When first asked to remove our image (one associated with Satanism), we asked for clarification as to whether we were being asked or told. Our RA explained that while many were upset with our symbol, the only way to force us to remove it is if a rule was established which prohibited all window decor in campus dorm windows. This would make even more people unhappy. We asked our RA to respond to all requests by saying, “They have said they will remove their offensive sign if everyone on campus stops wearing their offensive CTR rings.” (CTR, “Choose the Right,” rings are associated with Mormonism.) We knew this was an unreasonable request which would never even be considered by the campus community. In fact, we didn’t care about CTR rings or even believe there was a Satan. But once the wheels of censorship were set in motion we thought we’d play around with it. We merely hoped to spark the thought in people’s minds that they display offensive symbols all the time. In our situation, Mormons have been forced to see one symbol they have labeled offensive once or twice a night for just over one school semester. Non-Mormons, on the other hand, have been forced to see many more symbols (which may be considered offensive to them) far more often, over any amount of time they spend on the USU campus (be it one semester, the duration of attaining a four-year degree, or longer).

The housing department at USU seems to have taken Bok’s point of view of persuasion where he says, “…talk with those responsible, seeking to educate and persuade rather than to ridicule or intimidate.” The department was only interested in educating us of their view, attempting to persuade us into believing it was wrong to display our symbol because it offended people. The department spent no time trying to see our view or understand our position. Bok’s suggestion that “only persuasion is likely to produce a lasting, beneficial effect,” is limited to the idea that the offended person’s view is correct, and the solution is to convince everyone else that they are wrong. His solution is to proselytize his viewpoint rather than to seek understanding of a differing viewpoint. Subliminally, and probably unconsciously, Bok offers a suggestion aimed at the destruction of diversity of thought and perception, uniting a one world view. Didn’t Hitler try to do that?

When I first read Bok’s prompt, it rang pretty true. If someone tries to bother you, ignore it. If that person can’t get a rise out of you, he will stop. But with a deeper read I have found much distortion in the path of his problem solving. The initial problem is that you can’t ignore things that offend you. If I say don’t think of an elephant, your cognitive response to translating the language will form a framework within your mind associated with the sound of the word (Lakoff). If you are truly offended as a naturally response to the sight of a symbol, you will be able to do no other than respond naturally to the sight. What makes an object offensive is not the object itself, but the perception of that object through the sociological (or psychological) lens of the perceiver. If someone is offended (hurt) by the existence of something, the reason (or problem, if one allows it to be so) lies within the perception of the offended, not by the nature of the object. In the case that someone is trying to bother you, they are actively attempting to achieve a response you don’t have to provide. If you are bothered by the nature of something, it is passively bothering you. Depending on the offense, that something may be unable to change. In either case, a true (natural) response will always be shown. If something offends you, you will be offended when confronted with that thing. If you can ignore it, it means you have come to terms with it, or can be not offended by it. Therefore it is up to you to keep from being bothered. You have to change some part of your thinking (viewpoint) in order to come to terms with that which you have no power to control.

The next part I quickly agreed with, but had difficulty with at a closer look, was Bok’s urging for us to bridge the gap of diversity, to talk things out. That sounds reasonable enough, but what he actually aims at is to talk with them in order to persuade them to believe what he does. He wants to educate them, as if they could be sensitive, caring, loving, truth-filled and righteous, if only they could learn what he knows. This is conceited ethnocentrism on a personal level, unless of course, if Bok is perfect and right about everything. He mentions nothing toward acceptance that people are different, or toward embracing diversity in thought or culture. He mentions nothing about talking with people bearing socially controversial symbols in hopes to understand their viewpoint, or come to some mutual understanding.

In the end, when you start outlawing symbols, you start a process of censorship, the destruction of freedom. Even if you succeed, you’ve outlawed images that do no harm, their power is given by people weak enough in mind and will to give them meaning and power. Still, with knowledge comes sensitivity (if for no other reason than the extreme that some nut might kill you for a brandishing a symbol on your person or belongings). The most important aspect here is quality of life. Only you have the power to not be offended. You can learn to accept, come to terms with, destroy or understand that which offends you. Anger and offense are products of fear. They lead to the dark side. Being scared, offended, hateful, or angry is self destructive. These emotions do no good to anyone, no harm to anyone else, and harm only the person harnessing them. Aren’t there better things to do with life?

Work Cited:
Bok, Derek, Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus, March 25, 1991, The Boston Globe

Dr. Huenemann expressed a strong agreement with my previous research. The way he would categorize “styles” of writing are by the style of the writer/researcher. In fact, all of these can be used in any one writing piece, by one type of person, but there are times when using only one style is common, and perhaps efficient.

Fact Finders are people who write philosophy like a scientific article. They often base all research and theories on evidences (mostly tangible), and provable theory. They rarely deal in the hypothetical. Charlie has heard it said that to fully explore something as simple as a question a child might ask, and answer it from the viewpoint of a lawyer. This form is very technical. They seek to explain. (This is the style of writing most of his technical writing for the department include.)

Self Expressionists are the artists of the philosophical styles. This form is less explaining and more explorative. This is the style that takes the reader on the same mental journey as the writer. The focus is often not to explain how things work, or why things are the way they are. Rather, the purpose is to figure those things out. The purpose of this style of writing seems to be written to figure out what the writer believes, or discover what the writer hopes to better understand. They seek to understand or figure out.

Skeptics are the regulators in the field. Charlie and came up with the analogy that, if the reason behind, and whole of the human experience was a grand puzzle, each of these three would play a part in the piecing of the puzzle. The Fact Finders would be trying to identify how each part human experience was a piece to that puzzle. They would also try to explain away the missing pieces to the puzzle in order to fit various theories, or formulate new ones. The self expressionists would seek to find their place in this puzzle, or to see what the big picture was that the pieces created. Skeptics take formulae and theories expressed by the other two style and basically shoot them down. They find holes in these theories, or show how the pieces don’t match up within the framework of the puzzle and its other pieces.

As a professor, Dr. Huenemann is expected to publish one peer reviewed article per year. He writes to the “Journal of the History of Philosophy,” a journal which denies ninety percent of its submissions. Charlie says that it’s reasonable to say that if he writes 2 articles per year, one of them will be published. Also, since the realm of philosophy is vast, covering epistemology, logic, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and history, Huenemann tries to stick to the area of the field with which he is most educated. Huenemann says “Pretty much all of my published articles have been on Spinoza and the Theory of Knowledge.”

Dialogue - conversation between characters or persons
Dialogue is important because it takes a subject and tries it in the realm of natural every day occurrence. (Plato’s Five Dialogues) This makes arguments seem far more tangible and less metaphysical. Dialogues are found in narratives (Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra), meditations (Descartes’ Meditations and Discourse on Method), and most semiformal to informal structures of philosophical writing (As seen in Thomas Nagel’s What Is It Like to Be a Bat?).

Meditation - a contemplative discourse
Meditation is a discourse not on arguments, but the contemplative monologue and brainstorming through a specified subject (a clarified ramble). This is one man at work for the sake of discovering what he believes from within, and why he does so. This is done to simply take some subject of any size and try to look at it from completely new lenses, and discover new truths about its nature (Wittengenstein’s On Certainty).

Essay - composition on a single subject, usually presenting the personal view of the author
Essays are written for the purpose of presenting a point of view and supporting why that point of view holds water. Philosophical essays are best written including a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. This can either be to start from a controversial topic, discuss both sides, and come to a common understanding that hopefully recognizes the strengths of both sides of the argument. Otherwise, this can start from thesis, show the antithesis (another viewpoint), and synthesize by shooting the argument full of holes. Essays are often used as articles, but are not always made for article material.

Prose - ordinary speech or writing, without metrical structure (including poetry and literary narratives)
Prose is a realm, which from the lenses of philosophy, includes most literary works and poetry. The philosophical world in the west has long conveyed the presupposition that literary works containing philosophy are not worthy (had some philosophy behind the story), but philosophical works with a little literary merit are more accepted (made a story to show philosophy). Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged is a book with one roaring philosophical theme. This is an example of literary prose with some philosophy. While some of Ayn Rand’s more philosophical writings like The Virtue of Selfishness contain some prose.

Article - composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine
Most professors in the field of philosophy have some requirement by their institutions to publish personal works. Some require more publications than others, but it’s not easy to write a lot of books and teach. This is where articles come in handy. Articles are a more common form of writing in the philosophical reaches of the modern world because such works are best served short and concise. Articles aim to offer a fresh idea, or at least a fresh look at an old idea. Articles in magazines and other periodicals are beneficial for philosophy communities because it gives them a platform to be heard and to hear from others working in similar subjects of interest.

1 – Applying for admission into colleges
2 – Applying for scholarships or grants
3 – Appealing anything from grades to parking tickets

Five-Paragraph Persuasive Essay consists of:

1 – Introduction (Issue, Stance, Proofs)
2 – Proof 1 (explain who, what, when, where, why, and how your case is proven)
3 – Proof 2 (another piece of convincing proof / supporting evidence)
4 – Proof 3 (if you feel the need to give more proofs, make more paragraphs)
5 – Conclusion (a pointed summary of clearly supported stance on subject)

Combination Essay consists of:

1 – Introduction (Issue, Stance, Proofs)
2 – Proof 1 (explain who, what, when, where, why, and how your case is proven)
3 – Proof 2 (another piece of convincing proof / supporting evidence)
4 – Proof 3 (if you feel the need to give more proofs, make more paragraphs)
5 – Transition (Summarize, Relate and Apply to next topic)
6 – Introduction (Next Topic, Stance, Proofs / why you take that stance)
7 – Proof 1 (explain who, what, when, where, why, and how your case is proven)
8 – Proof 2 (another piece of convincing proof / supporting evidence)
9 – Proof 3 (if you feel the need to give more proofs, make more paragraphs)
10 – Conclusion (a pointed summary of clearly supported stance on subject)

A great movie tells a good story well. This is true of books and movies. I have read books that tell good stories poorly, and other books that have told bad stories well. Movies now differ from books in that they no longer require a story be told. Plot is far more commonly missing from movies than from books. Marketing in cinema has had a great impact in this way. Movie producers have created formulas for creating movies that bring in the big bucks [1]. This has impacted the music industry quite similarly. Both industries have destroyed art, originality, and unpredictability. Instead of plot, many movies are now filled with eye candy: stunts, CGI (Computer Generated Imaging), major celebrities, sex appeal, gratuitous violence, gore, explosions, and loudly played popular music as parts of the soundtrack. These formula-based creations in cinema and music have created elitism in movie and music appreciation. People have since become divided on musical and cinematic “taste”. Some people like movies like Moulin Rouge simply because it is new or different. Others like The Fast and the Furious, because it has guns, testosterone, fast cars, and hot babes. For me a great movie, in addition to telling a good story well, may be the best it is at what it does. Some highly influential films that have done this in action or animation include Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, and The Matrix. When each of these movies came out, they had done the best possible to date at certain things. All included interesting science fiction plots, introduced new animation capabilities, and sported high-speed action sequences (props to THX sound quality).

A great story is one that touches people’s lives in some way, taking them on a journey of thought, emotion, and events. The creation of that story often requires the work of book writers or screenwriters. To tell a story well primarily requires a director with the vision to bring out the greatness of a story on the screen, without losing its magic and if possible enhancing that magic with cinematic elements writers sometimes miss. This director must also be able to work with actors who fit their parts, and are either able to live up to their character or at least to their direction (Keanu Reeves isn’t much of an actor in my opinion, but he takes direction and plays Neo in The Matrix quite well). Anthony Hopkins on the other hand is successful without direction due to his acting ability (He makes a charmingly sinister Hannibal Lecter). Both types of actors are crucial to a variety of great movies. Another couple of aspects to making a great movie are cinematography, and sound (effects and soundtrack). Sound is half the movie. Without audio, you are left with visual (cinematography, editing, costumes, location etc.). More commonly it is poor visuals that ruin a movie, but there are those times when a decent movie is totally destroyed by a random or misplaced soundtrack. Compiling the strengths of direction, action, visual, and audio a great movie is born.

A four star movie is very good (or great), often being a favorite of mine. I believe any genre can be done right, but I think drama is the genre that succeeds most in greatness (I believe “Drama” is a genre often based solely on plot, but to keep people interested it has to include romance, comedy, action, or horror; thus making for a healthy dose of the spices of life). Great movies also seem to have common trends in artistic accomplishment, originality or having stories with magical qualities. Some examples of four star movies would be Life is Beautiful (in Italian), The Godfather, Forrest Gump, The Princess Bride, Memento, and Pulp Fiction. A great movie tells a good story well.

A three star movie is good. I like these movies, or can see why someone would. Often I find that a 3 star movie is the type of movie that I can recommend to most anyone (while four star movies may be the type that people either love or hate). I find the most common three star movies are action and drama movies. Examples of three star movies would be The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, Monster’s Inc, and Good Will Hunting. A good movie meets the expectations of the genre, but may not transcend genre in its story telling as a great movie would. Whether or not a movie meets the requirements of genre includes style as well as broad categorization. For instance, some may want a horror movie to be highly suspenseful or scary, rather than say a totally predictable “slasher” sequel that may come across as comedic. Again, a movie must be judged based on what it is, and what it isn’t rather than whether it is what the viewer wanted. If I want a gory movie, I probably shouldn’t be renting Disney, animated, G and PG rated film. So, a “slasher” movie must be compared to other “slasher” movies. Because “slasher” movies aren’t good movies, they are commonly one-star movies on my rating system.

A two star movie is fair. A common response to it would be “meh” (meaning it’s okay but I wouldn’t recommend it). This generally happens when formulaic movies have used the same formula a bit too much. Movies like this merely entertain. While having no originality or greatness, a movie may gain any of the lower ratings based on how well it succeeded in its pure goal to entertain. For instance, The Fast and the Furious is very entertaining. It is stupid, formulaic, and predictable, but it’s fun (I give it 3 stars). Van Damme is often in my “okay” movies. I love his action movies, but mostly they aren’t any good. The crappier Saturday Night Live actors’ movies are often here as well, however that bunch has done plenty of good movies as well (they just make so many, they’ve got to succeed by odds of probability if for no other reason). Some examples of two star movies would include Black Sheep, A Night at the Roxbury, Dude, Where’s My Car?, Men In Black 2, and End of Days. These movies weren’t anything special, but people don’t really hate them unless they had higher expectations going into them.

A one star movie is poor. Let’s face it these movies are often “B” movies, or horrible “A” movies. These are movies that most people would try to avoid picking up from the video store simply by looking at the distasteful covers. Another hint to pointing out poor movies would be that many of them never made it to theaters, and are often sequels of movies you never heard anyone recommend. The movies I give one star, most other people would give a bomb. These are people who haven’t seen nearly as many movies as I have. They haven’t seen nearly as many bad movies as I have either. Perhaps those types of people are better with a dichotomous rating such as the thumbs-up or thumbs-down system. Here are some examples of one star movies: Anaconda 2: Hunt for the Blood Orchid, Best of the Best 2, The Bikini Carwash Company, and Carnosaur 3. For me a poor movie did something well. It has some sort of cinematic merit. I’m not saying these movies aren’t bad, or that these movies are worth watching, but that they could have been worse.

A “bomb” (zero stars), is a movie rating I give to movies that make you wish you had that much time of your life back. The only way movies like this could really be worse is if they were longer and you were forced to sit through their entirety. Some bombs I’ve sat through in my time include Dollman vs. Demonic Toys, Going Overboard, American Wedding, The Land Before Time IV, and American Cyborg: Steel Warrior. You probably could have made better movies with your camcorder.

James Berardinelli, my favorite movie critic, gives Aliens vs. Predator (AvP) 1.5 stars out of 4 [2]. His major issue with AvP is that it was made just to be an action movie, and it wasn’t filled with action (they tried to develop plot). He does mention that it was also aimed at a specific audience, the fans. Berardinelli continues, “It’s not likely that the movie will be of great interest to anyone else, except perhaps as a curiosity.” I can agree with that statement. But, being a “fanboy”, I am most qualified to critique a movie directed toward my kind. In this respect there is no wonder that I didn’t like Pride and Prejudice (movie or book), since I wasn’t the intended audience. I believe Berardinelli’s critique is a bit harsh, as he merely compares AvP to its six movie predecessors, rather than to its source (comic books). Still, his critique is useful; informing that if you aren’t the directed audience, you probably won’t get much out of it (Most Americans couldn’t stand to sit through most India films). However, the lack of diversity in intended audience may well be a cause for a calling a good movie bland.

Aliens vs. Predator is the fifth Alien movie and the third Predator movie. It was also the movie for which Dark Horse Comics fans had been waiting for years (You may remember some other movies that came from DHC: Aliens, Predator, Judge Dredd, Robocop, Terminator, Tarzan, Conan, Hellboy, and more). AvP is a comic book series that has long awaited the big screen since both species have starred in their own movies since the release of Predator in 1987. Being the comic nerd that I am, I have every issue of the titles Alien, Predator, and AvP ever written, and all the DVD’s of the movies to boot.

I gave AvP three stars. Let’s face it, while it was enjoyable, adventurous, and true to the comic books, it wasn’t done great. Direction is probably the biggest flaw in this movie. The beginning starts out slow, and seems to have little if no effect in background activity or soundtrack to give it the feeling of believability, or to give the movie the kind of flow we’ve come to expect from cinema. Also, the movie lacks flow and plot throughout. I’ll grant that it’s an action movie, but the subject matter they ran into seemed far too condensed to give the movie steady flow(when the director’s cut of the DVD came out it solved some of these problems). Overall the acting was pretty poor. I feel the only acting that was necessary was that of the main female character played by Sanaa Lathan. She did a pretty good job living up to the acting quality of “actors” like Arnold Schwarzenegger (Not to nock him, even at the age of 50 he could kick my ass. Nonetheless, comic movies are made for one-liners and she delivered).

A major aspect that AvP succeeded in was an original background storyline. The idea of the temple under ice in Antarctica having been the cradle of humanity from which our earliest known cultures originated was extremely well done. This is not the background of the comic books, but since no origin is given which negates this theory, it makes for an interesting addition to the mythology (a lot was done to start that off, then they rushed to get an action movie done). In the comic books it is true that Predators have used many planets as grounds for “The Great Hunt” in which coming of age Predators are dropped onto a planet to hunt one of the “deadliest of the species” [3]. This deadly species of aliens is like a parasite that breeds through other species, creating a wide variety of dangerous cross-breeds for the hunters to add to their collections of skulls.

Another enjoyable part of this movie is that a female character fights and wins her way into co-op ranks with the predator as has happened in the comics. I find that intriguing because, to the Predator, humans all look the same. It is the ability to hunt, not the gender that has any impact on how humans are treated. Females have been major parts of storylines as heroines in both the Alien movies (Sigourney Weaver), and in the Predator comic books (Aliens vs. Predator: Booty).

One addition to the AvP film is that it reintroduces Lance Henrikson, who was a big part of the Alien series. He financed the expedition in AvP, was the cyborg / android (I’m not nerdy enough to remember which is which) in the first Alien movie, and showed up in at least one of the following Alien movies as the man behind Wayland Industries (the company funding the expedition of retrieving an Alien). The example of Predator respect is seen again in the movie when Henrikson’s character tries to taunt a Predator into killing him. The predator simply sees an unarmed old and terminally ill enemy…not a prize buck. When the Predator turns from him, the old bull shows his worth by using a makeshift flamethrower on the Predator. This move gains Henrikson’s character the respect of the predator and earns him a quick death to boot. In one of the comic book series there is a short story of a Predator killing livestock and / or humans in a small Japanese village. When the Predator comes upon a blind villager, he leaves him alone in the assumption that he is a “throw-back.” The blind man is a former samurai and defends his village, giving the Predator a katana with which to duel. The blind samurai saves his village, kills the predator, keeps the Predator’s mask as a trophy, and gains the respect of the Predator’s tribal leaders who return for the body.

What AvP did most well is in not letting the comic fans down by straying from the nature of the original stories. Secondly, this movie had wonderful action sequences. While it lost some believability at some parts, it portrayed both the Alien and the Predator perfectly. This, however, was expected since both the Aliens series and Predator series did very well even for how long ago they were released (Predator in ’87 / Alien in ’79). The CGI was formidable, and the movement styles of the two species were given very close attention to detail. If the movie ran smoother, had better overall acting, and was rated R for being more realistic in the violence and gore (all the other 4 Aliens movies and 2 Predator movies were rated R), it would have been a great movie. It was, after all, an action movie for the “fanboys” of a science fiction, alien invading, comic book story. The costumes were wonderfully intricate, aided with the beauty of CGI. Not every comic book movie can be as good as Batman Begins, but it did take them five tries to get it right. Maybe Aliens vs. Predator 2 will be better.

The most important basic elements in making a good movie are story, direction, acting, visual, and audio. If my rating system were going to closely correlate with the five aforementioned faculties of a great movie, I think I would still have to give the movie three stars. I would give it one star for the story, one for visuals, and one for audio. I think the overall acting (or chosen cast) could have been better independent of direction, and while the story was good, the direction seemed to have hindered its flow. Visuals were very well done. All the rest of the formula people desire including action, violence, romance, and comedy are all parts of whether or not there was a good story. A good story will entertain. A good story told well will keep you interested. Aliens vs. Predator wasn’t great, but it was a good story told pretty well.

Research Materials:
[1] http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-11635.html

http://www.digikitten.com/playhousev…2/Dman2122.jpg

http://www.eleganthack.com/archives/what_makes_a_great_movie_quote.php

http://www.teakada.com/archives/what_ismakes_a_great_movie.html

http://www.themoviemark.com/badmovies/gymkata.asp

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112682/

http://www.sydfield.com/featured_screenwritinghalloffame.htm

http://www.eternalblight.com/Movies.html

http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/product.asp?sku=D65969++&mscssid=H8KWFXUBNBS98GS4K4BQH8D3ALWP5SM8
[2] http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/product.asp?sku=D65969++&mscssid=H8KWFXUBNBS98GS4K4BQH8D3ALWP5SM8

[3]Aliens vs. Predator: Deadliest of the Species

Aliens vs. Predator: War by Randy Stradley

Raised in a Protestant home, I was taught the love of Christ and the nature of God. I attended a religious private school from 1st through 10th grade and attended church weekly as long as I lived under my father’s roof. I was also required to attend a youth group or Bible study in placement of my request to no longer participate in Awana’s (I call it “Cub Scouts for Christ”) when I was 14. My father was a good man, and his road like those of many was paved with good intentions. My parents wanted me to grow into a good man, someone they could be proud of, a man of God.

I don’t remember for sure if it was shortly before I started the 1st grade, or during that school year, but feeling left out in an altar call, I raised my hand because everyone around me had apparently already asked Jesus into their hearts. They were now saved by the grace of God and had their names inscribed in the Book of Life, that they would live eternally in the presence of God in a heaven paved with golden streets in Christ-prepared mansions. If that didn’t grab your attention, it also saved you from your other option; fire and brimstone and the gnashing of teeth were but a small snippet of the descriptions of hell that awaits unbelievers. I knew from already hearing about God plenty that I was making the right decision, even at the ripe young age of six. I prayed the prayer and sold my soul. I was born again.

Now I don’t remember how old I was, between 12 and 16 I guess, but I know Super Bowl XXVIII was played the day of my Baptism. I remember the baptism/football party at our house after my brother, my sister, and I were baptized by our father in the name of the Holy Father. Our father was one of two elders in our church. In our church it means a lot to hold that position. They are the people directly under the pastor, having high responsibilities in and to the church, and are given a rigorous trial before the congregation votes on whether or not they fit the requirements of the Bible in regards to a man holding authority in a church.

Throughout my upbringing I was taught to deal with the great theological issues of the person of God; whether he was a “cosmic cop,” or an impersonal God leaving us like a ship in an ocean to fend for ourselves, perhaps even snapping his fingers resulting in the Big Bang, and sitting back to watch evolution take its course. But, what they taught me was that God is a personal being, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Yet, like the Greek gods, this God was given many arguably human characteristics such as jealousy, vengefulness, and caring. It could be argued that these are characteristics of a God, and that man shares these characteristics, not the other way around. Or that we must attribute human traits to a being so much more than us in our attempts to understand it. Theology was my forte. I studied it day and night. I studied scripture in hopes to master it backward and forward. By the age of 17 I had read the Bible front to back probably 3 times. In my studies between the ages of 17 and 19 I read the entire Bible through another 3 times. Throughout these years I began to question what it meant to be a Christian. I defined Christianity as “the following of Christ (Jesus).” But in studying biblical history at Salt Lake Theological Seminary and at Utah State University, I started to question the divine “inspiration” of the composition of the scriptures. I learned and began to understand that the infallibility of the canonized bible was never believed until after Martin Luther freed the Bible (printing press and what not) from the tyranny of the Catholic Church and unwittingly began its deification in the process. In my doubt of trusting what a bunch of dead guys said about the person of God, I found that if I wanted to be a Christian, the best thing for me to do is to hold tight to the teachings of Jesus, and take all else with a grain of salt. I was, as Lenny Bruce satirically stated, “…leaving the church and going back to God.”

Seeking truth in Christianity was a short lived adventure, as I was soon telling fellow followers that I would simply seek truth. If Jesus words, the Bible, and the Church were “the truth”, then they shouldn’t worry because that’s what I would find in my search. One of my biggest problems with organized religion in America, and probably in the world is that Christianity is a religion based largely in belief, and hardly in practice. DC Talk told me “Love is a Verb.” Love your neighbor as yourself meant more than a special feeling you have for the well-being of people inside your heart or the kind thoughts inside your head. Love means action, deeds, servitude, and much more. Doesn’t it? This lack of action in belief is not just in religion, but I think in Americanism (not that Europe and much of the rest of the world don’t already prescribe to it, because they do). An example is that people bicker and fight over major issues, but not about what to do, just what to believe. Yeah, we support our troops…up here in my head, where it counts. Bracelets help the people who wear them feel like they are showing the world something. That person, more often than not I’ve observed, wear it for what it does for them. Talk is cheap, belief is cheaper. Actions speak louder than words.

By 17 I had built my understanding of the power of an omnipotent God to the point that I found prayer absurd. God knew my thoughts, and my desire. He knew them before I knew them. If he knew that I knew he had this access, and my permission to it, then he didn’t need me to pray. I’ve never prayed since. For me, I could always stump illogical Protestant misconceptions of the Bible by noting that by similar logic, Mormonism must be right as well. In the circles I was raised, to be Mormon is to be abominable. So abominable in fact, that we have thrown the word “Mormon” into our vernacular in place of common cursing (http://www.mormoned.com). In finding that the shortcomings in the hated LDS faith were its simple leaps of faith necessary to cover every hole in their logic, lack of proof, or disagreement with historical prominence, I wondered why Protestant Christianity allowed itself to suffer the same weaknesses. When someone has a real question regarding theological issues, there are very few sources to go to where you won’t be responded to with a goofy pitying smile and glazed look coupled with the phrase, “You just gotta have faith.”

When I hear the word ‘faith’ the definition that I hear is “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence” (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith). This gets me because this definition of faith implies that it is a “blind” faith. Protestant Christianity loves to point out that theirs is an intelligent faith, implying and sometimes outright stating that their faith “rests on logical proof or material evidence.” That isn’t “faith.” If you have logical proof or material evidence, then you are not working from faith or belief in the unknown…you are dealing with a term called knowledge. A great testing of my faith was that we were constantly taught rhetoric and arguments to handle opposing religious or world views we would face later in life. I didn’t recognize I was being taught these things until I found myself spouting out rhetoric designed for just such occasions. Why is there such a need to prove our beliefs right, or more right than the beliefs of others? Why do people go around confirming and reaffirming to each other that “the church is true?” Is our faith that weak?

When I went to college and began my sessions of brainwashing by the hippy-liberal education system, I began to question things I was taught throughout my childhood. This happened enough (in just the little things) that I decided I was tired of being wrong, of being betrayed by my past, betrayed by the files in my brain that were categorized under “knowledge.” I decided it was time to purge, reboot, and reformat. I had to discern for myself what grounds demanded belief. I had to question why I believed certain things, or why some certainties are necessary for survival. I had to pinpoint exactly which things those certainties are. In my deconstruction I killed God.

Most specifically I had nothing against God. Since becoming what the LDS would have called “apostate”, and my religious upbringing called “fallen away,” many of my close friends believe that I am angry with God, and haven’t made my peace. They can’t understand what it is to not believe in God, not when you are taught that all building blocks of knowledge are built upon him as the basis. This is why deconstruction is so very necessary. Within the logical framework of Christianity, one cannot fathom life without God. God is the who, the what, the where, the why, and the how of all existence. We would simply die or starting killing each other left and right if there were no God. If there were no God there would be no us. This is a thought, but not their true opinion. They know they are there, for that they are certain. They believe God is there, and the first thing that attacks them in the attempt at trying to understand existence without God is not that they wouldn’t exist, but that all hell would break loose, either for them emotionally, or for humanity physically. The point here is that they cannot see out of the borders of the page they have been taught to live. In the bubble of the idea of Christianity it lends to a logic that makes no sense when you attempt to perceive from outside of this bubble. I took it like a math proof. The first step was to assume there was no God, then show how that was a contradiction, thus proving there is one. But I couldn’t do it at first. My biggest problem in trying to understand life without God from within my matrix of understanding (pun intended), was my need for there to be a God. Why was it so important for my mind that there be a God out there? Not so important that I could discuss it and say okay, let’s say there is not God, then what happens, but important enough that I couldn’t actually picture an environment outside that belief. I knew there were plenty of people that walked around as atheists and had no problem with no God in existence according to their minds. So why couldn’t I even pretend for a moment God didn’t exist? Why did I need there to be a God? Then I realized I don’t.

In seeing how weak my usually creative mind was, I created my own crutch theory. The reason I temporarily needed there to be a God and couldn’t even pretend He isn’t there is that my mind was trained to believe in a God; my mind was trained to believe that God existed at the heart of all things, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1 John 1:1 NIV). (This verse is also used as an example to deify “scripture” as the “Word” of God, which is shown here to be God.) All logic and knowledge I had obtained until this point in my life were building blocks based on everything I believed about the person of God and his written word. This made it difficult to take the steps to bull-dose the foundations. I myself am a stubborn mule, and when I saw that the only reason I couldn’t walk right had nothing to do with my legs, but was due to my being raised by cripples, I was furious. Because they needed crutches to walk, they raised me to use them, so that I would never have to stumble or fall in life like they did. The anger didn’t last long because the newfound taste of freedom was so sweet. I had killed God, but I felt no guilt, because I had nothing against God. In fact, I used to love my idea of God. As far as I’m concerned it’s best to medicate the people with the disease, if it cures what ails them, but if it’s not broken don’t try and fix me. I think I’ll have a funeral for God one day, as a kind of thanks for being there for me growing up. [This wouldn’t actually require that I acknowledge the existence of God, rather it would acknowledge that I used to have an imaginary friend personified as my idea of God.]

Though the unfettered feeling of freedom is glorious at first breath of fresh air, all things can be taken for granted. And, while freedom carries its own joy, it is not easy, and it is not happiness. If you’re happy where you’re at, stay content, and seek nothing. The road is difficult and less survived the journey than have ventured down it. But while I may not live in the bliss that is ignorance, I find joy knowing that I would never go back even if it guaranteed happiness. Another freedom I’ve found is the clearing of my mind. I am free to love and welcome people of varied creed and cultures. I am no longer bound by hatred, but free to hate should I choose to. While I am not perfect by any standard, I am what I am. And while I am sorry for everything I am, I ask forgiveness from no one.

I’m a man, just a man. I am an animal and a human being. I live based on instinct, urges, thought and learning. I am not my job, religion, or possessions. I am a mind, a body, and possibly a soul. I have torn down my presumptions, and with them my doubts. Hitting bottom, I was left with nowhere to go but up. Now, in still admiration and awe I observe the word. I perceive my environment through the lenses of a child. And like such, so do I soak up all that I can, in perhaps vain hopes of truth, if not happiness. In every moment of my waking life I seek to learn, progress, and experience as much out of this life as I can. The simple-minded see things as simple, while the deep explore the extremities and complexities of life abandoned –world ignored. Knowledge is overrated, confused, and abused, but to understand the world, to catch even a glimpse of the abyss, and to return understanding…now that would truly be something.

Research Materials:
“The New Testament” KJV, NIV

http://en.wikipedia.org/

http://www.dictionary.com

However, there are those who believe in the existence of an actual ancient text called the Necronomicon which may or may not fit the description given in Lovecraft’s fiction. Lovecraft often referenced fictional works in his horror fiction, a practice common among subsequent fantasy authors. The Necronomicon was first mentioned in Lovecraft’s 1923 short story, “The Hound.” It was hinted of as early as 1919, in his short story “The Statement of Randolph Carter.” Wikipedia continues to explain:

In the stories, the book is dangerous to read because it is often harmful to the health and sanity of its readers. For this reason, libraries keep it under lock and key. Capitalizing on the notoriety of the fictional tome, real-life publishers have printed many books entitled Necronomicon since Lovecraft’s death. How Lovecraft conceived the name “Necronomicon” is not clear—Lovecraft himself claimed that the title came to him in a dream. Perhaps he was influenced by Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Fall of the House of Usher” and an unfinished first century astronomical poem by Roman poet Marcus Manilius titled the Astronomicon. Although some have suggested that Lovecraft was influenced primarily by Robert W. Chambers’ collection of short stories, The King in Yellow, it is now believed that Lovecraft did not read that work until 1927. Lovecraft originally titled the book the Al Azif (from Arabic, meaning the sound of cicadas and other nocturnal insects, which folklore claims is the conversations of demons) and said that it was written by the Mad Arab Abdul Alhazred. Among other things, the work contained an account of the Old Ones, their history, and the means for summoning them. According to Lovecraft, Alhazred wrote the original text in Damascus around 730 AD, but a number of translations were made over the centuries. The Greek translation, which gave the book its most famous title, was made by a (fictional) Orthodox scholar, Theodorus Philetas of Constantinople circa 950 AD. Olaus Wormius (an actual historical person wrongly placed by Lovecraft in the thirteenth century) translated it into Latin and indicated in the preface that the Arabic original was lost. This translation was printed twice: In the fifteenth century, evidently in Germany in black-letter, and in the seventeenth, probably in Spain. When the Latin translation called attention to the Necronomicon, it was banned by Pope Gregory IX in 1232. The Greek translation, printed in Italy between 1500 and 1550, was probably lost when fire destroyed R. U. Pickman’s library in Salem. The Elizabethan magician John Dee allegedly had a copy (an idea suggested to Lovecraft by his friend Frank Belknap Long) and is thought to have made an English translation, of which only fragments survive.

Some critics accuse Lovecraft of using the Necronomicon as deus ex machina in his stories, having it mentioned whenever the narrator makes an occult reference, no matter how unlikely it is that the narrator has delved into the occult. However, this practice is far more common in the pastiches of his imitators rather than in the stories of Lovecraft himself. With the possible exception of the protagonists in “The Dunwich Horror", all of the characters in Lovecraft’s works who read the Mad Arab’s book come to horrific ends. Lovecraft made frequent reference to the Necronomicon but was very sparing with actual detail of its appearance and contents. That it is a substantial tome cannot be questioned according to “The Dunwich Horror.” However, other than the obvious black letter editions nothing else is known of its physical dimension or appearance although it is commonly portrayed as bound in leather of various types and having metal clasps. Editions are sometimes disguised, as Mr John Merrit discovers to his disquiet when pulling down a book labelled Qanoon-e-Islam from Joseph Curwen’s bookshelf and discovering it actually to be the Necronomicon in “The Case of Charles Dexter Ward.”

Necronomicon Excerpt from “The Nameless City":

That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons death may die.
(Later versions of the same quote always read “even death may die".)

Necronomicon Excerpt from “The Festival":

The nethermost caverns are not for the fathoming of eyes that see; for their marvels are strange and terrific. Cursed the ground where dead thoughts live new and oddly bodied, and evil the mind that is held by no head. Wisely did Ibn Schacabao say, that happy is the tomb where no wizard hath lain, and happy the town at night whose wizards are all ashes. For it is of old rumour that the soul of the devil-bought hastes not from his charnel clay, but fats and instructs the very worm that gnaws; till out of corruption horrid life springs, and the dull scavengers of earth wax crafty to vex it and swell monstrous to plague it. Great holes secretly are digged where earth’s pores ought to suffice, and things have learnt to walk that ought to crawl.

Necronomicon Excerpt from “The Dunwich Horror":

Nor is it to be thought that man is either the oldest or the last of earth’s masters, or that the common bulk of life and substance walks alone. The Old Ones were, the Old Ones are, and the Old Ones shall be. Not in the spaces we know, but between them, they walk serene and primal, undimensioned and to us unseen. Yog-Sothoth knows the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate. Past, present, future, all are one in Yog-Sothoth. He knows where the Old Ones broke through of old, and where They shall break through again. He knows where They had trod earth’s fields, and where They still tread them, and why no one can behold Them as They tread. By Their smell can men sometimes know Them near, but of Their semblance can no man know, saving only in the features of those They have begotten on mankind; and of those are there many sorts, differing in likeness from man’s truest eidolon to that shape without sight or substance which is Them. They walk unseen and foul in lonely places where the Words have been spoken and the Rites howled through at their Seasons. The wind gibbers with Their voices, and the earth mutters with Their consciousness. They bend the forest and crush the city, yet may not forest or city behold the hand that smites. Kadath in the cold waste hath known Them, and what man knows Kadath? The ice desert of the South and the sunken isles of Ocean hold stones whereon Their seal is engraver, but who hath seen the deep frozen city or the sealed tower long garlanded with seaweed and barnacles? Great Cthulhu is Their cousin, yet can he spy Them only dimly. Iä! Shub-Niggurath! As a foulness shall ye know Them. Their hand is at your throats, yet ye see Them not; and Their habitation is even one with your guarded threshold. Yog-Sothoth is the key to the gate, whereby the spheres meet. Man rules now where They ruled once; They shall soon rule where man rules now. After summer is winter, after winter summer. They wait patient and potent, for here shall They reign again.

Wikipedia continues that there exist innumerable other Necronomicon quotes but those above are the only ones written by Lovecraft himself. In Lovecraft’s works, various people and places have copies of the Necronomicon (although it is far rarer than later imitators would have one believe despite its persistent appearances). Copies of the Necronomicon are held by only five institutions worldwide: The British Museum (now held at the British Library); the Bibliothèque nationale de France; Widener Library of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts; the University of Buenos Aires; and the library of the fictional Miskatonic University in the equally fictional Arkham, Massachusetts. The latter edition is the Latin translation by Olaus Wormius, printed in Spain in the 17th century. Other copies are kept by private individuals. Wilbur Whateley possesses a copy in “The Dunwich Horror” (1929), which is presumed to have gone to his heirs after his death. Joseph Curwen’s copy, mentioned above, was almost certainly destroyed by the raiding party that took his life. Harley Warren’s version (which is not mentioned by name but is instead most likely a copy) goes with him to his fate in “The Statement of Randolph Carter” (1919). A version is mentioned as being held in Kingsport in both “The Festival” (1925) and (by implication) The Case of Charles Dexter Ward (1941). The provenance of the copy read by the narrator of “The Nameless City” (1921) is unknown, while the version read by the main character in “The Hound” (1924) is presumed destroyed when all of his charnel goods are so disposed.