may seem absurd to many, but I do not consider it absurd a priori, because anyone who finds something absurd a priori has given up the philosophical mindset, and might as well be a slug, which never needs think of such things.

Perhaps this lack of libido is a prominently good thing in that it keeps the overwhelming physical desires out of my thoughts. It is, to be a bit crude, the idea that Chris Rock puts forward in one of his bits, that if one finds oneself totally and abjectly attracted to a woman sexually, one should masturbate, and then come back again and see what he thinks now. The idea being that the overwhelming physical urge will come to pass, but the stupidity of the decision will perhaps take longer to pass.

But then again, what does romantic desire amount to over platonic desire? In this case it would seem to simply be a desire to be with the person more consistently, to understand the person more fully, to dive into the other person’s soul and heart and mind, and not look back for fear of rejection. To open oneself fully so that connections can form that, while objectively dangerous when simply thought of as the potential for pain involved, will further an overall connection, and this will bring the individuals closer together.

But this gives sexual orientation a problem. Why is it that heterosexual men should still want women companions w/o their libido? Similarly for heterosexual women, and vice versa for homosexual men and women. Is this merely a function of the purely sexual or not? I would argue that it is not, but this is based on personal experience. In my experience I have not felt a desire to be more closely connected with a man than I have with a woman, EVEN THOUGH I didn’t have a substantial, or even existent, libido at the time. Thus, ones orientation may indeed have nothing to do with ones production of sexual hormones, in fact it may have more to do with a mental state, what one wants in ones closest companion rather than what one gender one would prefer to have sex with.

But these are all thoughts from an individual with a queer mindset (here not meaning homosexual). But, as I have said before, perhaps I am can see things that those who do not share my afflictions cannot. Perhaps I can see beyond libido because I lack it, and perhaps this is a good thing. Perhaps we would do better if we looked beyond libido, without rejecting it all together of course, but this could probably only be seen in absence of such. I, as I have often said, casually think of thoughts unthinkable.

The Psychology of a Christian Camp Experience

Due to the release of the movie Jesus Camp, people who would not otherwise have seen what goes on at a Christian Summer Camp have now experienced, in a superficial way, this phenomenon. I say superficial for two reasons. First because this is a particularly absurd case, it does not show what a conservative Christian Camp is like, but only what a rather pathological charismatic interpretation looks like, and of course, pathological cases do not show anything interesting (in either an enlightening or disturbing way) about the general case. I will here analyze my own experiences of approximately 8-9 summers where I attended Christian summer camps. Granted, this is a limited view as well, but I do not see the church I attended throughout my childhood and my teenage years as pathological. I have been to at least 7 churches which have similar theology and would probably hold similar summer camps if they had enough children and willing adult supervisors to take on such an endeavor. Though I must admit that a few of the churches I have been to around my college had rather sophisticated theological ideas, and would have been remiss to give the unenlightening promises that characterized my experience in these camps to children of their own congregations, the majority did not. Most in fact had cobbled together something trivial that would have broken down easily under any theological scrutiny, but such scrutiny was not encouraged, and the requisite knowledge to develop the ability to apply such scrutiny was not taught at these churches, and would have to have been gained via other sources, either something so formal as reading the works of Calvin, Luther, and Barth (I would hesitate greatly before naming almost any modern evangelical writer, especially those who write pop theology; one particularly heinous example is that cretan who attempts to wax theological, and fails miserably consistently, Rick Warren). The one church with a particularly well developed theology was of the small denomination called the OPC, orthodox presbyterian church, and I encourage any of my readers who are Christians to find churches of that denomination or in general any of the reformed tradition, OPC, PCA (Presbyterian Church of America), Reformed Baptist or other denominations beginning with the word "Reformed", and some Epsicopal churches are equally theologically sound in the liberal theological tradition. But I digress.

These camps were often known as "mountaintop experiences", in partial reference to the sermon on the mount, and particularly in that after one leaves one of these experiences the emotions and ideas promoted at these gatherings tend to dissipate quickly. Children are often particularly encouraged to avoid letting this take place, though it almost always works that way in a sense. But this is only in a sense. Yes, it is true that they will act differently then they would seem to if they truly believed what was taught at the camp, but this does not mean that the ideas have not left them. They are still almost assuredly carried subconsciously, and will at the very least promote ideas of the sinfulness of their current lifestyles, and general guilt at their practices that do not conform to what is taught. This guilt can be debilitating, and in my case were firmly situated so as to build high and unmeetable standards that led to quite a bit of misery. It is not uncommon for those who believe in such a tradition to argue that they are freed from the biblical law, and now live by faith, but it is curious to note that they must still observe impossible standards, and accept their inability to achieve them as marks of their wretchedness and sinfulness, though this is not as consciously harrowing as it sounds when stated plainly. I cannot say for sure what my compatriots at these camps thought about their state of fallenness, I can only say that for myself it was a source occasional but sharps feeling of inadequacy. Why this is not constant for most people is probably because they don't truly think about what they are believing, and so only occasionally come to the dark and miserable conclusions that such beliefs entail. They will say that they will take up their cross and follow Jesus, though they do not often come to terms with the idea of real nails piercing their bare flesh and holding them firmly to a plank of raw wood, after being scourged thoroughly so that the roughness of the wood exacerbates the pain of the recently inflicted lash wounds.

One relatively well-known mountain-top experience would be the viewing of the movie "The Passion of the Christ". It shows graphically the torture inflicted upon Jesus when he was crucified (though it is not often remembered that many besides Jesus were crucified, some in even more painful ways, and in general that there are many equally and more painful ways to die) and causes the Christians to tear up and wallow in the pain of their savior, while I believe it would cause many atheists and agnostics to become ill at the idea that this death was proposed to be necessary for the salvation of the world, that anyone would make such a film depicting this atrocity. This theme is not uncommon in the camps, focusing on the pain suffered by the savior, and that they deserve such pain but were spared it (though it is not often explained rationally how anyone would be deserving of such a miserable death, nor how the endless torment that defines hell is in any way legitimate as a punishment for temporal sins, except to say that an eternal god demands perfection, and will wield eternal damnation for those who cannot meet his impossibly high standards). This theme was a source of great pain for myself, and a destruction of any self-esteem that I could have hoped to have had. It is not easy to think well of oneself when told that one is a wretched sinner, and whose acts are like dirty rags before god, even if they be exemplary in any human terms. It is not hard to imagine oneself as totally worthless when told exactly that, and when in addition told that the only thing that makes one worthy is because of a seemingly irrational decision of the deity, the idea is compounded.   

The purpose of these camps is disputable. Some would argue that they are centers of indoctrination, which would make sense considering that the child or teenager is surrounded by his peers from the church and doubtlessly feels as though he is wrong should he not agree with something that is promoted at the camp, because there is a venier of common agreement. And in general children and teenagers are not strong in their beliefs, by this I mean that they could not argue their position if they had one, and so will believe, at least in a church environment, whatever they are told, because they feel that their own ideas are inadequate, as they cannot defend them eloquently. Of course this all is only concerning the individuals that actively listen to what is being said and consciously accept it, not those who come along for the fun and games that these camps provide, and only subconsciously pick up what is being said in the sermons. Others would argue that these are fellowship experiences, being able to get support from those who belief similarly to oneself. In a sense these camps provide a place where the campers can be around those whose worldview is similar to their own, or, in more negative terms, a place where campers can be surrounded by those who believe the worldview that is accepted by the church and thus can be easily convinced of the truth of its ideas. But this also plays of the idea of persecution by the outside world, those who aren't "one of us", non-christians who, the campers are told, promote an alternative worldview that leads to sorrow and misery, or sometimes put into even more extreme terms, and evil worldview that is held by sinners and those who are simply not willing to believe what is evidently true. This is an oft argued idea, that is particularly potent in these environments, that those who do not believe as the church does do so not because they believe their worldview is more enlightening or correct, but because they do not wish to submit to God, they want to continue in their sinful ways even though they know they are wrong. Something along the lines of arguing that this truth promoted in this environment is obvious to all, and that those who do not hold it are without excuse, as St. Paul would say.

Many people would argue that they've been to many of these camps and never heard the leaders say what I am explicating here. If we concentrate only on what is literally said then they are probably right in some ways. The days of harsh sermons heard by protestant ears ended with the late great Jonathan Edwards, and his mercilessly eloquent "Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God", but it is not true that his theology died with him. Edwards was merely particularly honest about his theology. He said up front what the consequences of his ideology were, including the idea that the roads of hell were paved by the skulls of unbaptized infants. Alas, the golden years of theology have passed us. I can't imagine a camp that didn't mention the idea of a worldly perspective against a spiritual perspective, in whatever terms they wished to use, so the "us" vs. "them" is always present. However the miserable sinner aspect may be lacking. But then, what is summer camp without an altar call? For those who are not familiar with that particular piece of Evangelical terminology I will explain here. An altar call is a time when people come up to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, i.e. convert to Christianity. This is true even at camps that have students in elementary grades. Though I cannot remember my particular thoughts at age 10, I would guess that I was more concerned with having time to play with my friends then the particular implications of Christian theology. But there still are those who accept while they are there. Imagine the surprise of the family who isn't Christian, when their son, who was told about this summer camp by a friend, and convinced his parents that he wanted to go (for any number of reasons, but the furthest from his mind was undoubtedly becoming a Christian, for, if he had wanted that he could have just done it before he came to camp), tells his parents that not only is he a Christian, but that they are going to hell because they are going to Hell because of what they believe. Imagine the psychological trauma inherent in believing that ones parents are going to hell. It is unbelievable, and it cannot easily be grasped by those outside of Christianity. The second problem inherent in that is that the church does not go out of their way to keep in contact with the children who have "accepted" on this special occasion, so they not only inflict the trauma, but don't bother to console the poor child in this odd predicament. To those who say that hell was never a part of their summer camp, I can only say that in every summer camp I can remember there was someone crying as they accepted Christ for the first time. Now what can cause a 10 year old mind to cry from the "joy" of accepting Christ for the first time? Fear or sorrow. There is no other choice. Either fear for their eternal souls or sorrow at their past "misdeeds", whatever it is that a child of 10 could have done that is so maleovolent as to attract the attention of the divinity and were therefore the cause of Jesus' suffering in one way or another.

I can remember clearly an example of this. It was after chapel. We had gone for silent reading. This was a time for us to reflect on the lesson and read the Bible, for us to stew in our own thoughts of the divine. I was behind the chapel, next to a door that went in to the chapel that no one ever really used, as the main door was much more easily available. I had my hands folded in the standard prayer position, though not kneeling, tears flowing down my cheeks as I pondered my own wretchedness. At that time the offense was thinking lustfully of a woman. Women plural I suppose, I was a teenager after all, and had pined over more than one girl in my time. It is stated in the Bible that this is the equivalent of sleeping that woman, the lovely word fornication being the noun of choice, and if she is attached this is of course equivalent to cheating, and if she is married this is equivalent to adultery. So far I had not committed adultery by these terms, but I had cheated (or rather, been involved in someone cheating) and fornicated. My mind was racked by guilt at what I could not seem to achieve, that of course being that unspoken perfection of the Evangelicals, absolute and permanent abstention from all sexual thoughts and especially acts, which would in effect demand the individual be a eunuch. I cannot believe I was the only one who saw castration as the best option for ending the horrible situation I found myself in, short of suicide (which would of course only make things worse). For a young, shy, thoughtful individual such as myself, dating was not something I had ever done, so the sexual thoughts associated with that endeavor were beyond me, in fact I was so thoroughly repressed that I had no real idea of what sex was, and my desires were for close companionship and romantic feelings. However, no one there bothered to make the distinction. All sexual thoughts were immoral. To look on erotica of any sort was also a grave sin, and I had done this for a time, though never anything more explicit than a topless female. In addition I never masturbated to this material, so, as it is said, curiosity killed the cat, or more to the point, curiosity showed how worthless and wretched the cat was, and showed eminently how thoroughly he deserved hell. I have made a point that thinking ones parents are going to hell is quite a terrible experience, but to further see that you yourself are damned to hell, this is pure terror, this is pure fear. I remember clearly wondering if I had accepted Jesus "correctly", if my particular method was correct, if I had truly meant it and so forth. The addition that backsliding would prevent me permanently from ever going to heaven didn't come to my attention until later, when I read the very verses that state this, but suffice it to say that fear that I was not sure of my eternal situation was horrific.

This would not be complete without a discussion of my own specific memories of the camps. I will describe one preculiar camp experience that was fundamental in my growing up in the church, and is one of the few summer camps whose topic I can remember. This was an interesting experience because they wanted to talk about, of all things, the book of the Bible named either Songs, Songs of Solomon, or Song of Songs, depending on who you ask. For those who aren't familiar with the book, Song of Songs is the expressions of love of Solomon, a Jewish king, and his dark skinned lover. It's particularly strange because the rest of the Bible is rather condemnatory of sex, though not nearly in the pronounced fashion of Christian and the New Testament. There is the law against covetousness which specifically mentions coveting ones neighbor's wife (sadly in the same breath as animals, land, and other chattel), and is particularly harsh about pre-marital sex, except in the horrific case of a man raping a woman, in which case the man is forcibly married to the woman. Even worse is that in cases of incest, the father and the daughter are both stoned to death, essentially assuming that the daughter, at any age, is partially responsible. It is rather odd that Song of Songs never makes it clear that Solomon's lover is in any way connected to the Judaism, in fact it is clear from the emphasis of her dark skin that she is not of Jewish heritage. Some particularly laughable scholars have suggested that this is an example of the love of Christ for his church, church here being the united body of believers everywhere, somehow suggesting that God has "eros" love for his church, eros being erotic love, as opposed to the one Jesus is normally associated with, "agape", meaning unconditional love. But nothing will stop an avid repressed individual from entirely separating the Bible from any form of sexuality. Strangely, this camp concentrated on erotic love between a couple, though it should not be completely confused with that as Solomon had some 500 wifes and equally many concubines. One would think that after the first 100 wives a man would become cognisent of the fact that one wife is enough trouble as it is. Also it seems to excuse for the moment the commandment against adultery, though to be fair Solomon did not have sex with this woman, according to the Biblical story, until he had married her, though polygamy seems unbelievably adulterous to most sensible people, if not the breeding grounds for the contemporary idea of women being property. Imagine if you will, how any conservative evangelical preacher could manage to teach from this overtly sexual book. Of course at no time did the girls and boys have discussions in each others presences about this book, instead of the discussions were limited to single gender groups, on the idea that men's and women's sexuality should be discussed only in the presence of that gender. One can clearly understand how this would inevitably fail to provide any meaningful understanding of sexual love, especially under the strictly heterosexual premises, as it is utterly insipid to think that men can understand women in the company of merely other men, similarly for women understanding men. I should add that this camp was particularly prudish in another way. To explain it in their own terms I will say what I was told, that  boys were blue, and girls were pink, and that we were not to make purple, that is no public displays of affection or private displays of affection anywhere on the premises at any time. They made a reference to homosexuality in the jest that there should neither be flaming royal blue (I am quoting here), nor hot pink. This made for a very interesting combination, talking about sexuality while forcibly restraining anything remotely sexual. One would think that the discussion would bring on feelings with it, but it was made clear that, in accordance with the sermon on the mount, boys and girls could not think any sexual thoughts about persons of the other gender, though I've often heard the rather vague conclusion that sexual thoughts were alright if it was about a nonspecific person. How one clearly has thoughts of sexuality with an unspecified person is a bit beyond me, unless one is imagining oneself masturbating (while, most probably, masturbating). I myself strangely did not hold the same position of some of the more conservative end of the group, one James Dobson encapsulating it best in his total abhorrence for masturbation and, at one point (I have read this in an online article on his website) suggesting that even long conversations with the opposite gender was going to far. One hesitates to think what kind of relationship would form under the hospices of such rubbish, even friendships with the opposite gender would suffer greatly. I'm not entirely sure that any male has ever followed this policy, and I am almost certain that the writer of this incalculably prudish piece was married when he wrote it, and so suffered no inconvenience by his pronouncements. In fact it is not uncommon to meet adults in an evangelical church who have gone far and away from this policy, and then turn around and tell the students in junior high or high school groups to avoid their example. Of course this involves what are often called testimonies, they are, in effect, slanted, short autobiographies, characterized by the person imputing their deeds that are not proper with being tempted by Satan, and good fortune following a change of habit to God himself. This generally wows it's intended audience, sometimes to the point of tears. The testimonies given at this particular time were fairly consistent, running something like "I had sex before marriage. It made me sad. Don't do it", though some people (most assuredly not all) were more eloquent than that. These generally were people who did not grow up in the church, though a surprising amount of people, in cases like this, would speak about their conversion from Catholicism or some other heretical/heterodox body of believers, and how miserable their pathetic lives were.

If you are to understand the conservative Christian ideology, you must understand its sectarian nature. There are various degrees of sectarianism present in conservative churches, though most placed around my college campus were vague on this clause. The most liberal idea is called Open Theology, which basically says that everyone is going to heaven. The next tier down are those who believe that people of any faith have the possibility of getting into heaven if they, in some way, conform to the values of Christianity, and the ways of Jesus. This is not entirely vapid of intelligent theology, but it is quite selective in the Biblical verses it chooses to site. Most assuredly the entire book of Revelation is out. This gore filled, psychotic, possibly drug induced, dream is a favorite for those in the next few tiers down, that believe that either all born-again Christians are going to heaven, or all devout members of their particular sect are. Revelation glories in the sufferings of those in the "end times". Tim LeHaye is famous for his fiction books on the subject, which grew so absurd as to be laughable by the end. And this is to be expected, the book is sheerly absurd. It's blood stained pages have given more than one hellfire preacher more than enough material to work from. 100 pound hailstones, rivers turning to blood, the sun scorching those on earth to death. In chapter 9 alone, one third of the population of the earth is destroyed. In Chapter 14, this particularly nasty verse shows up "And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand [and] six hundred furlongs." For those who aren't familiar with the furlong, or horses, this means that an area of about 322 square kilometers contained enough blood to reach the horses bridles gives 51 520 000 liters of blood. A human being has approximately 5 litres of blood in his body, so this would involve the leaching the blood of more than 10 million individuals. Though this might be an underestimate, as the bodies of the men would pile up. If we assume each person as a cylinder of 35 inch circumference and 2 meter height, this gives, if the bodies are piled up neatly, a pile 17 bodies thick everywhere. That would be a pile about 12 feet high of human flesh. That's assuming that the bodies were water-tight (or rather, blood-tight). This is assuming that he meant 1600 furlongs squared, if he meant a 1600 x 1600 furlong space, the number of dead humans becomes more than 3 trillion, leeched entirely of every drop of blood in their body.
 
I have also been on the other end of one of these experiences as well. I was part of a mission team to Mexico a few of my years in high school. We essentially prepared a VBS (vacation bible school) for the children there, and prepared some things for the church as well, i.e. for the other members of the congregation. We had a "drama team" that prepared a nonverbal sketch for the congregation, nonverbal because only a few of us spoke Spanish. One of the years I was part of this mission, I was in the drama team. We prepared a sketch that essentially had two people that were hellbound and two people that were heavenbound. All of them had done something that was "sinful", and in this case were deeds that many people, including atheists and agnostics, would consider misdeeds. My particular individual, if I remember correctly, had stolen money from someone. He refused to do the right thing and return the money (though it was not made clear that he would have to face any other consequences). So, in the end, he was pulled down by a pair of demons into what one could only assume was hell. I remember doing my best to have the most agonied, tortured face I could muster, showing just how bad I could imagine hell to be.

Strangely enough, in that same experience I gave a testimony. Testimonies, as a spoke about earlier, are the mainstay of camps like this. As I said before, they are generally overwrought, overdramatic pieces written by individuals who have suffered in some way and managed to free themselves of it and then gave all the credit to their unseen Father above. This is of course a generalization, occasionally someone will come up with a story of true, intense suffering, though again, they give any and all credit for getting themselves out of that situation to God. The worst part of these ordeals is that it is often said that what happened was directed by god himself, in order to forcibly make the person "grow". This is of course a direct consequence of the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal god, but it can have some severe consequences. "Growth" in Christian terms, is intended to mean a deepening of the individual's faith, though it often simply boils down to someone traveling further and further into their particular delusion of how the world works, further and further accepting the conclusion that their god can do whatever he pleases, and the mere fact that he does it implies that it was right. God and his ways, as the Old Testament attests, are unknowable, this of course a sheer rejection of divine responsibility; believing, essentially, that God is not answerable for his deeds, because he is god. One wonders if the individual would have accepted this harsh conclusion if they were presented with it up front. It is evident that a simplistic, ignorant Christianity sells, and that the cruel truth of the matter only comes later.

I will perhaps expound on this further at a later date, but currently I am a bit worn out by remembering all this.

Dear Midwestern Horrifically Ignorant Girl,

I would hate to protract our conversation, but I had to send this to you, because I didn't have the chance to be eloquent about how angry I was with you, nor how patently ignorant, shallow, and petty you are, you syphilitic pustule. You are not worth anyone's time, I pity the fool who takes you up on your offer. It is beyond ignorant to call someone who's mentally ill a "psycho", even people with schizophrenia or true psychosis. There are men and women who are mentally ill who have done more for this world than you will ever do. John Nash is a good example, the father of modern game theory, a man who's intelligence you cannot in fathom in your wildest dreams, which coincidentally probably involve cut, rich European bastards who have traveled all of the places you have. I hope you can make good conversation, have a great time talking about how nice it is to be rich enough to travel the world. Similarly Goedel, arguably the greatest logician who ever lived, suffered from paranoia, which was a true tragedy, but you would know nothing of tragedy, nothing of despair, nothing of any real content. Or Beethoven, who suffered from bipolar disorder, who you would dismiss as a "psycho" and not worth your precious time. Perhaps these are not enough? Perhaps Eugene O'Neill, who suffered from clinical depression, would be equally unworthy?Robert Schumann, Leo Tolstoy, John Keats, Van Gogh, Tennessee Williams, Isaac Newton, Ernest Hemingway, Michelangelo, Winston Churchill, Georg Cantor, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald, Stephen Foster, Peter Gabriel, Graham Greene, Alexander Hamilton, Hermann Hesse, Edvard Munch, Edgar Allen Poe, Emil Post, Mark Twain, Kurt Vonnegut, or Charles Dickens. Of course, none of them were "worthy" of you. You wouldn't have wasted your precious hours on these men, because they were "psychos", they were "insane". They were some of the greatest minds this world has ever experienced, and it will not forget their presence so long as there are kindred spirits of artistic passion. You of course, will be remembered for nothing, when you die your legacy will die with you. Perhaps you can aspire to cleaning toilets at the UN, or a janitor at the Hague. Then you could quite honestly say you have done something of value in one of your cavorting escapades. "The house of the wise is the house of mourning", I believe that speaks for itself. So the next time you break a nail at feel your world start to come apart at the seams, or even go so far as to break your leg walking in wretched high heels through the streets of Paris, perhaps go so far as a compound fracture, and feel a black pit of "despair" because there will always be a scar on your leg that every cute slug of rich upbringing will notice, and dismiss you as "non-mint", you pathetic wench, you insipid little whore.

Thank you for writing to me about health care.  I appreciate hearing the opinions of people like you who care about our great state and its people.

In January 2007, I proposed a market-based, revenue-neutral, comprehensive health care reform proposal that shares responsibility, covers all Californians and dramatically reduces the hidden tax we currently pay for health care.  The Assembly adopted the plan on December 17, 2007.  Unfortunately, the Senate Health Committee failed to approve the plan and missed a golden opportunity to provide health coverage for every Californian.

However, I will not give up.  I am determined to fix our broken health care system.  The Senate Health Committee vote was only a one-day setback.  A significant number of stakeholders from all walks of life across the state are continuing to partner with us to accomplish comprehensive health care reform.  In fact, our historic coalition is growing every day, and together, we will prevail.

 I knew fixing the system would be a difficult task when I proposed comprehensive health care in my 2007 State of the State address.  If it were easy, we would have had universal coverage 60 years ago - when Governor Earl Warren's reform plan fell short by one vote.  I worked diligently with my partners in the Legislature and labor, employer, provider, insurer and consumer groups to bring health care reform to this point, and I will not let this setback stand in the way of comprehensive reform.  After the great progress we made, I will not walk away.  This issue is too important, and the crisis is too serious.

The people of California have made it very clear: polls indicate 60 to 70 percent feel that our system is broken and needs reform.  If we neglect change, Californians with coverage will continue to pay a hidden tax for those who don't have coverage - or about $14.5 billion a year for the business community alone.  Our emergency rooms will continue to be overcrowded and close because they can't afford to stay open, and people will continue to be denied coverage and become bankrupt due to medical conditions that can be treated.  This is not right - it is too burdensome to the people and will not change unless something is done.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write.  Your input and involvement will continue to play an important role in making these reforms possible.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Prophet?
I am no prophet
for what I see is not without
but within
a solipsistic view as well
my introspection is all their is
for me, about me
my thoughts
my ideas
cannot but be formed by my mind
I cannot be imitated
I cannot be copied
for though one may write these words I write
one may pen these characters
they cannot do it as I did
in my own blood, sweat and tears
Even if one were to harvest my organs
and write with all these materials
one would still not have me
one could still not be me
see what I see
feel what I feel

Concentration
my mind is prepped
I can now think linearly
my nonlinear thoughts are made not only continuous and differentiable
but I have made a discretization
these thoughts are now separate
though part of the same function
they form from the same waves that are passing through me now
as we speak
from the same improbable placements of my quantum being at this moment

In depression
my mind plays a symphony
dark and foreboding
but still beautiful
in its own way
when controlled
when I can focus
without that focus it is nothing
similarly in hypomania
my mind writes the great american novel
but it must be controlled
so that I can focus
for without that focus
it is not but the unverstandlich ravings of a madman

Brilliance
this is not brilliance
Brilliance is what incredible men
do on dull mornings and afternoons
Brilliance is the tranquilized visions of the great
or the elevated visions of the otherwise mediocre
the great do not deal with brilliance
they put no stock in it
it is not but a byproduct of madness
controlled madness to be sure
but madness none the less