Stuff and nonsense

I seem to have a list of posts backed up that I want to get written, but other things that seem to want writing first keep coming along. This is trying to combine two of those other things into one.

First up, I nearly ended up burning my flat down this evening. For some things watching on DVD or TV, the right atmosphere requires candlelight instead of overhead electric light. I like candles. So I started lighting candles ready to watch a DVD. Then one of them fell over while I was still holding a match in one hand and a lit candle in the other. It fell into a pile of rubbish.

In the time that it took to blow out the match and put down the candle in my hand on a safe place, the fallen candle had managed to set light to a plastic carrier bag that did not go out quicly but continued to burn. I grabbed it by an unlit part and rushed to the kitchen sink to douse it in water. By the time I got back, however, I found that a corner of a cardboard box had already started to burn and also there were flames flickering along the edge of my banjo case. I dashed back to the kitchen, scooped up some water from the sink into a glass and rushed back to douse the flames. Fortunately, that was as far as they had spread and so the water put out the fire. Danger averted.

Scary, though.

The other thing: I have reawakened my addiction to Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda by buying seasons 2 and 3 on DVD. It is inevitable that I will end up buying seasons 4 and 5 so that I will have seen the whole story (I deliberately have not looked at the information on the linked wikipedia page about those seasons!). I saw the first season when ITV showed it on their free-to-air digital channel ITV3, and I also caught some of the second season as well, but with poor digital reception in this region it became impossible to keep up with it.

I love that the main characters are mostly anti-heroes at best, with only Captain Dylan Hunt really playing the typical "heroic" role. There also seem to be some rather wonderful tongue-in-cheek references to clichés from Roddenberry's earlier starship saga, Star Trek, particularly the captain's tendency to get entangled with the lips of attractive alien females. Although he's written as a trusting, optimistic character, in the stories people often mistake this for naivety or gullibility; and then Hunt goes and proves himself every bit as devious as his adversaries.

I love that the female central characters are all in their own way very strong. Beka Valentine, who was the captain of her own ship and led a gang of rogues (who also joined Hunt's team), is determined, talented and quite capable of taking command when Hunt is off doing something else. (She also seems to have some slightly kinky tastes, but that's something beside the point at the moment, though it is another reason why I like her character!)

"Dromy" and "Andromeda" are essentially the same character although the develop slightly differently: Andromeda is the Starship "Andromeda Ascendant"s artificial intelligence persona; "Dromy" is an android into which Andromeda has been copied to give herself a physical presence as oppsoed to merely projecting humanoid hologram images of herself. Andromeda/Dromy is the "mind" of a warship, and she has a personality to match that purpose. She likes to fight and blow things up. Although she is entirely obedient to her captain, Dylan Hunt, she is also superhuman thanks to having the entire sensory capabilities of the starship (or the robot body) and once an enemy is identified she has no emotional issues with annihilating it/him. She will also argue back if her computations suggest Hunt's strategy isn't going to work.

Trance Gemini looks weak and feeble most of the time, but she knows stuff nobody else could, and she manages to be strong despite seeming emotionally small and weak. One of my favourite Trance lines is "You're twice my size, and I'm still standing up to you. That means I'm either crazy, or a lot more dangerous than I look. Would you like to guess which?" She is most definitely able to look after herself and rarely needs people to "look after" her, except in the same ways that all the other characters do.

While I couldn't swear that all the episodes pass the Bechdel Test, I think quite a lot do, simply because there's quite a lot of people talking about how to escape weird space-y "natural" perils and sometimes the female characters discuss the problem in one-on-ones. There are other topics as well, not all directly plot-related (hobbies seem to come up a bit, I think).

For all that several of the episodes or situations are pretty cheesy with sci-fi standard elements thrown in, the character development is pretty good and I enjoy seeing how it works. Apparently the deep plots and storylines were unpopular with the TV execs, which is a shame and led to the sacking of the guy who originally developed the series from Roddenberry's ideas.

I also like the male characters. Hunt because he's a hero, obviously. the others because they are NOT heroic. Tyr Anasazi because he's got a calculating edge and a hawt body (yup, I admit it). He's also got a forceful will that can at times match Hunt's own. Seamus Harper may be the archetypal male-underling, obsessed with sex but never likely to get it, and all the rest but he's also the "ordinary" human (despite being a complete wizard with electronics and engineering) - he doesn't have the fantastic backgrounds of the others, but is just someone who managed to run away from a shitty life at home and found a little niche (in his case, being an engineer first for Beka's team then for Dylan Hunt's) to call his own. He reflects that part. And finally, "Rev Bem" - the violent creature turned pacifist religious believer, whose faith enables him to be other than his genetics insist he should.

This bunch of misfits makes for great character drama. Is it any wonder I'm hooked?

Taking the Epistle: 1 & 2 Thessalonians

The letters to the Thessalonians are, according to the introductory notes in my NIV study bible sometimes labelled "the eschatological letters", which implies that there's going to be loads of info about the End of Days and the Apocalypse. While there's certainly more of that than in Paul's other letters so far, there's not really a huge amount to go on. Since they ted to cover a lot of the same ground, I'm going to treat them in parallel, and abbreviate them as 1Thess and 2Thess for convenience so it's clear which letter is which when I reference them.

Paul opens each letter, as seems to be his custom, with comment on the situation of the church to which he's writing. Paul seems to like the Thessalonians and believes that they in fact set a good example for many others in the region, and it seems that news about the church in Thessalonica has spread throughout the area. He makes a specific reference to their converting from Paganism rather than Judaism. In Acts, the church is described as being formed by "Some of the Jews ... as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women." (Acts 17:4) In 1 Thessalonians, Paul mentions that the people of the church there "turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead - Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath." This point also includes the letter's first reference to the theme of the Second Coming and the End of Days.

Paul also seems to have a recurring theme of wanting to go back and visit the churches he writes to. With Thessalonians, it's because (according to Acts, anyway) he had to leave suddenly after a mob was whipped up by those Jews who were opposed to his teaching. He observes that the Thessalonian church has suffered prejudice against them, and he even equates that to the oppression in Judea of the Christian church. In this passage, particularly (2:15), we can see the possibility of how Christian anti-Semitism in the 2nd Millennium CE may have originated from Biblical writings, "[the Jews], who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men" - it's not pretty reading. If it's true what was written in Acts about the way Paul was treated in Thessalonica by some members of the Jewish contingent, maybe he was speaking in anger rather than love at that point, but to me it is completely out of character with his references to Judaism in several of the other letters (Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, etc). Given that in Acts it appears that several of the Christians in Thessalonica had converted from Judaism, it also seems uncharacteristically out of touch with his audience. I am sorely tempted to take this verse as evidence of a later copyist's editorialising, but since I set out on this project to write as if the Letters truly are Paul's work, I should deal with it as it is. It is also tempting to say that Paul is writing only about the Jews who drove him away from Thessalonica, and no any other Jews, but sadly the context implies pretty strongly that he's talking about Jews in general (by the relation of the phrase to his comments about the churches in Judea). This is a very awkward passage for people who would like to claim Christianity is an accepting religion and not anti-Semitic.

Still on the topic of Paul's wish to see the church in Thessalonica again, he says that he was worried that the pressures from the surrounding community and from "the tempter" (i.e. Satan) might have caused the Thessalonian Christians to turn back to their old practices. However, he continues, he has heard that they have remained steadfast in their new faith. 2 Thessalonians echoes this theme in its opening passage (2Thess 1:3-4)

The other element of this introduction in 1Thess (which has taken up all of chapters 1-3!) is that at 2:1-12 he writes of what it is to be a minister of God, and emphasises the selflessness of the preacher. The preacher should remember always his mission is not self aggrandisement but the Word of God; the preacher should be self-supporting as far as possible, and should treat his parishioners as "a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you" (2:11-12). Interestingly, Paul also uses the imagery of himself as a mother to the Thessalonian church as well: "we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children" (2:7). This brings the rather wonderful thought to my mind that perhaps priests in the modern Church could be termed "Mother" instead of "Father", based on Scripture evidence!

In chapter 4, Paul turns to another favourite theme: reminding people how to behave properly. And he starts with a familiar theme within that: sexual (im)morality. For the first time we see a practical test of what sexual immorality might be:

1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honourable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

On feminist themes, verses 4-5 (control his own body, not give in to "passionate lust") are a clear injunction that it is not the victim who has to be careful, but the rapist who is at fault for not controlling himself. Verse 6 ("no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him") is the true test of an ethical sexuality, in my mind. Don't cheat on a partner, don't "take advantage of" a partner, which carries all sorts of lessons concerning the boundaries of consent (although Paul's meaning seems more to be to do with men's actions towards other men's wives). Still, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 marks the strongest and clearest definition so far of the importance of free, full, informed consent when it comes to sexual matters. And again, Paul has not defined sexual immorality by sexual acts but by the relations of those engaging in sex.

Paul continues on to state themes also familiar from his other letters: "Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody."

In his closing remarks in both letters he returns to this theme, emphasising respect for hard workers (which seems to refer more specifically to the church elders in Thessalonica), rejecting idleness, helping the weak, and remaining patient with one another, and there are some hints that some of the Thessalonians, believing that the End was already upon them, had given up their jobs. Paul warns them to keep working right up to the final Day of Judgement. 2Thess 3:10 is a verse that deserves some specific attention: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." In past times, and sometimes even in modern times, this sentiment has been used as a stick with which to beat the poor and unemployed - people are poor because they are lazy; the unemployed are undeserving of support because they do not work. But the translation says "will not". It is neither "cannot" nor "has no"; it is "will". Are there those whose will is against doing work? Probably. But it is always false to claim in modern society that the only reason people are unemployed is because they are too lazy to work. I, and I believe most others who are unemployed, WANT to be put to work, I want a job. But right now, nobody will pay me to work. Modern society is not like the economy of 2,000 years ago! So, while an unquestioning or unthinking approach might see Paul's comment here as an indictment of the unemployed, in fact it is more likely to be an indictment of modern economics!

And now at last we get to the good bit: the discussion of the End of Days!

This is where most of 2Thess is covered.

1Thess talks first about the dead being resurrected at the Lord's coming; in 2Thess this event is described as Christ coming, but in 2Thess this is accompanied with the punishment of those who "do not know God". 1Thess talks about how believers "will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord for ever." This to me harks back (or forwards, since 1 Thessalonians is probably the earliest of Paul's letters) to the point in Philippians about "transform[ing] our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body".

In 1Thess 5:1-3 Paul warns that "the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night" and without warning. "While people are saying, "Peace and safety", destrction will come on them suddenly, as labour pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape." This echoes the Old Testament prophets who often used labour pains as a symbol to describe the suffering of their people during apocalyptic times.

Paul suggests, however, that Christians, being "sons of the light and sons of the day" should be able to see it coming through being "alert and self-controlled". Faith, love and hope of salvation shall be like armour to protect the believer (a common simile in Paul's letters. Faith, hope and love are commonly linked in htis way throughout Paul's letters, most famously in 1 Corinthians ("Faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love.")

2Thess is more detailed about the way the Day of Judgement will come. As mentioned, it talks of Jesus coming and punishing those who "do not know God" and "do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus". If I am sceptical about one or two passages in 1Thess, then I am even more sceptical of 2Thess as a whole, because this passage reads to me much more like later theological doctrine than anything I see elsewhere in Paul, and there are one or two other points that make me doubt it. However, again, I am taking an approach to treat all of this as Paul's work and see where it leads. It should be noted, though, that the introductory notes on 2Thess also comment on some academics pointing out a number of inconsistencies between 2Thess and Paul's other writings. There are ways to talk around those difficulties and explain them away, so we shall continue regardless. The footnotes make it clear that the term "know" is used in the sense of "acknowledge" - that is, the passage refers specifically to those who have heard the Word of God but rejected it, rather than to those who have not heard it - this echoes partly the theme about the Law bringing sin to light rather than preventing sin that is covered in Romans 3:20 - "no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law, we become conscious of sin". The point here is that it is not those who are ignorant of God who will be punished, but those who have heard and rejected Him.

In 2Thess Paul talks about "the man of lawlessness", an Antichrist figure of some kind. This "man of lawlessness" will be accompanied by a rebellion as he is revealed, and will "oppse and will exalt himself over everythingthat is called God or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God." He is, apparently, being "held back" by something or someone (a masculine identifier is used in verse 7 for this restraining force or person) and will finally be revealed, only for Christ to destroy him when He returns in glory. This Antichrist figure will not be Satan, but will "be in accordance with the work of Satan". Again echoing Old Testament language, Paul writes:

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

It all seems a little bit redundant, since God presumably knows who will believe and who will be deceived, without going through all this palaver, and it's implicit in that passage that He does (since he specifically sends the delusion to them and not to believers)! But humanity has been given free will. It seems that only in this, if anything, can God have doubt, so perhaps in the end there will be some who are not deceived by the powerful delusions? Christians, though, should be protected from such delusions by their faith and the Holy Spirit (2Thess 2:13).

The final theme in common between the two letters is a warning to be wary of false prophets. In 2Thess this is specifically about warnings of the end of days: "we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come." (2Thess 2:1-2)

In 1Thess it is more general, and it seems that the scepticism I bring to Bible is here endorsed by Paul: "Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil." (1Thess 5:19-22) Paul advises people not to take anything purely on trust but to test it against the Spirit and our understanding of good and evil through the Spirit.

Paul finishes 1Thess with a reminder of God's grace and finishes with the injunction, "Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss." (5:26)

2Thess finishes with a reminder that when someone chooses a path away from God's Word, that they should not be treated as an enemy but reminded as a brother or friend of the perils of their choices. The suggested medium is to shun that person ("Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed") but if one is treat as a brother not an enemy, then that cannot be a complete or absolute rejection even so. It seems certain to me that the anger and wrath that some "Christians" display is in direct disobedience of this (and similar) teaching of Paul's.

A final note, several of Paul's letters seem to have been dictated by him, but he writes a few sentences in his own handwriting at the end. In 2Thess, he explains this practice but I can't help but feel like it's either redundant or else it's a forgery: "I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters." If, as is suggested in the introductory notes, this letter is one of the earliest (since it was written not many months after 1Thess, which is thought to be the earliest) then how would this be the mark of "all my letters"? It sounds like something that might have been added by a later theologian rather than something Paul himself might have written. I am a sceptic in general, and to me there are elements that make me very wary of taking 2Thess as being genuine. I discussed it here as if it is, but I want to make my doubts known.

***

Next up, the Pastoral Letters, in which Paul is writing to his fellow preachers of the Word.

This is just totally fun!

No other reason for posting it. I just loved it and wanted to share!

(Check out the fabulous stylophone action (and the t-shirt about haiku))

Book Review: "Anthem" by Ayn Rand (Spoilers)

Ayn Rand wrote "Anthem" in 1937 and in it outlines the basis of her philosophy of individualism. According to the introduction for the "Penguin Modern Classics" release, the working title was "Ego", and it is this that forms the centre of the novel; the title was changed for publication because it was too obvious and thereby disrupted the development of the narrative for the reader if the theme was revealed that easily.

The "Penguin Modern Classics" version is the 1946 re-edit that Rand did when the novel was accepted for US publication (ironically, it was originally rejected in the US because "the author does not understand socialism" - a legitimate criticism, but not one you'd expect in the bastion of Capitalism!) - Rand's "author's foreword" explains that this re-edit was for matters of style, and nothing of the substance was changed; the commentary introduction (written in 1994) reveals that this is because she was still finding her way with the English language when she originally wrote it, but by 1946 was much more confident about hitting the right tone.

Rand's 1946 author's foreword attempts to justify her characterisation in the novel of collectivism and collectivist ideals. To my mid it is rife with "slippery slope" fallacies and "appeal to ridicule" fallacies, and therefore not wasting my effort on (however tempted I might be to deal with it).

After a few pages of the novel I decided that I would take an approach of "the author is dead", and try reading it without preconceived notions about what it is supposed to be saying (i.e. without reference to what I know of Rand's political opinions and her aims in writing it), instead seeing what I could draw from the text myself.

***

My first impressions are that his is a very well-written text. In terms of style (as noted above, this is the 1946 version reworked for style) it is exquisite. It is a very stylised piece of writing, setting up circumstances but not details for the most part; what details there are serve directly to set up circumstances. New details are introduced, it seems, mostly just to set up the next tableau. Indeed, it was partly this style that made it so easy for me to say that "the author is dead" and to read the novel as divorced from any particular point. Because it was so stylised, it did not stand any comparison to any real world phenomena.

This led me to my first major shift of viewpoint about "Anthem". Because it was so stylised, I realised that, while it is written as describing a transgression of being individual, it can easily be mapped against other stories of transgression against society, especially where there are rigid structures and pressure both from peers and from authorities to conform. The stories that instantly sprang to mind as I read were those of gay/lesbian folks, or of trans folks, with a secret inner self that must be hidden from the wider society.

The narrative structure is essentially this:

1. Early awareness of being "not like the others"
2. Punished for early signs of being "not like the others" and a perception of being deprived of opportunities because of this
3. Finding a secret place to be their "true self"
4. Comparing "true self" to accepted norms and concluding "how can what feels so good be so wrong?"
5. Going from this to "how can I help myself, this is who I am - does this mean I am evil?
6. If it does, do I want to be good? Am I capable of being good?
7. Wondering if anyone else is the same, but seeing they are all as afraid to speak about it
8. Finding someone else to share "wrongness" with
9. Discovering something (or an idea) and believing "if I just show them this, they will understand and accept me"
10. Having that thing rejected, and instead being even further cast out
11. Having been cast out, rejection of the rejecting society (and its standards)
12. Joined by the person with whom they shared 'wrongness"; realisation that they are not wrong to be as they are

As I say, I have seen this structure many times in fiction discussing all manner of teen angst, but especially it brings to mind gender-variant teens coming out as trans or gay/lesbian.

In "Anthem" the nature of the difference is simply the fact of being different or of being individual; our protagonist (labelled "Equality 7-2521") is different from an early age by being a little bit brighter than everyone else, and a little bit taller and stronger. He also exhibits traces of individuality by having a fight with another boy. The perception of "deprived opportunity" is being assigned to the role of Street Sweeper, which Equality 7-2521 assumes is a punishment for difference, and for having a preferred occupation in mind.

The secret place is an underground tunnel where relics from the distant past (from before our society collapsed to be replaced by the "collectivist" society of Equality 7-2321's time) inspire our hero to start learning about science. In this place, Equality 7-2521 ponders the issues of points 4, 5 & 6.

The "person to share wrongness with" is the love-interest, at which point the sense of "what we are doing is wrong and perverted" is captured beautifully - again, it called to mind so vividly the stories I have heard both fictional and real-life of people discovering their sexuality.

The idea discovered was electric lighting, in our hero's mind showing this to the Scholars' Council will win him acceptance into their ranks and will serve to benefit everyone, which is in accordance with the philosophy of the time even though he had to sin against that philosophy to discover it. Of course, the sin is what is important to the ruling classes and the discovery is incidental.

Equality 7-2521 flees into the wilds, and is pursued by the love interest - they reject society and say "it is not wrong to be this way".

Through it all, I am reminded over and over again of teenage coming-of-age stories. As mentioned, mostly about teen sexuality but other teen stories as well, anything that involves conflict between what others want and what the teenager wants from their life. This sense of "teenagerhood" proves to be important, because at this point, Rand's political philosophy starts to become significant again in that Equality 7-2521 (now calling himself Prometheus) becomes a mouthpiece for individualism. The introduction commentary describes this passage as the "anthem" to which the title refers.

The passage starts with "Prometheus" revelling in the discovery of the word "I", a word that is forbidden in the society from which he came - so that speaking it is the only sin punishable by death, it is so anathema; most people do not know it exists, so Prometheus' discovery means a huge amount.

But the philosophy that appears verges on pure solipsism at times:

It is my eyes which see, and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is my ears which hear, and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world. It is my mind which thinks, and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth.

This dancing with solipsism is replaced by other reasoning, and now we see a version of Kant's Categorical Imperative (the formulation "treat no one as a means to an end, but always as an end in themselves") - but for Rand's Prometheus this is only ever stated for the individual, and not for others:

My happiness is not the means to any end. it is the end. it is its own goal. It is its own purpose.

Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars.

It is worth taking a moment to look at the philosophy that Rand's Prometheus espouses for living life, because it has practical implications later. As with all well-written novels, I often find myself thinking, "Okay, what happens next?"

Well, Rand's Prometheus has plans to spread the creed of "I" and thus overthrow the system in the society that he fled. This has implications for his belief system:

I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask none to live for me, nor do I live for any others.

...

I shall choose my friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters. And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love and respect, but neither command nor obey. And we shall join our hands when we wish, or walk alone when we so desire. For in the temple of his spirit, each man is alone.

Promy's plans to spread his philosophy challenge those ideas:

...I shall steal one day, for the last time, into the cursed City of my birth. I shall call to me my friend who has no name save International 4-8818, and all those like him, Fraternity 2-5503, who cries without reason, and Solidarity 9-6347 who calls for help in the night, and a few others. I shall call to me all the men and the women whose spirit has not been killed within them and who suffer under the yoke of their brothers. They will follow me and I shall lead them to my fortress.

...

Here, on this mountain, I and my sons and my chosen friends shall build our new land and our fort. And it will become as the heart of the earth, lost and hidden at first, but beating, beating louder each day. And word of it will reach every corner of the earth. And the roads of the world will become as veins which will carry the best of the world's blood to my threshold... And the day will come when I shall break all the chains of the earth, and raze the cities of the enslaved, and my home will become the capital of a world where each man will be free to exist for his own sake.

At once, Promy is planning to bend others to his will and not to give them freedom but expecting them to obey his desires. What if there is disagreement over the right course? What if his fellow free men decide that they don't want to evangelise the creed of "I", don't want to recruit any more? What if they don't want to "break all the chains of the earth", but are happy with the fact that their own chains are broken?

At that point, either violence will emerge (since the young Equality 7-2521 resorted to violence and was punished for it, this is a clear possibility) and one person will thus impose his will on the majority, or else a majority will impose its will on the minority (there seems to be in the philosophy Rand espouses here a strong anti-democratic sentiment), and the dreaded "We" must return.

Rand's Prometheus characterises "We" as "the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame." And yet all the same charges can be laid at the feet of "I". Rand has her protagonist proclaim We to be, "the root of all evils on earth, the root of man's torture by men, and of an unspeakable lie." And yet (as outlined above) the same charges can be laid at the feet of "I". She writes, "It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of sages." And yet, those are the charges that Marx lays clearly at the feet of Capitalism.

If Rand's characterisation of collectivism in this novel was an absurd extreme, then her individualism in it is much the same. It shows, again, that naive teenager's belief that everyone will see things their way. All the time I was thinking, "okay, fine, but what happens when someone disagrees with you about what to do next?" In terms of the analogy I made earlier to teenage "coming-out" stories, this whole section plays the role of the final "Hah! Everyone is really like me, and if they're not they're repressed, or if they're not then at least my sexuality is truer and better than theirs really, so there!"

***

The other thing to note is that it's really been done better by others. George Orwell in "1984" presents a similar dystopian future world whose essential characteristic is that it exists purely to perpetuate itself and not elevate. Where "Anthem" has just one word erased from the lexicon, however, Orwell discusses the wholesale modification of language to reinforce the dominant collective philosophy. The principle of "Doublethink" also makes explicit something that Rand only mentions openly in her 1946 introduction: that words can be divorced from their proper meaning. Ira Levin's This Perfect Day also seems to be a much more considered version of future collectivism, and it's one where the directing of society is clear (just as in "1984"). Rand's "Anthem" does not address that somewhere in the "City" society she describes there must be people who are different, who direct all the others (it's hinted at with reference to various Councils made of Leaders who are singled out at age 15 to receive special training) and who are aware of "I" and why it is dangerous to their society.

***

I am sufficiently intrigued, having read this novel, to want to read Rand's other writing. however, my inclination at this point is to suggest that building a political philosophy around her writings probably makes as much sense as building a religion around L Ron Hubbard's writings, or a sexual philosophy around those of John Norman. Rand's writing and storytelling are fantastic, it's just the politics that I find full of holes.

Taking the Epistle: Colossians

St Paul's letter to the Colossians is another of his preaching texts aimed at putting right where people aren't "doing Christianity properly". His target here is Gnosticism in particular, although many of his themes are familiar from other epistles, especially those criticising the Judaisers.

One interesting text note is that it appears that the man who converted the Colosse church members was a follower of Paul who had converted not from Judaism but from Greek-based paganism ("Epaphras", explains the NIV Study Bible footnotes, came from "Epaphroditus", a name signifying connection to the Goddess Aphrodite). It may be because Colosse was not converted by Paul himself, or it may be to do with the purpose of his letter in confronting "heresy", that Paul's greeting seems somewhat overdone compared to some of his others (the Philippians stand as an exception to this). Paul positively gushes over the Colossian church's faith and goodness before he gets down to the real business of his letter.

The compilers of the NIV Study Bible comment that 1:15-20 can be read as being an early Christian hymn, and certainly the lyrical quality of the translation seems to support this idea. I find it harder to credit their assertion that Paul's quoting it at this point in the text points to a deprecation of Christ as being part of the Colossian heresy; similar passages seem to me to be found in other letters that are not directly addressing this point. Inasmuch as such things are addressed in Colossians, it seems to me that rather than seeing Christ brought down, we see evidence that other (worldly) things are being elevated to challenge him in the teachings that apparently led the church in Colosse to stray from Paul's version of Christianity.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Interestingly, this seems to contradict the version of the Temptation of Christ given in Luke 4:5-8 -

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours."

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

The Gospel of John (in which we also see the sentiment of Christ as "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together") also describes the Devil as "the prince of this world" (e.g. John 12:31). I don't want to address this particular wrinkle of Christian theology right here and now (I do believe there is an answer to clarify what's going on, though) but I think it is an interesting point to note.

Paul's message to the Colossians appears to focus at least in part around affirming that through Christ, God is revealed - the theme appears in the "hymn" of 1:15-20, and recurs soon after. 1:25-28 reads:

I have become its [the Church's] servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fulness - the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them, God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ.

The NIV footnotes report that the word translated as "mystery" was being appropriated by Paul from pagan religions that claimed secret knowledge known only to the select few. Paul here is denying that there can be secret knowledge about God held only by a few, but proclaims instead that knowing Christ in one's heart is sufficient ("...which is Christ in you", "...teaching everyone with all wisdom"). Everyone can know Christ (and be considered "perfect in Christ") and no one can teach better than the Spirit. This is the theme to which Paul returns several times, and underpins some of his other statements, for example, 2:4 "I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments"; 2:8 "see to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ". While to modern ears 2:8 might sound like it is dismissing science, "basic principles" probably should not be seen as referring to physical principles, but to "base" as in "low" or "mean", principles of behaviour.

Paul now revisits a theme that should be familiar from Romans and Galatians in particular: namely that in being born again through Christ, we have died to the old Law. It appears that one of the things being taught to the Church at Colosse by the gnostic element there was that observation of strict rules of eating and drinking especially were important to salvation. 2:13-14, 16-18

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

...

Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize.

Paul repeats the theme more dramatically for effect: 2:20-23

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles [see note on 2:8] of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

I have to admit, I enjoy this passage for its sheer theatre: this could be delivered by an orator with fabulous effect I am sure. There is such a great sneering tone as Paul ridicules the ideas of those he considers to be wrong!

Having in his own eyes set the believers of Colosse straight about these things, Paul returns to themes familiar from many of his other Letters. Proper behaviour.

3:5-10 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

All of these things I have discussed in looking at the other Letters, where similar lists of "don't do these" appear.

The list of things that Christians are supposed to do is also familiar from Paul's other Letters:

3:11-17 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Between these two passages, is perhaps Paul's clearest denunciation yet of slavery as a practice (though Paul never actually comes out and says it is wrong or should be ceased), and of racism: "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." (3:11)

3:18-25 covers ground that I already covered in discussing Ephesians 5 & 6. Wives, obey husbands (husbands, don't be "harsh" with your wives); children, obey parents (parents, don't be nasty to your kids); slaves, do your duty as a service to God (masters, treat your slaves fairly).

After calling for prayers of thankfulness and for God's message to be spread, Paul finishes with his usual personal greetings.

Among these greetings are references to Mark and Luke, presumed to be the Gospel writers (Luke also being the credited author of Acts, which described Paul's journeys); sceptic that I am, I find this slightly too convenient and feel compelled to wonder whether this letter might not be a later addition after all, and not genuinely written by Paul. The NIV compilers seem eager to believe it is, but then, they have seemed so for all the Letters so far. I'm not going to say that it actually isn't written by Paul, but just noting my sceptic's response to these names appearing together.

It's that time of year again...

...When the good people of England celebrate religious bigotry and hatred, and commemorate the foiling of a terrorist plot to destroy Parliament - one that may have been orchestrated and funded in part by the King's chief spy in order to justify a draconian crackdown on the believers of the hated religion.

Anti-Catholic hatred played a part in British politics for the next few centuries - the Great Fire of London was originally blamed by some on "Papist terrorists"; the Orangemen in Ireland still commemorate the defeat of James II (a Catholic king of England) by William of Orange (who was Parliament's preferred candidate for the crown due to being a Protestant relative of the deceased King); it led to the law being changed to state that only a protestant could be monarch (a law that arguably violates modern European Human Rights legislation).

In the county of Sussex, where I live, there is a tradition of bonfire/carnival celebrations that goes back centuries; many towns and villages host the others throughout the autumn, taking it in turns to put on the procession and bonfire. This has a direct lineage from those Catholic-hating days and in Lewes especially, some of that tradition is still strong. Sometimes it is directed at other hated minorities (for instance, a few years back an effigy was planned to be burned, of a gypsy traveller family in their caravan).

I think that most of that vile history is forgotten in my part of the county, and it is mostly just a big celebration every year that is fun for all the family. In that spirit, I present to you a video made up of stills and movie clips that I took on the night of the local torchlit procession and bonfire.

The music is "Everscene", written and performed by me, and it features a ukulele (though you wouldn't expect it from the genre) - to some extent this could almost be a music video for the tune.

I got 95 Theses...

Via Merda D'Artista, a rap song about Martin Luther's Protestant revolution (and, if I understood the lyrics correctly, a few comments about some of the batshit stuff that's happened since with various denominations, like the American Christian Right).

I am reminded of John Reith's comment that the BBC should aim to give the public "television that is slightly higher quality than they think they want." If there were more rap about significant figures of history and their achievements (any feminist rappers out there want to have a go at the Pankhursts, or Wollstonecraft, or Elizabeth Fry?)

Anyway, here is "95 Theses"



Classic rhyme: "You think you've gone and done something spectacular? I wrote the whole Bible in the vernacular!"