10 Commandments for Middle-Earth?

[Aerandir Carnesir]

I don't know if this topic has been discussed or not, but did Iluvatar/Eru give the people of M.E. any moral guidelines or "10 Commandments"?

[aragornreborn]

Not ringing any bells. No. It seems that the Children of Iluvatar had a sufficient inner moral compass to know if they were doing right or not.

[Bekah]

Don't think so. And unlike our world, and Narnia, Christ did not die and arise in Middle-earth - he never existed, as far as I am aware. He did this over here because we were getting way off track as far as his commandments (made in our interest) went. Good question, though...I wonder...

~ Elentari II

[lindil]

Don't think so. And unlike our world, and Narnia, Christ did not die and arise in Middle-earth - he never existed, as far as I am aware.

In the 'Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth'

The incarnating of Eru is specifically postulated as in the mind of Finrod a necessary corrctive to Morgoth's tainting of Arda, if in fact Finrod says , Morgoth changed the very nature of Man from mortal to immortal.

With that postulated, you are only a 1/2 step away from a Trinity. And in this sense following classical Trinitarian Theology [the agreed upon area's of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Coptic Churches] Eru Iluvatar who is seemingly 'sitting on a throne' in his 'halls' becomes Christ, the second person of the Trinity.

Now I am by no means saying JRRT took it this next step, but it certainly would have been the next one after the Athrabeth specualtions. He also stated in the Letters [and also in the LotR/Hobbit itself] that M-E is a myth of this world and so would inevitably lead in it's later ages [i.e. now] to our current history, and thus for JRRT his current Theology.

[Legolas]

Tolkien, as creator, seems to deny Finrod's request though. smilies/wink.gif

There is no 'embodiment' of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology. Gandalf is a 'created' person; though possibly a spirit that existed before in the physical world. His function as a 'wizard' is an angelos or messenger from the Valar or Rulers: to assist the rational creatures of Middle-earth to resist Sauron, a power too great for them unaided.
[...]
Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. [i]The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees.

Of course, by the quote above, you could say (from a technical standpoint) that Tolkien still could suppose the incarnation to eventually take place without writing it into the story.

[ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: Legolas ]

[lindil]

Of course, by the quote above, you could say (from a technical standpoint) that Tolkien still could suppose the incarnation to eventually take place without writing it into the story.


Yes, and he felt, apparently, that pointing to it, via the Athrabeth was as far as he could go in the context of the Legendarium.

Bt I must confess, I do not quite understand why someone who would write an entirely new creation myth, and postulate several apocalyptuc scenarios [Second Prophecy of Mandos] would feel constrained by the Incarnation...

[mark12_30]

Perhaps (being a deeply devout man and in my opinion also frequently sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit) he felt a clear directive as to what he was, and what he was not, called to write.

[lindil]

Very good point!

I have pondered that before in regard to the Athrabeth, but had forgotten.

[Aiwendil]

Lindil wrote:
With that postulated, you are only a 1/2 step away from a Trinity.

Much closer, I think. I don't know all that much about Christian theology, but isn't the Secret Fire rather a bit like the Holy Spirit? It seems to be Eru's creative power, in some ways distinct from him, but unbeknownst to Melkor, always with him. Or am I misunderstanding the nature of the Holy Spirit in Christianity?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Aiwendil, you have a point there. The coming of the Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles is described as the appearance of flames. It does sound like a possible correlation.

[aragornreborn]

Good point. One could argue that the Secret Fire is a part of Middle Earth's trinity. But as for a correlation between the Holy Spirit and the Secret Fire, unlike the Secret Fire, the Holy Spirit is not involved in creation as much. He has more to do with the changing of people's lives.

I was going to mention it and then decided not to, but Estelyn brought it up before I had finished posting. lol. There is a symbolic correlation (intentional or not, I don't know) between the Secret Fire and the flames of Pentecost, but as I said, the nature of the Secret Fire and the Holy Spirit are different.

[ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[ May 01, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[Aerandir Carnesir]

Good point. smilies/wink.gif

Back to the subject, If Middle-Earth was written by Tolkien to mirror our world, wouldn't the same laws and morals apply as they do to our world?

By the way, what does "lol" mean? I see it alot.

[ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: Aerandir Carnesir ]

[ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: Aerandir Carnesir ]

[Bekah]

'LOL' means 'laughing out loud'. 'ROTFL' means 'rolling on the floor laughing'. Does that help?

Tolkien did not, I believe, write Middle-earth as a mirror of our world. A lot of the factors in it were of our old world, yes, but it wasn't made like our world exactly. I think the main difference is that, while both the inhabitants of Earth and of Middle-earth know what they ought to do, the Middle-earthean people have less trouble doing it.

I think that the morals are the same, as far as that goes. But it depends on the individuals rather than the civilization.

~ Elentari II

[The Saucepan Man]

The 10 Commandments really just tell us how to live together best in a society. Humans, in their early evolutionary stages, came together to live in societies because that was what was best for the survival of the species. And it's not to good for the survival of the society you live in (and therefore the survival of your species) to kill others from the same society, or to cause discord by stealing etc.

Now, I know that the theory of evolution doesn't really fit too well into Middle Earth, but the principle is the same. The various races organised themselves into societies, and therefore developed standards by which to live to make those societies work for the best. So, they didn't really need any Commandments to tell them how to live.

[aragornreborn]

lol can also mean "lots of laughs" which is the definition I prefer.

Bekah, good point. I do believe Middle Earth and Earth would have similar moral codes. But as you mentioned, Middle Earth is sufficiently different and has a sufficiently unique theology which would render a direct correlation to Earth impossible.

Oh, Saucepan Man, I am dying to repond to your post, but this is not the correct forum for the manner in which I would like to respond. Let's see if I can relate part of it to LOTR, though. Did the inhabitants of Middle Earth make up their own moral code or was it implanted in them - a conscience if you will?

[ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[Bekah]

It's not too much different though...but enough. Just a little bit... smilies/rolleyes.gif

So you, too, are dying to answer Sauce-pan Man? Maybe you don't disagree in the same way, though...I'm just going to lie quiet for a while and watch this discussion simmer...

~ Elentari II

[Lush]

Looking up briefly from my notes on Biological Anthropology (while wasting valuable study time, no less) I answer the Saucepan Man with: yes, darling, I agree with you on this one, though I doubt that Tolkien had evolution specifically in mind anywhere in his texts. I know what you all are "dying" to say, so maybe I'll say it for you: evolution vs. Christianity? I view that as a false dichotomy, since I am both happily Christian and happily in agreement with the theory of evolution. smilies/wink.gif Doubt Tolkien was of the same mindset though, therefore do not view Middle Earth in terms of evolution. Cheerio.

[Telchar]

... Some people might however have alot of fun writing 'The 10 comandments of ME-Fans' and I can contribute with No. 1:

Thou must not read David Day

Cheers ;o) T

[Haunter]

We have a relieving minister (is that how you put it?) at our church named David Day. I know you mean the author, though...

Yes, Lush, it was. They are not necessarily separated from one another, though I myself am not sure which way it was. However, Genesis is a lot like the first chapter of the Silm.

Anyway, I must go. Love,

Haunter

[ March 06, 2003: Message edited by: Haunter ]

[burrahobbit]

The Ten Commandments wouldn't have been made yet during the times that Tolkien wrote about.

[Telchar]

Which leads to another question Burra - Was Jesus a Maiar? - And was he a son og Manwë or Iluvatar ??? smilies/biggrin.gif

[the real findorfin]

Well its pretty obvious that if Jesus was to be born into ME, it wouldnt be as a maia. Because Gabriel et al were angels/maia and Jesus is supposed to be different.

He is supposed to be an extention of God/Eru, just as the Holy Spirit is, ie. Trinity 3 in 1. So it would be more like a man or elf with the mind of Eru.

[aragornreborn]

lol, well, I disagree with Lush, too. Do I have excellent timing or what. I just said to you, Lush, that I hoped I never got into an important disagreement with you, and here I am. Oh well...

I wasn't thinking just evolution vs. Christianity, although that also sprung to mind. I was also thinking the origin, purpose, and use of morals. But, neither are suitable topics in this forum in and of themselves. If only I could relate them to Tolkien... smilies/wink.gif

And just for the record, not that I am discussing this, I am merely "mentioning" that if you take the Bible as the divine, inspired Word of God that Christianity and evolution are incompatible (and when you compare evolution with science and sociology you also find evolution to be lacking, but, as I said, I didn't actually say all this.). There I'm done. Purely Tolkien from now on. Unless, of course, some people were to PM and ask to start a discussion via e-mail...

[mark12_30]

The last seven commandments are a moral code, true. But the first three? Are you SURE you want to label them that?

Nevertheless, I think they are implicit (including the first three) in Tolkien's work. And according to his letters, he adhered to the first three as well.

[mark12_30]

Telchar, what specifically have you got against David Day? Is there a thread you would like to refer me to?

[aragornreborn]

I'm not sure who you were referring to, mark12_30, but I am not of the opinion the 10 commandments are a moral code. I see it more as a standard.

[Lush]

Looking up briefly from my readings on the development of Chimpanzee culture (you'd think I would have picked a more glamourous science course), I would have to briefly state that I personally believe that morals are inspired by the divine, but that the divine has many tools with which to operate, evolution being one of those tools; at the same time, viewing Middle Earth in terms of evolution is a bit absurd to me, especially since Middle Earth came from the mind of Tolkien, who already had those moral beliefs instilled in him by his own church. Are we forgetting that this is fiction again?

[Arvedui III]

I agree with aragornreborn (not that my lowly oppion matters much, but anyway) The ten commandments were a standard given by god or whoever to be lived up to. In ME, whatever standard may exist, it's so imbued into the good guys(and so ignored by the not-so-good guys) that it's doesn't need to be mentioned. Lush is also right. This is fiction, and Tolkien doesn't need to have any kind of standard or code in effect. However, I think since the ideas of honour and destiny exist in the story then there most deffinly is a moral code at work. Just not one in ten commandments format.

I sincerly appolgize for my spelling and for taking up the time of my betters. I will now crouch in a corner and be corrected by people who know more then me.
Arvedui

[Aiwendil]

The last seven commandments are a moral code, true. But the first three? Are you SURE you want to label them that?

Why not? The 10 seem to constitute a moral code rather clearly.

[Haunter]

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your soul. Mark 12:30. smilies/biggrin.gif It's the foremost of the commandments. Do you really believe that it's a moral code?

Haunter

[Aiwendil]

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your soul. Mark 12:30

Hmm. Forgive me if I'm being a little obtuse, but the Ten Commandments have nothing to do (well, nothing directly anyway) with Mark 12:30. The Ten Commandments - all of them -certainly do constitute a moral code. The stuff in Mark et al. also constitutes a moral code (a different one).

[ March 06, 2003: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[aragornreborn]

Yes, Lush, this is fiction. Sorry for getting a little off topic, but... Saucepan Man started it! lol, just kidding.

Good post, Arvedui III. I agree.

I hate to rain on anyone's party, including the one I started, but we are getting very much off topic with discussing the Ten Commandments and if they're a moral code or not.

[burrahobbit]

Whether the 10 Commandments are a moral code or whatever else doesn't have anything to do with the question at hand.

Aerandir Carnesir asked if Eru gave the people of Middle-earth any sort of moral guidelines, such as the Ten Commandments. The answer is yes: the Ten Commandments. Tolkien wrote about Middle-earth as a fictional time period in our not fictional world. As such, Eru is God, and he gave his people the Ten Commandments, as well as everything else, but that came after the (fictional) times that Tolkien wrote about.

During the time of The Lord of the Rings (and all else), however, I don't think that Eru had given his people any explicit directions on how to behave.

[ March 06, 2003: Message edited by: burrahobbit ]

[Telchar]

Telchar, what specifically have you got against David Day? Is there a thread you would like to refer me to?

I have everything against David Day when it comes to the books he have published about JRR Tolkiens writings. They are highly inaccurate - they are misunderstanding most of JRR Tolkiens belifs and motivs for writing fantasy - and they are full of stuff David Day has made up himself - trying to make it look like he knows everything about Middle-earth...

Thats basicly why Im so angry with him - he makes alot of money on selling books about Middle-earth - but he is being very disrespectful in the way he treats the material...

smilies/mad.gif T

[The Saucepan Man]

... do not view Middle Earth in terms of evolution

I totally agree. Evolution is totally incompatible with the deveopment of ME. We have it first hand from the Silmarillion how Arda was created and the races awoke. Clealry, none of them evolved. They came into being as they were.

The point that I am making is that, since Elves, Men and Dwarves organised themselves into societies, they needed some kind of moral code by which to live, otherwise their societies would have disintegrated. We are never told of any moral code being handed down by Eru or the Valar. So, I suspect that, upon awakening, Elves, Dwarves and Men very quickly worked out the kinds of standards by which they would need to live in order for their societies to thrive.

[mark12_30]

burra-- on the contrary. The point has been made in this very thread that the ten commandments are a reasonable set of moral guidelines that would have been instinctively followed by any society desiring peace and order, and so would be implicit.

If we talk about an implicit moral code that is generic to all societies including elves, men, dwarves, and by implication hobbits, and label all ten commandments as such a generic moral guideline, then that gives us the basic "I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me" as a GENERIC MORAL GUIDELINE, applicable to every society. Personally I agree with that and think Tolkien agreed with that-- but I also think it would put half this forum into orbit, and that is why I think the statement should be carefully examined by those who make it to be sure that that is what you mean.

The violation of the first several (generic moral) commandments was what got the Numenoreans into trouble-- letting Sauron set himself up as a god in the temple, and accept worship. Tolkien discussed this in his letters. If you think of the ten commandments as an **implicit moral code** that would have been instinctively followed by any reasonable society, then the first three present a challenge to many societies.

[ March 07, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[drigel]

i see the humans in the JRRT world as a younger form of man now, with inherently a closer conviction to their spirit and morals. They still have free will but all non-easterling types would not need instructions on what is right and what is wrong

[Yavanna Kementari]

This is a very strong topic! Not to mention a touchy one at that.

The 10 commandments, I would say that Eru set the first few such as Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your soul, because Melkor tried to make his own song during the music of the Ainur and Eru wanted to make it clear even to him, that he was the only ONE, he was God.

And after that. the words passed to men as a rule. I wouldn't call them a moral code ( though they do make up the foundations for survival in a society) it's more than just morale, it's either you follow the instructions or you will suffer at the hands of Melkor. It's more like a boundary line. Because unlike basic moral standards which are either you are a good person or a bad person, the commandments or laws of Eru are more promising. Like you choose to listen to and be lead away and be persuaded by Melkor, suffering is ceratin, If you did your job and listen well to Eru you are most likely to be blessed in some way.
(This is just an example smilies/smile.gif

How ever The Professor never mentioned the Ten Commandments in his books because..It is a Story! smilies/smile.gif I think we have become overly obsessed(my self included) smilies/rolleyes.gif
Any way,Really deep thread! I like it
-(~<~>Yavanna

[ April 22, 2003: Message edited by: Yavanna Kementari ]

[The Saucepan Man]

If we talk about an implicit moral code that is generic to all societies including elves, men, dwarves, and by implication hobbits, and label all ten commandments as such a generic moral guideline, then that gives us the basic "I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me" as a GENERIC MORAL GUIDELINE, applicable to every society ... I think the statement should be carefully examined by those who make it to be sure that that is what you mean.

You are absolutely right, mark 12_30. I originally said:

The 10 Commandments really just tell us how to live together best in a society.

That statement was not entirely accurate, because I had in mind those of the 10 Commandments that might be said to represent a moral code on a more general, rather than specifically Biblical, level, such as "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal" etc. It is those particular restrictions on personal freedom, imposed by a society on itself for its own good, that I had in mind. It seems to me that any society wishing to thrive will inevitably impose upon itself such a moral code. I therefore speculated that Elves, Dwarves, Men and Hobbits, in organising themselves into societies, would inevitably adopt such moral imperatives.

I did not have in mind those of the Commandments which are more specifically related to God, such as "Thou shalt put no other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not take thy Lord's name in vain". While they may represent a moral code of sorts, they are not necessary for the survival of a society, as witnessed by the many societies that have thrived perfectly well without them.

These Commandments deal with obedience to a Supreme Being. In the context of ME, there was, again, no need for any specific pronouncement of them by Eru or His representatives. This is because, rather than being a matter of faith, Eru's existence in ME was a matter of fact. His representatives on ME, the Valar, who had personal experience of Him, passed on their (fact-based) knowledge of His existence to the Elves, who, in turn, passed on that knowledge to those with whom they came into contact. Unlike our world, there were inhabitants of ME, even at the time of the War of the Ring, who had first hand experience of the Valar who, themselves, had first hand experience of Eru. So, obedience to Eru followed implicitly from knowledge of His existence and from interaction with those who passed on that knowledge. Those who disobeyed this imperative, such as the latter day Numenoreans and the Easterlings who allied themselves with Melkor and Sauron, were not denying Eru's existence by their disobedience, but following the lead of those who rebelled against Him (ie Melkor and Sauron). They disobeyed the code because they chose to follow (or were seduced into following) those who opposed Eru. For those who chose not to follow Eru's opponents, obedience to a Supreme Being whose existence was not in doubt followed as a mtter of course.

[Bekah]

Very nicely put, Yavanna Kementari.

Let's just take the saints. They also had first hand experience of God. They tried to convey this experience, but many did not believe them.

Augustine said something like: "Faith is to believe what you do not see, and thereby seeing what you believe." Or something like it.

I'll bet that there were people in Middle-earth who did not believe in Eru or, for that matter, the Valar. Insanity was not unknown there, so people who testify to seeing the Valar (who in turn have firsthand experience of Eru) could be labeled as insane.

Cheers,

~ Elentari II

[The Saucepan Man]

I'll bet that there were people in Middle-earth who did not believe in Eru or, for that matter, the Valar.

Quite possibly, although they would be rejecting the first hand testimony from those who had interacted with the Valar. But this would no doubt have become more the case as the Elves passed to the West, the more direct connection with Eru and the Valar diminished and their existence became a matter of legend for those who did not retain faith.

[Bekah]

There are people on earth who have rejected first hand interaction with God. They have even rejected his Son.

~ Elentari II

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bekah and Saucepan Man,

It wasn't so much a question of believing or not believing, rather it was a question of knowing or not knowing. At least that was true by the late Third Age.

Certainly the Elves knew about the Valar and Eru. And Faramir's practice of standing and facing the West before meals also implies a knowledge, at least of the Valar, on the part of those Men descended from the Edain.

But what about the other peoples of Middle-earth, the great majority of people who lived at that time? Let's take the hobbits whom I'm most familiar with. Frodo and Sam were actually unusual in making their pleas to Elbereth. It almost seems that they grew in that knowledge as their journey progressed.

Shippey discusses the fact that Tolkien wanted to explore a world where people had to fight and give of themselves without really having assurances about what came after death. That is the situation most of the residents of Middle-earth were in. They had to go by the little voice inside them, because there weren't any formal "religious teachers or institutions or beliefs." By the Third Age, there were no temples or mounts to Eru as there had been on Numenor. Most of the hobbits had never heard the true tales of Elvish Lore. Indeed, until Bilbo translated them, they were not available in Westron in any organized way.

The good guys on Middle-earth are not distingished by their beliefs. Rather they are distinguished by their actions. In one of the Letters Tolkien states that, by the time of LotR, the good guys do not have formal worship. Instead the chief way of showing support for the cause of goodness was physical opposition to the incarnate figure of Sauron. It is deeds that formed the core of a "good" person in Middle-earth, not belief per se.

Tolkien also mentions in a footnote to this same letter that only a few hobbits familiar with Elves had any real idea about the Valar and Eru. Most simply hadn't heard and didn't know.

To tell the truth, I kind of like the idea of a world where people are judged and represented by what they do, and not just the words that come out of their mouths, since the latter may or may not reflect what is actually in their heart.

Cami/Sharon

[ April 23, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Bekah]

I agree, and if you will allow me, I belive Jesus said something of the same sort, with a parable about a guy who asked his sons to do something. The first guy said yeah, I'll do it, then didn't, the second said no, but did it anyway later on. Which was better? (Rhetorical question this time round.)

But they did know that they would go to the halls of Mandos. They probably had more certainty than us where they would go.

[The Saucepan Man]

Yes, I agree with what you are saying, Child of the 7th Age. There most probably were denizens of the Third Age that had no real understanding of Eru and the Valar and so neither accepted nor rejected them. And the inhabitants of the Shire (on the whole) do seem likely candidates in this regard.

This fits in with what I was saying about beliefs being eroded over time, as the more direct connection with Eru and the Valar diminished. In the First Age and (largely) the Second Age, most ME inhabitants would have regarded the existence of the Valar (and by association, Eru) as a matter of fact, since there was a close interaction with those who had known the Valar (ie the Elves). As the Third Age progressed, and Elves became more reclusive and other communities grew up who had little contact with them (eg Rohan and the Shire), then that direct knowledge would have decreased. This process would then have accelerated as the Elves passed to the West. ME became a world of Men, who had no direct knowledge of Eru or the Valar and whose belief would therefore have had to have relied on faith rather than knowledge.

The good guys on Middle-earth are not distingished by their beliefs. Rather they are distinguished by their actions.

Absolutely. But, in terms of the original question, were their actions guided by any set of moral or faith-based imperatives handed down by Eru? My argument is that no moral imperatives (no killing, no stealing etc) were required because they would have evolved naturally, as communities came together, in order to ensure the survival of those communities. And no faith-based imperatives (obedience to Eru etc) were required because, originally, the inhabitants of ME had direct knowledge of the existence of Eru and the Valar and so either accepted or rejected them. As that direct knowledge diminished, it became a matter of faith, albeit derived from that original knowledge (ie teachings handed down from one generation to another). Where those teachings wee rejected, or where they were not (for whatever reason) passed on, then societies would have been free to develop their own beliefs.

I hope that makes sense. smilies/rolleyes.gif

Edit:

But they did know that they would go to the halls of Mandos. They probably had more certainty than us where they would go.

Well, Elves certainly knew their fate. But the same could not be said for Men, just as (absent faith) it cannot be said for us today.

[ April 25, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Bekah]

I was under the impression that men also went to the halls of Mandos, but perhaps I'll have to read the Sil again.

You know, we didn't have the commandments until centuries after God created the world, assuming that Genesis is true. [I don't think arguments about the validity of this book is appropriate right now.] Probably because until then, God had thought that we could get along without God having to spell out our duties (for lack of a better word) for us. So I just find that part of your post interesting, Saucepan Man.

Cheers,

~ Elentari II

[The Saucepan Man]

You know, we didn't have the commandments until centuries after God created the world, assuming that Genesis is true.

Good point, Bekah. smilies/smile.gif In the same way, I would speculate that Eru felt no need to issue any Commandments by way of guidance during the period of ME's history covered by JRRT's writings, while belief in Him and His values were still based on direct knowledge of His existence. Perhaps, as that belief gradually became a matter of faith rather than knowledge, and increasing numbers of the peoples of ME turned away from it, He would have felt it necessary to issue Commandments of the type given to Moses.

Edit: Thank you Bekah, and others who have posted on this thread, for making me think in serious terms about the analogies between the Bible and JRRT's writings, much against my natural inclination smilies/eek.gif . I am now beginning to appreciate events such as the Downfall of Numenor and the despatching of the Istari much more as strategies implemented by Eru, through the Valar as His representatives on ME, to address a waning belief in Him and the values for which He stands. smilies/smile.gif

[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Bekah]

Yeah. There are Biblical analogies, though I'm sure Tolkien didn't do them intentionally. His faith, however, was such a big part of him that they probably slipped out anyway.

Thank you. I like discussing this, because so far no one has flamed up about it. Well, that's one of the reasons... smilies/smile.gif

Another is that I happen to be Christian and it's interesting discussing something like this with people of diverse opinions.

~ Elentari II

[mark12_30]

up.

[Man of the Old Hope]

As was previously pointed out, the Ten Commandments (the Decalogue) have not yet been given because the First through the Fourth Ages of Arda constitute a mythical time before our historical time, and the Decalogue is firmly planted in historical time.

But to a large degree, the question and the responses miss the point of the Decalogue. We do not have in the Ten Commandments a universal moral code for humanity (however well such commands as "You shall not commit murder" and "You shall not commit adultery" work for creating stable human societies). The ancient world was replete with moral codes, usually promulgated by kings or philosopher-scholars (see, for example, the Code of Hammurabi). The Ten Commandments constitute part of what is understood to be God's revelation to and covenant with a particular people: the Jews. However "useful" they may be as a "moral code", the Ten Commandments cannot be abstracted from their context; i.e., the Torah.

The particularity of the Decalogue is noted right from the introduction of the Commandments, in Exodus 20:

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me."

There is no people in the First, Second, Third or Fourth Ages of Arda who have been so brought out of the slavery of Egypt.

[HerenIstarion]

EDIT:
And me thinking I've bumped this thread up! Thanks Helen :). As for me, hasty is the word - I've read first page of it and haven't noticed it had two! But last comment in the Post Scriptum refers to the actual last post on the second page. I will not change original post for you to see my hastiness and following silliness. mea culpa
END OF EDIT

I see a good one, I dig a good one up...

But, to be honest, I stalked (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=10744) Estelyn down here :D

Possible patterns of future development for this discussion:

1. 10 Commandments (titular, hence mostly would-be-welcome) and actual instances of their application in the books
2. David Day and how much we dis/like him

cheers

PS. As for the last comment:

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me

compare with [imaginary] quote:

I am Eru the One, who brought you out of Beleriand, out of the house of ruin, you shall have no Sauron before me

Suppose it was quoted to Ar-Pharazon by Amandil?

But the point is, the Commandment does not imply Jews 'shall have no other gods' cause the one they have now have rendered them good service. The commitment is requested on the mere fact Lord is Creator, and men are creatures. The men need their God to exist (in M.E Flame Imperishable is what makes world Be). The reminder of deliverance just underlines Love the Lord has for his creatures, but 'you shall not have...' is not based on that - we would be obliged not to have others on mere fact we are His creatures, even if (God forgive) He were not loving us.

cheers