Of another world [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

littlemanpoet

04-13-2006, 08:42 PM

I remember reading magazine articles way back in the early 1970s about how Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn were "Christ figures". So it seemed to many of us in that first heady rush way back when the books really took off for the first time in America. And so it often seems to many who come to Tolkien for the first time these days.

I used to think it was obvious that they were Christ figures. But I've learned a lot about myths and myth making since I first read those articles, and I've discovered that, even though such connections can be drawn, it doens't tell us the whole story about these characters.

Gandalf is an incarnated angel. The Sil tells us that. He dies while killing a Balrog, then Eru brings him back to life and reassigns him the same task he had, only at a higher level. So far so good. But Gandalf is not saying, "I am the way".

Frodo carries the burden of the Ring. This reminds us of the burden of our sins that Jesus carried on the cross. But Frodo in the end said "I will not do what I came to do." One cannot (honestly) conceive of Jesus saying that! It takes Gollum biting Frodo's finger off to get the Ring into the Fires. Frodo is thus wounded for life and does not experience resurrection; rather, he must go to Tol Eressëa to receive healing.

Aragorn is the promised and expected King who will take back his throne. He is virtually a chosen one. But he dies in the end and passes his crown to a son.

Sauron is the Dark Lord, the mover of great evils in the world. However, he is not responsible for every evil in the world. Nor is he a spirit who puts tempting thoughts in the minds of ordinary folks.

So yes, there are many harmonies between LotR and Christian faith. This is no surprise, since Tolkien was a Christian. But they are harmonies only, not direct linkages.

The Silmarillion, it seems to me, is a different kind of story. Eru resembles the Christian God in every way except for (1) the Trinity; (2) being directly involved with a chosen people. If Tolkien had included these two specific things in his story, it would have ceased to be a story unto itself, and would have been a mere retelling of biblical history. Obviously, Tolkien didn't want that. Nevertheless, there are even more harmonies between Christianity and the Sil than there are between Christianity and LotR.

Other members of the Downs will contend with great erudition that the Sil and LotR are no more Christian than they are Buddhist, Pagan, or what have you. I think they have a difficult case, though, seeing as Tolkien himself was Christian, and stated that LotR was consciously Christian in the revision.

Aiwendil

04-13-2006, 09:40 PM

Littlemanpoet wrote:
The Silmarillion, it seems to me, is a different kind of story. Eru resembles the Christian God in every way except for (1) the Trinity; (2) being directly involved with a chosen people.

True, but I would point out:

1. I think it is possible to find a Trinity in the Legendarium:

Father = Eru
Son = Eventual incarnation hinted at in "Athrabeth"
Holy Spirit = Flame Imperishable

This has been touched on before, for example here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=386089t#post386089).

2. The events depicted in the Silmarillion and LotR are apparently supposed to be pre-Judaic. It seems quite plausible that we are merely seeing in the Legendarium a stage in history before Eru establishes his covenant with a chosen people.

goldfinger

04-13-2006, 11:16 PM

Very good points. We as Christians don't wish to die we just simply can't wait to get Heaven. Like a kid on Christmas Eve.

davem

04-14-2006, 04:42 AM

Other members of the Downs will contend with great erudition that the Sil and LotR are no more Christian than they are Buddhist, Pagan, or what have you. I think they have a difficult case, though, seeing as Tolkien himself was Christian, and stated that LotR was consciously Christian in the revision.

I've stated before that the whole 'consciously so in the revision' thing, its simply not sustainable. I'm not saying Tolkien was lying - I'm sure he believed that - but if you can find any examples in HoM-e vols 6-9 where the revised LotR is more obviously Christian in form or content than the earlier drafts please show me them. In the Letters in particular we see Tolkien on the defensive a great deal of the time, being challenged by Christian readers on the orthodoxy of many elements of the story. Tolkien is clearly thinking in his feet in many of those letters & attempting to convince himself as much as his correspondents of the Christianity of his story.

As to finding clear & obvious 'Christian' elements/themes in the story. I suppose you can, but only if you know nothing of myth & fairy story. Incarnate spiritual/magical beings who die & are resurrected are legion - Odin, Osiris, Leminkainen, Llew Llaw Gyffes. The victory of the small insignificant youngest son achieved through an act of kindness to another, the lost King who returns to save his people - all these themes are commonplace in non-Christian traditions.

I'm reminded of an anecdote in 'The People's Guide to Tolkien'. The writer relates seeing a grandmother with her grandson in a bookshop, pointing out LotR & telling him he should read it, because it was a Christian book & would do him good.

Lalwendë

04-14-2006, 05:11 AM

If you want to find elements of Christianity in Tolkien's work, then you can find them there, yes. You can also find a lot of other elements too. I think its all too easy to find a situation or character that reminds us of a biblical situation or character and put that together with Tolkien's own Catholicism and make the claim that this is a Christian book. We also have to remember that LotR is not an allegory, and that the world Tolkien created is a secondary world, a world which stands thoroughly on its own. There really is little other work like Tolkien's - he managed to create not only a world but a cosmology, and one which has logic and meaning outside our own world. If you wish to apply Christianity to it, then there is nothing to prevent this, but I think it is best appreciated and understood within itself.

The text does not exist within a vacuum and nor did Tolkien write it that way - not only was he a Catholic but he was also steeped in thoroughly Pagan mythology, and all these elements inevitably find their way into the text at points. So we can and should consider the text against those backgrounds, but ultimately, as this is its own world, final answers can only come from the text.

Tolkien was not always the devout Catholic; he created much of his myth when he was not a regular worshipper, and the evidence can be found in the oddities like Ungoliant who was conceived as a being who came from outside Eru's control. It is when we start to consider these kinds of elements that applying Real World religion can become problematic.

I would also seriously question what Tolkien's intentions were for the Silmarillion. He did not leave us with a final version, what we have now is someone else's version, and as you look through HoME you see just how many different versions there were, the later ones becoming ever more theologically tangled.

littlemanpoet

04-14-2006, 09:05 AM

In the Letters in particular we see Tolkien on the defensive a great deal of the time, being challenged by Christian readers on the orthodoxy of many elements of the story. Tolkien is clearly thinking in his feet in many of those letters & attempting to convince himself as much as his correspondents of the Christianity of his story.This is how you choose to interpret the Letters. I don't find this in them at all. I'm not surprised by this; it shows that you and I view these issues through different lenses.

As to finding clear & obvious 'Christian' elements/themes in the story. I suppose you can, but only if you know nothing of myth & fairy story.This is a rather objectionable statement. I do happen to know plenty about myth and fairy story, as you should know; yet because I view these issues through different lenses than you, I see things that you don't see, and vice versa. The lens through which I see these things is that the myths to which you refer are not unlike the "unknown god" on the Acropolis in the book of Acts that the apostle Paul uses to present the Christian gospel to the Greeks. In like manner, the myths are dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflections of the truth as presented in the Christian bible. That is my lens.

davem

04-14-2006, 10:13 AM

This is a rather objectionable statement. I do happen to know plenty about myth and fairy story, as you should know; yet because I view these issues through different lenses than you, I see things that you don't see, and vice versa. The lens through which I see these things is that the myths to which you refer are not unlike the "unknown god" on the Acropolis in the book of Acts that the apostle Paul uses to present the Christian gospel to the Greeks. In like manner, the myths are dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflections of the truth as presented in the Christian bible. That is my lens.

Joseph Campbell pointed out the irrationality of Paul's action re the Unknown God. Saying 'I know something you don't know about your own Gods' was at best ignorant & at worst insulting. I don't recall him going to any of the Athenians & asking them to explain their beliefs, or what the statue symbolised. To claim that he was revealing the hidden truth to them simply showed that he had not the faintest grasp of philosophy. The 'Unknown God' symbolised the mystery of God, the Cloud of Unknowing, those things about Deity which cannot be known, & ultimately a humble & very public statement on the part of the Greeks that there are mysteries beyond human understanding. Paul coming along & claiming to know those mysteries was tantamount to telling them he knew the whole mystery of God (ie that he could explain what God was). The reaction of the majority of Athenians was quite understandable.

In like manner, the myths are dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflections of the truth as presented in the Christian bible.

I suspect that our forefathers would find that statement quite 'objectionable'. I think our 'pre-Christian' ancestors saw their religious traditions (which is what myths were) as quite 'whole'. The idea that because Christianity contains elements that can be identified with aspects of other religious traditions it is Christianity which has the 'true' version & the others are all the result of ignorant savages struggling to get at the 'Truth' simply displays the same kind of hubris & ignorance as Paul displayed.

Plus, I think you'll find that to the extent that myths are 'dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused' it is pretty much down the early Christians destructive hatred of anything non-Christian. The great artworks of Antiquity lost, destroyed, defaced, the stories, the sacred places, twisted, corrupted & made to serve the 'new religion' is both beyond count & almost beyond mourning. For Christians (including Lewis & Tolkien) whose forerunners revelled in that very destruction to effectively look on what had survived & say 'Well, look at that confused mess! Its all quite hopeless, but there are sure signs there that they were struggling to be like us.' merely adds insult to injury. Is it not equally possible that it is Christianity that is a 'dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflection of the truth as presented in the Pagan traditions - after all any objective observer can find more of Hellenism (where demi-gods, virgin births & the like abound) than Judaism in the Christian story?

Sorry to rant - but I hope, as G. K. Chesterton said that one should “never let a quarrel get in the way of a good argument.”

Legolas in spandex

04-14-2006, 11:07 AM

[QUOTE=davem] To claim that he was revealing the hidden truth to them simply showed that he had not the faintest grasp of philosophy.
QUOTE]

I should have something to say about that. The problem with philosohpy is that it is by all means unstable. Philosophy can contradict istelf by taking on double, triple, even many more meanings. It is not ignorance to simply find yourself believing something and then want to share it. It is actually the way of a human concept. Fighting by means of philosophy can be productive as well as destructive. Paul was not out to fight by means of philosophy, he was shown a way of life and a higher power. It was real to him. It wasn't something he manifested in his mind and came to prove he was right about. He wanted to prove a real thing should be real to all. Agree with me or not, you can't deny that half of what the world exists on is by theory or philosophy. We find a real thing and try to explain it. That is philosophy. Paul wasn't trying to "explain" so much as he was trying to show that it was real. If we sat around and explained everything to everyone and never told them about it, then they'd never get to experience it and explanation is pointless without experience or the promise of experience.(Laughs) and here I am being philosophical about the instability of philoshophy. This world trips me out I tell you. :rolleyes: Anywhosit , all I'm saying is that a grasp of reality is far more valuable than a grasp of philoshophy at times.

davem

04-14-2006, 11:19 AM

Well, he didn't have the faintest grasp of theology either.

The 'Unknown God' is a symbol - like the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. If someone came along & said, 'Look guys, I know who this guy was - he was Private First Class Joe Bloggs, so you can put his name on the gravestone & forget all this 'unknown' malarky. There, I've solved your problem - I hope you're grateful' we'd seriously wonder about his grasp of symbolism (not to mention his IQ). Both the 'Unknown God' & the 'Unknown Soldier' have a meaning & relevance in & of themselves & don't mean that some ignorant fool simply forgot the name of the dedicatee.

Lalaith

04-14-2006, 01:01 PM

dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflections of the truth

There may well be an infallible, perfect Truth, but surely, given the imperfect and fallible nature of humanity, all versions of this truth, whether oral or literary, will have been filtered through human perception and will thus be dim, shattered, debased, diffused etc?

davem

04-14-2006, 01:08 PM

There may well be an infallible, perfect Truth, but surely, given the imperfect and fallible nature of humanity, all versions of this truth, whether oral or literary, will have been filtered through human perception and will thus be dim, shattered, debased, diffused etc?

Suppose so - things are a certain way. All opinions are not true. Even if we didn't know what shape the earth was, we'd know for certain it was one specific shape. I think the point LMP was making was that the 'specific shape' of Truth is the Biblical one & that that one was not 'dim, shattered, debased, diffused etc' - only the 'variations' of it - indeed we could only speak of myths & legends being 'corrupt' version of something else if we believe that that 'something else' is uncorrupt.

alatar

04-14-2006, 01:51 PM

Note that our world (that includes Christianity) and Tolkien's secondary world are at best parallel. As much as I would choose it to be so, the Sil and LotR do not document 'pre-Abrahamic' events. If you really think about it, Tolkien's world actually excludes Christ as there is no need for such a saviour. No Adam, no need for a Second one.

Think that I may have said this before, and others have too, but we see in the text those things that are familiar to us. As lmp sees images of the Christian world whereas davem sees other things (of some I have no idea), I see some of these things too, knowing what each poster is talking about. However, I also can see my self in the text, but as none of you have spent hours pouring over my autobiography (shame that ;) ), it's really not worth discussing further. So we discuss Christ, or Odin, or the story of the hidden king regaining his throne as these things are more common to many of us.

And for a thought that might make even less sense: Ministers use text from the Bible (and I assume it may be similar in other churches/religions) to relate to 'today.' As things were back in the day, so goes it today. People are people, and the same situations occur even after thousands of years have passed. With ease the ministers can transform the text so that we understand and empathize with it.

Turning that around, we take our every day experiences and look back into such texts (even LotR) and find those experiences again, regardless of the text or experience. It's how we're wired.

Look, and ye will find.

Aiwendil

04-14-2006, 03:17 PM

Alatar wrote:
Note that our world (that includes Christianity) and Tolkien's secondary world are at best parallel. As much as I would choose it to be so, the Sil and LotR do not document 'pre-Abrahamic' events. If you really think about it, Tolkien's world actually excludes Christ as there is no need for such a saviour. No Adam, no need for a Second one.

Obviously, I agree that Arda is not our real world. However, does Tolkien's world really "exclude" a Christ-figure? Is there no Adam? Tolkien intentionally left the awakening of Men out of the Silmarillion; it seems to me that he intentionally left room for the Eden myth. Moreover, he refers in Letters to the first "fall of Men" as an event not actually depicted in the Legendarium. In fact, he did at one point write a short account of that fall - presented in the guise of Adanel's ancient Edainic lore. Although that story is certainly not exactly the same as that told in Genesis, it does seem to fill the same theological role. And then, of course, we have the Athrabeth, with its Messianic hints (a work that is quite connected with Adanel's tale of the Fall).

I think that Tolkien did, at least at some points in his life, consider Arda to be a fictional version of the real world in pre-Abrahamic times.

Of course, this is a separate question from the one that littlemanpoet and Davem debate - i.e. whether elements of Christian theology are explicitly present in Tolkien's works.

davem

04-14-2006, 04:00 PM

Alatar wrote:
Tolkien intentionally left the awakening of Men out of the Silmarillion; it seems to me that he intentionally left room for the Eden myth. Moreover, he refers in Letters to the first "fall of Men" as an event not actually depicted in the Legendarium.

I think that Tolkien did, at least at some points in his life, consider Arda to be a fictional version of the real world in pre-Abrahamic times.

Well, the fact that the 'Fall of Man' is not mentioned is a rather odd thing for Tolkien to play up - he never says in any Letters that the 6.15 to Paddington, or those little plastic tabs on the ends of shoelaces are not actually depicted in the Legendarium. I don't think either of those things would be assumed to be present by readers of the Legendarium & neither would they expect (unless they were Christians) to find the Fall of Man there - at least not the Biblical version of it.

This just strikes me as yet another example of Tolkien attempting to make the Legendarium 'fit' in response to challenges from Christian correspondents. 'Oh, its really there, but I just didn't mention it' is a cop out. The real point is that for the purposes of the Legendarium there was no need for a Fall of Man - it played no significant part - unlike the Fall of the Elves.

The Athrabeth is a work of great beauty & profundity, but if it is read as a reference to the Christian story it ties the Secondary world too closely into the Primary world - something he himself said would be fatal. It would then both cease to be a self contained Secondary World but couldn't be accepted as a 'genuine' possible history of the Primary World - in other words it would be neither one thing nor the other. The thing is, Tolkien knew this well but he still felt driven to attempt this disastrous move. If he'd succeeded his creation would have been no more than another Narnia-type 'allegory'.

Of course, this is the danger of the Translator Conceit, because the TC actually does attempt to tie the Legendarium into the Primary World. Interestingly, most readers pay no attention to the idea. They actually don't want Middle-earth in the long distant past - they really want it to be a place that exists 'now', just round the next corner or over the next hill.

Anguirel

04-14-2006, 04:31 PM

- after all any objective observer can find more of Hellenism (where demi-gods, virgin births & the like abound) than Judaism in the Christian story?

While I agree entirely with the case you are making, I feel moved to intervene with a point of information. Comparison to Danae and the golden rain may seem vaguely Annunciationesque, but the virgin births really came from Persian tradition-probably via the Jews, who were influenced in important ways by Zoroastrianism.

As for your example of demi-gods, Herakles and co. don't show remotely Christ like characteristics-with the glaring exception of Dionysus, who is certainly a god, not a demi-god, and a great and terrible one at that after a reading of the Bacchae. Demi-gods is a rather misleading term I think unless we're dealing with the Arian heresy.

So...in short...Hellenic similarities come down to coincidence and fundamental motifs in myth and legend. Persian influence on Judaism and Christianity is more hirstorically traceable; it must be remembered that Christianity is a religion of the east.

There's my quarrel to sidetrack the argument, in which I am entirely of davem's view.

davem

04-14-2006, 04:49 PM

So...in short...Hellenic similarities come down to coincidence and fundamental motifs in myth and legend. Persian influence on Judaism and Christianity is more hirstorically traceable; it must be remembered that Christianity is a religion of the east.

Point taken, though I think there was a good deal of 'Eastern' influence on the Hellenic world. Certainly the Eastern influence on the Roman Empire was profound. A major influence on Christianity was Mithraism. The following words from the Mithraic Rite may strike a chord:

"He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

Sardy

04-14-2006, 05:03 PM

Mithraism, Mithrandir... hmmmm...?

Aiwendil

04-14-2006, 05:25 PM

Davem wrote:
This just strikes me as yet another example of Tolkien attempting to make the Legendarium 'fit' in response to challenges from Christian correspondents. 'Oh, its really there, but I just didn't mention it' is a cop out. The real point is that for the purposes of the Legendarium there was no need for a Fall of Man - it played no significant part - unlike the Fall of the Elves.

Yet the 'Athrabeth', as a private piece of writing, can hardly be viewed as an apologist work. I cannot believe that Tolkien was not 'serious' about introducing elements of Christian theology into the Legendarium when he wrote it - even if the impetus to do so did originally arise from his defensive replies to Christian critics. If Tolkien considered a criticism to his work and altered it in response, does that make the resulting work any less valid?

The Athrabeth is a work of great beauty & profundity, but if it is read as a reference to the Christian story it ties the Secondary world too closely into the Primary world

Please clarify: is this thread dedicated to the facts about Tolkien's works or to Davem's opinions of them?

You're free to view the Athrabeth any way you like, but let's leave such subjective appraisals out of the discussion.

Of course, this is the danger of the Translator Conceit, because the TC actually does attempt to tie the Legendarium into the Primary World.

Are you arguing that Tolkien did not intend Arda to be a fictional version of the real world - an "imaginary history"? I find this hard to believe given the fact that he spent so much time linking his sub-creation with our world.

davem

04-14-2006, 05:39 PM

Davem wrote:
Yet the 'Athrabeth', as a private piece of writing, can hardly be viewed as an apologist work. I cannot believe that Tolkien was not 'serious' about introducing elements of Christian theology into the Legendarium when he wrote it - even if the impetus to do so did originally arise from his defensive replies to Christian critics. If Tolkien considered a criticism to his work and altered it in response, does that make the resulting work any less valid?

It doesn't invalidate it at all. the question is whether it weakens its effect or not.

Please clarify: is this thread dedicated to the facts about Tolkien's works or to Davem's opinions of them?

Shan't.

You're free to view the Athrabeth any way you like, but let's leave such subjective appraisals out of the discussion.

Shan't

Are you arguing that Tolkien did not intend Arda to be a fictional version of the real world - an "imaginary history"? I find this hard to believe given the fact that he spent so much time linking his sub-creation with our world.

(Of course, I can only respond to this question because of my obstinate refusal of your request to me to leave out personal appraisals & opinions.....)

I am not arguing that Tolkien did not intend Arda to be a fictional version of the real world - an "imaginary history". I actually said:'Of course, this is the danger of the Translator Conceit, because the TC actually does attempt to tie the Legendarium into the Primary World.. I was referring to the danger involved in the idea that the events of the Legendarium were Primary World historical events - because we know they weren't. This was ultimately the cause of the confused mess CT presents is 'Myths Transformed'.

Aiwendil

04-14-2006, 05:46 PM

Davem wrote:
I am not arguing that Tolkien did not intend Arda to be a fictional version of the real world - an "imaginary history". I actually said:'Of course, this is the danger of the Translator Conceit, because the TC actually does attempt to tie the Legendarium into the Primary World.. I was referring to the danger involved in the idea that the events of the Legendarium were Primary World historical events - because we know they weren't. This was ultimately the cause of the confused mess CT presents is 'Myths Transformed'.

Okay . . . actually, I largely agree with you. But whether this tying together of real and fictional worlds is a good thing and whether it exists in Tolkien's works are two separate questions.

davem

04-14-2006, 05:52 PM

Okay . . . actually, I largely agree with you. But whether this tying together of real and fictional worlds is a good thing and whether it exists in Tolkien's works are two separate questions.

That's what I was saying :p

alatar

04-14-2006, 08:15 PM

However, does Tolkien's world really "exclude" a Christ-figure? Is there no Adam?
Yes & no. Evil (an active force) enters Arda the day it becomes real; evil enters creation when Adam falls.

I think that Tolkien did, at least at some points in his life, consider Arda to be a fictional version of the real world in pre-Abrahamic times.
It may be in his mind, but I'm not sure how he ties in all of the Bible into Arda. More thought would place his works post-Adam (duh!) and pre-global Noachian flood.

littlemanpoet

04-14-2006, 10:41 PM

Well, he didn't have the faintest grasp of theology either.
This is actually humorous. :D davem, you are, I fear, being as vituperative in regard to Paul the Apostle as you accuse the "critical elite" of being regarding Tolkien.

Is it not equally possible that it is Christianity that is a 'dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflection of the truth as presented in the Pagan traditions - after all any objective observer can find more of Hellenism (where demi-gods, virgin births & the like abound) than Judaism in the Christian story?Well, of course it's possible. But, of course, I don't believe that, since I'm convinced that God has spoken to us through the Christian Bible and revealed himself to us through it, including through the apostle Paul.

My faith consists of definites. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." Et cetera. I know it's unpopular and deplorable by the standards of currently generally acccepted, tolerant opinion, but according to my faith, there is indeed only one path that is true. Either we are the most arrogant people on earth, or we have been humbled by Someone who has revealed Himself to us directly. If it seems like the height of hubris, I can't help that.

...evil enters creation when Adam falls.Not so. Satan is a part of creation, and came in the form of a serpent. Since Jesus speaks of a real Satan, so must I. It would be more accurate to say that evil mars creation with the fall of Adam.

davem

04-15-2006, 02:06 AM

This is actually humorous. davem, you are, I fear, being as vituperative in regard to Paul the Apostle as you accuse the "critical elite" of being regarding Tolkien.

Not at all. Paul was clearly a great mystic. Unfortunately, as with all great mystics he could only communicate to the rest of us in either nonsense ('I went to the third Heaven') or platitudes about loving each other. Not his fault. The point I was making was making was about his claim to be able to 'explain' the Unknown God. Just because you've met God it doesn't make you smart.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." Et cetera. I know it's unpopular and deplorable by the standards of currently generally acccepted, tolerant opinion, but according to my faith, there is indeed only one path that is true.

Yes, & as I pointed out Mithras said: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." & he said it before Jesus.

Lalaith

04-15-2006, 05:37 AM

the Fall of the Elves
Davem, are you referring to the corruption of elves into orcs, the revolt of the Noldor, or something else?

the impetus to do so did originally arise from his defensive replies to Christian critics

I wonder, if the wish to see so much religious content in Tolkien's works today is driven by a similar impetus. In the US, there is a mistrust of fantasy within many Christian churches (this was something, as a sheltered European, that I was only made aware of since joining the Downs!) and it strikes me that Tolkien's religious credentials, both as a writer and as a man, are helpful to American Christians who may feel the need to justify their enjoyment of his works.

littlemanpoet

04-15-2006, 10:24 AM

That's an interesting thought, Lalaith. In my case, Tolkien's works served as a necessary balance to a very rigid theology that had me mentally tied in knots for years. Through Tolkien's ministrations I was able to find a deep spirituality that was free from the pinned-down-ness of such rigid theologies.

Mithras said: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." & he said it before Jesus.

Mithras' words were said in the negative. A similar thing was true of the Golden Rule. "Whatsoever you would not have someone do to you, do not do it to another." Jesus took those words, which no doubt were reasonably well known in general society, and stated them positively. Compare:

This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me. This cup is the new covenant of My blood, which is shed for you.and
Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Legolas in spandex

04-15-2006, 10:36 AM

What you said may be true for some Lalaith, but not all christians are the same, and others may simply recognize the similarities between some of Tolien's works and the gospel. Nothing more. Looking at both, I see a resemblance without much process to it. I wasn't tying to prove something in particular, just that it was interesting how the two stories mirrored each other a bit.

As for what you said Davem, intelligence surely has nothing to do with meeting God . Intelligence will always be sinful as it causes us to feel more important with each bit of information we earn. The ability to think destructs almost as much as it constructs. The knowledge of God however, is a totally different matter. If God wants to get information of some kind across to people, he will do so by whomever he chooses, intelligent or not, for having God on your side would surely call for nothing else other than doing what you are asked. Also, since you mentioned something about tolkien being Catholic, some aspects of the Cathlolic religion are a derivation of the Christian faith.

Lalaith

04-15-2006, 11:52 AM

some aspects of the Cathlolic religion are a derivation of the Christian faith.
Eh?

Anguirel

04-15-2006, 11:55 AM

Yeah, exactly. Some Shintoists don't even accept the Pope as one of their number, calling his doctrine "suspiciously Christological"...

Mithalwen

04-15-2006, 12:12 PM

Intelligence will always be sinful as it causes us to feel more important with each bit of information we earn. The ability to think destructs almost as much as it constructs.

Eh? A certain confusion between intelligence and knowledge here surely? And to my mind not very logical. If there is a creator he created people to have intelligence in which case it would be somewhat perverse for said creator to deem intelligence sinful. As for knowledge being sinful - well for the sake of my blood pressure I am not going there..... ( especially since knowledge = science, literally in latin - and the maligned philosophy is "love of wisdom" in Greek)

Legolas in spandex

04-15-2006, 02:00 PM

Eh? A certain confusion between intelligence and knowledge here surely? And to my mind not very logical. If there is a creator he created people to have intelligence in which case it would be somewhat perverse for said creator to deem intelligence sinful. As for knowledge being sinful - well for the sake of my blood pressure I am not going there..... ( especially since knowledge = science, literally in latin - and the maligned philosophy is "love of wisdom" in Greek)
He actually created them without "real" intelligence and 'twas man that sought it.(i.e. adam & eve.)By seeking it, we put ourselves no longer in the position to live in a perfect world, for with the acception of intelligence, we also accept the ability to know right from wrong and we therefore would know of our wrong ways if we did them, putting the blame on us, and causing us to have the ability to go somwhere other than heaven. Intelligence does corrupt. Knowledge is simply the recognization of known ideas or facts, but intelligence is the ability to concieve or choose or decide. As I said, intelligence does corrupt nearly as much as it creates.There was no confusion of intelligence and knowledge here.

davem

04-15-2006, 02:03 PM

Davem, are you referring to the corruption of elves into orcs, the revolt of the Noldor, or something else?

What's interesting is the way the Fall of Man goes unmentioned in the Sil writings until very late on. If Men Fell as the Elves (repeatedly) did it is either assumed by Tolkien, or it is not necessary to the plot (which it actually isn't). Tolkien stated the story is about a Fall, that a Fall is necessary. Yet it is only the Fall of the Elves which plays a necessary part in the drama. Indeed, most races don't Fall - there is no Fall of Hobbits. Dwarves or Ents. Even with the Elves its only some of them that Fall - specifically the Noldor. Yet whole groups of Elves are involved in repeated Falls (as you've mentioned).

If Tolkien hadn't written the Athrabeth, or more precisely, if CT hadn't published it, we'd have no reason to believe that Men Fell at all. Of course, we can't ignore the Numenoreans. But they were a relatively small group, & there is no sense that the Rohirrim Fell, or the Dalemen, or even the Dunlendings.

The Athrabeth is the closest thing Tolkien wrote to a work of Christian theology, & I personally felt that the whole piece, while it works as an 'attempt to justify the ways of the (Christian) God to Man' sits a bit ill with the tone of the rest of the Sil writings. It was Tolkien attempting to integrate his faith into his Secondary world, & makes me a bit uncomfortable for that reason.

I wonder, if the wish to see so much religious content in Tolkien's works today is driven by a similar impetus. In the US, there is a mistrust of fantasy within many Christian churches (this was something, as a sheltered European, that I was only made aware of since joining the Downs!) and it strikes me that Tolkien's religious credentials, both as a writer and as a man, are helpful to American Christians who may feel the need to justify their enjoyment of his works.

There does seem to be a need among some Christians to make the Legendarium 'safe' - ie to make it a Christian work. I have a number of books (Birzir's 'Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth', Pearce's 'Man & Myth', Caldecott's 'Secret Fire', Smith's 'Tolkien's Ordinary Virtues', Wright's 'Tolkien in Perspective' & Brunner & Ware's 'Finding God in the Lord of the Rings - there are numerous others) which attempt to demonstrate/confirm the specifically Christian nature of the Books. One is certainly free to do that kind of thing if that is the kind of thing one likes doing, but I think it is a false road.

Of course, Tolkien was himself prone to this retrospective Christianising if his works, but what we actually see is that the starting point of this process was for him the letters he got from Christian correspondents in the years after publication of LotR which questioned the work's orthodoxy. He certainly goes to some long (& quite convoluted) lengths to convince them (& probably himself as well) that there was nothing heretical in the tale.

This is not to ignore the desire he had from the start to contribute to some kind of Moral regeneration of the English people. Apart from a long period in the 1920's (indeed for most of that decade) he was a committed Catholic & regular attender of Mass. But the 20's were the period of greatest development of the Legendarium & in that decade the stories took on the form which they were generally to keep.

My feeling is that he simply never questioned the orthodoxy of the tales till he was challenged to demonstrate it to readers. When he attempted to do so, he struggled. Put simply, there is no specifically 'Christian' dimension to LotR (or most of the Legendarium), or any aspect of it which requires Christian belief (or even any knowledge of Christianity) to make sense. The themes which are picked out by Christian readers as evidence of the work's underlying Christianity can be found in many myths, legends & fairystories. This simple fact is what throws Christians back on the theory LMP has put forward - that the Myths, Legends & Fairystories Tolkien drew on 'actually' contain the truth of the Christian story (even though they pre-existed Christianity by, in some cases, Millennia), because we were all made by the Christian God & in some unconscious way were therefore our ancestors were struggling to express that 'truth' without realising it. A clever theory, & one that liberated both Tolkien & Lewis to use Myth & fairystory in their subcreation, but one for which a great leap of faith is required, there being absolutely no evidence for it.

Of course, Tolkien came to believe his Legendarium was a reflection of Truth, that Eru was the God he worshipped (to a far greater extent than Lewis believed that Aslan 'was' Jesus. But Lewis knew from the start that he was writing a Christian allegory & was being fully orthodox. Tolkien perhaps only realised later that he hadn't been - all his assumptions aside).

In short, the Legendarium is not a 'Christian' work at all - but why should it have to be - well, why should it have to be for us? For Tolkien it had to be a Christian work if only for his own peace of mind. To claim that is what it is in its essential nature is without foundation so far as I can see (& as I say, I've read a fair number of books & articles which claim to show it is).

Mithalwen

04-15-2006, 02:21 PM

davem

04-15-2006, 02:29 PM

Mithras' words were said in the negative. A similar thing was true of the Golden Rule. "Whatsoever you would not have someone do to you, do not do it to another." Jesus took those words, which no doubt were reasonably well known in general society, and stated them positively.

Now that's a very fine distinction. I'm not sure it holds up as in effect it means exactly the same thing as Jesus' words. Mithras says 'if you don't do X you won't be saved' Jesus says 'if you do X you will be saved'. Same thing as far as I can see.

As for what you said Davem, intelligence surely has nothing to do with meeting God . Intelligence will always be sinful as it causes us to feel more important with each bit of information we earn. The ability to think destructs almost as much as it constructs.

Yet Jesus told his disciples to be as 'wise as serpents'. Paul, as Jung pointed out, underwent a very powerful, life-changing experience, but the psychological effect was to turn him from a rabid anti-Christian to a rabid pro-Christian. This was a man who could decare at one moment that in Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, & in the next lay down the law that women must be silent in church.

Intelligence is morally neutral - it depends only on what use we put it to. I have to say that the more I learn the more ignorant I feel. There's so much I'll never know.

By seeking it, we put ourselves no longer in the position to live in a perfect world, for with the acception of intelligence, we also accept the ability to know right from wrong and we therefore would know of our wrong ways if we did them, putting the blame on us, and causing us to have the ability to go somwhere other than heaven.

But without intelligence how could we know the world was 'perfect'? And for me no world would be 'perfect' if I was stupid.

(Hey - maybe that's why I'm always finding fault with things......hmmmmmmm :confused: )

Legolas in spandex

04-15-2006, 02:41 PM

Yet Jesus told his disciples to be as 'wise as serpents'. )

And that falls under whether you believe wisdom and intelligence to be the same thing.

Legolas in spandex

04-15-2006, 02:51 PM

I don't have the time nowto go in to the many aspects of how I disagree with you and since you regard knowledge as sinful I suspect it would be a waste of energy. I suggest you increase your own knowledge at least to the extent of finding out why this statement is grossly inaccurate:- " Also, since you mentioned something about tolkien being Catholic, some aspects of the Cathlolic religion are a derivation of the Christian faith".

As for this, I mean some things in more modern day Catholic society, depending on the denomination, have derived from christian society. A teacher told me this. I have reason to believe them, however, they could be wrong. I sahll research it further if you want more proof, but if you simply want to argue, then you find me other proof as to why it is wrong , and I will gladly stand corrected.

As for the ideas everyone on here has posted, though the debating is nice, we must relize we are straying a bit from the point. I am not asking whether Tolkien could have possibly meant to mirror aspects of the Christian faith in his writing, I am asking if anyone else sees the resemblence, whether they agree with a certain religion's basis or not. Also realize that not everything can be explained by human thought. Sometimes we have to rely on faith.Be content on this.

Formendacil

04-15-2006, 02:55 PM

If Tolkien hadn't written the Athrabeth, or more precisely, if CT hadn't published it, we'd have no reason to believe that Men Fell at all. Of course, we can't ignore the Numenoreans. But they were a relatively small group, & there is no sense that the Rohirrim Fell, or the Dalemen, or even the Dunlendings.

Right....

So, we can take it then, that you believe that people can become evil, that they can do horrible things, live in cultures that do not respect life, limb, or the weak, and yet remain Unfallen?

Would you call the Dunlendings as generally seen, or Herumor, Fuinur, or any of their Black Númenorean-allied Haradrim, or the Witchking, or corrupt King Fengel of Rohan, or Dorlas of Tol-Brandir, or Ulfang and his kin, or the Master of Esgaroth as Unfallen?

Unfallen in Tolkien's world means the primordial state of the race, as intended by Eru. Evil, in any form, is a sign of a Fall, unless imposed from without. Any evil that comes from within a person is a sign of that person's fall, as well as the fall of his or her entire race. Fëanor's fall was his, and his alone, but all of the Exiles fell with him, even those who had no evil intent, such as Galadriel or Finrod.

I think it a very rash and opinionated statement to say that there would be no reason to believe that Men had Fallen without the Athrabeth.

Lalaith

04-15-2006, 03:04 PM

Legolas, let me explain. What Mith meant is that you were wrong in stating that Catholics are "in some aspects a derivation of" Christianity. They are not in any way a "derivation". The Roman Catholic church is a Christian church, entirely and unequivocally, and one of the oldest Christian Churches in existence. Furthermore, it is the world's largest Christian Church, over half the world's Christians belong to it.

This is important to get straight, as this is a Tolkien site and Tolkien was a Catholic.

Legolas in spandex

04-15-2006, 03:23 PM

davem

04-15-2006, 04:54 PM

And that falls under whether you believe wisdom and intelligence to be the same thing.

Noun 1. wisdom - accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment
cognitive content, mental object, content - the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned
abstrusity, profoundness, profundity, reconditeness, abstruseness - wisdom that is recondite and abstruse and profound; "the anthropologist was impressed by the reconditeness of the native proverbs"
2. wisdom - the trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common sense and insight
wiseness
trait - a distinguishing feature of your personal nature
judiciousness, sagaciousness, sagacity - the trait of forming opinions by distinguishing and evaluating
knowledgeability, knowledgeableness, initiation - wisdom as evidenced by the possession of knowledge; "his knowledgeability impressed me"; "his dullness was due to lack of initiation"
statecraft, statesmanship, diplomacy - wisdom in the management of public affairs
discernment, discretion - the trait of judging wisely and objectively; "a man of discernment"
folly, foolishness, unwiseness - the trait of acting stupidly or rashly
3. wisdom - ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight
sapience
astuteness, profoundness, profundity, depth - the intellectual ability to penetrate deeply into ideas
sagaciousness, sagacity, discernment, judgement, judgment - ability to make good judgments
know-how - the (technical) knowledge and skill required to do something
4. wisdom - the quality of being prudent and sensible
wiseness, soundness
goodness, good - that which is good or valuable or useful; "weigh the good against the bad"; "among the highest goods of all are happiness and self-realization"
advisability - the quality of being advisable; "they questioned the advisability of our policy"
reasonableness - goodness of reason and judgment; "the judiciary is built on the reasonableness of judges"

So, we can take it then, that you believe that people can become evil, that they can do horrible things, live in cultures that do not respect life, limb, or the weak, and yet remain Unfallen?

Depends on your definition of 'Fallen', I suppose.

Would you call the Dunlendings as generally seen, or Herumor, Fuinur, or any of their Black Númenorean-allied Haradrim, or the Witchking, or corrupt King Fengel of Rohan, or Dorlas of Tol-Brandir, or Ulfang and his kin, or the Master of Esgaroth as Unfallen?

I think they can just be seen as people who do nasty, selfish things - which most people do now & then. If you're using 'Fallen' to mean simply unpleasant then you're leaving out the spiritual dimension - ie the Biblical requirement of a spiritual choice being made to reject God's will/commandments. There's no equivalent to that in the Legendarium.

Unfallen in Tolkien's world means the primordial state of the race, as intended by Eru. Evil, in any form, is a sign of a Fall, unless imposed from without. Any evil that comes from within a person is a sign of that person's fall, as well as the fall of his or her entire race. Fëanor's fall was his, and his alone, but all of the Exiles fell with him, even those who had no evil intent, such as Galadriel or Finrod.

Whether that was in Tolkien's mind is not the question. The question is whether the reader picks up on that - ie whether its specifically stated in the story, whether its necessary to hold that concept in mind in order to understand the story. Christians may explain the Primary world in terms of a Fall but most non Christians do not. In other words, just as the Fall of Man is not necessary in order to account for the Primary world, neither is it necessary in order to account for the Secondary one - you can bring the concept in if you wish, but you don't need it.

littlemanpoet

04-15-2006, 08:34 PM

Now that's a very fine distinction. I'm not sure it holds up as in effect it means exactly the same thing as Jesus' words. Mithras says 'if you don't do X you won't be saved' Jesus says 'if you do X you will be saved'. Same thing as far as I can see.He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me. This cup is the new covenant of My blood, which is shed for you.Mithras is setting a condition for salvation, essentially salvation by works. Jesus is not; he is offering himself as a gift to be received without condition other than acceptance of said gift.

Legolas errs, I think, in labeling intelligence as the cause of the Fall. The cause of the Fall was pride. Seeking forbidden knowledge in despite of the command was merely the particular act that was emblematic of the root of sin which was pride.

A clever theory, & one that liberated both Tolkien & Lewis to use Myth & fairystory in their subcreation, but one for which a great leap of faith is required, there being absolutely no evidence for it.There's plenty of evidence for it. .... part of which you would call reading the myths backwards, but what I call reading them in the context of the Old and New Testaments. It doesn't matter if the myths predated the writing of these texts by millenia, because their author created the humans who subcreated the myths.

In short, the Legendarium is not a 'Christian' work at allYou haven't proven this assertion, and cannot.

In other words, just as the Fall of Man is not necessary in order to account for the Primary world, neither is it necessary in order to account for the Secondary one - you can bring the concept in if you wish, but you don't need it.That depends upon whether one accepts Jesus' words that he is the resurrection and the life, that no one comes to the Father but by him. If he is speaking the truth with these words, than there must have been something from which we need saving. And Jesus was most certainly part of the Primary world.

Wisdom and intelligence are most certainly not the same thing.

alatar

04-15-2006, 09:29 PM

To ride the fallen horse a bit longer, when we say fallen in regards to Christianity, we are talking about a decision that plunged the entire universe! into a completely different state. As an example, and I'm no theologian, but weren't preFall lions purportedly vegetarians?

In Genesis God declares His creation very Good, meaning that there is no stain, no decay (no entropy!), no ungood. When Adam and Eve fall, everything changes. And in making a mate for Adam, God provides him a companion. In Arda Elves can (though rarely) serve the same purpose.

As I stated posts ago, find please this Fall in Arda. You might have evil, compare Satan to Melkor, but Arda was already running amuck before humans showed up.

davem

04-16-2006, 02:13 AM

Mithras is setting a condition for salvation, essentially salvation by works. Jesus is not; he is offering himself as a gift to be received without condition other than acceptance of said gift.

Ok, now that's cleared up we can move on to Angels & pins....

Legolas errs, I think, in labeling intelligence as the cause of the Fall. The cause of the Fall was pride. Seeking forbidden knowledge in despite of the command was merely the particular act that was emblematic of the root of sin which was pride.

Well, telling a couple of innocent 'children' not to touch the big expensive vase on the mantlepiece & then going away & leaving them in the room with it is asking for trouble. Any parent knows exactly what their kids wold do in that instance, because kids are curious & always want to know 'what will happen if they do 'x'. The very intelligence they needed in order not to behave like children had been denied them, & the only way they could attain that level of intelligence was by doing the very thing they had been told not to do. Catch 22 or what?

]There's plenty of evidence for it. .... part of which you would call reading the myths backwards, but what I call reading them in the context of the Old and New Testaments. It doesn't matter if the myths predated the writing of these texts by millenia, because their author created the humans who subcreated the myths.

Sorry, but 'reading the myths backwards' is not 'evidence' - its just something you can do if you want. I can put on red tinted glasses & see everything coloured red, but that in no way constitutes 'evidence' that everything is red.

You haven't proven this assertion, and cannot.

It is certainly a work by a Christian, but there is nothing in the work which requires a knowledge of, or belief in, Christianity to make it understandable. To claim its a Christian work just because a Christian wrote it is equivalent to claiming that if a Christian kicks an old Coke can down the street its a Christian act because a Christian did it.

That depends upon whether one accepts Jesus' words that he is the resurrection and the life, that no one comes to the Father but by him. If he is speaking the truth with these words, than there must have been something from which we need saving. And Jesus was most certainly part of the Primary world.

Lot of qualifications there...

Wisdom and intelligence are most certainly not the same thing.

Of course they aren't - they're spelled differently for one thing....

Finally, in support of Alatar's point on the Fall I can only quote Tolkien's words:

I suppose a difference between this and what may be perhaps called Christian mythology is this. In the latter, the Fall of Man is subsequent to and a consequence (though not a necessary consequence) of the ‘Fall of the Angels’; a rebellion of created free will at a higher level than Man, but it is not clearly held (and in many versions not held at all) that this affected the ‘World’ in its nature: evil was brought in from outside, by Satan. In this [i.e. Tolkien’s own] Myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the world (Ea); and Ea has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken. The Fall, or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable. (Letters 286-87)

Flieger has commented:

Tolkien borrowed from the myths of northwestern Europe for the flavor of his stories, and much has been written about his debt to existing mythologies from Scandinavia to Sumer. Nevertheless, he wrote to father Robert Murray that The Lord of the Ringswas “a fundamentally religious and Catholic work” (Letters 172), and one might assume the legendarium as a whole would contradict that. Rather surprisingly, a quick comparison between the two reveals some fundamental differences, and not just on the level of doctrine or creed. Tolkien’s is a far darker world than that envisioned by Christianity, and falls short of the promise and the hope that the older story holds out. Unlike the Judaeo-Christian mythos with which it is so often compared, and which tells of a world fallen through human willfulness and saved by sacrifice, Tolkien’s mythos as a whole begins with a fall long before humanity comes on the scene. Thus original sin (if one may borrow that term) enters the world in the very process of its coming to be, when the melodic theme that is the metaphor for creation is distorted by the clamorous and discordant counter-theme of the rebel demiurge Melkor. The resultant Music sets the tone for all that is to follow. The supreme godhead, Eru/Il uvatar, who both proposes the theme and conducts the Music, is neither the Judaic God of Hosts who alternately punishes and rewards his people, nor the traditional Christian God of love and forgiveness. Rather, he is a curiously remote and for the most part inactive figure, uninvolved, with the exception of one cataclysmic moment, in the world he has conceived. The lesser demiurgic powers, the Valar, have only partial comprehension of the world they have helped to make. The primary heroes, the Elves, are gifted beings caught in a web of pride, power, and deceit—largely of their own weaving—that hampers and constrains every effort they make to get free of it. The secondary heroes, Men, are courageous but shortsighted blunderers with but little sense of history and even less comprehension of their place in the larger scheme of things.
Flieger 'A Cautionary Tale

littlemanpoet

04-16-2006, 03:50 PM

Well, telling a couple of innocent 'children' not to touch the big expensive vase on the mantlepiece & then going away & leaving them in the room with it is asking for trouble. Any parent knows exactly what their kids wold do in that instance, because kids are curious & always want to know 'what will happen if they do 'x'. The very intelligence they needed in order not to behave like children had been denied them, & the only way they could attain that level of intelligence was by doing the very thing they had been told not to do. Catch 22 or what?You seem to have missed the point. It wasn't about intelligence, nor knowledge, nor curiosity; those were just the "accidents". It was pride, not curiosity, that was the motivator for Adam-she to pick the fruit and give it to Adam-he, both eating. Adam-they had experienced the surpassing wonder of sharing their evenings with the One who had made them and gave them all their meaning. They chose to throw that away in exchange for the promise of a questionable assertion from a serpent, whose words were directly contrary to those of the One they knew and loved and trusted. Why would anyone do such a thing? Pride. I could go on but I imagine that would only irritate some of you further.

Sorry, but 'reading the myths backwards' is not 'evidence'By itself, no. You are quite correct. But I'm not going to offer the evidence here as it doesn't pertain to this thread, nor do I detect any interest.

It is certainly a work by a Christian, but there is nothing in the work which requires a knowledge of, or belief in, Christianity to make it understandable. To claim its a Christian work just because a Christian wrote it is equivalent to claiming that if a Christian kicks an old Coke can down the street its a Christian act because a Christian did it.Nor would I make hay of such petty issues. The particular Christian author of whom we speak, himself said that his revision of LotR was consciously Christian. To call his statement into question requires little effort, but to prove it requires either unquestionable logic or an undeniable demonstration.

alatar, well said. You've shown me something I had not seen before.

davem

04-16-2006, 04:31 PM

You seem to have missed the point. It wasn't about intelligence, nor knowledge, nor curiosity; those were just the "accidents". It was pride, not curiosity, that was the motivator for Adam-she to pick the fruit and give it to Adam-he, both eating. Adam-they had experienced the surpassing wonder of sharing their evenings with the One who had made them and gave them all their meaning. They chose to throw that away in exchange for the promise of a questionable assertion from a serpent, whose words were directly contrary to those of the One they knew and loved and trusted. Why would anyone do such a thing? Pride. I could go on but I imagine that would only irritate some of you further.

Firstly, I'm not irritated by any of this. If I was I'd just do something else. I see no instance of 'pride' in the Genesis account, which is symbolic as far as I'm concerned. What I see is curiosity. God required them to remain in ignorance. If they had either we as humans would not have existed or we would have remained in ignorance as a species. Why put the damn tree in the Garden in the first place? Why allow the Serpent in? It was a 'test', & whether they passed or failed depends on your perspective. For all the undoubted sufferings of humanity over the millenia I'm glad we had the chance to grow up & stand on our own feet & make our own mistakes & become everything we're capable of becoming.

Nor would I make hay of such petty issues. The particular Christian author of whom we speak, himself said that his revision of LotR was consciously Christian. To call his statement into question requires little effort, but to prove it requires either unquestionable logic or an undeniable demonstration.

The evidence is in the texts themselves - there is nothing in the later drafts of LotR that is more 'Christian' than the later ones (or than in the published version). He also said that LotR was 'mere' entertainment with no deeper meaning - As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author noneis that correct in your opinion? And he did not say it was a 'Christian' work he said:"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

If there is a significant difference in the later drafts it is in Frodo's behaviour on returning to the Shire. In the early draft he returns as a hero & in fact slays the chief ruffian in hand to hand combat. But I don't see how Frodo's ultimate fate in the published version is specifically 'Christian'.

For anyone who is interested
this (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0160.html) article shows the desperate ends Christians have gone to in their efforts to 'prove' LotR is a 'Christian', specifically a Catholic, work. I think any objective reader will admit that the author's 'proofs' are merely similarities at best & silly at worst ('Did I mention that Aragorn looks like Christ?' the author of the article says at one point - I mean puh-leese!).

littlemanpoet

04-16-2006, 08:17 PM

Firstly, I'm not irritated by any of this.Oh. I must have been reading sarcasm where you didn't intend it. ;)

I see no instance of 'pride' in the Genesis account, which is symbolic as far as I'm concerned.Symbolic or not, it is still a story of mythic power. In that light at the very least:And the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will know good and evil."Oops! I mis-quoted that! :eek: There are three additional words that make all the difference: "you will be like God, knowing good and evil."So yes, there is indeed a desire for wisdom that is used as the bait to lure the woman into the temptation, but it's only the bait. There are three words in the text that the serpent didn't have to say: "be like God". If he had not said them, your contention would stand. However, those three words are there, and they are indicative of pride.

God required them to remain in ignorance.No. God wanted them to remain faithful to him, and if they had done so, he would have given them more wisdom than they could possibly have hoped for by eating the fruit of that one tree. You'll have to trust me on that, because I've experienced it myself.

Why put the damn tree in the Garden in the first place?Because it served God's purpose which was sabotaged by the disobedience of Adam.

Why allow the Serpent in? It was a 'test'Yes.

whether they passed or failed depends on your perspective.Actually, it depends on God's perspective since He was the one who designed the test. Believe it or not, He wanted Adam (both he and she) to pass the test, and would have rewarded them (and by inheritance us) with the benefits of both the trees of life and knowledge of good and evil. But Adam did not pass the test. However, Jesus did, and that has made all the difference.

For all the undoubted sufferings of humanity over the millenia I'm glad we had the chance to grow up & stand on our own feet & make our own mistakes & become everything we're capable of becoming.But we haven't grown up. And this is one of Tolkien's major emphases in LotR and the entire legendarium, that we are fighting the long defeat left on our own. We're no better than any other generation, except through the gift of Jesus. I'd be interested to learn (not having HoME) if the long defeat is a consistent theme in the early drafts?

The evidence is in the texts themselves - there is nothing in the later drafts of LotR that is more 'Christian' than the later ones (or than in the published version). He also said that LotR was 'mere' entertainment with no deeper meaning - is that correct in your opinion?I believe you're referring to Letter # 208? ... As for 'message': I have none really, if by that you mean the conscious purpose in writing The Lord of the Rings, or preaching, or of delivering myself of a vision of truth specially revealed to me! I was primarily writing an exciting story in an atmosphere and background such as I find personally attractive. But in such a process inevitably one's own taste, ideas, and beliefs get taken up. Though it is only in reading the work myself (with criticisms in mind) that I become aware of the dominance of the theme of Death.Or were you referring to another letter? This particular one doesn't seem to contradict anything I've contended.

What I do find interesting is that Tolkien's statement in Letter #142 ... The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision ... is stated before publication. Just in case my implication isn't obvious, this means that Tolkien's statement was not a reaction to critics, for no critics had yet read the book. The only critics were those of his own choice, fellow Roman Catholics, who wrote according to the editor's notes "that the book left him with a strong sense of 'a positive compatibility with the order of Grace". So it is two Catholics talking to each other about this work about whom we are 'flies on the wall'.

And he did not say it was a 'Christian' workSince Catholic is Christian, I have no argument with this.

If there is a significant difference in the later drafts it is in Frodo's behaviour on returning to the Shire. In the early draft he returns as a hero & in fact slays the chief ruffian in hand to hand combat. But I don't see how Frodo's ultimate fate in the published version is specifically 'Christian'.I'm not sure that this change is necessarily Catholic/Christian, but I see how it could be so construed. What it shows to me is Tolkien's artistic 'nose' for the best turn of plot.

For anyone who is interested...Thanks for the link. I do notice that the article is entitled "Ways..." rather than "Proofs...." Again, we're flies on the wall overhearing a group of Catholics talking to each other. I shouldn't wonder that you, not seeing the world they do, find some of it objectionable.

davem's assertion of curiosity versus pride drove me to some research, and I found something interesting.

How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of the morning!
You are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
'I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the gathering
On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.'
Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the recesses of the Pit.

The reference to pride is what brought me to this text. What I find interesting is the linkage to Melkor in this, which in Isaiah's writings is understood to be a prophecy with a double audience of both the king of Babylon temporally, and Lucifer eternally. The reference to the north is one thing that caught my eye. Another is how he is cut to the ground. Over time, Melkor lost power until he was chained to a body and wounded with wounds that would not heal.

But back to Legolas' initial inquiry, which I don't think ever got addressed: What about the Elves?

Were they Angels? ;)

alatar

04-16-2006, 08:53 PM

There are three additional words that make all the difference: So yes, there is indeed a desire for wisdom that is used as the bait to lure the woman into the temptation, but it's only the bait. There are three words in the text that the serpent didn't have to say: "be like God". If he had not said them, your contention would stand. However, those three words are there, and they are indicative of pride.
How can the sin of pride exist before the first sin? That's something I'd have a tough time wrapping my head around. How could Adam disobey when he did not know good from evil?

And here are 2X three words that to me absolve Adam and Eve, as they were created "in our image, in our likeness" (that would be God speaking). Like Aulë, weren't Adam and Eve just trying to be like their Father, not mocking him or pridefully hoping to gainsay him, but simply hoping to just be like him. My daughter, helping me with her toy screwdriver, is not acting with pride, but love. The serpent states that A&E will be more like their Father if they do something they ought not. Like the Dwarves who cringed when Aulë made to smash them, is it necessary for life to go outside the bounds set by its creator, to do something new?

My kids attest to this (and they would have accidently broken the vase ;) ). On the other hand, having children does make one tend to believe in original sin...

In a lame attempt to tie back into the thread, I say again that I do not see certain religious images within Arda when I peer beneath the surface.

Formendacil

04-16-2006, 08:57 PM

How can the sin of pride exist before the first sin? That's something I'd have a tough time wrapping my head around. How could Adam disobey when he did not know good from evil.

Before the Original Sin, other "sins" were not sinful, persay- or so I would read it. In much the same was as nudity was not immodest before eating the apple. The apple was expressly forbidden. Pride, while it goeth before the Fall, was not.

Consequently, what was a risky trait before the Fall was a Sinful trait thereafter, for the entire nature of God/Man relationships had changed.

At least, that's the simple explanation, anyway. After all, there is perfectly legitimate pride in things that one has done right, done well, or has the capability to do. It is not sinful to know that one is accomplished, and be pleased with that fact.

davem

04-17-2006, 02:56 AM

No. God wanted them to remain faithful to him, and if they had done so, he would have given them more wisdom than they could possibly have hoped for by eating the fruit of that one tree. You'll have to trust me on that, because I've experienced it myself.

Ah, but would they (we) have gotten that wisdom through experience or just through word of mouth?

Actually, it depends on God's perspective since He was the one who designed the test. Believe it or not, He wanted Adam (both he and she) to pass the test, and would have rewarded them (and by inheritance us) with the benefits of both the trees of life and knowledge of good and evil. But Adam did not pass the test. However, Jesus did, and that has made all the difference

This is the 'humans as lab rats' theory of religion I suppose. What kind of parent decides to run 'tests' on his children anyway - & then punish them for failing? And if Jesus succeeded where Adam failed I'd say Jesus had the advantage over Adam seeing that Jesus was the one who made everything in the first place (including Adam). I still say that if you leave innocent kids alone in a room with a box of matches which you've gone to a lot of trouble to point out to them & leave easily accessible while knowing that weird cousin Cletus (the one with pyromaniac tendencies) is visiting for the weekend & could wander in on the little cherubs at any time, then not only are you asking to come home & find the whole place a big pile of ashes & dust (My Precious) but you will have to accept most of the moral responsibility for the incident - you being the responsible adult after all. If you were then to go ahead & punish the children by throwing them onto the streets to fend for themselves, well......

Just in case my implication isn't obvious, this means that Tolkien's statement was not a reaction to critics, for no critics had yet read the book. The only critics were those of his own choice, fellow Roman Catholics, who wrote according to the editor's notes "that the book left him with a strong sense of 'a positive compatibility with the order of Grace". So it is two Catholics talking to each other about this work about whom we are 'flies on the wall'.

Well, yes - as that article I linked to shows, LotR is not incompatible with Catholicism, but I don't see that its a specifically Catholic work in any sense. Its not a 'not-Catholic' work. Mostly it doesn't contradict Catholic teaching, but, yes, there are even parts of it that can be compared to bits of the Bible (Why, Aragorn does have long hair & a beard & so did Jesus!). I wasn't 'offended by the article' - actually I found the author a bit desperate to prove his points & the whole exercise a bit silly.

I'd be interested to learn (not having HoME) if the long defeat is a consistent theme in the early drafts?

The 'Long Defeat' (as Tolkien himself so ably demonstrated in the Beowulf lecture) was a theme running through Pagan Northern writings & so cannot be put forward as specifically Christian.

Tolkien made some contradictory statements regarding LotR - he states at one point that all references to organised religion have been 'cut out' - now I've read the early drafts & I can tell you such references were not 'cut out' because the only ones in we find in the early drafts actually remained or were added - to clarify: in 'The Road Goes Ever On' he points out the hymns to Elbereth & states 'These & other references to religion in LotR are frequently overlooked'! So, he's saying on the one hand that he has deliberately 'cut out' references to religion, but on the other chiding his readers for not seeing the references to relligion which are in the book.

alatar

04-17-2006, 02:06 PM

Before the Original Sin, other "sins" were not sinful, persay- or so I would read it. In much the same was as nudity was not immodest before eating the apple. The apple was expressly forbidden. Pride, while it goeth before the Fall, was not.
Why nudity was shameful after the Fall is a bit disturbing as these two beings were made in the image of God, and there were no others by which they could be embarassed.

And why an apple? Is that what the Bible states, or it that a tradition? Were apples native to the region? Did you ever notice that many depictions of Jesus are not of a Middle Eastern person? And yet...

My son now wants to wear his hair long like Aragorn. Like others have posted, one could say that Aragorn looks somewhat like Jesus. There was a time when long hair on men was taboo, as was seen as a sign of rebellion. Back in that day I loved hearing the verbal pretzels regarding the reasoning why Jesus could wear his hair long yet no man in the congregation could.

Lalaith

04-17-2006, 02:51 PM

"my hair like Jesus wore it, hallelujah I adore it, Mother Mary loved her son, why don't my momma love me..."
I think that's how it went.... ;)

davem

04-17-2006, 03:53 PM

And why an apple? Is that what the Bible states, or it that a tradition? Were apples native to the region? Did you ever notice that many depictions of Jesus are not of a Middle Eastern person? And yet...

Genesis states it was a fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil. It certainly doesn't mention apples at all. Certainly the apple was a fruit with strong Pagan associations, among the Greeks/Romans & among the Celts (the Celtic Paradise, Avalon in the Arthurian tradition is derived from Ynys Avallach, the Isle of Apples). The Christian approach was to denigrate the Pre-Christian traditions they encountered by presenting them in as negative a form as possible - the form the devil usually takes in Christian iconography: horns, cloven hooves, etc is actually the form of the Pagan Horned God Pan/Cernunos - so the likely explanation for the 'forbidden fruit' being depicted as an apple is probably down to this. The physical elements of Paganism like statues, temples, sacred groves, could be destroyed, but the symbols had to be twisted & made fearsome to ensure a 'clean break' with the past.

This was a deliberate policy on behalf of the church. In Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the english Church & People we find the following letter from Pope Gregory:

CHAP. XXX. A copy of the letter which Pope Gregory sent to the Abbot Mellitus, then going into Britain. [601 A.D.]

The aforesaid envoys having departed, the blessed Father Gregory sent after them a letter worthy to be recorded, wherein he plainly shows how carefully he watched over the salvation of our country. The letter was as follows:

"To his most beloved son, the Abbot Mellitus; Gregory, the servant of the servants of God. We have been much concerned, since the departure of our people that are with you, because we have received no account of the success of your journey. Howbeit, when Almighty God has led, you to the most reverend Bishop Augustine, our brother, tell him what I have long been considering in my own mind concerning the matter of the English people; to wit, that the temples of the idols in that nation ought not to be destroyed; but let the idols that are in them be destroyed; let water be consecrated and sprinkled in the said temples, let altars be erected, and relics placed there. For if those temples are well built, it is requisite that they be converted from the worship of devils to the service of the true God; that the nation, seeing that their temples are not destroyed, may remove error from their hearts, and knowing and adoring the true God, may the more freely resort to the places to which they have been accustomed. And because they are used to slaughter many oxen in sacrifice to devils, some solemnity must be given them in exchange for this, as that on the day of the dedication, or the nativities of the holy martyrs, whose relics are there deposited, they should build themselves huts of the boughs of trees about those churches which have been turned to that use from being temples, and celebrate the solemnity with religious feasting, and no more offer animals to the Devil, but kill cattle and glorify God in their feast, and return thanks to the Giver of all things for their abundance; to the end that, whilst some outward gratifications are retained, they may the more easily consent to the inward joys. For there is no doubt that it is impossible to cut off every thing at once from their rude natures; because he who endeavours to ascend to the highest place rises by degrees or steps, and not by leaps. Thus the Lord made Himself known to the people of Israel in Egypt; and yet He allowed them the use, in His own worship, of the sacrifices which they were wont to offer to the Devil, commanding them in His sacrifice to kill animals, to the end that, with changed hearts, they might lay aside one part of the sacrifice, whilst they retained another; and although the animals were the same as those which they were wont to offer, they should offer them to the true God, and not to idols; and thus they would no longer be the same sacrifices. This then, dearly beloved, it behoves you to communicate to our aforesaid brother, that he, being placed where he is at present, may consider how he is to order all things. God preserve you in safety, most beloved son.

"Given the 17th of June, in the nineteenth year of the reign of our most religious lord, Mauritius Tiberius Augustus, the eighteenth year after the consulship of our said lord, and the fourth indiction."

alatar

04-17-2006, 04:32 PM

The physical elements of Paganism like statues, temples, sacred groves, could be destroyed, but the symbols had to be twisted & made fearsome to ensure a 'clean break' with the past.

This was a deliberate policy on behalf of the church. In Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the english Church & People we find the following letter from Pope Gregory:
I'm with you in all of that, and I think that in Machiavelli's The Prince it states that that's how you win arguments and make friends. ;)

Actually, now that I've thought about it more, my point is again that people see that which they are used to seeing. Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all of that. Tinúviel always looked like a girl I idolized in my past, not Liv Tyler. If you think that Eden had an apple tree, all well and good, but is that because you could not imagine an orange tree, having lived your life just below the Arctic Circle? If one sees a Christ-like figure in Aragorn, or Gandalf, or Frodo, what does it tell us of the viewer?

So if we have a person who lives in Middle Earth, what then can he/she see? You might see one thing, but he/she may be limited to the ideas and items in that world. One would think that if Biblical history were concurrent with Middle Earth's history, being one and the same but just concerning different regions, you might hear or read characters making references to the things in the other 'history.'

So again, Middle Earth has no Second Adam as it never had the first, no matter what you might see.

Middle Earth does, however, have apples.

Lalwendë

04-17-2006, 04:38 PM

What interests me is that not only did the Normans virtually cut off Anglo Saxon culture, but the coming of Christianity to Britain virtually cut off the culture of the Britons. And then Tolkien attempted to write a mythology he could dedicate to England?

I think it is clear that he recognised and tried to recover something of the pre-Christian England as it is there in his work. He speculates on what Barrows might have been used for, creates characters from the tree spirits of the Wild Wood, creates mysterious remains of ancient civilisations in Rohan, makes Goldberry and the River Woman from tales of water goddesses. Numenor has a direct line from ancient British legends of lost lands - possibly an echo in real British legends of the time when the seas rose to form the English Channel. He even makes use of language to recover some of this lost History. The Elves in particular have echoes of Faerie, and Faeries may be the lost Britons who went to the edges of the islands, together with their rich culture.

What is fascinating is that even after over 1,000 years the old Britain is not totally lost. Speaking for myself, I am one of those who was woken up by Tolkien to go and find it again.

Kath

04-17-2006, 05:39 PM

Mithras is setting a condition for salvation, essentially salvation by works. Jesus is not; he is offering himself as a gift to be received without condition other than acceptance of said gift.
lmp's point here is a fair one davem. The difference is small but important. The pagan religion is akin to the Old Testament view of religion, in that followers must meet demands and conditions in order to ensure their salvation, whereas the New Testament view is that salvation will occur via love and grace. The seemingly nit-picky difference in words, whether the phrase is said negatively or positively, is also important. A negative phrasing relates to a vengeful God, whereas a positive phrasing relates to a loving one.

To go back to Legolas' original question, yes you can see parallel's between Christianity and Tolkien's created world and myths but, as davem said, it is more based on the myths of old than the Bible, if it is accepted that the myths came first and the writers of the Bible (and here the fundamnetalist view must be ignored) twisted them to fit their own uses. Also, the parallel's may be drawn in order that a reader can find something they recognise within the stories. A tale is subject to the interpretation of it's readers, so that whether Tolkien intended his tale to be Christian or not, even if he had fundamentally and categorically stated with no previous or later contradictions that it was or was not, either way there would still be people who read different things into it.

littlemanpoet

04-17-2006, 08:28 PM

How can the sin of pride exist before the first sin? That's something I'd have a tough time wrapping my head around. How could Adam disobey when he did not know good from evil?Here I must disagree slightly with Formendacil. Pride was the first sin. Taking and eating of the fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, was the second sin of disobedience resulting from the first. There is an innocent pride and there is a sinful pride. The innocent is that which Formendacil describes. The sinful pride is that by which humans place themselves in the place of God.

And here are 2X three words that to me absolve Adam and Eve, as they were created "in our image, in our likeness" (that would be God speaking). Like Aulë, weren't Adam and Eve just trying to be like their Father, not mocking him or pridefully hoping to gainsay him, but simply hoping to just be like him.But in doing so they were choosing to accept the word of the serpent rather than the word of the One with whom they had already shared so much with, and from whom they had received so much.

Like the Dwarves who cringed when Aulë made to smash them, is it necessary for life to go outside the bounds set by its creator, to do something new?No. It is in fact necessary to choose to be within the will of God in order to grow into the next wisdom He has waiting for us. "But isn't the will of God too narrow?" No, it is not. It is to set aside my own agenda and accept His, because His is based on a better and more loving knowledge of me than I have of myself. Talk about a wise investment!

On the other hand, having children does make one tend to believe in original sin...:)

...would they (we) have gotten that wisdom through experience or just through word of mouth?They would have experienced direct communion with God, through which they would have received grace and wisdom, and more knowledge of good and evil than they already had.

This is the 'humans as lab rats' theory of religion I suppose.No. It is humans as children of God who must learn to walk in His will before they can learn to run in it.

What kind of parent decides to run 'tests' on his children anyway - & then punish them for failing?It was the same kind of 'test' parents 'run' on their children when they release them to try to walk ... forward. To follow the analogy, God set up the test such that Adam (both he and she - - - she was not named Eve until after the Fall) could walk forward, that is, into His will; but they chose to walk backward, that is, against His will, and thus Fell. (If this analogy suffers in some way, any analogy is limited; this one serves this purpose.)

And if Jesus succeeded where Adam failed I'd say Jesus had the advantage over Adam seeing that Jesus was the one who made everything in the first place (including Adam).Jesus wasn't in competition with Adam. He was in a rescue operation, and had every intention of succeeding because his motivation was love, not "beating" Adam at God's little game.

I still say that if you leave innocent kids alone in a room with a box of matches which you've gone to a lot of trouble to point out to them & leave easily accessible while knowing that weird cousin Cletus (the one with pyromaniac tendencies) is visiting for the weekend & could wander in on the little cherubs at any time, then not only are you asking to come home & find the whole place a big pile of ashes & dust (My Precious) but you will have to accept most of the moral responsibility for the incident - you being the responsible adult after all.

A fascinating analogy, but flawed from the get-go. The forbidding of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil was not akin to leaving a box of matches in plain sight for children to find. Children faced with a box of matches, and a parent's directive to leave them alone while the parents are gone, have already inherited sin from their parents. Adam (both he and she) had not. They had not sinned, and had just as much likelihood of staying away from the tree as eating of it. In my experience of passing the tests of growth in Christ, I have found the tests I've been faced with to be quite difficult (being myself a sinner), but once achieved, I've not had to look back and face the same test again; it has been time to move on and up.

If you were then to go ahead & punish the children by throwing them onto the streets to fend for themselves, well......Quite. But that is not what God did in regard to Adam.

Why nudity was shameful after the Fall is a bit disturbing as these two beings were made in the image of God, and there were no others by which they could be embarassed.This is a cause of confusion. They knew that they were naked. This expresses negative self-consciousness. "Nakedness" refers to the symptom of the deep rooted state of Adam and Eve having cut themselves off from communion with God, realizing that their disobedience had caused their shame. They had stained the image of God in themselves, and they had unleashed in themselves the seed of every evil known to humanity. Sexual desire had been corrupted into lust, which is wanting to take without giving the requisite commitment that such taking entails in God's order. Et cetera.

The Christian approach was to denigrate the Pre-Christian traditions they encountered by presenting them in as negative a form as possible - the form the devil usually takes in Christian iconography: horns, cloven hooves, etc is actually the form of the Pagan Horned God Pan/Cernunos - so the likely explanation for the 'forbidden fruit' being depicted as an apple is probably down to this.It's a shame that the Church was reduced to this, which showed the spiritual powerlessness to which it had allowed itself to be reduced. The turning point for this was the advent of Constantine, who took over the church and killed the counsels, which had successfully served the Church for a good 300 years. Had it stayed uncompromised, it would have held onto those means by which it had flourished for the first three hundred years, namely the power of the Word of Christ and the power of the Spirit. So I think there has been in the last century a healthy reconnection to things that never should have been lost.

The strategy from the quote of Pope Gregory is known as "accomodation", and is in my belief inadequate. It's all outward and does not deal with the heart, where the Spirit of God does the real work. Had that been the key to Gregory's strategy, who knows how things might have gone better over the last 1500 years?

And for myself, getting back to the original question, I am most interested in (1) Tolkien's use of Elves in reference to the Atlantis legend, and (2) the many legends of sea-faring peoples who came from advanced cultures to northern Europe and delivered their wisdom and culture to the indigenous. There are the Milesians who came to Ireland, which may be the inspiration for that old Historia Britonum (please correct me someone, I know I just murdered it) which has the Trojans establishing Britain. In like manner, Tolkien has the Numenoreans come from the sinking Isle to establish their culture in Gondor and Arnor. What grabs my attention is the disconnected legends of the Irish and the known history we have of Asia Minor, giving us on one hand the folkloric "Milesians" and on the other, the citizens of Miletus, just a hundred or so miles south of Troy, which surely was just as affected by the fortunes both good and ill that befell Troy, and sent whole citizenries to their ships to find harbor in far-off ports anywhere from Carthage to Asturia to Brittany to Ireland to the Shetlands. And then there is the legend of the Fomori from the north ... there's that thing of the north again ... which puts me yet again in mind of Tolkien's choice of Morgoth in northern Thangorodrim. But now I'm wandering all over the folkloric map..... :p

davem

04-18-2006, 04:12 AM

lmp's point here is a fair one davem. The difference is small but important. The pagan religion is akin to the Old Testament view of religion, in that followers must meet demands and conditions in order to ensure their salvation, whereas the New Testament view is that salvation will occur via love and grace. The seemingly nit-picky difference in words, whether the phrase is said negatively or positively, is also important. A negative phrasing relates to a vengeful God, whereas a positive phrasing relates to a loving one.
I'm not so sure. If we look at Jesus' words (John 6 52-58) we find:

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
Mithras says 'No salvation unless & so does Jesus

alatar

04-18-2006, 05:16 AM

This is a cause of confusion. They knew that they were naked. This expresses negative self-consciousness. "Nakedness" refers to the symptom of the deep rooted state of Adam and Eve having cut themselves off from communion with God, realizing that their disobedience had caused their shame. They had stained the image of God in themselves, and they had unleashed in themselves the seed of every evil known to humanity. Sexual desire had been corrupted into lust, which is wanting to take without giving the requisite commitment that such taking entails in God's order. Et cetera.
Nice post, lmp. You answer my question and point out yet again what I'm seeing. Living in a culture where persons are typically dressed modestly, you have people thinking about Adam and Eve and how crazy it was when they realized that there weren't wearing the latest in fig fashion. This is how these persons see the text as they do not look through the eyes of Adam or Eve, but through the eyes of their own experience. Would eyes from a more primitive culture see this? I think that you rightly state that it was more of a spiritual nakedness that was the cause of shame, but your understanding of the text is more mature and thoughtful.

And I can understand when you say that life must live on the path set by an omniscient Creator, as what else can it do, but as 1/3 of the angels fell, as Adam and Eve fell, I question if God does not want at least some of His creations to take the road less travelled.

Eru was generous to Aule.

Lalaith

04-18-2006, 05:59 AM

I don't think that Tolkien did, other than perhaps in Tom Bombadil's comment about "the dark when it was fearless", portray a prelapsarian Arda. (Of course, I'm going by the Sil here and he may well have written other versions, so maybe HoME readers can prove me wrong) But in the Sil, Arda was marred by Melkor before any sentient life appeared.
I always assumed the Maia who joined Melkor = Fall of the Angels.

Atlantis/Numenor, of course, but what about parallels between Numenor and the Flood?
(I must say, I agree with the reservations davem and others have expressed about Adam and Eve and the serpent, but what I find really difficult getting to grips with, is the Flood. Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?)

Re Tolkienian deluges, it's not just Numenor of course. The breaking of Arda during the Valar-Melkor battle must have involved thousands of innocents perishing.

Kath

04-18-2006, 08:07 AM

Mithras says 'No salvation unless & so does Jesus.
Perhaps, davem, this is more fact than promise.

Aiwendil

04-18-2006, 08:19 AM

Perhaps, davem, this is more fact than promise.

Fact or promise, one could say the same things about Mithras. If you read Jesus's statement as a "fact" and Mithras's as a "promise", that is you, not the texts.

Kath

04-18-2006, 08:41 AM

Fact or promise, one could say the same things about Mithras. If you read Jesus's statement as a "fact" and Mithras's as a "promise", that is you, not the texts.
Indeed but this very argument is based on opinions and how you read it. I don't actually think that, it's just an opinion and I was welcoming opposing ones.

alatar

04-18-2006, 08:42 AM

Atlantis/Numenor, of course, but what about parallels between Numenor and the Flood? (I must say, I agree with the reservations davem and others have expressed about Adam and Eve and the serpent, but what I find really difficult getting to grips with, is the Flood.
You read about a local 'flood' and see the Noachian deluge. Númenor was wiped out by a tsumani-like wave. Survivors escaped on a multitude of ships, not an Ark, and they did not have to carry all species of fauna back to Middle Earth. There was no mountaintop landing, no dove, no waiting for waters to recede. No rainbow at the end of the road.

And yet you, me and others see Genesis 6 in the Akallabêth.

Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?)
Animals are under man's dominion, and so I guess are of no consideration. They are not infilled with souls like we see in Arda. And at least in Arda babies are born 'not guilty.'

Re Tolkienian deluges, it's not just Numenor of course. The breaking of Arda during the Valar-Melkor battle must have involved thousands of innocents perishing.
Like I said, at least in Arda there are true innocents. I leave the last words to Eowyn and her quote regarding dying on swords.

Lalwendë

04-18-2006, 04:32 PM

And for myself, getting back to the original question, I am most interested in (1) Tolkien's use of Elves in reference to the Atlantis legend, and (2) the many legends of sea-faring peoples who came from advanced cultures to northern Europe and delivered their wisdom and culture to the indigenous. There are the Milesians who came to Ireland, which may be the inspiration for that old Historia Britonum (please correct me someone, I know I just murdered it) which has the Trojans establishing Britain. In like manner, Tolkien has the Numenoreans come from the sinking Isle to establish their culture in Gondor and Arnor. What grabs my attention is the disconnected legends of the Irish and the known history we have of Asia Minor, giving us on one hand the folkloric "Milesians" and on the other, the citizens of Miletus, just a hundred or so miles south of Troy, which surely was just as affected by the fortunes both good and ill that befell Troy, and sent whole citizenries to their ships to find harbor in far-off ports anywhere from Carthage to Asturia to Brittany to Ireland to the Shetlands. And then there is the legend of the Fomori from the north ... there's that thing of the north again ... which puts me yet again in mind of Tolkien's choice of Morgoth in northern Thangorodrim. But now I'm wandering all over the folkloric map.....

Where would Tolkien's mythology be without a Great Flood? Most mythologies seem to have flood stories, so why should his be any different? ;) Perhaps all these Great Floods originate from ancient memory of real floods, of Tsunami, of previous meltings of the polar ice caps and maybe times when meteorites have struck the earth and caused massive global flooding? I'm sure that there is something in the idea that British Atlantis myths such as Lyonnesse spring from the time the islands were cut adrift by the creation of the English Channel. There are also stories that in Roman times, the Scilly Isles were once one big island, which may even have been joined to Cornwall at some point.

There seem to me to be some direct parallels between the Tuatha De Danaan and the Elves. The land of Tir Na Nog could be reflected in Valinor, although this could also be an underground kingdom according to Irish folklore.

Apparently the Milesians are not the same as the Greek/Aegean people. These incomers to Ireland may have come from Spain. Although new archaeological evidence has shown that Ireland did not suffer from waves of invasion as some of the histories and myths state; in the main, Irish DNA has remained unchanged for millenia. This has also dispelled the myth that the Celts were invaders from Europe; it seems that Celtic culture spread, but not the people. Maybe a lot of the Irish tales of 'invaders' go incredibly far back, right to the times when farming cultures took over from hunter/gatherers, maybe even to when modern Man took over from Neanderthals?

I'm often uncomfortable with tales that ancient Greeks 'founded' British cultures. Evidence does not prove this in any way, and I often wonder if it was an attempt by scholars to impose a Classical 'nobility' onto the history of the Britons and Celts. All the evidence to suggest that these islands had a rich culture anyway are there for all to see in the huge amounts of Megalithic remains to be found all over the islands.

(I must say, I agree with the reservations davem and others have expressed about Adam and Eve and the serpent, but what I find really difficult getting to grips with, is the Flood. Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?)

I feel the same! I can only accept a God who is Good. But Tolkien's personal view of God and his works was of a very cruel God. He himself lived through scenes of slaughter and senseless killing, and it does seem that he indeed struggled to come to balance his Faith with his experiences during the 1920s. From his writing it does become apparent that he accepted a God who did allow people to die needlessly, one who demanded blood sacrifices. In that respect, I think Tolkien would have accepted the biblical Flood as simply God's work.

davem

04-18-2006, 04:35 PM

I suppose the interesting thing about the Flood from a Tolkienian perspective is not the Biblical connection (which was most probably inspired by the Gilgamesh story), but Tolkien's own 'Atlantis' complex, which was also 'inherited' by one of his sons - Michael?

This is fascinating to me - the concept of an inherited 'dream'/fantasy. Tolkien uses the idea in his time-travel stories. It doesn't seem to have any personal reference - though I suppose a Jungian could put forward a theory along the lines of him being overwhelmed by the contents of the Collective, or Mythic, Unconscious.

Its a powerful image, but not a Biblical one (Alatar has pointed out the significant differences). This makes me wonder about the Biblical inspiration behind Tolkien's Legendarium generally. Tolkien could have had a Great Flood in his work which matched the Biblical account, but he didn't - instead he went for the 'Pagan' version - 'Atlantis' destroyed by an angry Deity.

Its another example of Tolkien being able to tie his Legendarium more closely into Biblical 'history' but choosing not to. Only Numenor is annihilated, not the whole of Middle-earth. Its as if he is deliberately avoiding Biblical parallels. If his theory that Myths are 'distored' versions of Biblical Truth why would he do this?

Of course, the easy answer would be that he was creating a Myth himself & because all Myths are 'distortions' he felt his own Myth should be as 'distorted' as all the others. Yet we know that his approach was to try & discover 'what really happened'. So the problem arises - if he was attempting to tell the 'real' Truth of the ancient past, is writing about a devastating flood which changed the whole world, why doesn't his account echo the Biblical account more precisely?

Unless we are to understand that there were really two (or possibly more) floods - but then how come the Bible only mentions one - & of a totally different sort ? What we seem to have is an account of a flood which rather 'confirms' the 'truth' of the various Pagan versions of the Myth - Plato's in particular.

Odd....

Bêthberry

04-18-2006, 06:13 PM

I'm often uncomfortable with tales that ancient Greeks 'founded' British cultures. Evidence does not prove this in any way, and I often wonder if it was an attempt by scholars to impose a Classical 'nobility' onto the history of the Britons and Celts. All the evidence to suggest that these islands had a rich culture anyway are there for all to see in the huge amounts of Megalithic remains to be found all over the islands.

My comments here are quite tangential to the main argument. Concommitant with this tale of classical source was the British sense that they are the 'new chose people', the new Israelites.

Dash me if I can find all the sources to support this claim now. Memory tells me it is part and parcel of Milton's works but I've lent out my (personally annotated) copy of Paradise Lost. Possibly the idea arose from the story that Joseph of Arimathea brought the Holy Grail to England. (no, no, not to be confused with the Da Vinci Code.) Then there is Blake's quietly affirming hymn about Jerusalem being refounded on England's green and pleasant land.

Anyhow, I guess I am simply pointing out that a group of people can create many different myths of origin, many of which bear little resemblance to the historical fact of the peoples who 'founded' the societies which tilled the land and hunted the animals and timbered the forests and left the barrows for others to discover.

littlemanpoet

04-18-2006, 08:35 PM

I'm not so sure. If we look at Jesus' words (John 6 52-58) we find ...
Mithras says 'No salvation unless & so does JesusThey are indeed similar. I grant it. You have brought out one of the most mysterious passages of the Bible, one that I'm still uncertain how to understand. I could see it as metaphor, but I think Jesus is saying something more fundamental than that. To say it's a spiritual meaning is to say something too general, as the term needs to be qualified before real understanding can be had. I need to think and pray about this one more.

I can understand when you say that life must live on the path set by an omniscient Creator, as what else can it do, but as 1/3 of the angels fell, as Adam and Eve fell, I question if God does not want at least some of His creations to take the road less travelled.

Eru was generous to Aule.He was. Another passage worth considering is that of Abraham asked by God to sacrifice Isaace to him. It has to be one of the most heartwrenching and profound stories in the Bible. Abraham, a fallen sinner, believed God and obeyed. His obedience was richly rewarded.

I always assumed the Maia who joined Melkor = Fall of the Angels. Me too.

Atlantis/Numenor, of course, but what about parallels between Numenor and the Flood? Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?You know how to ask the hard questions. It's not understood from Scripture that animals had moral sense. My thought is that God saw the loss of the animals as tragic. It's an aspect that I don't understand as well as I would like to.

As to great floods on record or legend, there are reports that there are remains of civilization at the bottom of the Black Sea, suggesting that at one time it was an area that though below sea level, was dry .... until some kind of rather large disaster (which literally means 'undo-star') .... filled the basin with water. And then there is the legend of Broceliande, which it has been suggested was an actual forest that spanned from the edge of the Plain of Salisbury across the valley between, to modern day Brittany..... and is now under the waters of the English Channel. Both things suggest that the mean sea level may have at one time been much lower than it is in our own day. Pure speculation.

There seem to me to be some direct parallels between the Tuatha De Danaan and the Elves. In my reference to the Milesians earlier, that legend had it that the Milesians taught the folk, but over time hid themselves below ground and became known as the Tuatha De Danaan. I'm quite convinced that these are akin if not the same as Tolkien's Elves.

The story I read did have the Milesians coming from Spain. It was my awareness of the seaside city of Miletus that caused me to make the connection. For them to have come from Aegea by way of Spain seems not too great a reach.

You're quite right, Lalwendë, that it was the same impulse in Virgil as it was for the later writers to find cultural roots in Classical Greece. .... all of it quite untrue.

I too accept a God who is only good. However, I also understand that I am a mere human who can't comprehend the vastness of God's purposes, or I'd be God. I know that God is good and loves all of his creation; that's the basis for all my understanding. Whatever I don't understand, I admit it and try to learn based on what I already know. What I don't do is decide that God can't exist, or is cruel, or is evil, on the grounds that I can't understand how something evil fits into a good God's plan. That would be quite presumptuous of me.

...probably inspired by the Gilgamesh storyUnless it really happened.

the concept of an inherited 'dream'/fantasy ... not a Biblical one Actually, this is quite biblical. God's words to Adam, Eve, and the serpent are resplendent with references to 'seed'. Our modern words are 'inheritance' and 'genetics'. Just as sinfulness passes down through genetics, so can mental capacities such as dreams.

Its as if he is deliberately avoiding Biblical parallels. If his theory that Myths are 'distor[t]ed' versions of Biblical Truth why would he do this?Why not? I don't see that Tolkien's (assumed) understanding of myths as distorted versions of Bilbical truth, forces his hand to write everything imitatively of the Bible.

So the problem arises - if he was attempting to tell the 'real' Truth of the ancient past, is writing about a devastating flood which changed the whole world, why doesn't his account echo the Biblical account more precisely?Again: why must it? One will find the true echoes not in the details, which one would hope are different, but in the themes.

alatar

04-19-2006, 09:45 AM

You know how to ask the hard questions. It's not understood from Scripture that animals had moral sense. My thought is that God saw the loss of the animals as tragic. It's an aspect that I don't understand as well as I would like to.
Not sure that I see that God sees the loss of animals as "tragic." Though He may not forget sparrows (Luke 12:6) and knows when one of these 'pennyworth' birds hits the ground (Math 10:29), He also states that he is grieved that He created men and animals (Gen 6:7), and in the Flood wipes them all out (Gen 7:212-23). Adam sinned, yet the animal kingdom is also cursed for his disobedience.

Animals to me seem better treated in Arda.

And if you'd like a harder question, in the same vein as above, well...Let's assume that God had just cause to wipe out everything that breathed air on the planet. He's God, He has a reason for killing off the animals as well as mankind, okay. Later, when the Hebrews are moving to the Promised Land, they are called to wipe out a peoples, men, women and children (Deuteronomy 2, 3 and especially 1 Samuel 15:1-3). The common apologetics that I hear is that these people were very evil, and like a cancerous tumor, must be excised completely to protect others from being infected. Presumably even the infants were so genetically evil that sparing even these babes was a danger, as they would grow up to pollute the community.

That's a bit hard to accept.

Worse, to me, is that God did not call down fire or whatever to terminate these people in a humane fashion. He had them butchered, which is bad, but worse is that He used other humans as His sword. Can you even imagine what it would be like to be in Saul's army, having just exterminated a city, men, women and children? What does that do to one's soul, and if that's to be to the greater glory of God...

And with that, I'll end by pointing to Jonah 4:10, where suddenly God has pity on a city and its cattle.

At least orcs are not humans, and maybe that's why I don't feel for them when they are obliterated. Is that why ME and Eru is more palatable?

As to great floods on record or legend, there are reports that there are remains of civilization at the bottom of the Black Sea, suggesting that at one time it was an area that though below sea level, was dry .... until some kind of rather large disaster (which literally means 'undo-star') .... filled the basin with water.
Saw a documentary of the same thing. It's interesting that so many cultures have a Flood story (even Middle Earth ;) ), and one wonders of the event that sparked the story, back when humans were all together in one central location.

Why not? I don't see that Tolkien's (assumed) understanding of myths as distorted versions of Bilbical truth, forces his hand to write everything imitatively of the Bible.

Again: why must it? One will find the true echoes not in the details, which one would hope are different, but in the themes.
While citing the Biblical quotes above, I noted (yet again) that in Genesis the river Tigras in mentioned as a boundary of Eden. Who then has not looked at a map and played the 'where's Eden' game? You can find the Tigris, but have to speculate from there. Is there more entertainment value when we are given only seeds and not the full-blown tree? Like the other game where one looks at the maps of the Third Age and wonders if Belfalas were...

Bêthberry

04-19-2006, 10:21 AM

Its a powerful image, but not a Biblical one (Alatar has pointed out the significant differences). This makes me wonder about the Biblical inspiration behind Tolkien's Legendarium generally. Tolkien could have had a Great Flood in his work which matched the Biblical account, but he didn't - instead he went for the 'Pagan' version - 'Atlantis' destroyed by an angry Deity.

Its another example of Tolkien being able to tie his Legendarium more closely into Biblical 'history' but choosing not to. Only Numenor is annihilated, not the whole of Middle-earth. Its as if he is deliberately avoiding Biblical parallels. If his theory that Myths are 'distored' versions of Biblical Truth why would he do this?

Of course, the easy answer would be that he was creating a Myth himself & because all Myths are 'distortions' he felt his own Myth should be as 'distorted' as all the others. Yet we know that his approach was to try & discover 'what really happened'. So the problem arises - if he was attempting to tell the 'real' Truth of the ancient past, is writing about a devastating flood which changed the whole world, why doesn't his account echo the Biblical account more precisely?

Whilst surfing the Net this morning I came upon a reference to this very point of the Legendarium's parallels with Christianity. I don't have HoMe X, so I can't verify the context and idea.

The relevant passage:

In constructing his mythology Tolkien was concerned not to paralleled the Christian biblical story too closely lest his tale parody Christianity . Commenting upon an imaginative dialogue between an elf and a woman on the nature and destiny of human beings Tolkien questions whether it is already "(if inevitably) too like a parody of Christianity. Any legend of the Fall would make it completely so?" J.R.R. Tolkien, Morgoth's Ring. The History of Middle Earth Volume 10, edited by Christopher Tolkien, (London: Harper Collins, 1993) 354.

This I find fascinating, for it suggests that Tolkien had a poetics of parody in his head even if he did not articulate it on paper. (Oh what would he say of REB?) He also clearly was aware of how similar or not to make his work to the Bible.

Perhaps those who have HoMe X can elaborate?

The article I was reading: The Gift of Ilùvatar: Tolkien's Theological Vision (http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/dacasey/Tolkien.htm )

littlemanpoet

04-19-2006, 10:15 PM

And if you'd like a harder question, in the same vein as above, well...Let's assume that God had just cause to wipe out everything that breathed air on the planet. He's God, He has a reason for killing off the animals as well as mankind, okay. Later, when the Hebrews are moving to the Promised Land, they are called to wipe out a peoples, men, women and children (Deuteronomy 2, 3 and especially 1 Samuel 15:1-3). The common apologetics that I hear is that these people were very evil, and like a cancerous tumor, must be excised completely to protect others from being infected. Presumably even the infants were so genetically evil that sparing even these babes was a danger, as they would grow up to pollute the community.

That's a bit hard to accept.

Worse, to me, is that God did not call down fire or whatever to terminate these people in a humane fashion. He had them butchered, which is bad, but worse is that He used other humans as His sword. Can you even imagine what it would be like to be in Saul's army, having just exterminated a city, men, women and children? What does that do to one's soul, and if that's to be to the greater glory of God...

And with that, I'll end by pointing to Jonah 4:10, where suddenly God has pity on a city and its cattle.

At least orcs are not humans, and maybe that's why I don't feel for them when they are obliterated. Is that why ME and Eru is more palatable?
Well, yes. More palatable to people like us who seem to have developed a different mindset toward such things than those who lived as late as the 17th century. Not that I agree with people of pre-18th century! :eek: But to the answer. This is going to seem somewhat off-beat in terms of traditional Christian apologetics, but so be it. It has to do with Genesis 6 and references following thereupon. Perhaps you're familiar with the famous passage about the sons of God producing offspring with the daughters of Man? ... and how this seems to have been a direct cause of the Flood? Well, there are two theories (I'm aware of) as to what this was about. (1) The sons of God refers to the descendants of Seth, Adam and Eve's surviving son, such that this is about the morally pure line of Seth corrupting itself by mixing with unclean sinners. I think that this particular reading is incorrect (spurious tripe, really). (2) The sons of God are fallen angels who have taken bodily form .... and the Hebrew being patriarchal, it glosses over the likelihood that there were probably "daughters" of God and 'sons' of Man. Now, the theory is that Satan and his fallen angels's purpose is to sabotage the the prophecy of God in Genesis 3, and the way to do that is to corrupt the seed of all humanity. And we are told in Genesis 6 that only Noah's family remained pure. Thus, all other humans must die off so as to protect the prophecy so that the seed of the woman can bring forth Jesus. So the Flood. That, however, was not the last of this attempt to corrupt the seef of humanity. Look for references to the Nephilim and the Rephaim, and (instead of rolling your eyes at references to Giants) consider that the people who populate Canaan when the Hebrews arrive there are in fact completed corrupted by the seed of fallen angels. Thus, they must be destroyed if this is to be the promised land where the promised savior is to be born, for how can the line remain uncorrupted if Satan's efforts to destroy its purity have such a strong foothold in the very "land of promise"? Whether you accept this or not is your call, of course, but it seems to take the most of those weird, odd, inexplicable passages, into account, and gives a more believable and understandable context for the "genocide" commanded by God in Canaan.

As an aside, I've always found it intriguing that Grendell in the Beowulf story is supposed to be from the lineage of Cain. Not entirely to the point, but not completely unrelated.

The Saucepan Man

04-20-2006, 04:07 AM

Elempi, if you don’t mind me saying so, you seem to be going through some fairly tortuous paths to explain some of these passages from the Bible. And, as you appear to accept, they are merely theories, designed no doubt to make the unpalatable more acceptable to those who regard the Bible as fact but are uneasy about the rather “fire and brimstone” aspects of the Old Testament God. (Which are, incidentally, quite out of keeping with his portrayal in the New Testament – did he, like many new fathers, undergo a personality change with the birth of his son? ;) )

Not being a Biblical scholar, I was unaware of much of the detail of some of these stories, but was aware of course of the more “popular” tales, such as the Flood. I share the unease that others have expressed over this. But the story of Abraham and his son has always struck me as quite horrific. God asked him to sacrifice his son – and he was just about to do it! OK, so God had no intention of Abraham actually killing his son, but even to ask him to do so is unpardonable in my view. Especially since he was merely seeking to test Abraham’s faith. He was effectively saying: “I am not sure if you believe in me, so kill your son to prove that you do”. Doesn’t that seem rather vain? My own reaction would undoubtedly have been: “Well, if that’s the kind of God that you are, I’d rather not believe in you, thank you very much”. And so, off to Hell with me simply because I was unwilling to kill my son (surely a sin in God’s eyes anyway). That just doesn’t seem right.

Now, as I understand it, the traditional Christian approach is that one either accepts the Bible as a whole, or one does not accept it at all. And this is one of the things that has always troubled me about Christanity as a faith (and all faiths which adopt a similar approach). You see, I accept that there are many great things that the Church can and does achieve, and that there are many useful messages that one can take from the teachings in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. But I do not accept the Bible as historical fact. I see it as a myth, probably based loosely in parts on historical events. And nor do I accept a God that is willing to relegate decent, law-abiding, moral people to Hell just because they don’t believe in Him or adhere to a particular way of worshipping him.

Which all boils down to one question for me, and here I will try to drag this post back vaguely back on to topic. Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God? I am aware that there are some who have, in recent times, taken a more “flexible” approach to the Bible (regarding, for example, the stories of Creation and Eden are allegorical, rather than factual, in nature) but they, I believe, are in the minority.

If one believes that The Lord of the Rings is an inherently “Christian” work and that it we can extract good and worthwhile messages from it, yet nevertheless can accept it as a work of fiction, why cannot one apply similar reasoning to the Bible? There is, of course, a major difference in that the Bible is expressly set in our world and incorporates elements which may be viewed as historical events. But the principle is surely the same. As I see it, they are both, in their different ways, myths. Ones from which we can perhaps learn much. But myths nevertheless. And accepting that fact surely does n ot in itself mean that one must relinquish one's belief in God.

Lhunardawen

04-20-2006, 04:59 AM

Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God?
In a way you answered your question yourself. Faith - being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1). If everything is believable, tangible, and undeniably true without a shadow of a doubt, what's the use of calling it "faith"?

To drag this on a little more, Christians who are foolish enough (from the world's point of view) to have faith in God find themselves seeing the reality of the Bible in their own lives. That's as far as I can go - it is rather difficult to explain to someone who does not believe. That's like describing the color purple to a blind person.

Sorry if I come off too harsh, that's not my intention.

alatar

04-20-2006, 05:41 AM

Perhaps you're familiar with the famous passage about the sons of God producing offspring with the daughters of Man? ... and how this seems to have been a direct cause of the Flood?
Yes, I'm familiar with it as with the opposing argument. How do angels mate with humans, one creature being completely spirit while the other material? Sucubi/incubi perhaps? Or do fallen angels have some kind of inherent physicality? My understanding always has been that any angel or devil is permitted only that which God allows. And again, if this isn't so, then one can then question Christianity's keystone, the Resurrection, as any angel or devil could easily mascarade as the Christ. He could live out a life, get crucified, seemingly die then come out of the grave, as he's a spiritual/material being hybrid of some kind?!?

Though you may simply be stating what others have said, I agree that it's a bit convoluted and makes God seem less omnipotent as He must rely on human agents to execute peoples so that His plan will succeed. And what of the livestock? Are these too somehow infected with fallen angels? And just how does one destroy spiritual beings by breaking the material bodies? Wouldn't it have been loverly if only the physical body of Satan could have been so broken so that he could not thwart so many godly plans?

Can't help but noting that we again have a peoples labeled as 'subhuman' (which is interesting as they purportedly are superhuman) so that their extermination can be justified. Orcs.

Eru has it otherwise, stating that despite everyone's best efforts Its will will be done. On the other hand, Maia can mate with elves who can mate with humans...

Mithalwen

04-20-2006, 06:17 AM

[B]
Now, as I understand it, the traditional Christian approach is that one either accepts the Bible as a whole, or one does not accept it at all. And this is one of the things that has always troubled me about Christanity as a faith (and all faiths which adopt a similar approach). You see, I accept that there are many great things that the Church can and does achieve, and that there are many useful messages that one can take from the teachings in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. But I do not accept the Bible as historical fact. I see it as a myth, probably based loosely in parts on historical events. And nor do I accept a God that is willing to relegate decent, law-abiding, moral people to Hell just because they don’t believe in Him or adhere to a particular way of worshipping him.

Which all boils down to one question for me, and here I will try to drag this post back vaguely back on to topic. Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God? I am aware that there are some who have, in recent times, taken a more “flexible” approach to the Bible (regarding, for example, the stories of Creation and Eden are allegorical, rather than factual, in nature) but they, I believe, are in the minority.

.

Those planets must be in alignment sinceI am largely in agreement with Spm!! Except that there is rather more external historical evidence than he supposes and I think there are many Christians who haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater and accept a creator while taking the story of Adam and Eve as allegory. Also who realise that the books of the bible are not contemporary accounts and are open to interpretation. In such a mainstream Cof E church was I raised not particularly recently!!! and I know people who successfully reconcile their careers as scientists with sincere Christian beliefs which would be hard to do if they took the bible literally.

The Saucepan Man

04-20-2006, 07:51 AM

In a way you answered your question yourself. Faith - being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see ...But surely one can have faith (and the attendant absence of proof) without taking everything in the Bible as literal (as Mithalwen has pointed out, there are those who adopt this approach). Indeed, if one accepts the Bible as a factual account then it rather proves the existence of God, and so obviates the need for faith.

But my main (on-topic) point was that, if one can perceive God's message in a story like LotR, which is clearly a fictional account, why can one not accept that God's principal message may successfully be conveyed in an account which, while historically relevant, is nevetheless not strictly literal?

I think there are many Christians who haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater and accept a creator while taking the story of Adam and Eve as allegory.True. And this apppoach to faith I find easier to accept and understand. Yet there is also the problem associated with any faith that requires one to adhere to a particular doctrine or face eternal damnation. I recall once speaking to someone who was convinced that she would not see her parents in the afterlife since, although they were decent enough people, they did not share her faith and her particular beliefs and were therefore (in her mind) slated for a one-way trip to Hell. It rather put me off Christianity, or that particular doctrinal approach at least, for life.

I think it was you, Mith, who brought up the distress caused to Tolkien's wife by his insistance that she convert to his faith. Have I got that right? If so, I presume that his insistance was grounded in a similar approach.

drigel

04-20-2006, 08:29 AM

Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God?
and I know people who successfully reconcile their careers as scientists with sincere Christian beliefs which would be hard to do if they took the bible literally.
This discussion has been circling around a subject that I have been contemplating. The theology of the author and the works are the subject of many essays, books, and this thread, but as I read all of this (great article, Beth), I become more and more appreciative of the author, and his serious treatment of the actual, literal history of Britain (or western Europe), with the conscious acknowledgement (and historical implications) of Christianity. Incoporating themes that are universal, Christian, and humanity oriented, that are as subtle as they are - is really quite impressive. Especially being Catholic, when one regards the history involved in the early years of the church through the middle ages and into recent history.

It's a subject of reconciliation of our past, a validation - perhaps even a justification, yet still within the realm of the canon of Catholisism, and Christianity. One can debate the flood, literal interpretation, and etc, I think that the real gem is the ability of the author to fold in our ancestor's pre-Christ reality in to the historical context that the dimension Christianity brings to our history. The inhabitants of Europe that lived and struggled and died all those many years before Christ had a place in the Plan (if one subcribes to the idea), or a movement in the Song. Or, the concepts of forgiveness and salvation for an entire culture and people who had not yet heard the word of Christ. That subject very few people are compelled to approach.

Bêthberry

04-20-2006, 08:57 AM

Not being a Biblical scholar,. . .

Now, as I understand it, the traditional Christian approach is that one either accepts the Bible as a whole, or one does not accept it at all. And this is one of the things that has always troubled me about Christanity as a faith (and all faiths which adopt a similar approach). You see, I accept that there are many great things that the Church can and does achieve, and that there are many useful messages that one can take from the teachings in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. But I do not accept the Bible as historical fact. I see it as a myth, probably based loosely in parts on historical events. And nor do I accept a God that is willing to relegate decent, law-abiding, moral people to Hell just because they don’t believe in Him or adhere to a particular way of worshipping him.

Which all boils down to one question for me, and here I will try to drag this post back vaguely back on to topic. Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God? I am aware that there are some who have, in recent times, taken a more “flexible” approach to the Bible (regarding, for example, the stories of Creation and Eden are allegorical, rather than factual, in nature) but they, I believe, are in the minority.

If one believes that The Lord of the Rings is an inherently “Christian” work and that it we can extract good and worthwhile messages from it, yet nevertheless can accept it as a work of fiction, why cannot one apply similar reasoning to the Bible? There is, of course, a major difference in that the Bible is expressly set in our world and incorporates elements which may be viewed as historical events. But the principle is surely the same. As I see it, they are both, in their different ways, myths. Ones from which we can perhaps learn much. But myths nevertheless. And accepting that fact surely does n ot in itself mean that one must relinquish one's belief in God.

While I also am no biblical scholar, I think there are other ways in which to view the Bible. This true/untrue literalism tends to belong to the more fundamentalist wings of the faith, but not all Christians view the Bible with a literal eye. There are other ways of understanding historical documents.

Another way of considering it is as the history of God's revelation. Or, if you will, the developing stages of a people's awareness of what or who God is. I suppose this is akin to the way of explaining things to children. When six year olds ask where babies come from, they are happy with a 'simplied version' of events (which does not mean the old birds and bees or cabbage patches) and don't really want a medical-school level lecture on human reproductive technology. (Come to think of it, neither do teens, who are often bored in "Personal Health" classes with physiological details but who don't get the open and frank discussion about the psychology of human sexuality. I digress, though.) Adult understanding too, of all of life and not just theology/religion/sex, (should I add politics? Next paragraph!) undergoes change and development. There are more than a few people who have better knowledge of themselves at 40, 50 and 60 than they had at 25. And of other people.

One problem with this POV is that is sounds similar to arrogant assumptions about human progress. Yet at the same time I think people do, slowly and often times with regression, change awareness. Most people on earth today would not accept slavery as a fair condition, yet there is still much "white slavery trade" going on with women. Yet by and large among the human communities, more are agin it than for it. I'm not quite so sanguine about our understanding of war. The other problem with this approach to revelation is that it tends to understand the Old Testament solely in terms of the terms set out in the New Testament. There's misrepresentation here. I suppose something similar must happen in Islam, where previous revelations are accepted as prior prophesies. (At least, I think this is what happens.)

So, an understanding of the Bible as revelation involves an active, ongoing understanding of interpretation as process rather than as archeology.

I recall once speaking to someone who was convinced that she would not see her parents in the afterlife since, although they were decent enough people, they did not share her faith and her particular beliefs and were therefore (in her mind) slated for a one-way trip to Hell. It rather put me off Christianity, or that particular doctrinal approach at least, for life.

I think it was you, Mith, who brought up the distress caused to Tolkien's wife by his insistance that she convert to his faith. Have I got that right? If so, I presume that his insistance was grounded in a similar approach.

It was Mithalwen as I recall who most vociferously posted about this. But there is nothing in Carpenter's biography of Tolkien which provides a clear explanation of Tolkien's insistence--at least not that I can recall is an adequate treatment of the subject, other than to point out how the decision cut Edith off from one avenue of artistic pursuit, her music playing.

Tolkien's insistence is all the more perplexing given that the Church never insisted upon conversion of a heathen partner. It required a promise that children be brought up Catholic, but it never forced conversion on the partner as a condition of marriage. Strange that Tolkien who was so anti-bullying in LotR should have been so demanding in this instance.

Does that tombstone, stating Luthien and Beren, imply something here?

And, umm, what was the topic here?

EDIT: Opps, cross posted with drigel. I'm glad at least someone bothered to read that article! ;)

Mithalwen

04-20-2006, 11:22 AM

True. And this apppoach to faith I find easier to accept and understand. Yet there is also the problem associated with any faith that requires one to adhere to a particular doctrine or face eternal damnation. I recall once speaking to someone who was convinced that she would not see her parents in the afterlife since, although they were decent enough people, they did not share her faith and her particular beliefs and were therefore (in her mind) slated for a one-way trip to Hell. It rather put me off Christianity, or that particular doctrinal approach at least, for life.

I think it was you, Mith, who brought up the distress caused to Tolkien's wife by his insistance that she convert to his faith. Have I got that right? If so, I presume that his insistance was grounded in a similar approach.[/QUOTE]

As Bethberry says, my shall we say sadness, regarding that conversion was mainly due to the negative consequences it had for Edith. I get the impression that it was a control issue rather than a theological one and influenced by the ostracism of his mother by her family on her conversion. What Freud would say about this moulding of the wife into the mother's image is perhaps a matter for another topic (or not). However I do think it is a factor in my hearty dislike of the story of Beren and Luthien .

I also am not in accord with that idea. I think the acceptance of the Calormene by Aslan at the end of Lewis' "The Last Battle" is its redeeming feature. When I was a practising Christian I was rather ashamed to be associated with such people who use their "faith" as a justification for bigotry and intolerance. I felt that if they were right, then I didn't want to be apart of it to quote Franz Ferdinand
"I never had a doubt you ever existed
I only have a problem when people insist on
Taking their hate and placing it on your name ".

And as I grew up and associated more with of people of other faiths or none who led lives of equal morality and often greater charity then it seemed an increasingly unacceptable attitude and one that seemed alien to the spirit of the life of Jesus who tended not to be on the side of the sanctimonious and self righteous prigs if I remember correctly :D . There are more than one way to skin a cat (but don't try that at home, children).

Formendacil

04-20-2006, 12:15 PM

Going back a fair ways to the below quote, let me first say that I have been extremely hesitant to enter this thread. It is, first of all, not really Tolkien-based anymore. Secondly, it has gained a very anti-Christian feel to it. LMP has bravely stuck it out, but for the most part it feels like he's just standing here taking the blows for Christianity, doing his best to apologise and admit the validity of other people's questions, while the non-Christians seem to just be standing there inflexibly, willing to throw out monkeywrench after monkeywrench, while refusing to admit the potential "maybe it could be" validity of a single Christian viewpoint.

Anyway, I've hesitated to get involved here, and I think there's something about anti-Christian thought in general that I could learn from this...

But myths nevertheless. And accepting that fact surely does not in itself mean that one must relinquish one's belief in God.

If that is your convinced opinion, Master Saucepan Man, nothing that I say is very likely to change it. However, allow me to try and explain WHY we take the Bible- or most of the Bible, anyway- as fact, or close to fact. (For most Christians are not fundamentalists. We admit the existence of story and metaphor- something that Balrog-wingers do not... :p )

In the 4th Century, the Church in an Ecumenical Council, selected the books today known as the Bible, assembled them officially into one, and declared -using their authority as the representatives of God on Earth- that these books were the Inspired Word of God. This was not done hastily, but after careful consideration, and the books they canonised were by and large books that had been held in reverence by Christians since they were written- or in the case of the Old Testament, since Christ Himself.

If you do not adhere to the Christian faith, there is no reason in the world for you to believe the Bible. If you DO claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, then it would be well to exhaust all the options open to you BEFORE deciding that the Inspired Word of God is a "myth", "legend", or "distorting of the truth".

davem

04-20-2006, 12:47 PM

LMP has bravely stuck it out, but for the most part it feels like he's just standing here taking the blows for Christianity, doing his best to apologise and admit the validity of other people's questions, while the non-Christians seem to just be standing there inflexibly, willing to throw out monkeywrench after monkeywrench, while refusing to admit the potential "maybe it could be" validity of a single Christian viewpoint.The warnings about 'pearls before swine' spring to mind. Unfortunately, if you stand up & declare your faith someone is going to challenge you on it, even say nasty things about it.

My feeling is that all things should be open to criticism. If there is a logical explanation for something that can be offered. Events like the slaughter of the Canaanites, or the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son, (or Balaam's particularly talented donkey come to that) are 'challenges' to Christians. 'How can a loving God demand such things' they will ask themselves & struggle to find the answers through prayer. Ironically, non-Christians will ask themselves exactly the same question & decide there's no point trying to answer them & decide to just forget the whole thing.

Now, what's interesting is that in Tolkien & Philip Pullman we see these two approaches set out in the form of Secondary worlds. Tolkien attempts to explain through his Legendarium how God/Eru could be a loving creator & at the same time permit suffering to exist. He shows us the extreme of evil but still clearly states that both Eru & His creation are Good' (though Marred by evil). Tolkien refuses to give glib answers.

Pullman, on the other hand, sees the evil & suffering in the world & decides God is a senile old so-&-so, & we need to be rid of Him once & for all so we can take over & run the show ourselves.

Perhaps the difference is down to what you give priority to - if you focus on the evil & suffering in the world you'll decide that either there isn't a God at all, or that if there is he's like the one Pullman depicted & live in hope of the consumation depicted in HDM.

If you focus on God you'll see evil as ultimately insignificant because God was, is, & will be, & 'all shall be well, & all shall be well, & all manner of thing shall be well'. Both sides seem to be looking at the same thing but from different perspectives.

Mithalwen

04-20-2006, 01:09 PM

I certainly have not intended to be anti-christianity. I have no truck with fundamentalism - but that is fundamentalist anything.

I respect faith but I resent faith being claimed as incontrovertable fact. You, as a well informed believer, could not surely think your that your cause would be better off if such ignorance as was displayed earlier in the thread went unchallenged?

The Bible may have been fixed in the 4th century but human knowledge wasn't. If it has to be taken "all or nothing", then many of us are going to have to say "nothing". However as I pointed out, many sincere Christians don't believe it is all or nothing and are able to reconcile their faith with modern learning and are motivated by their faith to great things. On the other hand, the fundamentalist attitude of "We're definitely right and the rest of you are not only wrong but going to roast in hell" is liable to put peoples' backs up..... :rolleyes:

Formendacil

04-20-2006, 01:45 PM

The warnings about 'pearls before swine' spring to mind. Unfortunately, if you stand up & declare your faith someone is going to challenge you on it, even say nasty things about it.

Which is why I was doing my best to ignore this thread...

It's all very well for people to challenge my faith. That's fine, that's normal. To say nasty things is fine, is normal.

But for people who are positioning themselves as enlightened, fair-minded, as thinkers who are "simply trying to look at things objectively" to repeatedly and unabashedly beat down something that simply doesn't sit with their deep-seated anti-absolutist preferences without even considering that there MAY be something to it, doesn't smack at all of fair play.

However, I'm not trying to start any fights here so much as I am trying to get the point across that I'm distinctly uncomfortable with the attitudes here. Not the statements- I can handle challenges and assaults- but the general feeling that the people who are being intransigent in their opinions aren't the Christians, but the ones who really don't come across as Christian...

I respect faith but I resent faith being claimed as incontrovertable fact. You, as a well informed believer, could not surely think your that your cause would be better off if such ignorance as was displayed earlier in the thread went unchallenged?

Quite. However, at the same time, you have to remember that I consider the fact that "Jesus Christ was Crucified, Died, and was Buried, and that He Rose Again from the Dead" to be as equally truthful a fact as "Catholics are Christian". On the same note, I also think that "the Bible is God's Inspired Word" is as equally true a fact.

The Bible may have been fixed in the 4th century but human knowledge wasn't.

I'm not saying it was. I'm saying that the Bible, irregardless of when it was rubber-stamped by the Church, is God's Word. Human knowledge can go forward or backwards as far as it likes, but God's Word will remain God's Word, and an Ecumenical Council's authority is non-reversible on matters of faith. It wouldn't matter if Neanderthals had taken part in the Council, it would still be considered as binding, because a Council is the work of the Holy Spirit, not the work of mankind.

If it has to be taken "all or nothing", then many of us are going to have to say "nothing". However as I pointed out, many sincere Christians don't believe it is all or nothing and are able to reconcile their faith with modern learning and are motivated by their faith to great things. On the other hand, the fundamentalist attitude of "We're definitely right and the rest of you are not only wrong but going to roast in hell" is liable to put peoples' backs up.....

Then take it as nothing, if you must.

Believing that something is definitely right is not, of itself, going to get you into Heaven. Nor is believing something that is wrong going to send you to Hell. The Devil knows all the Right answers, he knows and believes God exists, and you ask him what the correct doctrine is on any matter, he'd be able to give as good or better an answer than any theologian.

But the Devil won't get into Heaven.

However, although Heaven and Hell is NOT an issue that is dependent on what you know or believe, that does not mean that a proper knowledge of what is and what isn't is to be considered completely trivial. To get into Heaven is to love God and to love man. If one loves God, then one will want to do everything the way God would want it, correct?

Now, with regards to the Abraham/Isaac/God situation...

It is very amusing to watch people ascribe modern thoughts and feelings to a very much not-modern event. Saucepan Man might very well be justified in telling a God who wants him to kill his children to shove it, but Sauce is a product of 1500+ years of Christianity being the dominant force shaping the morals of his culture. Abraham lived in day when the rational thought of the Greek philosophers had yet to start influencing us, and when child-sacrifice was NOT uncommon at all in the religions of the day. So although WE, products of Christianity that we are, would have some major issues with God asking us to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham, though undoubtedly sorrowed beyond words, would not have the same impulses.

Furthermore, it isn't exactly as if God was asking Abraham anything that He Himself would never go through. Not only was God's request reasonable from Abraham's cultural mindset, but God showed Abraham once and for all what absolute faith would be rewarded with: life, though we might have to go through death for it. Also, note the lamb... Abraham killed the lamb to spare Isaac. God killed His Son to spare us all.

Anyway, this is getting dangerously far off-Tolkien...

davem

04-20-2006, 03:00 PM

Anyway, this is getting dangerously far off-Tolkien...You see, I'm not sure it is. For a while I've toyed with the idea of suggesting an 'Inklings' type discussion group on the Downs. The disucssion we've been having here strikes me as the kind of thing that would have gone on in Lewis' rooms in Magdelene on Thursday nights. Given what we know of Tolkien's love of getting together with companions & discussing all kinds of subjects in depth - particularly myth, religion & fairy story, but also current events philosophy & the meaning of existence - I don't see how our current debate could be considered 'unTolkien' at all. There was a great deal more to Tolkien than Middle-earth. If his religion shaped his thinking & worldview I don't see how a discussion of that subject is 'off-topic' at all.

But being able to put forth an argument & defend it against all-comers was central to the Inklings. If you make a statement, religious or otherwise, you have to be able to defend it against challengers. You can certainly opt out of any discussion if you feel it is hitting too close to home, but you aren't allowed to state something & then say, 'That's it! No more discussion, no more questions or challenges!' If you enter the Inklings arena you have to be prepared to fight your corner. You may say that a particular point was expressed in a way you find 'offensive' or upsetting & ask your opponent to kindly rephrase it in a more polite, respectful way, but if they do that then the point must be answered.

Your point re Abraham & Isaac is a good one. Certainly God's requirement of Abraham must (if you are a Christian) be seen & judged in the light of Christ's sacrifice. In fact, that is the only point of view from which it becomes acceptable. Without that it becomes the nasty little test of a smug, self righteous Deity - same with His ranting at Job - only the suffering & sacrifice of Christ can make the behaviour of the God of the old testament in anyway acceptable. His words via the Prophets may be of love & compassion but are only platitudes without Golgotha.

Except .... I'm just spouting clever sounding words there, because I'm not a Christian. I adopted a Christian viewpoint for a moment. In fact, I could have argued from a Christian perspective all along & put forward (as I've done in the past) a whole series of 'proofs' of the innate Christianity of LotR.

This is not an admission of any 'dishonesty' in previous posts. I responded honestly to each particular point made. I can see, if I choose, numerous correspondences between LotR & the Christian faith, but I can also look at the work another way & see none. Hence, I still hold that the work cannot be considered a 'Christian' work, though it can be seen & interpreted in that way. I'm sure one could come at it from a Moslem perspective, or a Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist or Pagan one & find enough in it to confirm it as a work entirely within that particular faith's worldview.

This is the problem with threads like this. Once you move away from the direct experience of the story & into 'interpretation' you'll find exactly what you're looking for.

In other words, its only a 'Christian' story if a Christian reads it....

Nogrod

04-20-2006, 03:14 PM

to repeatedly and unabashedly beat down something that simply doesn't sit with their deep-seated anti-absolutist preferences without even considering that there MAY be something to it, doesn't smack at all of fair play.

Not the statements- I can handle challenges and assaults- but the general feeling that the people who are being intransigent in their opinions aren't the Christians, but the ones who really don't come across as Christian...

while the non-Christians seem to just be standing there inflexibly, willing to throw out monkeywrench after monkeywrench, while refusing to admit the potential "maybe it could be" validity of a single Christian viewpoint.

Well. If one keeps your "neutral" terms: deep-seated preferences, without even considering, being intransigent in opinion, standing inflexibly, refusing to admit the potential of a single (other) viewpoint etc. - and then changes terms like 'christian' or 'absolutist' to something else...

Sorry Formendacil, but I don't think your own texts meet the standards you seem to be requiring from others...

I know many flexible and open-minded christians - as I know some inflexible and narrow-minded non-believers. That's not the case: all differences between groups are always smaller than the differences inside any given group.

It just sounds nasty to call open-mindedness from others, and then bang the others with the Truth...

Lalaith

04-20-2006, 04:20 PM

I am not a practising Christian, but I am in no way antagonistic towards religion, in fact I am very open to it, and I have many close friends, whose views and whose intelligence I respect, who are practising Christians - mostly Catholics, as a matter of fact.

However, I do think we are dealing with a cultural divide here as well as a religious one. Most of the Christians I know here in the UK, and elsewhere in northern Europe, do not believe in the Bible as literal, word-for-word truth. In other words, they accept evolution and so on. I don't think many of them believe in Hell, either.
But I get the feeling that literal/fundamentalist/Scripture-based brands of Christianity are the most dominant in the US. So while many posters here are questioning Biblical points, those questioners I note are mostly European.
This kind of questioning is quite normal in religious debate over here, and is really not meant as heretical, aggressive or anti-religious as it is clearly taken to be by some.
I hope this may help to calm the waters a little. :)

littlemanpoet

04-20-2006, 04:42 PM

Elempi, if you don’t mind me saying so, you seem to be going through some fairly tortuous paths to explain some of these passages from the Bible.What parts? If tortuous, that says more about my failure so far to sufficiently understand and explain than it does about God's porpose.

And, as you appear to accept, they are merely theories, designed no doubt to make the unpalatable more acceptable to those who regard the Bible as fact but are uneasy about the rather “fire and brimstone” aspects of the Old Testament God.It depends upon which one you refer to. Some of my replies are more theoretical, others are more strongly held and more defensible.

(Which are, incidentally, quite out of keeping with his portrayal in the New Testament – did he, like many new fathers, undergo a personality change with the birth of his son?)Hmm.... tortuous and 'out of keeping' are in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. After all, descriptions of the complexities of reality have always run the risk of seeming so. It should be said that 'tortuous' does not necessarily equal 'incorrect'.

But the story of Abraham and his son has always struck me as quite horrific. God asked him to sacrifice his son – and he was just about to do it! OK, so God had no intention of Abraham actually killing his son, but even to ask him to do so is unpardonable in my view. Especially since he was merely seeking to test Abraham’s faith. He was effectively saying: “I am not sure if you believe in me, so kill your son to prove that you do”. Doesn’t that seem rather vain? My own reaction would undoubtedly have been: “Well, if that’s the kind of God that you are, I’d rather not believe in you, thank you very much”. And so, off to Hell with me simply because I was unwilling to kill my son (surely a sin in God’s eyes anyway). That just doesn’t seem right.You're not Abraham. I can assure you that God will not put such a test to you any time soon, because you are not anywhere near the place with God, if all my reading of your words are any indication, that Abraham was when God tested him in this way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would be fair to say that God's test to you, SPM, is simple belief that a God who loves can allow evil into the world. Abraham had already exhibited faith to take God at his word to go to a foreign land with no certainty of wellbeing or future wealth, had been promised a son in his old age, by a wife almost as old as he, and had been established in his new land because he did believe. And God had actually spoken to him on numerous occasions so that there was a real and deep relationship. This final test was for Abraham to prove that he still put God before the son God had given him. Vain? No, because this test was not an end in itself. God had a purpose to save humans from themselves through this man's seed, and it was necessary that this man put God first in his life, or else God would have found it necessary to go find someone who would. Why did God need Abaraham to put Him first? Mary. There had to be a precedent and likelihood of people putting God first, a tradition of holiness, so that a young woman in the time of the Roman Empire would submit her body to the purpose of God. "Let it be to me as you have said." God never tests us for vanity. Such would be a misunderstanding of Him.

Now, as I understand it, the traditional Christian approach is that one either accepts the Bible as a whole, or one does not accept it at all. And this is one of the things that has always troubled me about Christanity as a faith (and all faiths which adopt a similar approach). ...Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God?LotR never claimed to be divine revelation. Tolkien would have been horrified. By contrast, the Bible speaks of itself as revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. If God is who he says He is in the Bible, then it is necessary to believe him as he presents himself. To disbelieve any of the Bible is to place human understanding as greater than God's revelation. There's a verse in the Bible that says "lean not on your own understanding, but upon every word that comes from the mouth of God". It's that kind of message that keeps some of us who follow Jesus saying to ourselves things like 'I don't understand it', but that says more about me than it does about what I'm reading. It is I who lack understanding, not God who lacks justice, or goodness, or what have you. Not long ago I tended toward a universalistic approach to the understanding of life after death. But then I made choice of "Okay, God, no more 'yeah buts'." I was humbled, finally stopped competing with God. (yeah, go figure, me competing with God ... how foolish can one get? :rolleyes: ) Since I made that choice, so much that I used to misunderstand has become clear.

And nor do I accept a God that is willing to relegate decent, law-abiding, moral people to Hell just because they don’t believe in Him or adhere to a particular way of worshipping him.Decency, law-abidingness, and morality are not enough, nor are they the issue. It's all about who Jesus is.

I've answered this above. Those who have taken a more "flexible" approach (which included me until recently) have compromised their faith. How they can hold to what they do, without holding to the rest, is a rather tragic demonstration of irrationality.

Lhunardawen's answer is good as far as it goes. But faith should never be irrational. If someone believes that Jesus died and was raised by God, that person should be convinced based on the best reasoning he or she can muster.

How do angels mate with humans, one creature being completely spirit while the other material? Sucubi/incubi perhaps? Or do fallen angels have some kind of inherent physicality?As you comment yourself, this little problem didn't seem to bother Tolkien as it relates to Thingol and Melian. My sense is that angels apparently had the ability to incarnate. But even that is different from Jesus. They did not choose to humble themselves so as to be born of a woman. The New Testament speaks of Jesus' resurrection body in such a way that it seems to be perhaps more real than our own, as if maybe this is what could have been for Adam and Eve had they passed their test; but that last bit regarding Adam and Eve is speculation, of course.

Though you may simply be stating what others have said, I agree that it's a bit convoluted and makes God seem less omnipotent as He must rely on human agents to execute peoples so that His plan will succeed.This is a very important point. By allowing humans free will, God has necessarily placed limits upon his own omnipotence. This is rather frightening concept that most Christians don't want to try to get their minds around, but when you look at it, it's pretty obvious. What is also necessary to conclude from it, is that God is an exceedingly brilliant craftsGod (can't exactly say craftsman although we could about Jesus I suppose), in that he still works all of human free will with all of its mix of good and evil and chaos into his ultimate plan for the good of those that love him and keep his word.

And just how does one destroy spiritual beings by breaking the material bodies?They were not destroyed, but imprisoned. Check out 2 Petere 2:4-5.

Warning: speculation: regarding sub-human or super-human, I've been wondering these last few years about such myths as the minotaur, or hippogriffs, or what have you. Now, they may just be fantasy, but if one posits the power of fallen angelic beings to incarnate as they wish and commit whatever unspeakable acts they wish to, who knows what might not result? But as I said, that's just speculation.

As to "literally": Where the Bible speaks literally, I read it literally. Where is speaks metaphorically, I read it so. Where it speaks mythically, I so read it; however, I take my lead from Tolkien and do not equate myth with falsehood.

...the developing stages of a people's awareness of what or who God is.I think this aspect is there to be found in the bible, but this does not remove (what I understand to be) the reality of its divine inspiration.

One problem with this POV is that is sounds similar to arrogant assumptions about human progress.This is something I wrestle with. What I come down to is that I will inevitably be seen as arrogant by some people, and that is something I have no control over. What I can control is what I say and write. By accepting the Bible on its own terms, as God's word, I am led to certain honest conclusions with all due humility, aware that it seems like arrogance to some.

The other problem with this approach to revelation is that it tends to understand the Old Testament solely in terms of the terms set out in the New Testament. There's misrepresentation here.I suppose this could be viewed as a problem. I don't. I take my lead from Jesus who said he and the Kingdom of God were the fulfillment of the OT.

Tolkien's insistence is all the more perplexing given that the Church never insisted upon conversion of a heathen partner. It required a promise that children be brought up Catholic, but it never forced conversion on the partner as a condition of marriage. Strange that Tolkien who was so anti-bullying in LotR should have been so demanding in this instance. ... Does that tombstone, stating Luthien and Beren, imply something here?Now there's a fascinating thought! Anyway, Tolkien's insistence in this one case, being as odd for him as it was, emphasizes the importance with which he viewed it.

Hell is probably the single most difficult stumbling block. I realize that no matter what I say with this one, it's going to seem like an insult. I can't help that, and I don't mean it that way. I had a bit of an epiphany that hell is actually best seen as God's final grace to those who refuse him. 'What about the fire and brimstone?' you may ask, or the lake of fire? Here's a case in which I see those things as metaphorical. Hell is best understood as the absence of God. Not that God is absent from anywhere in existence; but humans have this unusual gift that they can choose not to be a part of God's reality. It's stunning, really. But God does finally say to some, "Your will be done; exist for eternity without Me." I can imagine this feeling like a lake of fire, or like fire and brimstone, especially if the person must live with the regret of "if only I had allowed him in, but I finally know better." That's hell enough.

LMP has bravely stuck it out, but for the most part it feels like he's just standing here taking the blows for Christianity, doing his best to apologise and admit the validity of other people's questions, while the non-Christians seem to just be standing there inflexibly, willing to throw out monkeywrench after monkeywrench, while refusing to admit the potential "maybe it could be" validity of a single Christian viewpoint.:D I had to laugh about this. However, I don't see it quite that way. I'm more than happy to entertain the questions, tough as some of them are. Wrestling with them honestly helps me to understand my faith better, and it just doesn't matter what the motivations are of others on this thread. I'm responsible for mine alone. But thanks for the support, Formy. As to everything else you said, I say 'yes'.

There's a certain sense in which I think the 'pearls before swine' analogy is not apt to this thread. Swine were unclean, and content to live in their filth, and were apt to mistake pearls for more of their filth. Given that all who post here have a high regard for Tolkien, I would say that the analogy does not obtain, on that merit alone. Must run..... dinner and a conference...... back later.....

Formendacil

04-20-2006, 04:53 PM

You see, I'm not sure it is. For a while I've toyed with the idea of suggesting an 'Inklings' type discussion group on the Downs. The disucssion we've been having here strikes me as the kind of thing that would have gone on in Lewis' rooms in Magdelene on Thursday nights. Given what we know of Tolkien's love of getting together with companions & discussing all kinds of subjects in depth - particularly myth, religion & fairy story, but also current events philosophy & the meaning of existence - I don't see how our current debate could be considered 'unTolkien' at all. There was a great deal more to Tolkien than Middle-earth. If his religion shaped his thinking & worldview I don't see how a discussion of that subject is 'off-topic' at all.

Well, perhaps "non-Middle-Earth" is a better way to put it...

If the Mods have no issues with rampant discussion... fine by me. But, as currently defined- or as I currently understand it- it's getting off-topic.

Well. If one keeps your "neutral" terms: deep-seated preferences, without even considering, being intransigent in opinion, standing inflexibly, refusing to admit the potential of a single (other) viewpoint etc. - and then changes terms like 'christian' or 'absolutist' to something else...

Sorry Formendacil, but I don't think your own texts meet the standards you seem to be requiring from others...

I wondered if anyone would bring up those words of mine...

Perhaps it's my fault for being unable to express perfectly, concisely, and politely what I'm trying to say.

However, I hold to what I said: in general, on this thread, the Christian group (or just LMP, since he has comprised most of it, to date) has been a lot more willing to give and take, to say "you have a point".

I'm not saying that one group has been, or ought to be, accepting the other group as right. I'm not even saying the Christian group is right (although as a card-carrying member, I obviously feel that way). What I am saying is that the Christian group has thus far been more willing to say "you have a point" whereas the non-Christian group hasn't been willing to say that.

As noted, however, that is simply things as I am seeing them- on this thread. Possibly my vision is being coloured by the side of the fence that I'm on.

I know many flexible and open-minded christians - as I know some inflexible and narrow-minded non-believers. That's not the case: all differences between groups are always smaller than the differences inside any given group.

It just sounds nasty to call open-mindedness from others, and then bang the others with the Truth...

So you're calling me nasty then?

That's fine with me. That's not how I intended it... but it's.... fine.

It's a call to take a closer look at what I am trying to say...

Bêthberry

04-20-2006, 10:24 PM

As to "literally": Where the Bible speaks literally, I read it literally. Where is speaks metaphorically, I read it so. Where it speaks mythically, I so read it; however, I take my lead from Tolkien and do not equate myth with falsehood.

Well, this is a bit of a sticking point, I would think, as I doubt if there is general concensus about where it is literal, where symbolic, where metaphorical. I rather liked the explanation of the Catholic sense of letter and meaning (the article used the terms signifier and signified) in the article I referred to above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bethberry
One problem with this POV is that is sounds similar to arrogant assumptions about human progress. [end quote of Bb]

This is something I wrestle with. What I come down to is that I will inevitably be seen as arrogant by some people, and that is something I have no control over. What I can control is what I say and write. By accepting the Bible on its own terms, as God's word, I am led to certain honest conclusions with all due humility, aware that it seems like arrogance to some.

I want to make sure that my words aren't misunderstood. What I was referring to with the term "this POV" was this idea I presented of historically unfolding understanding. I was acknowledging a problem with the idea I presented, rather than suggesting anyone else's ideas were arrogant.

To return this to Tolkien more specifically:

I've seen a scholarly claim that Tolkien is acknowledged in the work done to produce The New Jerusalem Bible. I don't know what the extent of his contributions, if any, were. Does anyone?

If we can find any of Tolkien's professional articles or opinions I think it might be interesting to explore them. After all, we know how important words were to him and languages. We know how he fulminated against inaccurate or misrepresentative translations of LotR. How did he view work on the translation of the Bible? After all, it was first in Aramaic, no? And then Greek and Latin versions became dominant before translations into the vernacular. Figuring out just which words are inspired is a handful. I know many people who profess a great love for the King James Bible because of its aesthetic or lyrical beauty, but anyone who has read even a little bit about the history of biblical translation knows that compromise and historical/political pressures are part of translation.

But I get a very strong feeling that we are once again treading on canonicity grounds.

Formendacil

04-21-2006, 12:47 AM

To return this to Tolkien more specifically:

I've seen a scholarly claim that Tolkien is acknowledged in the work done to produce The New Jerusalem Bible. I don't know what the extent of his contributions, if any, were. Does anyone?

Tolkien did indeed contribute to the Jerusalem Bible (not the New one, but the original one- in English). You'll find his name in the "credits". I would know... I've looked.

However, he considered his contribution quite small. I believe he only worked on the Book of Jonah, which is a mere four chapters long.

If we can find any of Tolkien's professional articles or opinions I think it might be interesting to explore them. After all, we know how important words were to him and languages. We know how he fulminated against inaccurate or misrepresentative translations of LotR. How did he view work on the translation of the Bible? After all, it was first in Aramaic, no? And then Greek and Latin versions became dominant before translations into the vernacular. Figuring out just which words are inspired is a handful. I know many people who profess a great love for the King James Bible because of its aesthetic or lyrical beauty, but anyone who has read even a little bit about the history of biblical translation knows that compromise and historical/political pressures are part of translation.

I've never read anywhere what Tolkien's views on Biblical translation were, but I think one can assume that they were fairly similar to his LotR ones, except possibly with regard to the treatment of names. He did, after all, feel that the English names of the Hobbits should remain unchanged in the translations, but I do not see him advocating "Christus" or "Cephas" or "Paulus" for the Biblical "Christ", "Peter", or "Paul".

davem

04-21-2006, 05:15 AM

There's a certain sense in which I think the 'pearls before swine' analogy is not apt to this thread. Swine were unclean, and content to live in their filth, and were apt to mistake pearls for more of their filth. Given that all who post here have a high regard for Tolkien, I would say that the analogy does not obtain, on that merit alone. Must run..... dinner and a conference...... back later.....
Actually, pigs are highly intelligent & scrupulously clean animals - its only human farming methods which have created the image of the pig as a 'dirty' creature.

littlemanpoet

04-21-2006, 05:40 AM

Actually, pigs are highly intelligent & scrupulously clean animals - its only human farming methods which have created the image of the pig as a 'dirty' creature.
Sorry, I should have been more forthcoming in my little description. I was referring to the Jewish understanding of pigs/swine. According to Jewish custom, based on the OT, they were numbered with the unclean animals. I can just imagine Jesus walking along with his disciples, and they pass by a pig farm, and Jesus uses the opportunity to say yet another mysterious thing about the Kingdom of God.

I have that conference to hurry up and get to, so further responses must wait. Back sometime soon....

Mithalwen

04-21-2006, 06:04 AM

Formendacil, I think you are taking this too persionally.
" you have to remember that I consider the fact that "Jesus Christ was Crucified, Died, and was Buried, and that He Rose Again from the Dead" to be as equally truthful a fact as "Catholics are Christian". On the same note, I also think that "the Bible is God's Inspired Word" is as equally true a fact."

Similarly you have to be aware that the one is objective, the second at least 2/3 historically almost certain, the third is subjective. I have no problem with you believing this.

As for the next bit well, I no longer believe in an afterlife so .... whatever.. I will carry on trying to live as good a live as I can in this one.

" It is very amusing to watch people ascribe modern thoughts and feelings to a very much not-modern event. " And yet the fundamentalist expect a very much not modern collection of tects to be applied to modern day lives without the interpretation and rationalisation that you have applied to the story of Abraham and Isaac....

davem

04-21-2006, 06:26 AM

Sorry, I should have been more forthcoming in my little description. I was referring to the Jewish understanding of pigs/swine. According to Jewish custom, based on the OT, they were numbered with the unclean animals. I can just imagine Jesus walking along with his disciples, and they pass by a pig farm, and Jesus uses the opportunity to say yet another mysterious thing about the Kingdom of God.

I have that conference to hurry up and get to, so further responses must wait. Back sometime soon....
Of course, one might ask why any animal that God made would be by its nature 'unclean'? Why did God make the poor thing 'unclean' & if He did so it seems a bit vindictive.

Of course I accept that Peter's dream in Acts effectively states that no animal is henceforward to be considered 'unclean' as a result of Christ's redemptive act - which, if true, would make Christianity a step forward from both Judaism & Islam, which still divide the Creation up into clean/unclean, redeemed/unredeemed, Creator/Creation. Christ's sacrifice (if you believe that kind of thing) united the broken Creation & made it whole again.

The Saucepan Man

04-21-2006, 07:17 AM

Much to respond to here, but I don't have a lot of time. I shall have to return, as there are some very interesting discussion points crystallising here.

This is just to say that, in response to Formy that, by what I have said, I meant no offence to anyone. I was simply "laying my cards on the table". There is much in Christianity (and other faiths) that troubles me and, as some of these issues were, I thought, relevant to the ongoing discussion, I thought it necessary to identify them. There is intransigence on both "sides" yes (although I am not sure that there really are "sides" as such, merely a collection of varying approaches, beliefs, attitudes) but everyone has to have a starting point in a discussion. I am certainly willing to adapt, and even change, my opinions if I am persuaded as to the merits of a particular approach or argument. Of course, in this, I am guided by rationality, rather than faith, as you will probably have picked up, and in this regard there will always be something of an "unbridgeable gap" between those who are "of faith" and those who are not.

Which brings me on to the issue of the suitability and relevance of many of the matters being discussed here on a Tolkien-based forum. Although I did start from the point of view that there is a comparison to be made between the differing approaches of those with faith to a book like LotR and the Bible (and I want to come back on lmp's well-made points on this), I tend to agree with davem that there is relevance on this forum in the wider discussion too. We have, in various Tolkien-based discussions, skirted around the edge of discussing our approaches towards religion generally, and sometimes dipped our toes in. But it is generally regarded as a somewhat taboo subject here on the Downs, both for the sensitivies involved (ie the capacity that it has to cause offence) and the fact that it is not strictly Tolkien-related.

Nevertheless, I do sometimes find it difficult to discuss these kinds of issues, in relation to Tolkien's works, without "laying my cards on the table" in a more general way, as I have done to an extent in earlier posts. I therefore do think that there is a place for a more general religious discussion on a forum such as this and, while it is important to respect the sensitivities of others, it will in such a discussion be inevitable that some things will be said that fundamentally impact on the strongly held beliefs of others.

Finally, for now:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would be fair to say that God's test to you, SPM, is simple belief that a God who loves can allow evil into the world.If I may say so, lmp, that is an extremely interesting, and rather insightful, comment, and something that I will hopefully have an opportunity to come back to.

alatar

04-21-2006, 10:31 AM

As you comment yourself, this little problem didn't seem to bother Tolkien as it relates to Thingol and Melian. My sense is that angels apparently had the ability to incarnate.
I've read up on the matter a bit, and it's definitely not clear whether fallen angels have the ability to incarnate. Jude 6 seems to state that the fallen ones are not even around, having been chained as was Melkor. On the other hand, Jacob (Israel) wrestles with a being that can bless him, and the angels at Sodom had physicality enough to attract some unwanted attention, but in these examples seemingly these are not angels of the fallen sort. In the New Testament we have demonic possession and less, if any, children of the 'sons of God' (as in Genesis 6) . What's even a bit more confusing is that the Nephalim are considered "heroes of old," which to me seems to be placing them in a somewhat positive light. If the fallen could produce hybrid offspring, then why not the unfallen doing the same to provide a counter? It's not clear, and so I will quit the point as I'm not sure what else to say. But thanks for your thoughts.

The angels, the maia, in Arda can incarnate yet do not mate with humans, at least directly. I guess the elves are something of a hybrid, allowing Melian's spirit/blood to flow in Aragorn's veins. Did Tolkien have this superbeing/human pairing because he too believed that Genesis 6 spoke of angels mating with humans?

By allowing humans free will, God has necessarily placed limits upon his own omnipotence. This is rather frightening concept that most Christians don't want to try to get their minds around, but when you look at it, it's pretty obvious.
As a finite being that is so out of my league it's hard to comment, as I think that you've just said is that the infinite imposes limits on itself. That's one big rock it can't move! ;)

They were not destroyed, but imprisoned. Check out 2 Peter 2:4-5.
My point was that if, as you state, that they are to be imprisoned or were imprisoned, then what is the need to drown them?

Warning: speculation: regarding sub-human or super-human, I've been wondering these last few years about such myths as the minotaur, or hippogriffs, or what have you. Now, they may just be fantasy, but if one posits the power of fallen angelic beings to incarnate as they wish and commit whatever unspeakable acts they wish to, who knows what might not result? But as I said, that's just speculation.
That's interesting that you see it through that lens, as I too have wondered what put those ideas into people's heads, but instead of considering fallen angels as a source, would consider some unusual animal that, with the passage of time, took on a more impossible visage. I've always wondered what our lives would be like back then, when one permitted oneself more time in which to dream and name clouds.

With the 24/7 media blitz in which we live today, could something as spectacular as LotR even make it to the presses? Or would Professor Tolkien be blogging instead?

Hell is probably the single most difficult stumbling block. I realize that no matter what I say with this one, it's going to seem like an insult. I can't help that, and I don't mean it that way. I had a bit of an epiphany that hell is actually best seen as God's final grace to those who refuse him. 'What about the fire and brimstone?' you may ask, or the lake of fire? Here's a case in which I see those things as metaphorical. Hell is best understood as the absence of God. Not that God is absent from anywhere in existence; but humans have this unusual gift that they can choose not to be a part of God's reality. It's stunning, really. But God does finally say to some, "Your will be done; exist for eternity without Me." I can imagine this feeling like a lake of fire, or like fire and brimstone, especially if the person must live with the regret of "if only I had allowed him in, but I finally know better." That's hell enough.
Hell actually makes sense. You don't want to be with God; fine, have it your way. Like has been said, to truly say yes you must have the option to say no. And just where do unrepentent men in Middle Earth, or say those like the Mouth of Sauron, go when they die?

Bêthberry

04-21-2006, 11:03 AM

Tolkien did indeed contribute to the Jerusalem Bible (not the New one, but the original one- in English). You'll find his name in the "credits". I would know... I've looked.

However, he considered his contribution quite small. I believe he only worked on the Book of Jonah, which is a mere four chapters long.

I've never read anywhere what Tolkien's views on Biblical translation were, but I think one can assume that they were fairly similar to his LotR ones, except possibly with regard to the treatment of names. He did, after all, feel that the English names of the Hobbits should remain unchanged in the translations, but I do not see him advocating "Christus" or "Cephas" or "Paulus" for the Biblical "Christ", "Peter", or "Paul".

Thanks for your reply, Formendacil. What I was wondering about is more Tolkien's thoughts on the authority of the translations. It pertains to the original question here--as much to LotR as to the Bible (not that The Professor ever claimed LotR was the word of God): how do we or where do we ground our interpretations? I seem to recall a letter of Tolkien's wherein he states his sense of how he was not creating the stories but discovering them. (I don't have the Letters to hand right now.) I wonder if it is worth while considering just what he meant?

btw, there's a bit on inspiration in Catholic Encyclopedia: The Inspiration of the Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm). I hadn't realized that, according to this article:

The belief in the sacred character of certain books is as old as the Hebrew literature. . . . The gospel contains no express declaration about the origin and value of the Scriptures, but in it we see that Jesus Christ used them in conformity with the general belief, i.e. as the Word of God.

It is one of those interesting studies of what aspects of the OT were taken up in the NT and what aspects left behind.

although I am not sure that there really are "sides" as such, merely a collection of varying approaches, beliefs, attitudes)

And I want to say, in support of SpM's comment, that I also don't see a hard and fast "one side/t'other side" here, but a range of ways of looking at the question of how little or how closely or how much did Tolkien base his Legendarium on biblical events and when or why did he choose instead to incorporate northern mythologies. We have one answer in the point that Tokien felt there was some kind of family inheritance in dreaming about floods and another in Tolkien's comment that he wished to avoid the appearance of parody. Add to that the idea that a text should or ought to be or is best when it is sufficient unto itself, at least on a first experience of it.

Formendacil

04-21-2006, 12:05 PM

Formendacil, I think you are taking this too persionally.

It's my life, what can I say? If I take it personally, it's because it is personal... though that really doesn't mean that I should GET personal.

Similarly you have to be aware that the one is objective, the second at least 2/3 historically almost certain, the third is subjective. I have no problem with you believing this.

Okay... I'm really curious how Catholicism being Christianity is only "at least 2/3 historically certain"- and not because I wish to argue the matter, but in light you being the first one (if I recall) to point out to Legolas-I-S that Catholics are Christian... Very curious indeed....

As for the next bit well, I no longer believe in an afterlife so .... whatever.. I will carry on trying to live as good a live as I can in this one.

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get.

Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.

" It is very amusing to watch people ascribe modern thoughts and feelings to a very much not-modern event. " And yet the fundamentalist expect a very much not modern collection of tects to be applied to modern day lives without the interpretation and rationalisation that you have applied to the story of Abraham and Isaac....

Well, I'm not a fundamentalist... I subscribe, perhaps, to a more literal interpretation of things than several of you here appear to, but I wouldn't call it a fundamentalist's position. Context, both within the writing and when it was written, has to be taken into account.

This is just to say that, in response to Formy that, by what I have said, I meant no offence to anyone. I was simply "laying my cards on the table". There is much in Christianity (and other faiths) that troubles me and, as some of these issues were, I thought, relevant to the ongoing discussion, I thought it necessary to identify them. There is intransigence on both "sides" yes (although I am not sure that there really are "sides" as such, merely a collection of varying approaches, beliefs, attitudes) but everyone has to have a starting point in a discussion. I am certainly willing to adapt, and even change, my opinions if I am persuaded as to the merits of a particular approach or argument. Of course, in this, I am guided by rationality, rather than faith, as you will probably have picked up, and in this regard there will always be something of an "unbridgeable gap" between those who are "of faith" and those who are not.

I think Mormegil may have very well been right in saying, in Werewolf, that I like to live on the edge... I've roused up a good deal more debate/noise than I needed to by posting as I did on this thread...

Saying that you are guided by reason, rather than faith, makes me laugh at the moment. I'm sorry- it's not the statement itself, but the context I find myself in when I read it. Blame it on a book I just read. Basically, it set about showing how RATIONAL a faith Christianity is, and it got my mind thinking quite a bit about lately about just how true that is. But I won't go about proving that on this thread, since that's not really what it's for, even if it remains an Inklings-esque discussion. However, if you're interested in a more private venue...

Anyway, I found that ironically amusing, coming at the time that it did...

davem

04-21-2006, 12:47 PM

Warning: speculation: regarding sub-human or super-human, I've been wondering these last few years about such myths as the minotaur, or hippogriffs, or what have you. Now, they may just be fantasy, but if one posits the power of fallen angelic beings to incarnate as they wish and commit whatever unspeakable acts they wish to, who knows what might not result? But as I said, that's just speculation.I think you're falling into a trap of your own making here - trying to force all other mythologies to fit within the limitations of the Biblical account. Minotaurs, Hippogriffs, Unicorns & the like do not belong in the Biblical world, anymore than Hobbits or Elves do. This is the problem with seeing the Biblical account as the Archetype from which all other mythologies 'devolved'. The main problem with the Judeo-Christian approach is its division of all things/beings into good or evil. In the myths from which these creatures came they are not all 'evil' - most are 'neutral', or even 'Good'. But if you try & force them into a Judeo-Christian model you will find it very hard to place them on the side of the Angels & inevitably end up 'demonising' them - which is in fact what happened with the Old Gods & Goddesses, the old scared places, the old tales - as I pointed out.

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get.

Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.
That doesn't cause me a problem, actually. The idea of just going on & on & on, for ever & ever & ever would seem equally 'hellish'. Anyway, worrying about what happens after death is about the best guarantee of not living a fulfilling life as I can think of. Of course, Christianity is by no means the only religion that offers a promise of an after-life, & I think I actually prefer some of the Pagan visions of an afterdeath state - the Wiccan idea of the Summerlands is very appealing for instance. Whatever, I have always had a deep sense of trust in God, or the Universe, or whatever label you want to stick on it, & whether I continue in some way after death or not has no effect on that.

Hell actually makes sense.
No it doesn't. It would require God to just shrug His shoulders at the suffering of His children. Meister Eckhart posited that Hell is non-existence - God can only know the Good, & to the extent that he is aware of any Good in anything He will hold it in existence (or in Eckhart's theology He will 'continue to create it's existence') - therefore it is not in Hell. If, however, an individual were, through its own choices, to cease to have any good in it, God would cease to be aware of them & of their need to be constantly 'created' & they would simply cease to be. This would not involve 'punishment' or rejection by God, or damnation, etc, it would simply happen.

Basically, it set about showing how RATIONAL a faith Christianity is, and it got my mind thinking quite a bit about lately about just how true that is.
I'm sure the followers of all religions could show how 'rational' their belief is - it just depends on how you define 'rational'.

alatar

04-21-2006, 12:47 PM

It's my life, what can I say? If I take it personally, it's because it is personal... though that really doesn't mean that I should GET personal.
Hope that you've taken all that I've posted as a 'questioning,' not an attack.

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get. Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.
After a time you figure that this is all we have, and so you better get it done now, and that when you're dead, you're dead. Now, I understand grace and works and all, but consider: I choose to live a moral and honorable life (hopefully as an example for my children, and note that I preemptively and unequivocally state here and now that I have my flaws as well, like not loving PJ's films 100% ;) ) not for any future reward, and despite thinking that this four score is all we get. Some who believe likewise may choose hedonism, and many think that without God or a god or an afterlife that that's where we'd all be, but knowing that one day I will be stardust or worm food or whathaveyou still doesn't make me deviate from the straight and narrow way. To me it's just a simpler way to live - I'm lazy - and those who've had some science may understand it as the lowest energy state.

Compare that to some who believe in a reward.

Saying that you are guided by reason, rather than faith, makes me laugh at the moment. I'm sorry- it's not the statement itself, but the context I find myself in when I read it. Blame it on a book I just read. Basically, it set about showing how RATIONAL a faith Christianity is, and it got my mind thinking quite a bit about lately about just how true that is. But I won't go about proving that on this thread, since that's not really what it's for, even if it remains an Inklings-esque discussion. However, if you're interested in a more private venue...
I enjoy the rationality of Christianity, until, that is, we come to the 'faith boundary,' then there is where we part company. Not that science is completely free of bias and hubris and opinion and argument from authority - it has its warts too. I just am bothered when a completely logical and fact-based argument makes some pretzel twist to hit the only permissible target in the end.

I too welcome PM discussion if anyone so desires (or if I'm beating dead equine or steering the thread into a boring corner).

alatar

04-21-2006, 01:03 PM

No it doesn't. It would require God to just shrug His shoulders at the suffering of His children.
At some point the Father must say, enough, you've made your choice, and though I love you, I will abide by your wishes, self-destructive as they may be. Does God hold us captive if we choose not to be with Him?

Meister Eckhart posited that Hell is non-existence - God can only know the Good, & to the extent that he is aware of any Good in anything He will hold it in existence (or in Eckhart's theology He will 'continue to create it's existence') - therefore it is not in Hell.
But God knows the Devil (they talk at times), and as the creator of all things, must have created this Hell as well. As you and Eckhart say, maybe Hell is non-existance, but what does that exactly mean to a being that is not limited by time or space? You once existed, and so must still exist somewhere in God's view. Maybe that what Hell is, being trapped in God's RAM.

Or does God dump you down the memory hole, and this begs the question: can an omniscient omnipresent god will itself to forget something? Sorry, but don't have enough coffee for that one.

If, however, an individual were, through its own choices, to cease to have any good in it, God would cease to be aware of them & of their need to be constantly 'created' & they would simply cease to be. This would not involve 'punishment' or rejection by God, or damnation, etc, it would simply happen.
The assumption is that God is absolutely Good, and so cannot fathom one degree of unGood? All of the Christian God's subjects/children are by definition ungood, yet exist. Maybe I'm just not seeing it.

I'm sure the followers of all religions could show how 'rational' their belief is - it just depends on how you define 'rational'.
Agreed. Great thing about this forum is that I've learned that people are so different. Why, some even think that Balrogs have wings.

Mithalwen

04-21-2006, 01:50 PM

[QUOTE=Formendacil]It's my life, what can I say? If I take it personally, it's because it is personal... though that really doesn't mean that I should GET personal

Okay... I'm really curious how Catholicism being Christianity is only "at least 2/3 historically certain"- and not because I wish to argue the matter, but in light you being the first one (if I recall) to point out to Legolas-I-S that Catholics are Christian... Very curious indeed....

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get.

Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.

Well, I'm not a fundamentalist... I subscribe, perhaps, to a more literal interpretation of things than several of you here appear to, but I wouldn't call it a fundamentalist's position. Context, both within the writing and when it was written, has to be taken into account.

QUOTE]

Rightio, first of all please bear in mind that I shoved my ten pennorth in to this thread partly because I felt that a certain person's ludicrous statement was potentially offensive to Catholics ..... not everyone who is not with you is against you..... :rolleyes: but I beginning to wish I had kept my woolly liberal mouth shut.

Second "Jesus Christ was Crucified, Died, and was Buried, and that He Rose Again from the Dead" was the thing I referred to as being 2/3 certain, Catholics being Christians as objective fact and the status of the Bible as being subjective. Actually I should have said 3/4 but I was in a rush and lumped dead and buried together. pretty good historical evidence for the Life and death of Jesus and for all my issues with taking the bible to literally (and I have a whole load more having read some of the Old Testament last night as research!!!) I used to be able to say the creed in good conscience.

This life ain't so bad - and anyone able to surf the net isn't doing badly on the scheme of things. I have had some difficult thing happen as most people do if they live long enough, but I don't want to go in to that now or the reasons for my lapse - if you want to know PM me - but you appreciate it so much more if you think it is all you are going to get. I am so much happier now I no longer beat myself up for my failure to be perfect. I don't behave any less morally now than I did but I certainly seize the day more rather than banking on an afterlife to make up for the bad sides of this life. It would be lovely to believe I would be reunited after death with those I have loved and lost but I can't. Believing this life is all there is doen't have to turn you in to a selfish hedonist it can make you more compassionate and concerned with people's immediate needs rather than their eternal salvation - isn't he Christian Aid slogan "We believe in life before death"....

Formendacil

04-21-2006, 02:31 PM

Rightio, first of all please bear in mind that I shoved my ten pennorth in to this thread partly because I felt that a certain person's ludicrous statement was potentially offensive to Catholics ..... not everyone who is not with you is against you..... :rolleyes: but I beginning to wish I had kept my woolly liberal mouth shut.

Second "Jesus Christ was Crucified, Died, and was Buried, and that He Rose Again from the Dead" was the thing I referred to as being 2/3 certain, Catholics being Christians as objective fact and the status of the Bible as being subjective. Actually I should have said 3/4 but I was in a rush and lumped dead and buried together. pretty good historical evidence for the Life and death of Jesus and for all my issues with taking the bible to literally (and I have a whole load more having read some of the Old Testament last night as research!!!) I used to be able to say the creed in good conscience.

You know... I'm almost disappointed. I was hoping for some amusingly clever theory/equation for Catholics being 2/3 Christian...

Also, interestingly enough... the Resurrection of Jesus was the main rational reason, in the book I mentioned above and which I forget the name of and no longer have access to. And not just how the Resurrection, if it happened, validated Christianity, but how the Resurrection is the most logical explanation for what actually happened to Jesus and the disciples.

I seem to be having an interesting day, making connections...

This life ain't so bad - and anyone able to surf the net isn't doing badly on the scheme of things. I have had some difficult thing happen as most people do if they live long enough, but I don't want to go in to that now or the reasons for my lapse - if you want to know PM me - but you appreciate it so much more if you think it is all you are going to get. I am so much happier now I no longer beat myself up for my failure to be perfect. I don't behave any less morally now than I did but I certainly seize the day more rather than banking on an afterlife to make up for the bad sides of this life. It would be lovely to believe I would be reunited after death with those I have loved and lost but I can't. Believing this life is all there is doen't have to turn you in to a selfish hedonist it can make you more compassionate and concerned with people's immediate needs rather than their eternal salvation - isn't the Christian Aid slogan "We believe in life before death"....

Well, it doesn't necessarily turn you into a hedonist- I quite agree (I don't think I intimated that I did... did I?). However, it seems like a terribly, terribly sad thought... Blame it on my being young, but I don't see a problem with living forever- especially in a perfect Heaven. I consider myself fully capable of amusing, entertaining, and occupying myself forever- especially with the good health, peaceful relations, and advanced mind and body that is part and parcel with being in Heaven.

For one thing, I want to create a fictional word with as much or more depth than Middle-Earth. ;)

Mithalwen

04-21-2006, 02:36 PM

I did read a book where a lawyer presented the evidence for the resurrection - he had set out to discount it and ended up converting himself......

I used to feel sad when I finally came to the conclusion that this was all there is but I did an astronomy course and all the particals that make us will return eventually to the stars whence they came ... so I am content with cosmic recycling :D

davem

04-21-2006, 02:39 PM

The assumption is that God is absolutely Good, and so cannot fathom one degree of unGood? All of the Christian God's subjects/children are by definition ungood, yet exist. Maybe I'm just not seeing it.That was Eckhart's theory. God has no 'evil' aspect, therefore cannot know evil - or even recognise its existence. This is because evil does not have a real existence, being (as Boethius stated) nothing. Evil is a 'void' hence God cannot be aware of it.

Eckhart believed that God was constantly creating (because He is a Creator in His essence) everything - even the past & future are being constantly created, not just the present is. Nothing can exist unless it is being constantly created. He also believed that we are judged on our intentions - hence, if you so all you can to feed the hungry then from God's POV you actually have fed all the hungry: ie, you fed as many as you could, & if it had been possible you would have fed them all therefore it was only limited resources (for which you cannot be held responsible) which prevented you from feeding them all. From that perspective Hitler would be judged to have killed all the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled simply because he did all he could to bring that about.

The point is, God cannot create evil, only good, therefore if someone had become completely evil He could not continue to create them as He would not even be aware that they needed to be created....

Hence, God cannot 'talk to the Devil' in Eckhart's view. The Devil,, having been cast from Heaven would not 'be'. I think you're referring to the Book of Job, which clearly was written as a cosmic drama. the problem with the Devil 'creating' Hell is that it ascribes the power of Creation to a being other than God. All the Devil could do was corrupt something pre-existing.

All of the Christian God's subjects/children are by definition ungood, yet exist. Maybe I'm just not seeing it.
No, they have some good in them - mainly in that they have been redeemed, but also, in Eckhart's view they must have some good in them otherwise they would not actually exist.

alatar

04-21-2006, 02:53 PM

Hence, God cannot 'talk to the Devil' in Eckhart's view. The Devil,, having been cast from Heaven would not 'be'. I think you're referring to the Book of Job, which clearly was written as a cosmic drama. the problem with the Devil 'creating' Hell is that it ascribes the power of Creation to a being other than God. All the Devil could do was corrupt something pre-existing.
I'm no theologian (I think we need a symbol that means the same thing, as in this thread and others we all've been starting with that caveat ;) ), but do not Christians believe that there is a real Satan? Isn't that what lmp and I've been circling, the incarnation of the Fallen? So Eckhart can think whatever, but I am using an accepted interpretation of the Bible. My original comment, that Hell makes sense, was stated assuming that we are talking about a Christian world view that many hold.

davem

04-21-2006, 03:04 PM

I'm no theologian (I think we need a symbol that means the same thing, as in this thread and others we all've been starting with that caveat ;) ), but do not Christians believe that there is a real Satan? Isn't that what lmp and I've been circling, the incarnation of the Fallen? So Eckhart can think whatever, but I am using an accepted interpretation of the Bible. My original comment, that Hell makes sense, was stated assuming that we are talking about a Christian world view that many hold.Well, Eckhart's views were considered heretical.

I accept that some Christians believe there is a real Satan. Many don't. I don't think that makes them less Christian though my knowledge of Christianity is admittedly theoretical.

Lalwendë

04-21-2006, 03:25 PM

Excuse my poor typing and rambling before I begin, I'm not very well. :(

I was a thoroughly conventional Protestant (C of E brand) until I read Tolkien and started exploring some of the wonderful stories and ideas that I had heard more deeply, especially exploring what those who came before me believed, and what those who were in other parts of our world believed.

I'm not that way nowadays, but nor am I a fully paid up Atheist. I can't remeber who said that Atheism was a 'broad, breezy highway' - might have been Russell? But anyway, I didn't find it to be so. Experience has shaped me.

I have experienced that moment of death, and I can say now that the one emotion I felt in that split second was utter disappointment. I can't forget that. It left me knowing that whatever happens, even if there is life after death, it's nothing like what we have been blessed with right now. This is our only chance for any kind of happiness in the way we see it now. Any other kind of happiness is unknowable. If there's a god, it wouldn't want us to waste that mad chance that we have been given to be alive - and the chance that we came to be is a chance in a million anyway.

But there is no way I can accept the concept of either Hell or the Devil as a place or a supernatural being. Hell is here now, it's being bullied, being robbed. The Devil is also something here, it's that thing which gets into people just like you or me which makes us tut at people in queues, shout at kids, etc. Or worse. Hell and the Devil are just us. God is in the best we can be, no matter what our religion is, or even if we don't have one. If there is god, then it will accept everyone no matter if they reject it. And I'm deliberately not saying He because that sticks in my throat - as a woman I find it ridiculous that god is He, especially as women are the ones who go thorugh all the pain to prodcue the human race.

That is one reason I reject any conventional form of religion, another is that it also exhorts me to reject science and I find theoretical physics to be truly transcendent. But the main one is why should I accept what other humans have written as the Truth?

I'm truly universalist (and I also deeply respect anyone who has a religion - I see the individual's religion as deeply personal and will only criticise it where it impinges on the good of other people) and I find that sense of the Universal in Tolkien's work more than anything else. I do find god in his work, a sense of limitless possibility and a sense of awe, but not one kind of god, one brand.

I used to feel sad when I finally came to the conclusion that this was all there is but I did an astronomy course and all the particals that make us will return eventually to the stars whence they came ... so I am content with cosmic recycling

And that's what gets me too. The concepts of physics amaze and astound me, the idea that we are in the second age of the five ages of the universe, that really we are indestructible... What's really depressing is when people are unwilling to consider all of that, either because they can't be bothered or are afraid of it. That to me is a really miserable existence. Godless even.

littlemanpoet

04-21-2006, 10:11 PM

Of course, one might ask why any animal that God made would be by its nature 'unclean'? Why did God make the poor thing 'unclean' & if He did so it seems a bit vindictive.I don't know. My bet is that the pigs in Israel probably didn't mind not getting eaten. :D But seriously, I think this is best understood in the context of God being a few thousand years ahead of the modern medical establishment, protecting his chosen people from foods that would likely pose them with greater health risks. And the object lesson of clean and unclean no doubt reinforced God's moral law.

There is much, much more to respond to, but bed is calling.

Formendacil

04-22-2006, 02:04 AM

That is one reason I reject any conventional form of religion, another is that it also exhorts me to reject science and I find theoretical physics to be truly transcendent. But the main one is why should I accept what other humans have written as the Truth?

Because God was the one who wrote it...

Ahem!

Anyway, the main reason I quoted/posted here was to say how terribly sad the relationship between Science and Religion has become. Prior to the 20th Century, and even ofttimes therein, the great scientists tended, by and large, to fairly devout people- typically Christians, if from the Western world. Newton, Galileo, Einstein- all believed in God (and according to an organised faith) and studied His creation out of a desire to understand the things He wrought (I simplify, somewhat...).

Religion, particularly Christianity, it is true, has always been somewhat reactionary. Since Science, of its very nature, is forward-looking, changing its appearance with the emergence of every new theory, it was natural the Religion and Science should collide, with Science tugging inexorably towards the future, while Religion moves more slowly, with a much greater trend towards keeping the valued things of the past.

The two are not natural enemies, though, and it is entirely possible to be both a progressive scientist and a devout -even a conservative- believer.

Alas that things appear otherwise these days...

davem

04-22-2006, 02:14 AM

I don't know. My bet is that the pigs in Israel probably didn't mind not getting eaten. :D But seriously, I think this is best understood in the context of God being a few thousand years ahead of the modern medical establishment, protecting his chosen people from foods that would likely pose them with greater health risks. And the object lesson of clean and unclean no doubt reinforced God's moral law.So why does the pig suddenly become 'clean' after the resurrection - cf Peter's dream which I referred to earlier?

Of course, in the Pagan traditions the pig was always a 'sacred' animal, associated with the Underworld deities (see Math, Son of Mathonwy in the Mabinogion) so maybe there was a 'religious' taboo involved.....

EDIT Bit more on pigs in Middle/Near-Eastern myth:

The Boar
In Egypt

While the pig was sacred to Isis, the black boar (Sus scrofa) was associated with her brother and opponent, Seth. This black boar aspect was considered responsible for the obscuration of the sun during an eclipse. In one version, he gores Horus, the sun-god, putting out one of his eyes.

Morton Edgar thinks that "the tusks in the mouth of the male pig signifies that it was by the "power of his mouth" that the evil one, Seth, caused . . . (Osiris) to be put to death. In memory of this deed, the peoples of many countries have caused countless boars to lose their heads in sacrifice.

In the Near East

In Artemis' eastern form as Great Goddess similar to the Diana of Ephesus, she is associated with the boar. Hence, it is more than likely that the bulbous appendages on the tiered body of the triple-crowned goddess of the Ephesians are not breasts (Are there any breasts without nipples?) but rather boar's testicles.

Adonis, a later Greek god whose origins lie in the Middle East, perished by the tusks of a wild boar. His name, which derives from adohn or lord,likely refers to Tammuz, consort of the Great Goddess, Ishtar.

A flying boar (http://klazomenai.tripod.com/) was associated with Clazomenae, a city of Asia Minor, home to philosopher Anaxagoras (499-428 BCE.) He taught, with some similarity to the Buddha, that "nothing comes into being nor perishes but that it is compounded or dissolved from things that are."

More on Pigs generally: http://www.khandro.net/animal_swine.htm

littlemanpoet

04-23-2006, 03:30 PM

I had a post up early yesterday but being on an unfamiliar computer at a certain conference I was attending, I was unsuccessful in posting it. :rolleyes:

...the Christian group (or just LMP, since he has comprised most of it, to date) has been a lot more willing to give and take, to say "you have a point".

I'm not saying that one group has been, or ought to be, accepting the other group as right. I'm not even saying the Christian group is right (although as a card-carrying member, I obviously feel that way). What I am saying is that the Christian group has thus far been more willing to say "you have a point" whereas the non-Christian group hasn't been willing to say that.

As noted, however, that is simply things as I am seeing them- on this thread. Possibly my vision is being coloured by the side of the fence that I'm on.I think this last sentence is apt. I used to get on the defensive when such astute questions were put to me, but that has changed. I understand why I did get on the defensive: I was afraid that I wasn't up to defending the Faith, that I had to be the next C.S. Lewis in order to do what I felt needed doing. At the conference I attended I heard a lot of useful stuff, and here's one quote, from Marilynne Robinson of the Iowa Writers' Workshop at the U. of Iowa.: Nothing true can be said about God in a posture of defense.The reason is that defense is all about setting borders, confining oneself into a small area so as to protect oneself or one's beliefs. But God is bigger than our beliefs. God exceeds defense, proof, et cetera.

Well, this is a bit of a sticking point, I would think, as I doubt if there is general concensus about where it is literal, where symbolic, where metaphorical. I rather liked the explanation of the Catholic sense of letter and meaning (the article used the terms sign and signified) in the article I referred to above.THE GIFT OF ILÙVATAR: TOLKIEN'S THEOLOGICAL VISION by Damien Casey]Tolkien has a strong dislike of allegory with its one dimensional correspondence of sign and signified. [12] Tolkien's imagination is thoroughly Catholic in this regards. Whereas C.S. Lewis thought allegorically, Tolkien thought symbolically. The Catholic understanding of symbol is not simply something that stands for or points to something else. This is no more than a sign, or in its narrative form, an allegory. Rather, the symbol both points beyond itself and makes present that to which it points. It is the nature of sacrament and symbol to bear within themselves the objects to which they refer. Hence Tolkien's imaginary world hopes in some sense to bear the true world within itself.I like this. However.... literal versus symbolic versus metaphorical. First off, symbolic seems to be an umbrella term under which metaphor finds itself, no? "Literal" would be the histories and stories, unless the text itself indicates a figurative reading such as the parables. If the Bible calls them histories, so I read them, even if many scholars disagree.

More later.

davem

04-23-2006, 04:00 PM

If the Bible calls them histories, so I read them, even if many scholars disagree.

This is what worries me about all believers - if the Bible (or Koran, or Mahabharata, etc) says one thing, & the 'scholars' (basing their statements on 'trivialities' like archaeology, historical record, common sense) say different the text is given primacy & the scholars either dismissed as fools or sent to the stake.

The Bible says Jesus was the Son of God, the Koran denies that. To the followers of each the others are heretics, unbelievers. LMP, you scare me. Sorry, but you do. I know you would never light the fire, but you would create the climate, make it possible for the fire to be lit.

When you say 'I believe the histories contained in the Bible, no matter what the 'scholars' say.' & I ask for evidence its not because I want to belittle your faith, butbecause only evidence is safe. The Twin Towers fell, & thousands of people died because some people decided to 'believe' something they read. Six Million Jews died in the Holocaust because people made the choice to reject the 'scholars'. Belief is the single most dangerous approach to life.

Its an approach that seems the way of least resistance, 'let go, trust in a Higher power', don't worry about all these confusing 'facts'. Admit your ignorance & rest in the arms of God'. Sorry, but its a cop out, a denial of your intellectual responsibility - & that is ultimately a rejection of your moral responsibility.

And now I'm on the attack again. :(

Look, I'm not saying the cold, hard material world is all there is. I've had experiences which have confirmed to me that 'there are more things in Heaven & earth' than are included in the works of 'scholars' but I've never gone down the line of simply 'believing' anything. If the historical accounts in the Bible are true they can be proved (& it will be 'scholars' who prove them), if they can't be proved they are not true.

You've called yourself both a writer & a poet - if you are, & especially if you are a poet, you don't get the luxury of such a cop out.

Sorry for my harsh words, but they had to be said....

Nogrod

04-23-2006, 04:16 PM

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get.
Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.
----------------------------------------
Saying that you are guided by reason, rather than faith, makes me laugh at the moment. I'm sorry- it's not the statement itself, but the context I find myself in when I read it. Blame it on a book I just read. Basically, it set about showing how RATIONAL a faith Christianity is, and it got my mind thinking quite a bit about lately about just how true that is.

Many times even the most learned have never quite thought their personal views to their end... I think we could rephrase your question: "What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is only a small part of what we get?"

Do you see it Form? Isn't life's precariouisness just the thing that gives it meaning and depth? Why to care, if this is just an interlude or or an overture? Just play your cards wisely and wait for the next level (like in WW-game, flying under radar and hoping you wouldn't be noticed?). :rolleyes:

And to the second point. The fideistic point (called forwards by Kierkegaard & co.) is quite new indeed - but widely held in protestant countries nowadays. They think, that you should make a difference between belief and knowledge. It's an old & new fundamentalist view to call the questions of faith epistemological ie. being questions of truth or falsity - things to be known, or reasoned / proved about... So when you call your belief rational, you line up with the fundamentalists - even though you say the contrary.

Already most of the medieval monks felt quite uneasy with those rational "proofs of God's existence" (brought forward from 11th. century forwards), as they seemed to tie God in logic and (human) reasoning... So there is this tension between rationality and christianity - has been there since Paul, of course, but it has not been done away with quite yet.

littlemanpoet

04-23-2006, 04:35 PM

I want to make sure that my words aren't misunderstood. What I was referring to with the term "this POV" was this idea I presented of historically unfolding understanding. I was acknowledging a problem with the idea I presented, rather than suggesting anyone else's ideas were arrogant.I get it. Thanks for the clarification.

In the New Testament we have demonic possession and less, if any, children of the 'sons of God' (as in Genesis 6).The questions then seem to be, (1) "Why did the fallen angels stop incarnating themselves some time after the Flood, but not as a result of it; and when?" And related: (2) "Why did the fallen angels choose demonic possession as their evil-de-jour?"

The questions seem linked. Maybe the fallen angels got smarter and began to realize that they could be much more effective as invisible, possessing agents, rather than as physical beings wielding physical power while trammeled to many (if not all) of the limitations thereof.

What's even a bit more confusing is that the Nephalim are considered "heroes of old," which to me seems to be placing them in a somewhat positive light.That does seem to have a positive connotation, doesn't it? The problem is that we can only guess at who these "heroes of old" were by way of judging the appelation. My "tortuous" tendency ;) is to link these to the demi-gods of various mythologies both known and unknown in our time.

If the fallen could produce hybrid offspring, then why not the unfallen doing the same to provide a counter?I've thought about this. Could there have been a second Fall involving precisely this temptation? Fodder for a great feinged history, this would make! (I'm already working on it by the by) No proof for this, just speculation, but it does seem to be (absent the idea of it being a second Fall) what Tolkien posed as Melian's story.

Did Tolkien have this superbeing/human pairing because he too believed that Genesis 6 spoke of angels mating with humans?At the conference I went to I picked up a book that talks about this very thing.It seems to me that Tolkien has made more sense (mythologically speaking) of this mysterious passage in Genesis than anyone else. He discusses the "Children of God" at great length in numerous letters (Letters, pp. 146-47, 203-4, 284-86, etc.) and in The Silmarillion. Tolkien explains that Men and Elves are known as "Children of God" and that the Valar, who were also created beings but of far greater age and knowledge, loved and yearned after them. All of this fits the Genesis stories very well.So says this writer. I personally had not felt this way, which is why I have been working on my own feigned history using a my own "tortuous" understanding of precisely the same passages. For any who cares to learn more about that, check out this post (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=30914&postcount=14) and this one too (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=30959&postcount=59). Enough of that.

My point was that if, as you state, that they are to be imprisoned or were imprisoned, then what is the need to drown them?It seems harsh, but apparently the lines of seed had to be cut off so that they could not pollute the seed through Noah. However, this answer is weakened because of the Rephaim and Nephilim still extant in Canaan when the Hebrews crossed the Jordan. Weakened but not undone. God gave the Hebrews a Law they failed to keep more than they kept it, and God still achieved his purpose in spite of their disobedience; God's big enough to be able to overcome the obstacles of destructive seed. Then why drown the humans? I don't know. A 'fresh' start? It's more complicated than that, and God's purpose is fraught with mystery, so that's the best I can offer for now.

Nogrod

04-23-2006, 04:50 PM

God's big enough to be able to overcome the obstacles of destructive seed. Then why drown the humans? I don't know. A 'fresh' start? It's more complicated than that, and God's purpose is fraught with mystery, so that's the best I can offer for now.

This is one of the things that make me feel uneasy about different monotheistic religions- or any ideologies that claim having The One Truth. If that truth calls for "cleansing" of the earth, or "a fresh start" - or just death to the infidels, then it is a most dangerous ideology there is. I'm not against any faith as such. People do beautiful things inspired by faith, but then those faiths are also mighty tools in the hands of the wicked... You just think about these suicide-bombers etc.

Claiming something to be a mystery, then, I find deeply unnerving. It's always the hiding place of power and intrigue. Open arguments can be looked at, together, mysteries are only for the "chosen" (normally self-chosen).

littlemanpoet

04-23-2006, 05:35 PM

This is one of the things that make me feel uneasy about different monotheistic religions- or any ideologies that claim having The One Truth. If that truth calls for "cleansing" of the earth, or "a fresh start" - or just death to the infidels, then it is a most dangerous ideology there is. I'm not against any faith as such. People do beautiful things inspired by faith, but then those faiths are also mighty tools in the hands of the wicked... You just think about these suicide-bombers etc.

Claiming something to be a mystery, then, I find deeply unnerving. It's always the hiding place of power and intrigue. Open arguments can be looked at, together, mysteries are only for the "chosen" (normally self-chosen).
Friday night I listened to Salman Rushdie at the conference I went to. He was a very good speaker; many writers are not. He's also a thoroughgoing atheist, self-described. One of the things he said was that 'religion is the cause of savagry and tyranny'. He also said that his initial reasons for rejecting theism were architectural and digestive; he was trying to be comical, but also honest. Anyway, I think that his points are well made, regarding religion, as far as they go. Religions, however, are not the catalysts of savagery and tyranny, but the vehicles. It is humans who are savage and tyrannical, be it in the name of a religion, a politico-economic system, the rebellion against one, or what have you. It's humans who do the evil, not the religions and other such excuses they try to hide behind. I do grant that religions do have within them material that allow for radicalist, reactionary applications. But it is still the humans who are putting these into practice. So the question for me always returns to this: What is it in humans that brings them to do such evil whilst equally capable of such glory as symphonies?

Formendacil

04-23-2006, 10:41 PM

Many times even the most learned have never quite thought their personal views to their end... I think we could rephrase your question: "What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is only a small part of what we get?"

Do you see it Form? Isn't life's precariouisness just the thing that gives it meaning and depth? Why to care, if this is just an interlude or or an overture? Just play your cards wisely and wait for the next level (like in WW-game, flying under radar and hoping you wouldn't be noticed?). :rolleyes:

I get what you're saying....

But what if your chance to move on the next level is determined by what you do in this one?

To use the Werewolf analogy, if this is all we get, then at the end of Day 1, we all die- good or evil- it doesn't matter. All we get is one Day 1, so there's no point in hiding one's Wolfishness or Giftedness, but one had may as well blow the game now, because it's over.

If, however, there is an afterlife, then it makes sense to play the game according to the rules, because otherwise you won't make it to the "Afterlife".

And to the second point. The fideistic point (called forwards by Kierkegaard & co.) is quite new indeed - but widely held in protestant countries nowadays. They think, that you should make a difference between belief and knowledge. It's an old & new fundamentalist view to call the questions of faith epistemological ie. being questions of truth or falsity - things to be known, or reasoned / proved about... So when you call your belief rational, you line up with the fundamentalists - even though you say the contrary.

Already most of the medieval monks felt quite uneasy with those rational "proofs of God's existence" (brought forward from 11th. century forwards), as they seemed to tie God in logic and (human) reasoning... So there is this tension between rationality and christianity - has been there since Paul, of course, but it has not been done away with quite yet.

Perhaps so...

The Resurrection of Christ, to paraphrase St. Paul, is a "stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks" (or have I got their positions mixed up?). Resurrection does not seem logically possible.

If, however, the Resurrection DID happen (and that is the simplest explanation to fit all the facts), then it seems a good deal more rational to believe in the Resurrection- and therefore the entire Faith that Christ taught, than not.

And that, as I see it, the great difference between Christianity and other faiths: Christianity has a "Great Proof": the Resurrection. Scholars, historians, and others deny that Christ was ever raised, because to admit it undermines everything they say about Christianity in general. Rightly or wrongly, they HAVE to hold to that position if Christianity is to be disproved. No other faith has a singular "Great Proof" of the same nature.

littlemanpoet

04-25-2006, 09:49 AM

davem

04-25-2006, 12:07 PM

So God judges humans based on our choices, and our deeds. Adam chose their own way rather than obedience. Each of us chooses whether to believe God or disbelieve God. We mustn't be misled about this. Belief or unbelief are choices. To say "I cannot bring myself to believe in God because: (fill in the blank)", is to say "I'm making a choice based on this set of standards or principles." We're setting up standards by which we are judging the veracity of God's claims. This is to place our understanding in a superior position vis-a-vis God. And this is precisely the same choice Adam made.

Belief is a choice.

As to the Flood - I think the problem we have is not simply that God killed evil people, but that He killed everybody & everything - including children & animals.

To your final point, I think that one could argue that God must be bound by a moral code of right & wrong, & that He cannot simply set aside those rules. If killing en masse, holocausts, 'ethnic cleansing' are wrong they are wrong - whoever does them. If those rules, that moral code, has been laid down by God He cannot simply ignore it when it suits. Jesus exhorts his followers to 'be like their Father in Heaven'. God cannot simply start over by mass slaughter of sentient beings. Giving free will to his children places a responsibility on Him.

I'd say its perfectly valid to judge God by the standards of Good & evil which He Himself set down or He is being hypocritical.

Perhaps the easiest explanation is that the Hebrews had inherited the tale of the Flood & attempted to account for it by involving God in it. Unfortunately, it makes God look bad. Or rather, it required them to make the victims look bad, so that they 'deserved' what they got.

In other words, we are not 'setting up standards by which we are judging the veracity of God's claims', we are simply requiring God to abide by the standards He Himself gave us.

What we come back to is the question of whether whatever God does is 'Good' simply because He does it, or whether there is an objective standard of morality which God also is bound - ie, not 'whatever God does is Good', but 'God only does Good because He acts within the moral code'. But what if He doesn't act within the Moral code - can His actions still be considered 'good'?

The problem I have with your argument is that we can never know where we stand with God, or what constitutes 'Good' at all. It makes God an amoral, arbitrary figure, who just does whatever the hell He wants & declares it 'Good'.

Belief or unbelief are choices.

No they aren't - unless belief is irrelevant to anything. Belief/unbelief is not like the choice between coffee or tea. Belief is a response, not a choice, & therefore it must be a response to something. It is a spiritual state or it is nothing worth bothering about. To just sort of shrug your shoulders & say 'Oh well, why not - I've nothing better to do' trivialises the whole thing. For me to decide now 'I'll believe in God' when I feel nothing of the sort is as valueless as my deciding 'I'll believe in aliens' or 'I'll believe in reincarnation' or 'I'll believe the moon's made of green cheese' ('whatever the scholars or the evidence says').

alatar

04-25-2006, 12:21 PM

I was wrong earlier about the deaths in the Flood being a mystery. It's clear in the Bible why the people were killed. God judged them and found them wanting. This answer raises heated objections amongst some of us here, as in, "What right did God have to judge them and find them wanting, and then go and kill them? Wasn't the whole thing a set-up anyway? Isn't God to blame for the Fall in the first place, since He knew what was going to happen the whole time?"
I don't blame God for destroying what He created. His rules, rewards and penalties. Interesting though is that in this case mankind was drowned but not given a chance to be immersed in water in a completely different fashion, like by John the Baptizer. How many years did man have to wait until God reached out with His grace? How many years did man toil under the Law until it was shown to be only a guide? We have God stating that by living by the Law one can "live" (Leviticus 18:5), yet later in Romans we learn it's really all about faith in the Lord, or having faith in the Law, or... even those who 'naturally' conform to the unknown Law are saved. Or not.

My point is that those drowned people, like the other others that are seen in the Old Testament, are beyond redemption (or at least that's how I read it). It's not until later that Paul tells us that the 'Tetragrammaton' is not only the God of Abraham but of all humans. It's just confusing. And even more disturbing is that after all of that death, we still have sin (Gen 9:20), so what really was the point?

Genesis 10 lets us know where each tribe came from, all from Noah. Later in the Old Testament we will have kinslaying, as all of these tribes are family. If God intended on wiping out the 'dark angel' seed, then He might have chosen a different vehicle, as apparently Noah's children still had the taint.

All we get is one Day 1, so there's no point in hiding one's Wolfishness or Giftedness, but one had may as well blow the game now, because it's over.
Someone once said, that if your belief system is what's keeping you here, then by all means, keep believing! And note that I've read about people that existed thousands of years ago, and so even though they might be dead, they still have made an impact on my life. And from a biological POV, my immortality is in my children (it's also most likely to be the cause of my mortality...;) ).

If, however, there is an afterlife, then it makes sense to play the game according to the rules, because otherwise you won't make it to the "Afterlife".
I have a friend who believed that, "logically" it was better to believe, as you don't waste much and have everything to gain, than to not believe and find out that you were wrong. But like many have observed, how does one know which belief system or what diety, sect, group, interpretation (i.e. partial-preterism versus dispensationalism) to choose?

The Resurrection of Christ, to paraphrase St. Paul, is a "stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks" (or have I got their positions mixed up?). Resurrection does not seem logically possible.
But, in the Christian sense, it does as it's a pretty common occurrence. Isn't that why when Jesus went and raised many from the dead that he was thought to be the return of Elijah? Also, Elisha raised the dead. And didn't the bones of one of the twain also return the dead to life? And I quoted to lmp my confusion with Mark 9:37-39, as it seems that there are 'free-lance' miracle workers in the mix. Anyway, if one believes that the dead can truly be raised, then why not the Resurrection? Is it because Jesus brought Himself back? How do we know that another didn't help?

If, however, the Resurrection DID happen (and that is the simplest explanation to fit all the facts), then it seems a good deal more rational to believe in the Resurrection- and therefore the entire Faith that Christ taught, than not.
I've read many simpler explanations, and even if I believed as you, I would think that there must! be some doubt for the believer to overcome. Think about it: where would my free will/choice be if even on my best/worst day there was no way that I could refute the divinity of Jesus Christ? It'd be to me like ranting against gravity. And before you say it, I might be skeptical but I'm not that skeptical. :eek:

And please note that I'm hoping not to be attacking, but asking for more information (though none of us here or anywhere might be able to answer), so if I've offended, note that it is unintentional. :)

Nogrod

04-25-2006, 01:15 PM

God's foreknowledge is not a rational reason to blame him. Foreknowledge leads one to a choice whether to halt the direction something is going, or not. In this case he would have had to halt the free choices of Adam. To do so would have turned Adam into slaves to God, which is not what God wanted.

So God judges humans based on our choices, and our deeds. Adam chose their own way rather than obedience. Each of us chooses whether to believe God or disbelieve God.

This kind of argument rings of a particularly nasty version of western individualism. I'm not thinking, that individualism as such is bad - quite on the contrary - but only, that we have kind of unleashed a beast with it here in the west. That one seems to be a cornerstone of much of modern spirituality as well...

So. Why do we always contemplate on the acting subject? It was Adam's (or Eve's) decision, or the murderer's decision, Hitler's or Stalin's decision etc. which we analyze. When do we look at the "innocent" victims: those raped, killed, tortured? The children of Babylon, whose heads should be broken towards the stairs? Those under 10-year-old moslim girls raped and killed in ex-Jugoslavia, The children and women in Ruanda, the gypsies and mentally handicapped in Nazi-Germany... You can continue the list almost indefinitively. When do we ask about their choices, and their deeds? What wrong choice had made the 3-year old, her head crushed on the cement by drunken christian serbs? And we can't say, that the culprits will have to pay later with Gods wrath landing on them: how will that bring that child back?

All this wrong and evil.

And HE knew it already with HIS foresight? So was it good and loving FATHER'S move to give people free will? Just to test the individualistic actors (mostly self-centered males) with the murder, rape and anything you can come up with, acted against equally precarious souls of others???

I just can't see the point... not to speak of love.

davem

04-25-2006, 01:31 PM

I have to say I go along with Nogrod here - where's the freedom & freewill of the victims? If so-&-so is merely acting with his God-given freewill when he punches me on the nose, where is my freedom not to be punched?

It seems that God has specifically arranged things so that the offenders have all the freedom & the good have none. As to punishment after death it seems merely vindictive. The only value in punishment is as a deterent - either of the perpetrator or of others who may be considering similar bad behaviour, but punishment after death in Hell can achieve neither of these things as for the perpetrator its too late to be deterred & no-one in this world can be deterred, because they don't witness the punishment.

If God's going to intervene against the offenders why doesn't He do it when it would do some good. If He's only going to intervene when its too late He should just forget it & find something useful to do.

Formendacil

04-25-2006, 02:22 PM

I have a friend who believed that, "logically" it was better to believe, as you don't waste much and have everything to gain, than to not believe and find out that you were wrong. But like many have observed, how does one know which belief system or what diety, sect, group, interpretation (i.e. partial-preterism versus dispensationalism) to choose?

How about the one with the most convincing proofs?

I suspect I'm going to be told that this is "subjective" or "personal"...

But, in the Christian sense, it does as it's a pretty common occurrence. Isn't that why when Jesus went and raised many from the dead that he was thought to be the return of Elijah? Also, Elisha raised the dead. And didn't the bones of one of the twain also return the dead to life? And I quoted to lmp my confusion with Mark 9:37-39, as it seems that there are 'free-lance' miracle workers in the mix. Anyway, if one believes that the dead can truly be raised, then why not the Resurrection? Is it because Jesus brought Himself back? How do we know that another didn't help?

Well, you are correct, Jesus did bring Himself back. That, in and of itself, does not imply that He did not have help. But consider that He said that He would "raise Himself up"- and then he comes back to life. No one else raised to life, such as Lazarus, made that claim before or after being raised.

Furthermore, though raised, Lazarus and all those others who were restored to life must still face death again. In the case of Jesus, that is not so. It is an eternal Resurrection.

I've read many simpler explanations, and even if I believed as you, I would think that there must! be some doubt for the believer to overcome. Think about it: where would my free will/choice be if even on my best/worst day there was no way that I could refute the divinity of Jesus Christ? It'd be to me like ranting against gravity. And before you say it, I might be skeptical but I'm not that skeptical. :eek:

Well, you CAN refute it if you choose to. That just doesn't mean that the argument you are using is more rational. It may be more convoluted or complicated, but you (I mean "you" in a not-necessarily-you sense) HAVE to go along with it if you don't want to accept Jesus.

Holocaust deniers are an excellent example. They are denying that something actually happened, explaining it away using means that, we who accept it as historical fact, would find rather... silly.

What's more, I'd be more than a little curious to see/read any of these "simpler explanations".

And please note that I'm hoping not to be attacking, but asking for more information (though none of us here or anywhere might be able to answer), so if I've offended, note that it is unintentional. :)

No offence... yet. I'm either developing thicker skin, or the vibes I was getting about this thread have stopped... Or something else. Possibly Divine...

Nogrod

04-25-2006, 03:44 PM

No offence... yet. I'm either developing thicker skin, or the vibes I was getting about this thread have stopped... Or something else. Possibly Divine...

That's one thing I love about the Christians - and that said with no sarcastic overtones. I couldn't think of the kind of reaction from people of some other faiths... but could think of it from still certain other belief-systems. :)

I hope, it's the questions that do the "battle" here (I haven't yet have time to read all of the correspondence here - not to talk of you people discussing earlier about these topics - which you surely have done, I just "hunch" it) - for my part it is just that way. And even if we never know, how other people take different inquiries and questionings, I still think, that honest questions are worth more than multiple muddied or unthought of answers...

littlemanpoet

04-25-2006, 03:54 PM

The idea of just going on & on & on, for ever & ever & ever would seem equally 'hellish'.Thinking on this was a way I could drive myself insane. .... until a certain experience that changed everything. My sense of continuous serial longevity (remember that?) was a feeling of the Void; just me and foreverness. I could imagine God there, but could never really connect. Until a certain experience. It can still sometimes still give me the heeby jeebies, but not for long.

It would require God to just shrug His shoulders at the suffering of His children.No. God wants every last one of his children to experience eternal life to its fullest, but he wants relationships. That necessitates free choice. Free choice requires that his children must be allowed to choose against Him. It's the nature of reality. There is love, and the absence of love. There is God, and the absence of God. It had to be that way.

I find Meister Eckhart's thought to be too divorced from reality. It doesn't present God the way the Bible presents God. The Bible's God is more real, more emotional, more personal.

I am so much happier now I no longer beat myself up for my failure to be perfect.I understand the sense of relief you feel; however, relief is not the same as joy.

As to the existence of a Satan, the gospels record Jesus as having spoken of a real being whom he called Satan.

Religion, particularly Christianity, it is true, has always been somewhat reactionary. Since Science, of its very nature, is forward-looking, changing its appearance with the emergence of every new theory, it was natural the Religion and Science should collide, with Science tugging inexorably towards the future, while Religion moves more slowly, with a much greater trend towards keeping the valued things of the past.But it doesn't have to be this way. Christianity is not first of all a religion. It has taken that shape, and more's the pity. The Church, which is what Christ instituted, is a living, breathing organism ..... which also has gotten confused with the organized thing that works sometimes better, sometimes heinously .... but the Church that Christ instituted, the real one, is where the Faith of Jesus Christ really resides. Quite often that merges and overlaps with the various organized religious bodies professing to be Christianity, but not necessarily.

Science deals in the natural world, that which is repeatably provable in terms of controlled tests verified by the five senses. It cannot prove anything in terms of Christianity. Nor need the Church bother itself with railing against the theories currently in vogue in Science. The two realms do not overlap. I read in my newspaper how a scientific experiment was done to determine the benefit of prayer for surgery patients, with a control group and all. The experiment showed that those who knew they were being prayed for had more problems than those who didn't know. Does this prove that prayer doesn't work? It doesn't prove that it doesn't work, nor that it does, because prayer is a thing directly connected with God. God cannot be made the subject of scientific experiments. It just doesn't work that way.

I have a lot more to catch up on, it seems. I shall return. (up to 113)

drigel

04-26-2006, 07:59 AM

nice discussions here. this violates my general social rule of never discussing politics or religion, but..

Originally Posted by davem
The idea of just going on & on & on, for ever & ever & ever would seem equally 'hellish'.
IMO, in my hopefully potential afterlife, I would think that by it's very nature, the existence of an afterlife transcends physics, quantum mechanics, or any description of reality that we have or ever will have on this earth. Forever, reality, time, eternity, etc etc would be as meaningless as an ice cube on the surface of the sun. The same would apply to the world I leave behind....

Originally Posted by Littlemanpoet:
God cannot be made the subject of scientific experiments. It just doesn't work that way.
And neither can science acknowledge the existence, or even possiblity of, a higher power at work in the universe. Yet, as the author did with our pagan ancestors, we have the ability to live in both worlds, no?

davem

04-26-2006, 08:49 AM

IMO, in my hopefully potential afterlife, I would think that by it's very nature, the existence of an afterlife transcends physics, quantum mechanics, or any description of reality that we have or ever will have on this earth. Forever, reality, time, eternity, etc etc would be as meaningless as an ice cube on the surface of the sun. The same would apply to the world I leave behind....

But then what you mean by an 'afterlife' would bear no relation to what we know, or could possibly conceive of. How, then could you feel any desire for it? Such an afterlife is a meaningless, abstract, concept as far as I'm concerned. What you seem to be suggesting is something that bears no relation to Human existence as we know it at all, & in such a state we wouldn't actually remain 'human' in any recognisable sense. Whatever we were we wouldn't be ourselves, but some kind of multi-dimensional consciousness. Hence 'you', the person who lives your life now, likes the particular type of food you do, has the interests, loves, hates, hopes & fears you have, would be gone forever. Whatever survived into this afterlife, it wouldn't be you any longer.

I'm not sure non-existence isn't preferable...

drigel

04-26-2006, 09:46 AM

But then what you mean by an 'afterlife' would bear no relation to what we know, or could possibly conceive of. How, then could you feel any desire for it? Such an afterlife is a meaningless, abstract, concept as far as I'm concerned. What you seem to be suggesting is something that bears no relation to Human existence as we know it at all, & in such a state we wouldn't actually remain 'human' in any recognisable sense.

Interesting question. For myself, it was a subject I was trying to approach in a non-demoninational way, I suppose. And yes, those terms (that describe our physical universe) would have no meaning at all. Yet, I believe that does not deprive my existence in the afterlife of meaning. Abstract - yes absolutely, in terms of us humans and what our 5 meager senses can fumble about with. Meaningless - absolutely not. Human in any recogizable sense - possibly, but human in terms of 2nd cousin of a chimpanzee, or human in terms of Athens, Tchaikovsky, Bhudda, the Pyramids of Giza, et al? What I am driving at is that my spirit that is housed in my human body is both what defines me as human, yet cannot be defined by humans.

Can one define heaven? It seems to me that by taking the definition that you described of an afterlife, I would agree with your initial conclusion: going on forever and ever drifting on a cloud, sitting at the mead table of my forefathers, perpetually out hunting in Elysium for the Divine Kine, even the 34 virgins.... would get a little stale after a while. Joining with departed loved ones and the body/spirit of God for Christians is what I expect most would define as heaven. But then (IMO) creation is of the body of God, all its dimensions and realities. Yet I feel I still have meaning in the midst of that.

Hence 'you', the person who lives your life now, likes the particular type of food you do, has the interests, loves, hates, hopes & fears you have, would be gone forever. Whatever survived into this afterlife, it wouldn't be you any longer.
I agree with you surprisingly in the former, but not the latter. There is no flesh. My soul cannot be vanquished. The Fire remains.

:)

alatar

04-26-2006, 10:18 AM

nice discussions here. this violates my general social rule of never discussing politics or religion, but..
I hear that, yet, like a hole left by a plucked tooth, can't but help sticking my tongue in it...

IMO, in my hopefully potential afterlife, I would think that by it's very nature, the existence of an afterlife transcends physics, quantum mechanics, or any description of reality that we have or ever will have on this earth. Forever, reality, time, eternity, etc etc would be as meaningless as an ice cube on the surface of the sun. The same would apply to the world I leave behind....
How can we know about something, assuming that this supernatural/nonphysical God has spoken to us about it through whatever means, that is completely supernatural or nonphysical and have any chance of understanding it, let alone hearing it? You speak of quanta and physics, and though we can believe (I guess) that God isn't bound by any constraints, we are, and so there has to be some way of getting all of that supernatural information into this world of atoms.

My point is that God may be The Light unto the World, but that light is made up of photons, and that light will bend due to gravitational forces. You have no idea, as does anyone else, how all of that supernatural stuff works, and I wonder if we've even heard its description right, as things could have been garbled in the translation.

The other problem is how all of that non quantum stuff works. You see why scientists don't spend much time looking for invisible odorless fireless dragons in your garage.

And neither can science acknowledge the existence, or even possiblity of, a higher power at work in the universe. Yet, as the author did with our pagan ancestors, we have the ability to live in both worlds, no?
I agree that science cannot rule out the existence of a higher power, but they can comment on the possibility.

drigel

04-26-2006, 10:49 AM

How can we know about something, assuming that this supernatural/nonphysical God has spoken to us about it through whatever means, that is completely supernatural or nonphysical and have any chance of understanding it, let alone hearing it?
Faith, belief, or *insert other transpersonal belief descriptor here*

You speak of quanta and physics, and though we can believe (I guess) that God isn't bound by any constraints, we are, and so there has to be some way of getting all of that supernatural information into this world of atoms.
We humans are constrained. But, after I shed my raiment I am not constrained.

My point is that God may be The Light unto the World, but that light is made up of photons, and that light will bend due to gravitational forces. You have no idea, as does anyone else, how all of that supernatural stuff works, and I wonder if we've even heard its description right, as things could have been garbled in the translation.
NICE. I would submit that what we know of light today will be different than what we know of light tommorow. It still doesnt matter to me. What our science understands today, or a thousand years from now, we will still be merely scratching at the surface.

The other problem is how all of that non quantum stuff works. You see why scientists don't spend much time looking for invisible odorless fireless dragons in your garage.
But science IS working all the time on quantum, because they realize the laws that are set up now do not work out right. Science is struggling getting out of the flat world when it comes to advanced physics. "dark matter", "dark energy" "black holes" etc are descriptive terms that are should be saying to you that, like "planet X", they know somethings amiss, but havent quite been able to trap that dragon.

I agree that science cannot rule out the existence of a higher power, but they can comment on the possibility.
but most dont. I can comment on the possiblity of invisible odorless firelss dragons as well. but, thats silly isnt it? Yet I still contemplate the existance of one, and would love very much to sit down and converse with him/her. And still my head does not explode at the dichotomy....

davem

04-26-2006, 11:09 AM

And yes, those terms (that describe our physical universe) would have no meaning at all. Yet, I believe that does not deprive my existence in the afterlife of meaning. Abstract - yes absolutely, in terms of us humans and what our 5 meager senses can fumble about with. Meaningless - absolutely not. Human in any recogizable sense - possibly, but human in terms of 2nd cousin of a chimpanzee, or human in terms of Athens, Tchaikovsky, Bhudda, the Pyramids of Giza, et al? What I am driving at is that my spirit that is housed in my human body is both what defines me as human, yet cannot be defined by humans.

This focus on 'spirit' as opposed to matter makes me a bit uncomfortable. Christianity has always tended to reject the 'flesh' in favour of the 'spirit', yet ironically it is the unique emphasis that Christianity placed on redemption of the flesh & the resurrection of the body that makes it unique. Christianity actually seems to offer an afterlife very close to this one, rather than an eternity as a bodiless 'spirit'. It is this raising up of matter (symbolised by the ascension of Christ & Mary in bodily form into Heaven) that is its uniqueness. Both the Gnostics & the Cathars were considered heretics precisely because they denied the flesh & considered it to be evil, a prison holding the 'pure' spirit.

However, the church seems always to have opposed this idea, mortifying the flesh with fasting, hair shirts, flagelation & the like.

Williams taught the 'Affirmation of the Images' - seeing the creation as a means to God, rather than as an obstacle. The creation reveals God, rather than hiding Him. However, the Church has never been truly comfortable with this approach.

Lewis makes an interesting comment in his introduction to The Great Divorce:

I think earth, of chosen instead of Heaven, will turn out to have been, all along, only a region of Hell: & earth, if put second to Heaven, to have been from the beginning a part of Heaven itself.

But this still puts Earth second, sees it as a separate thing, because one is required to reject it in order to possess it in the end. For Williams the Creation was divine, a revelation of God.

The problem for Christianity is that it essentially fears the Creation as something which will seduce humanity away from God, & as something which must be held at arm's length.

My own feeling is that 'this' is me, this limited, confused, struggling, insignificant human being. If some aspect of my being continues after physical death it will not be me, therefore 'I' will not continue after my body dies. This is all 'I' get, though there may be some 'being' which has my existence as part of its memories. From that perspective it is irreleevant whether that being/consciousness is a separate entity from God, or merely a collection of images/memories in the mind of God - it won't be 'me'. Even if I did experience bodily resurrection that being would not be 'me' either - it may be 'me'+' but it will not be me as I am, as I recognise myself to be.

Of course, it could be argued that the Frog is the tadpole, the Butterfly is the caterpillar, the Oak tree is the acorn, so maybe in a sense that 'me'+' will still be 'me' but at a different stage of growth. Then again it may not. All I can actually know is what I am now, because this is me - the only me I can conceive or know. & this me ends when I die.

drigel

04-26-2006, 12:59 PM

great post davem! I admire your writing and thinking abilities.

It's all a very personal subject, and I don't expect anyone else to make sense of my perspective.

Both the Gnostics & the Cathars were considered heretics precisely because they denied the flesh & considered it to be evil, a prison holding the 'pure' spirit.
Considered heretics by those who of course are convinced that only their way is the true way. This is why I am not a big fan of organized religion.

But this still puts Earth second, sees it as a separate thing, because one is required to reject it in order to possess it in the end.
I agree. As to that quote - are we not seperate as well? Seperate from both good and evil? We are both, never entirely one, or the other.

My own feeling is that 'this' is me, this limited, confused, struggling, insignificant human being. If some aspect of my being continues after physical death it will not be me, therefore 'I' will not continue after my body dies. This is all 'I' get
I respect that view. I have that view at times, but I always eventually become aware, or reminded of, the idea that I have always had: that inside us is a spark, an inheritance of a divine, inviolate, indomitable flame that does have meaning, and that is the reason we are what we are, and not swinging from trees or being eaten by hyienas. From that spiritual awareness, I have the foundation to the tower of my beliefs.

:)

davem

04-26-2006, 01:42 PM

I know what you mean - the 'Light' behind the world - I don't dismiss mystical perception, the sense that there is more to 'reality', whether that one means an experience of a 'deeper', underlying reality, or simply a deeper experience of this reality.

But there's a difference between that kind of experience & simply 'believing' something you've been told or read. Experience is true, what we are told may or may not be. The other problem with organised belief systems is that they exclude those who do not, or cannot simply believe what they are told. In other words by their nature they exclude & denigrate those who do not experience what they are told they should experience.

So, you can have experiences where you may forget your everyday self for a time & feel like you've 'awakened' from a 'dream', yet both the awakened one & the 'dreamer' are you, so in that sense I can see where you're coming from. However, it is the 'dreamer' who is the real us in a sense (despite what the mystics say) because the 'dream' is what we live most of the time - the 'dream' is 'home'. ('We Tooks & Brandybucks cannot live too long on the heights.' - & we probably aren't meant to - Chesterton said 'One sees great things from the valley, only small things from the peak.' The great value of this 'dream' is that it teaches us humility.)

drigel

04-26-2006, 02:16 PM

Exquisitely put, good sir!

But there's a difference between that kind of experience & simply 'believing' something you've been told or read. Experience is true, what we are told may or may not be. The other problem with organised belief systems is that they exclude those who do not, or cannot simply believe what they are told. In other words by their nature they exclude & denigrate those who do not experience what they are told they should experience.
Concurrence and huzzah

because the 'dream' is what we live most of the time - the 'dream' is 'home'.
from our human frame of reference YES undoubtedly. But only in our perception of it. But, quantum and forever and reality at this point become meaningless, no?

:)

davem

04-26-2006, 03:00 PM

from our human frame of reference YES undoubtedly. But only in our perception of it. But, quantum and forever and reality at this point become meaningless, no?

:)

I suppose. But I'm not sure I'd want to live outside 'our human frame of referrence' for any length of time. The 'glimpses' are fascinating, but I suppose I'm just too much of a Hobbit. This is where the funny stuff is, the homely stuff, the sit-coms, the books, the nights in with a beer & a video.

Or maybe I'm just getting too old for 'Adventures' ;)

littlemanpoet

04-26-2006, 08:39 PM

So why does the pig suddenly become 'clean' after the resurrection - cf Peter's dream which I referred to earlier?Because the death and resurrection of Jesus fulfills all the Law. Like the sacrificial sheep of Leviticus, He became unclean by shedding his blood, and being without sin, and being God, his death renders all uncleanness redeemed ..... if those we claim it. But the resurrection is God's victory over the sting of death, which is sin.

The reason for uncleanness laws in the Old Testament was so that the people of Israel could have kept before them tangibly that humans (and therefore they themselves) were fallen. It's not a matter of value or worth, being clean or unclean, but a matter of condition before God. Maybe everybody here understands that, but I just wanted to be sure.

This is what worries me about all believers - if the Bible ... says one thing, & the 'scholars' (basing their statements on ... archaeology, historical record, common sense) say different the text is given primacy & the scholars "either dismissed as fools or sent to the stake[sic]".They shouldn't be dismissed, not even if their motivations are less than perfect. It does indeed come down to a matter of whether one is a "person of the Book" or a "person the World". This is not meant as a pejorative, but a naming of which place you choose to place greater authority. The problem I have with the World is that it is all based on human knowledge, we hope the best there is. The Bible is (as I see it) God's revelation, and that makes all the difference. I understand that you see the Bible as just one more piece of human knowledge, and therefore I can't blame you for understanding things the way you do. Makes lots of sense if you come from that point of view. However, I have found that acknowledging the Bible to be God's revelation, has brought much that was at war in me, to peace; much that had been cowardly, to courage; much that had been bitter and full of resentment, to compassion; much that had been depressive and unremitting gloom, to joy. What in this world has the power to do that in a human life? I don't know. But I do know that the Person presented in the Bible has done this in mine.

The Bible says Jesus was the Son of God, the Koran denies that. To the followers of each the others are heretics, unbelievers. LMP, you scare me. Sorry, but you do. I know you would never light the fire, but you would create the climate, make it possible for the fire to be lit.Far be it from me to create the climate. It is hate and fear and lust (for power) and envy in the heart of humans that creates such a climate, not beliefs based on religious or spiritual texts.

Belief is the single most dangerous approach to life.Belief is unavoidable. Every human chooses to believe something. The content of my belief is as I have stated in many posts on this thread. Yours is as you have stated.

But regarding my seeming cop-out. I was using short-hand. I am not an anti-intellectual. I was referring to certain scholars who refuse to accept the historicity of pretty much any of the old testament writings. That seems like a benighted point of view, and the one to which I was referring. There are plenty of scholars who make no such refusal.

By the way, there are a few scholars who have written about how the resurrection is the best answer to fit the facts. One is Malcom McDowell; but a more insightful and thoroughgoing writer on this topic is N.T. Wright. He's really worth a look. He's Church of England, and I believe he's with Oxford or another of the major British Universities. But I digress.....

I think you mean not simple belief, but belief based on an authority found in a text as opposed to the authority of experience by means of evidence and proven experiment. But you should know that the more we learn through our experience, and through evidence of experiment, the more we realize how much there is we don't know ... and can't know through these means. One must choose one's beliefs, because science and mere experience can't take you where the questions we can't help asking ourselves, takes us.

..... and at this point I finally come full circle to Tolkien. It is story and poetry that can take us there. Tolkien's story does take us there, and it's a great part of what draws us to LotR and The Silmarillion. Tolkien wrote about real things and we are rewarded by entering into Middle Earth in ways that we can't even write about successfully, and we are rewarded with riches we can't even explain. Tolkien's stories do this for us. The stories in the bible also do this, but not for everyone; not for those for whom the bible feels alien because it has become tied to negative correlations in our own lives that we don't even understand. (up to 116) :rolleyes:

Formendacil

04-26-2006, 09:43 PM

I suppose. But I'm not sure I'd want to live outside 'our human frame of referrence' for any length of time. The 'glimpses' are fascinating, but I suppose I'm just too much of a Hobbit. This is where the funny stuff is, the homely stuff, the sit-coms, the books, the nights in with a beer & a video.

Or maybe I'm just getting too old for 'Adventures' ;)

Do you want to know what you reminded me of, Davem, while I was at choir practice tonight? (A frivolous fact, that, but I felt like pointing out that I was thinking about this thread when I should have been concentrating on better and more profitable things. Ah well, time well wasted...) Anyway, here it is...

Your attitude towards the afterlife really reminds me of being about age 8. Not with regards to the afterlife- I don't think that ever bothered me one way or antother- but with regards to "growing up".

When I was young, say anytime before I was "grown up" (yes, that sounds just a LITTLE funny coming from a 19-year-old), whenever I seriously pondered "what's it going to be like as adult?" I was scared stiff. I didn't WANT to grow up. I was scared of having to drive, having to pay bills, having to live on my own. For that matter, having to go up the till and pay for groceries on my own scared me.

But, now that I am grown up, does any of that scare me? None of that stuff does. And for good reason too, for I am no longer a child (geezer though I have yet to become). The things that a child cannot do or would fine hard and strange to do are natural now. The thought of living on my own, so terrifying to a child, is now liberating.

And I am inclined to believe that the Afterlife shall be the same. Of course it can scare us right now. We are not "old" enough yet (ie. we aren't dead). Until such time as we pass from this life, it is natural for us to consider the Earth home, and to not want to move out. But the time will come for each of us, at a time that is right for each of us, to "move out".

And just as I no longer wish to go back to being a child, not seriously, having experienced life as an adult- not wanting to go back to the immaturity, weakness, and inexperience of a child- I do not think that, when we are in Heaven, we shall find it less than, or worse than, the Earth. It shall be different-- and yet better and the same.

As an example, when I was little, I was a big LEGO fan. I dreaded the day that would come when I would no longer enjoy it, when all those hours of "meaningful" play would no longer interest me at all.

Well, guess what? I've grown up, and my LEGO is still my favourite hobby. In the same way, I think we'll find a lot more of what we have here will be there- we just may not see it the same way.

davem

04-27-2006, 02:12 AM

alatar

04-27-2006, 05:41 AM

Of course belief is necessary – we believe lots of things all the time. When I go to cross the street at a pedestrian crossing I wait till the traffic stops & step into the road, believing that all the drivers will wait for the lights to change before they start off. When I get into a lift I believe that the cables will hold & I won't go plummeting 18 floors to my death. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.
You say 'believe' but it's not the same. You may have faith that the cables will hold, the sun will rise and that the drivers will wait (that's my hardest one to accept ;) ), but this faith/believing is based on experience. The first time you get on an escalator, you might be afraid as the thing looks to be a large set of teeth. The person who may be accompanying you, a parent perhaps, may also be apprehensive as he/she may not have taken one so small onto one of the things. It's practice and repeated affirmation that makes escalator...well...pedestrian and eventually unnoticed. That's definitely not blind faith.

Formendacil speaks of apprehension of becoming an adult, and many of us have been there. Getting married, having children (I'm a goof! yet now have four little ones dependent on me - how screwed up is that?), experiencing the loss of a parent (you can't go home anymore) - it's all about dealing with change. But his analogy, like many (and by no fault of his), falls short. We have seen others grow to adulthood and experience all that that offers and entails. Some of us have even seen people die, and so know what that looks like.

But who has seen what happens after?

No one. We all face the unknown when we die. No one has come back and said what the ride was like. Even Jesus and those that were brought back did not describe how it works, what it felt like, and so we have no idea what to expect. As humans we abhor holes in what we know, and extrapolate (or fantasize) to fill in the gaps.

By the by, near death experiences (nde) are just physiological - like dreams in a way. Note that no nde'er ever comes back stating that he/she was in a very hot place.

But this approach is necessary to function in the world & is entirely different to simply believing a text to be the word of God. Belief, in other words, serves an evolutionary function, it is a survival tool. Unfortunately, it has become divorced from its practical & wholly necessary purpose, & combined with the human capacity for creative fantasy has come to produce all kinds of odd ideas & attitudes.
People state that belief in the supernatural by peoples across the globe must mean that there's something to it. Each culture can point and say, "see, we all have God in our hearts" or something. Another possible, and more probable, explanation is that a 'believing' brain imparted a survival advantage to our early ancestors. Guessing, intuition, a 'religion' when practiced would allow for a tribe to survive better than one that had to have everything weighed to a nicety. The obvious advantage is that a leader of such a people could get the tribe to accept hardship for the promise of something better later.

And, like davem states, this hardwiring can get used and abused in all sorts of ways. Think that the whole advertising industry takes advantage of this inherited trait.

Hope that that makes some sense.

Formendacil

04-27-2006, 11:44 AM

Formendacil I suppose the difference between becoming an adult & the afterlife is that we know (barring accidents) that we will grow up – it has nothing to do with 'belief'. The afterlife is precisely a matter of belief, & hence is 'optional' from the point of view of whether we accept it or not. Its not about a 'fear' of entering into a 'higher' state of being, its whether the idea appeals.

No, I'm inclined to think otherwise...

The afterlife is no more optional than adulthood- it's going to happen eventually. Just like the body inevitably matures, we all inevitably die. However, just as actually growing up- with regards to one's brain or maturity- isn't an automatic process, since people often tend to remain immature and childless past the time they OUGHT to become mature adults, I suppose it's possible for you to "refuse to grow up" or "refuse to have an afterlife"- but quite frankly, I don't think it's optional. You had to grow up, like it or not, and you have to go somewhere after death.

Now, it should be clear that I'm convinced there is an afterlife. But even if I were to say "no, there is no afterlife", I'd still have problems with your statement. What you seem to be saying is that the afterlife is optional. It isn't. If it exists, we're all going to go SOMEWHERE. If it doesn't, we're all losers, from the Pope on down. But either way, it isn't something that is optional.

davem

04-27-2006, 12:21 PM

Now, it should be clear that I'm convinced there is an afterlife. But even if I were to say "no, there is no afterlife", I'd still have problems with your statement. What you seem to be saying is that the afterlife is optional. It isn't. If it exists, we're all going to go SOMEWHERE. If it doesn't, we're all losers, from the Pope on down. But either way, it isn't something that is optional.

I don't see that the lack of an afterlife makes me a 'loser' as I don't have any thoughts on the matter either way - of course, its a nice fantasy if you're that way inclined. I have to say that when I was your age (a very long time ago :( ) it kind of appealed, but now I find it interests me less & less as a concept. I know that when you're young there is this desire to live forever (which is why I think so many teenage readers are drawn to the Elves).

Personally, it all seems a lot of hassle. If it happens it happens, if it doesn't, fine. I can't help feeling that if people were less obsessed with the idea we'd all be a lot better off - it would probably get rid of suicide bombers at a stroke, as they all seem to be obsessed with getting to heaven & collecting their Houris at the gate..

alatar

04-27-2006, 12:43 PM

I don't see that the lack of an afterlife makes me a 'loser' as I don't have any thoughts on the matter either way - of course, its a nice fantasy if you're that way inclined. I have to say that when I was your age (a very long time ago :( ) it kind of appealed, but now I find it interests me less & less as a concept. I know that when you're young there is this desire to live forever (which is why I think so many teenage readers are drawn to the Elves).
I've observed the same, and it's interesting that younger people may be drawn to the elves as they are both immortal and (at least) outwardly beautiful (if not perfect). Also, younger people have less of a sense of their own mortality which is what fuels the crazy (and sometimes destructive) behavior.

As one gets older, the elf-appeal is less as is the adrenaline addiction. You think more about the day. Will have to let you know sometime later if one's thoughts return again to 'afterlife.' We could have a poll :eek: that could correlate age with 'afterlife thinkingness'.

Far be it from me to create the climate. It is hate and fear and lust (for power) and envy in the heart of humans that creates such a climate, not beliefs based on religious or spiritual texts.
Much agreed. Religion/belief systems aren't responsible for all of the problems that we experience in this world, and I think that it's just that animal inside us. Some choose to point at the devil as the cause for such evils, and like our discussion about God, I think that this incarnate evil is just another convenient excuse that creates a certain world view.

drigel

04-27-2006, 12:51 PM

As one gets older, the elf-appeal is less as is the adrenaline addiction. You think more about the day. Will have to let you know sometime later if one's thoughts return again to 'afterlife.' We could have a poll :eek: that could correlate age with 'afterlife thinkingness'.
speak for yourself :) not that im fixated with, or even have a concrete opinion of an afterlife...
I think the whole escape thing is what younger people are drawn towards with the works. It did for me anyways.
I just think elves have far more interesting lives :smokin:

Formendacil

04-27-2006, 01:29 PM

I don't see that the lack of an afterlife makes me a 'loser' as I don't have any thoughts on the matter either way - of course, its a nice fantasy if you're that way inclined.

Well, loser is perhaps not the best word to use... but one should remember that from my perspective there IS an afterlife, and it IS worth attaining. Therefore, those who strive for it and don't attain it are, from that point of view, losers.

But my basic point- with regards to that- is that it doesn't matter if you believe in an afterlife or not. Either way, either everyone gets it or everyone doesn't.

As regards the new- and intriguing- "Teenagers Are Attracted to Youth", I think there may be a good deal of truth in the suggestion that the immortality is what attracts the Young to the Elves. Now, while it may sound rather silly for me- as a 19 year old- to go putting myself in the Elderly Camp, I've found that, as I age, and as I realize the inevitability of death (attending funerals on a regular basis will do this even to the Young), I've also come to realise what a GIFT it is. Christian Theology being in agreement or not, life as we live it in this Fallen state, Death is a release, an end to the weariness of this fallen world...

... and so the Elves still intrigue me. But not because they live for ever, but because I'm beginning to sympathise with their envy of the Gift of Men. I think my choice would have been the Choice of Elros.

davem

04-27-2006, 03:08 PM

I'm not denying the 'transcendent' experience. I've personally experienced things, met beings, inhabitants of other 'realities' - which I've mentioned before. I've had moments where, for want of a better term, I've glimpsed 'eternity'.

But that's not the argument here. My problem is with the idea of taking a book & simply believing it, of constructing complex theories & fantasies about what happens after we die. From the perspective of eternity there is only 'now' & there will only ever be 'now'. This idea that something wholly 'other' will happen to us after our bodies die, that we have to take account of what we will be or not be after that happens, that we have to do certain things now in order to attain something 'good' then, or that we have to live now in fear of some terrible fate that may await us then, is simply running away from 'now'. In other words this desire/obsession with what happens after we die is what stops us really being alive now.

Belief is 'negative' because it effectively gets between us & reality. We look at the world through 'belief-coloured lenses' & don't see it, experience it, as it really is. It attempts to

classify & quantify the universe, & ends up trying to break it up & force it into pigeon-holes. Hence, with a belief system as dualistic as Christianity (or Islam), which effectively has only two pigeon-holes: 'Good' & 'Evil' you end up trying to force everything into one or the other, & if something will not fit easily into the 'Good' pigeon-hole then it is forced into the 'Evil' one - hence LMP's attempt to account for mythological creatures by assigning their origin to 'fallen Angels' of 'demons'.

As to the 'Choice of Elros' - I think I'd choose mortality too - even if I knew that there was nothing after death.

Anyway...

Formendacil

04-27-2006, 03:27 PM

But that's not the argument here. My problem is with the idea of taking a book & simply believing it, of constructing complex theories & fantasies about what happens after we die. From the perspective of eternity there is only 'now' & there will only ever be 'now'. This idea that something wholly 'other' will happen to us after our bodies die, that we have to take account of what we will be or not be after that happens, that we have to do certain things now in order to attain something 'good' then, or that we have to live now in fear of some terrible fate that may await us then, is simply running away from 'now'. In other words this desire/obsession with what happens after we die is what stops us really being alive now.

Cause and effect... that's how this world works. People save money for DECADES before they retire- because of the adverse consequences and because they know they'll need it. As for the Afterlife being "wholly other", I wouldn't call that a truly Christian dogma. What we shall live in the Afterlife will, in my view, be similar to and much the same as what we have now- only BETTER, more perfect.

Belief is 'negative' because it effectively gets between us & reality. We look at the world through 'belief-coloured lenses' & don't see it, experience it, as it really is.

Tinted lenses... or corrective lenses. I would say that belief acts much the way glasses do: they correct our vision, and bring things into a more correct focus. Yes, we see the world differently- but we are also better off.

It attempts classify & quantify the universe, & ends up trying to break it up & force it into pigeon-holes. Hence, with a belief system as dualistic as Christianity (or Islam), which effectively has only two pigeon-holes: 'Good' & 'Evil' you end up trying to force everything into one or the other, & if something will not fit easily into the 'Good' pigeon-hole then it is forced into the 'Evil' one - hence LMP's attempt to account for mythological creatures by assigning their origin to 'fallen Angels' of 'demons'.

Humans in general like to pigeonhole things... and it's not necessarily a good tendency. Quite frankly, I would say that Good and Evil cannot be pigeonholed, because both coexist in the same people and situations. We all contain good and we all contain evil. Bad situations can have good side-effects, and the best of situations can have negative impact.

As far as classifying and quantifying the universe goes, religion and science are more alike than either sometimes wishes to think in this matter. It's really only a difference of systems.

littlemanpoet

04-27-2006, 08:46 PM

The Kierkegaardian "leap of faith", while perhaps helpful to many who find themselves at reason's dead-end, has also been detrimental in terms of a clear understanding of belief and faith - at least in terms of God. The idea that faith must be the 'tight-rope' one uses to cover those last hundred feet to God because the 'bridge of reason' can't get you there, is flawed because it misconstrues what faith is. Faith in God is no different in its nature than faith in a stranger, friend, or spouse. (This is one more example of unnecessary obstacles getting placed in the way of knowing God.) Everyone trusts even strangers to behave in a certain manner on the merits of past experience with strangers. We trust our friends to behave in certain ways based on our knowledge of them. We trust our spouses to behave in predictable ways because we've spent so much time with them. Now as to God: suddenly we have a special problem as there is only one God compared to many strangers; so how can we predict how God behaves? Well, if there is a God, God will "behave" in a manner consistent with how the world shows that God has behaved in the past. This is not just about human suffering and evil in the world, but about the consistency of all natural materials and phenomena to continue to operate as they have in the past. We trust this. If we do believe there's a God, why do we trust this? Because we implicitly believe that God is a consistent God; so, if we know this about the basic phenomena, why do we suddenly doubt it when we start thinking about human history? It's not God who suddenly weirds out; the only other possibility is that humans are causing the problems.

However, if we do not believe there's a God, but we want to give the possibility an honest chance to prove itself, how do we go about that if we refuse the tight-rope of the 'leap of faith'? There are precisely two ways that I know of:

(1) Do a thorough study of the case for and against the resurrection of Jesus, as Formendacil has indicated.

(2) Risk this one little thing: Ask this God that you don't believe in, to give you the deepest desire of your heart. It does not matter if you don't believe in God. If there is no God, you've lost nothing. If there is a God, then this God, who has revealed himself in the bible, has said to us that this is one prayer he will always answer, because He is a God of love. It doesn't matter whether you know what this deepest desire is. The fact is, you probably don't know, even if you think you do. If there is no God, you still have lost nothing. If there is a God, He will honor this request and make himself known to you beyond any doubt. This is a highly personal "test", and the only one that I know of that God honors. This is so because God is a highly personal Being. This is different from the leap of faith because in the leap of faith, the human has to do all the work. In this test that I have described, you simply make a request, with or without any faith at all, asking God to be true to his promise. Whether you believe he will or not, doesn't matter. It's up to him to show you that he exists and loves you. Or there's no such being and you're merely disappointed and move on with your life.

I think that one could argue that God must be bound by a moral code of right & wrong, & that He cannot simply set aside those rules.Question: if God, the author and sustainer of all things, including the moral code, were to sin against Himself, would existence continue? I think not. If he cannot control Himself, how can we expect him to consistently sustain life as we know it? That he does, argues against the possibility that he has ever broken his own moral code. In addition, you have caught yourself in a failure of vision and perspective. God's view encompasses both this life and the next. Momentary physical pain, even on a mass scale, is although obviously tragic, not the whole picture. We don't and can't know the mind of God, or we would be God. However, the second letter of Peter tells us that Noah was a preacher of righteousness, and that the people who could have listened, refused to, for a very long time. They had plenty of opportunity to repent, and refused to.

I'd say its perfectly valid to judge God by the standards of Good & evil which He Himself set down or He is being hypocritical.Except that you and I are Fallen and have very limited vision, having lost our right to it by our disobedience. How can we presume to judge God if we can't even know ourselves honestly at all times?

davem, in your reply to my statement that belief and unbelief are a choice, you set up a paper tiger then knock it down. Not much effort involved in that. I did not say that the choice to believe is trivial as choosing a drink, you have put those words in my mouth. Ptooey! ;) The choice to believe or not is most certainly NOT trivial, but it is most certainly a matter of volition; the most serious there is, as it involves one's ultimate destiny.

How many years did man have to wait until God reached out with His grace? How many years did man toil under the Law until it was shown to be only a guide?First, Jesus says that he fulfilled the Law, not that it was only a guide. The Law still stands; however, his acts have paid the debt the Law required, in full. Second, (I may be wrong about this but) I know of no Scripture that discounts the power of God's redemption through Jesus Christ to work backwards through time as well as into the future. This is, however, currently of a speculative nature and I need to do further study.

If God intended on wiping out the 'dark angel' seed, then He might have chosen a different vehicle, as apparently Noah's children still had the taint.My understanding of this is that over the course of time there was another falling away from righteousness (no surprise), the resulting vulnerability of which allowed the dark angels to start up their program again.

But, in the Christian sense, it does as it's a pretty common occurrence. Isn't that why when Jesus went and raised many from the dead that he was thought to be the return of Elijah? Also, Elisha raised the dead. And didn't the bones of one of the twain also return the dead to life? And I quoted to lmp my confusion with Mark 9:37-39, as it seems that there are 'free-lance' miracle workers in the mix. Anyway, if one believes that the dead can truly be raised, then why not the Resurrection? Is it because Jesus brought Himself back? How do we know that another didn't help?What stirs in my mind is that the Israelites (Jews), by the time of Jesus, finally succeeded in removing all of the fallen-angel variety of false gods from their land; therefore, the only powers remaining were either demonic or godly. No paganism was left, except perhaps in Samaria; but even there, monotheism had pretty much taken over. The point is that (as Jesus seems to indicate in his comments regarding blaspheming against the Holy Spirit) any resurrections were not only quite NOT normal, they had to be accomplished either by God or by Satan. No middle ground.

So. Why do we always contemplate on the acting subject? It was Adam's (or Eve's) decision, or the murderer's decision, Hitler's or Stalin's decision etc. which we analyze. When do we look at the "innocent" victims: those raped, killed, tortured? The children of Babylon, whose heads should be broken towards the stairs? Those under 10-year-old moslim girls raped and killed in ex-Jugoslavia, The children and women in Ruanda, the gypsies and mentally handicapped in Nazi-Germany... You can continue the list almost indefinitively. When do we ask about their choices, and their deeds? What wrong choice had made the 3-year old, her head crushed on the cement by drunken christian serbs? And we can't say, that the culprits will have to pay later with Gods wrath landing on them: how will that bring that child back?Jesus, as God and man, while being crucified, suffered every sin, every rape, every atrocity, ever committed. That is what suffering hell on the cross means. It doesn't erase the deed. Nothing can do that. Instead, it heals them. The wounds in Jesus' side, hands, and feet are the evidence of God's promise to do that.

Part of God's foreknowledge was that He would suffer all the wrong ever committed by humans so that He could heal all the wounds of the victimized, and take them all - yes ALL - to be with Him in joy forever. That's why Paul can say (wherever he says it) that he considers the sufferings of this world as nothing compared to the absolutely incredible joy of eternal life in Christ.

If God's going to intervene against the offenders why doesn't He do it when it would do some good.If you really thought about it, you know that you don't really want that. Think it through .... including yourself in the mix. Okay, I'll help. If God is going to be expected to do this, He will ALWAYS do it, or else it's unjust, and God is not unjust. Do you want God's justice here and now? No, you don't. You'd die this second. Instead, God has withheld his wrath (which is part of his love by the way) so that God (Jesus) could bear all of it for us, so that we can have his mercy.

And neither can science acknowledge the existence, or even possiblity of, a higher power at work in the universe. Yet, as the author did with our pagan ancestors, we have the ability to live in both worlds, no?Hmmmmm...... I think that science can function quite readily within the framework of not dealing with the existence of God. I think that science can function just as well from a belief in God. Belief in God erases not a single scientific law. So yes, we do have the ability to live in both worlds, if I understand you rightly (not entirely convinced I do...).

My take on the afterlife is that we will be fully physical and fully spiritual, and that God will completely sustain us so that we feel no fear, no terror, no sorrow, but joy and love and more of both. There will be, according to the Scriptures, a new heaven and a new earth. That sounds pretty physical to me. Non-existence is most definitely not preferable to this.

this supernatural/nonphysical God .... is still supernatural, but most definitely physical. Jesus was raised bodily into heaven. God is physical for eternity.

However, the church seems always to have opposed this idea, mortifying the flesh with fasting, hair shirts, flagelation & the like.When it did so, it had allowed itself to be talked out of some of that uniqueness into a Platonistic philosophy (Plotinus) that deplored the body. It was a mistake for the Church to let itself get trapped in that.

The problem for Christianity is that it essentially fears the Creation as something which will seduce humanity away from God, & as something which must be held at arm's length.I do admire Williams' Affirmation of Images as far as it goes. However, the bible is very clear that because of the Fall, material has been corrupted. This, however, is not the same thing as saying material is EVIL. It isn't. It will be redeemed, and it is a glorious and celebrated thing as it is; Tolkien has shown us this at least. But by itself it is incomplete. It needs God's spirit to redeem and purify it and make it whole again. Thus, the resurrection of the body.

As to what is "you" and what is "not you", because of that bloody Fall, your perception is limited and that which FEELS like you may only be a very persuasive "shadow" (metaphorically) as compared to the spirit which can be made alive in Christ. As COMPARED. Please don't misunderstand. I'm not contradicting myself and turning into a platonist, but speaking metaphorically about something that is hard to find words for.

Here, maybe this will help:

When Christ, for love of splintered light,
of fallen flesh and rotted tree,
of emptied day and fear-filled night,
stooped eagerly from deity
into the blessed Virgin's womb
(enholied by that sacred Leaven),
He gloried hollow atom's tomb
with weight and depth of solid heaven.

Our flesh, now gloried, lucent shines,
as moving streams reflect the sun;
we bodied beings, in Him divine,
now dance and sing, our glory won.
Incarnate Dream! Word in flesh!
Let human words in music, laced
with gloried tongue and throat, express
all praise to Him who flesh has graced!

© 1993, littlemanpoet

In other words by their nature they exclude & denigrate those who do not experience what they are told they should experience.This should never be, but alas is too often. The funny thing about this is that my faith insists that those who don't accept Christ are excluding themselves. Is that denigration? If it is, then all Christians denigrate all non-Christians. But I don't think it is. Denigration is to despise, is it not? (my dictionary is not available) May it never be that I despise anyone! I shouldn't, I have no right, because I'm no better than anyone who doesn't believe. Any righteousness I may have comes from Jesus. I recognize that what I just wrote might feel insincere. It's not; it's the way it is. (up to 140)

Lalwendë

04-28-2006, 02:37 AM

This should never be, but alas is too often. The funny thing about this is that my faith insists that those who don't accept Christ are excluding themselves. Is that denigration? If it is, then all Christians denigrate all non-Christians. But I don't think it is. Denigration is to despise, is it not? (my dictionary is not available) May it never be that I despise anyone! I shouldn't, I have no right, because I'm no better than anyone who doesn't believe. Any righteousness I may have comes from Jesus.

My major sticking point with Christianity (and with other religions too, e.g. Islam) is the belief that there is one road to God. I believe otherwise, but thinking about it logically, of course believers/followers of each religion will say that their way is the only way. If they said other ways were as valid then what incentive would there be for people to stick with one faith? ;) That is why I would broadly identify as universalist as I believe there are many ways of getting to god.

One thing I see in Tolkien's work as a metaphor which works for me is the Straight Road. At the downfall of Numenor the open and free way of getting to Valinor (for purposes of the metaphor read this as Heaven/Nirvana/Valhalla, what you will...) was lost. The Elves know how to find this way, and it seems that mortals do not, however it is not always lost, some find it open who need to find it open. To me, that works as a metaphor - in that if we need God we will find a way, but looking in one place might mean that we entirely miss the way.

No one. We all face the unknown when we die. No one has come back and said what the ride was like. Even Jesus and those that were brought back did not describe how it works, what it felt like, and so we have no idea what to expect. As humans we abhor holes in what we know, and extrapolate (or fantasize) to fill in the gaps.

By the by, near death experiences (nde) are just physiological - like dreams in a way. Note that no nde'er ever comes back stating that he/she was in a very hot place.

No, it was not hot, but it was very green. ;) I was 'outside' myself for a time and looking in on the scene below. Everything looked quite green, and there was a sense that my very being was made up of 'green-ness' if you can understand what they might feel like! I had a sense of absorption, of my eyes slowly losing their sight, my ears losing their hearing and my voice becoming smaller and smaller. Of being taken back into something bigger, like an egg going back into the ovary or a leaf going back into the branch it sprung from.

Formendacil

04-28-2006, 11:50 AM

My major sticking point with Christianity (and with other religions too, e.g. Islam) is the belief that there is one road to God. I believe otherwise, but thinking about it logically, of course believers/followers of each religion will say that their way is the only way. If they said other ways were as valid then what incentive would there be for people to stick with one faith? ;) That is why I would broadly identify as universalist as I believe there are many ways of getting to god.

Historically, it has typically been expressed -correctly or no- by churchgoers that you have to be Christian to be saved.

This is a fallacious view.

If this were the case, then all those people who have never heard of Jesus, or who lived before Jesus, would be automatically excluded- which would be quite unjust indeed.

No, the proper Christian (or at least, the proper Catholic view) is not that the Church is ONLY way to Heaven and God, but that it is the BEST way to Heaven and God. Christians have the benefit of various aids and assistances that non-Christians do not have, and so have a greater range of help to draw from, such as the joined prayer of the community, the rules of Christ which outline the path to Heaven, as well as other things of a similar nature. I would also go so far as to say that the Catholics are one up on the rest of the Christians for a "help plan", so to speak, in that they have the full complement of seven sacraments.

However, just as you can get from Point A. to Point B. without the benefit of equipment, you can get from Earth to Heaven without the benefit of the Church. Conversely, just as people can get lost on the way, even if they have a map, a compass, and supplies, people who are Christian can fail to make the journey to Heaven.

The Church, therefore, is the BEST way to get to Heaven: it equips you for the journey, gives you help to lean on, and shows you the way. But it is not NECESSARY to get there.

davem

04-28-2006, 11:55 AM

LMP On reading your last post I found myself with the odd feeling of almost wishing it was true. Yet on stepping back from it I found myself thinking, 'It all sounds good, but where's the proof?' Its almoost like you've created a secondary world there, completely internally self-consistent & logical, but I just don't see how it integrates with the primary world.

Of course, it may all be true just as maybe in some ancient historical epoch the events of LotR may have really happened. But where's the evidence that they did?

Some things you said did puzzle me, though:

Risk this one little thing: Ask this God that you don't believe in, to give you the deepest desire of your heart. It does not matter if you don't believe in God. If there is no God, you've lost nothing. If there is a God, then this God, who has revealed himself in the bible, has said to us that this is one prayer he will always answer, because He is a God of love. It doesn't matter whether you know what this deepest desire is. The fact is, you probably don't know, even if you think you do.

This is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy isn't it? If I ask God to give me something without knowing what it is how will I know when I've got it, or if I get it at all? If my heart's desire is a big Lottery win will I get that? And if I don't will that prove God does not exist? Seems a bit of an odd excercise. I suppose you will now say 'But that isn't really you're heart's desire, is it? You really wanted something else.

Secondly, the point about the Resurrection of Jesus. That's interesting. Personally, even if I accepted the 'evidence' that Jesus came back to life (though one could argue that he 'died' suspiciously quickly, taking only 6 hours when many victims would take days & days. There clearly was a story among the soldiers guarding the tomb that his followers had taken his body which the Gospel writers felt a need to counter by saying they were bribed to say that - logically the former is most likely. Anyway.) that would not necessarily make the event relevant to me. What am I supposed to do about it? What should my response be - simply singing hymns & saying prayers seems a rather pointless response. My own feeling is that Christianity has had little to do with what Jesus said & did & more to do with what the Church has decided Jesus meant by all that.

Question: if God, the author and sustainer of all things, including the moral code, were to sin against Himself, would existence continue?

Why not? Who knows the real nature of God? It may be quite possible for Him to sin against Himself & continue to exist.

What stirs in my mind is that the Israelites (Jews), by the time of Jesus, finally succeeded in removing all of the fallen-angel variety of false gods from their land; therefore, the only powers remaining were either demonic or godly.

Bit pejorative there - the God you believe in is 'the True God' other people's Gods are 'false' or 'demonic'. You see, you're imposing your belief on the world as though its objectively true without supplying any proof.

Jesus, as God and man, while being crucified, suffered every sin, every rape, every atrocity, ever committed. That is what suffering hell on the cross means. It doesn't erase the deed. Nothing can do that. Instead, it heals them. The wounds in Jesus' side, hands, and feet are the evidence of God's promise to do that.

No it doesn't heal them. Go tell that to the survivors. Its just platitudes.

If you really thought about it, you know that you don't really want that. Think it through .... including yourself in the mix. Okay, I'll help. If God is going to be expected to do this, He will ALWAYS do it, or else it's unjust, and God is not unjust. Do you want God's justice here and now? No, you don't. You'd die this second. Instead, God has withheld his wrath (which is part of his love by the way) so that God (Jesus) could bear all of it for us, so that we can have his mercy.

Yes I would. I'm not talking about God hurling thunderbolts, or sending universal floods, just intervening to stop children being raped or pensioners being mugged or maniacs flying airliners into tower blocks. Its not an either-or situation - either God zaps us all to atoms or He stands back & allows the helpless to suffer. Even I could find a middle way between the two so it shouldn't be beyond God.

As to what is "you" and what is "not you", because of that bloody Fall, your perception is limited and that which FEELS like you may only be a very persuasive "shadow" (metaphorically) as compared to the spirit which can be made alive in Christ. As COMPARED. Please don't misunderstand. I'm not contradicting myself and turning into a platonist, but speaking metaphorically about something that is hard to find words for.

Again, you're 'assuming that which is to be proved'. Where is the evidence for a 'Fall'?

No, the proper Christian (or at least, the proper Catholic view) is not that the Church is ONLY way to Heaven and God, but that it is the BEST way to Heaven and God. Christians have the benefit of various aids and assistances that non-Christians do not have, and so have a greater range of help to draw from, such as the joined prayer of the community, the rules of Christ which outline the path to Heaven, as well as other things of a similar nature. I would also go so far as to say that the Catholics are one up on the rest of the Christians for a "help plan", so to speak, in that they have the full complement of seven sacraments.

Lucky for you then- imagine if it had turned out that one of the other religions or denominations had turned out to be the only/best way - you'd have had all the hassle of changing your belief & starting from scratch! Fortunately, it just happens to be the very religion you happen to following already that's right. Bit unfortunate for the followers of all the others as they have to give up their religions to find the only, or at least the best, way. Mind you, it does seem a bit coincidental - but maybe that's the cynic in me ....

alatar

04-28-2006, 01:35 PM

Well, if there is a God, God will "behave" in a manner consistent with how the world shows that God has behaved in the past. If we do believe there's a God, why do we trust this? Because we implicitly believe that God is a consistent God; so, if we know this about the basic phenomena, why do we suddenly doubt it when we start thinking about human history? It's not God who suddenly weirds out; the only other possibility is that humans are causing the problems.
So what you are saying is that when God seems to act 'differently,' it's not Him but us. Interesting. I always saw the god of the Old Testament as much different from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The OT one is more tribal and punishing; the NT more forgiving and loving. As an example, wouldn't many in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:23-25) love to hear about 'love for enemies' and the like (Luke 6:27-29)? Mark 3:28 seems to state that there is but one unforgivable sin (the continual denial/blaspheming against of/the Holy Spirit) yet in BC many seemingly were unredeemable and so got the axe. Why weren't they permitted to live so that they may find God and repentence (a rhetorical question, to be sure, but we will see it come up later in the post)?

Could it be that as people evolved, becoming more civilized that either their view of God or relationship with God changed? That I can easily accept, but it's still not evident that God is unchanging.

I was just reading quotes from some of Frank Herbert's books, and one was "the bigger the God, the bigger the Devil."

(1) Do a thorough study of the case for and against the resurrection of Jesus, as Formendacil has indicated.
As you know, been there and done that. Short of a time machine, I say that with all of the evidence known at present one still has some leaping to do (and, as stated, maybe that's a requirement to sift the wheat from the chaff).

(2) Ask this God that you don't believe in, to give you the deepest desire of your heart. It does not matter if you don't believe in God.
Would it be impolite to ask what your deepest desire, met seemingly, was? Just curious.

Question: if God, the author and sustainer of all things, including the moral code, were to sin against Himself, would existence continue? See Isaiah 45:6-7. Are we sure that concepts like 'all good' and 'sin' (though we do know that He hates it) apply to such a being?

Momentary physical pain, even on a mass scale, is although obviously tragic, not the whole picture. We don't and can't know the mind of God, or we would be God.
Very true. However, it's been posited that we, being made in the image of God and therefore having at least some of His attributes (not the god ones) would, upon seeing suffering, would for the most part try to relieve it. I'm not of course saying that everyone is like that :(, but many are. We, if we could, would end suffering but in many cases are powerless to do so. God is not so limited, and yet...What always sparks me is any god that would allow the innocent (children and the child-like) to suffer. Death, okay, but suffering? He could end it, but chooses not to do so for some purpose "beyond our understanding." Those words are ashes in the mouths of anguished parents. Yes, His child suffered and died, but that was a free will choice (and it's still a mystery as to how much an eternal being can limit itself to truly experience human life and suffering, but that's unanswerable too).

How can we presume to judge God if we can't even know ourselves honestly at all times?
The minister with whom I converse stated a similar idea, that we as imperfect beings might not be able to see the Truth. It was a counter statement to my own about science and really knowing some Biblical truths definitively. I guess the point is that when I try to nail something down that is inconveniently paradoxical or unsupported, it's not because it's as I observe it to be but because I'm viewing it through poor vision. On the other hand, seeing Truth in a text, though dictated by God yet written and printed and interpreted and heard by human hands and minds and ears is unquestionalby 100% accurate.

My understanding of this is that over the course of time there was another falling away from righteousness (no surprise), the resulting vulnerability of which allowed the dark angels to start up their program again.
By the by, I just read that there apparently were Nephilim after the Flood (Numbers 13:33). Not even going to state the obvious observation there. :eek:

You'd die this second. Instead, God has withheld his wrath (which is part of his love by the way) so that God (Jesus) could bear all of it for us, so that we can have his mercy.
Disagree. If it's to be a game, then let's be done with it. This argument is brought out when people ask why God doesn't clean up the world that He created, and the 'frightening' answer is that, if He were to, He has a big broom and many are going into the pail. If that's where we're to end up anyway, what's the point of waiting? And He knows which clay pots are common and which are for parties, and so it would save Him some time and anguish as well. I'm always put off by that argument, and though I know that lmp is not saying this, but I cannot but hear the words from my childhood when I asked inconvenient questions in church, "Sit down and shut up!"

And by the way, there's still those Flood people that got the wrath (am I whipping a dead horse?).

Hmmmmm...... I think that science can function quite readily within the framework of not dealing with the existence of God. I think that science can function just as well from a belief in God. Belief in God erases not a single scientific law. So yes, we do have the ability to live in both worlds, if I understand you rightly (not entirely convinced I do...).
Mostly agreed. One can believe in a god or gods, but also cannot bring them in to naturalistic explanations nor submit extra- or supernatural explanations and still call it science.

No, it was not hot, but it was very green. I was 'outside' myself for a time and looking in on the scene below. Everything looked quite green, and there was a sense that my very being was made up of 'green-ness' if you can understand what they might feel like! I had a sense of absorption, of my eyes slowly losing their sight, my ears losing their hearing and my voice becoming smaller and smaller. Of being taken back into something bigger, like an egg going back into the ovary or a leaf going back into the branch it sprung from.
Not to offend, but I'm reminded of the Mel Brooks "History of the World: Part I" movie. And not sure what exactly you are describing, and so will not make judgment. My point is that nde is not a 'there and back again' experience.

If this were the case, then all those people who have never heard of Jesus, or who lived before Jesus, would be automatically excluded- which would be quite unjust indeed.
The usual explanation is that they have the light of creation to point them to God, and that all will be judged by what they have received.

No, the proper Christian (or at least, the proper Catholic view) is not that the Church is ONLY way to Heaven and God, but that it is the BEST way to Heaven and God.
I assume that you mean that church is not necessary for salvation, but belief in Jesus is (John 14:6)?

Great conversation, great posts (liked the poem, lmp! and in my dreams I post like davem and have the fire of Formendacil) and hope that no toes have been stepped upon.

Formendacil

04-28-2006, 03:26 PM

I assume that you mean that church is not necessary for salvation, but belief in Jesus is (John 14:6)?

Not at all... What is the Church but a group of believers in Jesus- who follow a codified form of his teachings?

No, what I mean is that ANYONE can get into Heaven, can receive Salvation, be they Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist... atheist. For all that WE on earth know, Hitler and Stalin made it into Heaven! I'm a little skeptical about either of those, but my point is that God sees our hearts, and allows us into Heaven based on what He sees there- not on what we do or profess.

What we do or profess, however, generally shows what's in our Hearts... A Christian wanting to get to Heaven, who is living his/her life as best as he/she can, is generally distinguishable from someone who claims to care, but doesn't give a rat's whisker.

Likewise, there are many non-Christians who are more likely to get into Heaven than some of those not-so-Christian Christians.

Faith in Jesus, belief in Jesus, is a tremendous asset to getting there, to be sure, as is the following of His teachings. A failure to do so, if one knows about those teachings, will likely count against you. But it is a merciful God who judges us, and EVERYTHING will be laid in the scales.

Kath

04-28-2006, 03:38 PM

Formendacil

04-28-2006, 05:01 PM

Form I'm not sure that what you are saying is the accepted view of the Church. I'm pretty sure the general idea is that you have to believe in Jesus to get into Heaven. Therefore, you could have lived your life as a Jew, but could only go to Heaven if by the end of it you had accepted Jesus as being the son of God who sacrificed himself for mankind. Otherwise you get nothing.

The accepted view of the Church, and by the Church, I mean the Catholic Church, is not that one HAS to be Catholic (or Christian) to get into Heaven. Possibly, the way I try to describe and word it isn't exactly something that a Bishop would be willing to put the Nihil Obstat to, but as far as I am aware, it does not contradict Church teaching.

After all, are we to believe that a God who willingly accepts even major sinners into Heaven, for a small act of repentance on their deathbeds would turn away a, let's say a Moslem, who had all his life lived according to his religion as best he could, who had followed the promptings of his conscience, done as much Right and as little Wrong as he was able, and had loved, been loved, and done his best to pass on what he knew to the next generation- can we honestly believe that a loving God, who loves ALL his children, would condemn to Hell those who had not chosen to follow His Son?

Let me be clear: I sincerely believe that Christianity is the BEST way to Heaven. It is the easiest way, the way deliberately outlined by God as the RIGHT way. It offers benefits and help that no other path has. But it is not a REQUIREMENT to get into Heaven. If I take the position that one HAS to be Christian to get into Heaven, then logically I ought to be saying "well, if you aren't Catholic, then you won't get into Heaven" - and where does that leave our Orthodox and Protestant brethren.

To know who Jesus was, to know He existed, and to deliberately reject Him is an entirely different matter than never choosing to become Christian, be it for cultural, personal, or apathetic reasons. Christianity preaches of a merciful God. It is not within our abilities to say that His mercy is limited by anything.

Mind you, this is my interpretation of what I know of Church teaching. To try and get to Heaven without the Church- knowing that it is the best way there- is to scorn the Church, and therefore to scorn the Body of Christ. But to not be a member of the Church should not, if a condition born of ignorance, misunderstanding, a lack of reason to join, or failure on the part of the Church, should NOT be an obstacle to Salvation.

Nogrod

04-28-2006, 06:39 PM

[QUOTE=Formendacil]
After all, are we to believe that a God who willingly accepts even major sinners into Heaven, for a small act of repentance on their deathbeds would turn away a, let's say a Moslem, who had all his life lived according to his religion as best he could, who had followed the promptings of his conscience, done as much Right and as little Wrong as he was able, and had loved, been loved, and done his best to pass on what he knew to the next generation- can we honestly believe that a loving God, who loves ALL his children, would condemn to Hell those who had not chosen to follow His Son?
Now c'mon Form! You can't be serious! And this is not a point of an afterlife or something like that - for that, I think well all have freedom (within cultural constraints) to believe what we will. But really: a christian, believing in one God - or a moslem, believing in one God - what's the difference? If you look at the history of these religions, none! Only Islam is the updated version of Christianity - so being a Christian is kind of using Windows 98 still? ;) You can't be serious about this Hell-stuff anyways. That's just a puerile-metaphysical-void-nightmare -thing most people get over with as they grow up...
Let me be clear: I sincerely believe that Christianity is the BEST way to Heaven. It is the easiest way, the way deliberately outlined by God as the RIGHT way. It offers benefits and help that no other path has.

So you are going to heaven? Which here is the primary motivation in your life: securing yourself, or being good? This I would call something like crooked utilitarianism (which indeed the "golden rule" can be interpreted as too?). So you are "offered benefits"? Like the store that gives you three for the price of two? :D Which one do you see better in moral sense: the one that does good without believing to be paid for it, or the one awaiting a nice return?

Just think this question carefully. It's a stinger! Sorry to mention it.

And anyhow. What are you going to do there - and what is the meaning of your life here? Without a border / end, there is no sense or meaning. Aristotle is the basic philosopher of Thomism - which is the fundamental philosophy of Catholicism. But if you look at Aristotle (Metaphysics, book II), he himself clearly says, that without presuming finity, there are no reasons and no sense in anything...

Well, we could delve into these argumets for a while - and in some sense, I would like to do it, as I believe in shared points more than anyone's private revelations or daydreams. But at the same time, I'm a bit ashamed, calling Aristotle to be my witness in this case - as that is not the way, a rational person would go for his/her case. The dogma can't be the decisive factor, the reason could be it? So if Aristotle is something to lean on, it should be not, because his name was Aristotle, but because his arguments make sense even today (and sorry St. Thomas, this nut you never cracked!).

With all the love.

littlemanpoet

04-28-2006, 10:11 PM

My problem is with the idea of taking a book & simply believing itYou may have noticed that no one actually does this. They may think they do, but they don't. There are genetic, cultural, familial, and other experiential factors that come into play. For example, that I come from a Dutch, Reformed (protestant Christian) background, am third generation American, all play a role in what I believe. So does the fact that I was introduced to Tolkien's "Riddles in the Dark", the revised version, when I was 8 years old, and found my life changed forever.

In other words this desire/obsession with what happens after we die is what stops us really being alive now.Indeed. It shouldn't be an obsession. You have chosen not to think about it, and I have chosen to resolve the issue by deciding to accept Jesus at his word. For both of us it's a done deal (although I hope that you reconsider ;) ). My life is now all about, "what to do now"? Of course, this means for me being aware of God's presence, and living within the "confines" of heaven already.

Belief is 'negative' because it effectively gets between us & reality. We look at the world through 'belief-coloured lenses' & don't see it, experience it, as it really is. It attempts to classify & quantify the universe, & ends up trying to break it up & force it into pigeon-holes.This reminds me of another poem, although it names the problem not belief, but analysis:

I had a moment
clear -
like a water balloon
small as the space between
cupped hands -
big as day.

In and through it I could
taste God and touch being
see all colors of earth, water, sky
smell fresh cut grass and rich loam
hear bird song and squirrel chatter.

With rational blade I took hold
bisected, laid it open to dis-
cover what was inside
dissected to analyze its parts
diced and weighed to evaluate its worth
to discern the whole.

I lost the moment
having never lived it.

© 2001, littlemanpoet

(You may notice that this was written in an "Emily Dickinson" phase :rolleyes: )

hence LMP's attempt to account for mythological creatures by assigning their origin to 'fallen Angels' of 'demons'.Interesting. It seems that Tolkien's conception of evil was quite complex by comparison, more mature. Though this properly belongs to the "Absolutely Evil" thread, I'll just mention that Tolkien described in LotR that good and evil cut through everyone, rather than any character being clearly good or clearly evil (except perhaps Sauron...?)

My major sticking point with Christianity (and with other religions too, e.g. Islam) is the belief that there is one road to God. I believe otherwise, but thinking about it logically, of course believers/followers of each religion will say that their way is the only way. If they said other ways were as valid then what incentive would there be for people to stick with one faith?This makes sense. But it's an attempt at a psychological explanation for something that doesn't immediately make sense to you. I might prefer to believe that there's more than one road to God, but there's this constant theme repeated by Jesus (who is my God) in all of the gospels: "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me." Kind of hard for me to argue with that, psychological leanings being what they are....

people who are Christian can fail to make the journey to Heaven.Come again?

Actually, I think I know what you mean. And it a point on which you and I must disagree in brotherly kindness. I don't have much quarrel with the seven sacraments, and by saying so I reveal myself as a bad protestant. :p However, I think that the Roman Catholic church is too ready to identify itself as THE Church. By contrast, I view the Real Church as a more or less invisible organism that only God can know the true membership of, that becomes visible only through the deeds of real believers.

'It all sounds good, but where's the proof?'There's only one way you'll ever discover the proof, and that's to take the test.

As you seem to be able to infer from the test, and the study of Jesus' resurrection, the crucial thing has nothing to do with deciding to sing hymns and all that paraphernalia of ritual (Roman Catholics will not like me saying this). Rather, it has to do with your deep being, who you really are, meeting the deep being of God, person to Person.

Bit pejorative there - the God you believe in is 'the True God' other people's Gods are 'false' or 'demonic'. You see, you're imposing your belief on the world as though its objectively true without supplying any proof.It's not meant to be pejorative. I've been quite honest that "I believe" these things. I've also been forthcoming that "proofs" are quite limited. I'm very aware that all of my beliefs rest on a set of paradigms that I accept, by choice. That's the nature of belief. I don't apologize for what I believe, and I don't expect anyone else to either. Anything I do say by way of answering questions posed to me, is going to come in the context of what I believe.

No it doesn't heal them. Go tell that to the survivors. Its just platitudes.Not if you believe the human is eternal, which I do. If the human isn't eternal, then there is no worse tragedy, especially since the suffering becomes frankly meaningless. The universe I understand, has at the back of it a God who hungers for all his children to know him, and wants to heal them and give them unimagined joy.

I'm not talking about God hurling thunderbolts, or sending universal floods, just intervening to stop children being raped or pensioners being mugged or maniacs flying airliners into tower blocks.But that's only half justice. Good and evil runs through the heart of every human. It starts with our refusal to accept God as He is. God's justice will necessarily include punishing those who refuse to acknowledge him. So he gives us his mercy. I say it again, you don't really want his justice; if you think you do, it's because you misunderstand it. If that sounds pejorative, I'm no better. The only difference is that I've given my acknowledgement.

Again, you're 'assuming that which is to be proved'. Where is the evidence for a 'Fall'?In the heart of every human.

I always saw the god of the Old Testament as much different from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The OT one is more tribal and punishing; the NT more forgiving and loving.One must factor in the increasing knowledge of God over time. The earliest Hebrews didn't understand God as well as, say, Daniel, for whom by that time there had been a good 500 years or more of dealings with God; time to get to know Him better.

God can't be unchanging, or else there could not be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. It amazes me how systematic theologians seem to just blithely pass over this little stumbling block in their understanding of God. God did change.

Would it be impolite to ask what your deepest desire, met seemingly, was?To experience real joy in Christ. It took 45 years of living before that happened.

Question: if God, the author and sustainer of all things, including the moral code, were to sin against Himself, would existence continue?
See Isaiah 45:6-7. Are we sure that concepts like 'all good' and 'sin' (though we do know that He hates it) apply to such a being?It was a rhetorical question that I threw out there somewhat haphazardly. I'm not prepared to back it up with sound argument. Note that in the passage, God is the author both of peace and calamity. Does that bother you? I suppose it might. God's motivation for calamity is to bring his children to him.

God is not so limited, and yet...What always sparks me is any god that would allow the innocent (children and the child-like) to suffer. Death, okay, but suffering? He could end it, but chooses not to do so for some purpose "beyond our understanding." Those words are ashes in the mouths of anguished parents.And should never be said to anguished parents. Jesus did alleviate suffering while he was on earth, wherever he found it. It's a Christ-followers role to "be Jesus" to those in anguish, not to offer platitudes, but to be present in the midst of their suffering with them. Bearing another's burdens.

On the other hand, seeing Truth in a text, though dictated by God yet written and printed and interpreted and heard by human hands and minds and ears is unquestionalby 100% accurate.This is an unnecessary hang-up, my friend. The crucial matter is not its accuracy (even though I do generally accept it as so), but its power to change lives.

And by the way, there's still those Flood people that got the wrath (am I whipping a dead horse?). I answered this. Noah preached righteousness for hundreds of years (according to the account, a good 500), and none turned from their evil ways, not one.

One additional thing: if you want to know what the Christian view of God's character is, it is found in the story of Jesus while he lived on earth.

(up to 155, and I gotta quit) I'll be away at St. Gregory's Abbey in Three Rivers, MI from Sat. noon until Sun. evening, so I'll be away from here for a bit....

Formendacil

04-29-2006, 01:55 AM

Come again?

Actually, I think I know what you mean. And it a point on which you and I must disagree in brotherly kindness. I don't have much quarrel with the seven sacraments, and by saying so I reveal myself as a bad protestant. :p However, I think that the Roman Catholic church is too ready to identify itself as THE Church. By contrast, I view the Real Church as a more or less invisible organism that only God can know the true membership of, that becomes visible only through the deeds of real believers.

I think you may have misinterpreted me... You seem to be taking my meaning to infer that Catholics alone are necessarily saved, while the rest of Christianity is out there with the Hindus and Buddhists on the Maybe list.

That was not my meaning at all!

What I was trying to express is that being a Christian- be it a Christian of the Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox persuasion is not a guarantee to getting into Heaven. If you live a Christian life, then, yes, it would seem you've got a good chance- regardless of your denomination. However, I was speaking with the people in mind who CALL themselves Christian, who go to Church and put a semblance of a Christian lifestyle, in complete hypocrisy. These people are Catholic as often as they are Protestant, and that fact that they are formal members of any Church will not save them from Hell if they deserve it.

I hope that clears it up...

As you seem to be able to infer from the test, and the study of Jesus' resurrection, the crucial thing has nothing to do with deciding to sing hymns and all that paraphernalia of ritual (Roman Catholics will not like me saying this). Rather, it has to do with your deep being, who you really are, meeting the deep being of God, person to Person.

Contrary to what you were thinking, this Roman Catholic at least (although Roman Catholic is a bit of an antiquated term. In this era we try to remember and recognize our Greek Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Syrian Catholic, and so forth, brethern. Latin-rite Catholic is more accurate, and reminds the reader that the "Roman" Church is just a rite of the Catholic Church) would agree with you. Hymns, rituals, and the like are not going to get you into Heaven. I say this in agreement with my last remark of clarification.

However, I would take issue with the use of the word "paraphrenalia" with regards to ritual. This is not mere extraneous "stuff", this is a very real and tangible way of connecting to God, person to person. Again, the issue of the Sacraments comes up. God realized that Man needs physical connections, that he needs Real connections to God. The Sacraments are physical in nature. There is never any doubt as to whether they've occured or not- any newspaper reporter could watch them and document them. The Eucharist in particular is a Real, Physical connection with God.

Now, some of the arguments in the Church over the DETAILS of ritual, etc, are somewhat extraneous. In God's eyes, I doubt it really matters if we kneel or stand for the Consecration. I doubt if it really matters if the people respond "and also with you" or "and with your spirit also". But the reason that people debate these things, their deep love and concern for the rituals, ultimately stems from a noble devotion to God Himself, for these rituals are very important part of the means by which we know Him.

Now c'mon Form! You can't be serious! And this is not a point of an afterlife or something like that - for that, I think well all have freedom (within cultural constraints) to believe what we will. But really: a christian, believing in one God - or a moslem, believing in one God - what's the difference? If you look at the history of these religions, none! Only Islam is the updated version of Christianity - so being a Christian is kind of using Windows 98 still? You can't be serious about this Hell-stuff anyways. That's just a puerile-metaphysical-void-nightmare -thing most people get over with as they grow up...

This seems to be written very tongue in cheek... I hope it is... The differences between Islam and Christianity are many and varied, and to call Islam an "updated Christianity" is to ignore the numerous contradictions between the two religions. Christians have claimed Jesus as the Son of God since the time of Jesus Himself. Even if you throw out all the Bible as evidence, Jesus was accepted as God by Christians before the 1st Century was out. Islam, started in the 600s, completely disagrees with this. The two may have similarities, but they are not compatible- at all.

And yes, Hell exists. Theologians have jumped all over the place in guessing what it's like, but it exists. And, quite frankly, I have no desire or intention of going there and seeing firsthand what it's like.

So you are going to heaven? Which here is the primary motivation in your life: securing yourself, or being good? This I would call something like crooked utilitarianism (which indeed the "golden rule" can be interpreted as too?). So you are "offered benefits"? Like the store that gives you three for the price of two? Which one do you see better in moral sense: the one that does good without believing to be paid for it, or the one awaiting a nice return?

Just think this question carefully. It's a stinger! Sorry to mention it.

It is possible for two reasons to produce the same results- and to be present in the same person and situation, is it not?

In my own particular case, I will not deny that going to Heaven and avoiding Hell are major reasons for living a Christian life. However, as I live that life, the more I follow it for those "selfish" reasons, the more I want to follow them for the right reasons. I'm far from perfect, and always will be, but there is a genuine interest when helping others, to help them because they need it, and because that is what God would want. It's a very basic "I want to please God" feeling that I feel when being somewhat successful at living a Christian life. The ramifications of "maybe I'll get into Heaven" or "whew! a little further from Hell" are not thoughts that occur to me immediately, but later, if I'm thinking things over too much.

Finally, is it WRONG to want to go to Heaven, and to avoid Hell, and to be Christian for that sole reason? I think not. If you truly want to avoid Hell and get into Heaven, you cannot help but do as God directs, and love your neighbour as yourself, and as if he or she was Jesus in person. And if you start to treat other people as though God was in them (meaning respectfully and lovingly) then you cannot fail but come to love God as well.

And anyhow. What are you going to do there - and what is the meaning of your life here?

I shall love the Lord my God with all my mind and heart, body and soul, and I shall love my neighbour as myself.

Or, at least, that's what I'm going to try and do. There is nothing more than that.

davem

04-29-2006, 12:09 PM

First, Nogrod's statement that Islam is 'merely' an updated version of Christianity. It isn't. If anything its an updated version of Judaism which completely by-passes Christianity. Both Judaism & Islam emphasise the 'separateness' of Creator & creation, of God & man. The creation in both is seen as fallen & apart from the Creator.

Christianity teaches that the Creation has been redeemed, the split healed:

"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God" was written by Holy Father Athanasios the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, in De inc., 54, 3: PG, 192B, in his refutation of Arius during the First Ecumenical Council
Some people think that St. Irenaeus of Lyons may have said it before Holy Father Athanasios the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria.

The image: Christ hangs on the cross - he is 'transfixed', uniting in himself in that moment all the broken parts of Creation: God & Man, life & death, heaven & earth. Day & night are joined at that moment as the sky darkens. Christ becomes the central point of the new Creation & the Fall is healed. Without this act the Fall still operates, the Universe is still broken & the creation is still sick.

Islam denies this act because it denies that Jesus was God & merely a Prophet (who would be 'superceded' by Muhammed, who goes on to bring fire & the sword to most of the known world - & marrying a six year old girl btw- though it must be acknowledged that the marriage was not consummated till she was nine). Yet this is an act which only the Creator of the Universe could accomplish, because it would require the active participation of God to bring it about.

Now, I'm not changing my spots here - if Christianity is true that act would be vitally necessary, but I don't see any evidence that it is true - in a literal sense. It is a myth which is internally self consistent - like all good secondary world should be if they are to convince & move the reader & produce a sense of Eucatastrophe.

But that's only half justice. Good and evil runs through the heart of every human. It starts with our refusal to accept God as He is. God's justice will necessarily include punishing those who refuse to acknowledge him. So he gives us his mercy. I say it again, you don't really want his justice; if you think you do, it's because you misunderstand it. If that sounds pejorative, I'm no better. The only difference is that I've given my acknowledgement.

But I'm not asking for 'full' justice here & now, only a little intervention to stop the really bad stuff. If God feels the need to 'punish' those who refuse to acknowledge him he seems a little tetchy to say the least. If I was to go around punishing everyone who failed to acknowledge me - not saying thank you when I hold a door open for them, or barging past me in a queue, I'd pretty soon get a reputation for being an overly sensitive so-&-so who ought to lighten up & get a life. I also have to point out that God actually made us (if you believe that) so He should take some responsibility for the way we turned out. If I paint a picture that looks nothing like the subject I'd blame myself for my lack of talent, not seek to punish the painting.

Nogrod

04-29-2006, 05:31 PM

IThis seems to be written very tongue in cheek... I hope it is... The differences between Islam and Christianity are many and varied, and to call Islam an "updated Christianity" is to ignore the numerous contradictions between the two religions. Christians have claimed Jesus as the Son of God since the time of Jesus Himself. Even if you throw out all the Bible as evidence, Jesus was accepted as God by Christians before the 1st Century was out. Islam, started in the 600s, completely disagrees with this. The two may have similarities, but they are not compatible- at all.
-------------------------------
And yes, Hell exists. Theologians have jumped all over the place in guessing what it's like, but it exists. And, quite frankly, I have no desire or intention of going there and seeing firsthand what it's like.

To your first question, yes. It was written with a tongue in cheek. Surely. But the question behind is a good one - even though I somewhat admit Davem's point of the Islam being a "update" of Judaism in the first place. But really, what's the difference? the jews still wait for the Messiah - the Shii'te moslems wait for him too (read what the Iranian president Ahmadinejad talks!), the christian believe, he was here already, but needs to come again... So everyone is waiting :p.

You can google the different people announcing the end of the world in internet: some say, it will be 06.06.06 (the number of the Beast!), some give other dates... They all are the same people, wishing or believing, that certain things they hold true, will be so. How can you differentiate between them - or between a jew, a christian or a moslem?

And for the hell. You should go back to the scripture & some Middle-age -studies. Hell is a medieval invention - that can be explained quite nicely with very earthly agendas. The moslems make a difference between the holy scripture and the interpretation of it. Should those christians not doing it already, do it too?

littlemanpoet

04-30-2006, 07:28 PM

Someone sent me a very kind rep regarding this thread without saying who they were. I'll quote a portion of it so you can know you you are, as there are questions I'd like to answer if I may, via PM, once you PM me who you are. Question: if G-d=Jesus, aren't we all sort of on the same page?

davem

05-01-2006, 01:07 AM

Question: if G-d=Jesus, aren't we all sort of on the same page?

If we're reading the Bible, yes. I could just as well ask 'If Aragorn is the heir of Isildur, aren't we all sort of on the same page?'

The question is whether in either case we are dealing with a 'fact' about the Primary World, or a particular Secondary World. Speaking as an Introvert I'd tend to give priority to a Secondary World over the Primary one.

Of course, the Primary World is also in some ways an amalgam of all our Secondary Worlds - we invent our own model of 'reality' which we project onto the things around us - we tell ourselves a story about it. The 'real' world has no colours, sounds, tastes, textures. Quantum theory tells us that all that is 'really' out there is energy. Our brains interpret that sea of energy & invent the colours, sounds, etc. 'I' exist as a character in my own invented secondary world, the one my brain has put together.

LMP, Formendacil & others 'really' see a fallen but redeemed creation when they look at the world. Many others see nothing of the sort. What happens though is that we get so caught up in our 'Secondary World ' that we forget that we're dealing with a fantasy. Take the following. Read the blog & the first comment. http://shelleytherepublican.com/2005/12/10-ways-to-be-good-american.html

Now, some will see them as opposing political views. I see them as two 'realities'. 'Shelley' claims (& no doubt believes) he/she is a Christian, but so do many of his//her opponents.

Problems arise when one group adopts a consensus 'reality' & sets out to 'prove' it is objectively true by imposing it on everyone else. In other words, one group builds a set of pigeon-holes & tries to force everyone & everything to fit in them. Anything that will not fit is dismissed as untrue, 'evil' (the work of Satan or the 'fallen Angels) or, if possible, destroyed. Alan Watts told a great story of an eminent scientist who won great kudos for a theory about marine biology. One day someone came up to him with the shell of a creature, the existence of which would destroy both his theory & his reputation. The scientist asked to examine the shell, promptly dropped it on the floor & stamped it to pieces saying 'There, I told you it didn't exist.'

Christ's redemptive act is absolutely a FACT to LMP & Formendacil & absolutely a fantasy to others. Same with the Afterlife. My own position is that there are lots of very interesting stories out there, many of them very beautiful & interesting, just as there are many cultures & languages. Some of the stories contradict each other, but that's fine as long as they don't contradict themselves, as then they would not be very good stories. The thing I fear is that the 'story' of one particular group, because of the power that group gets, comes to dominate & destroy all the other stories. We end up with one story, one language, one way of thinking about & seeing the world. And the road to that destination begins when one group decides 'our story is the only true story - the other stories may have something of truth in them, of course - but if they do its because they're only versions of our own'.

One Story. One Truth. One Reich.

One Ring.

Laitoste

05-01-2006, 12:34 PM

Not sure if this really fits, but I wanted to clarify some issues regarding Islam. The Islamic religion is not necessarily an update on Christianity. They are both updates on Judaism. Christians believe that, with the birth and death of Jesus, the title of "chosen people" transferred from the Jews to them. Muslims believe that with the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad, the title of "God's chosen" is moved to them. In Islam, Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians are seen as “people of the book”, and are not included among the “unbelievers” and therefore are dealt with differently. Muslims historically see the Christians as wrong only in the emphasis they place on Jesus. According to the Qur'an, Jesus is merely a prophet, nothing more. In the Qur'an, in the sura about Mary, Jesus, as a baby, says:

I am the servant of God. He has given me the Book and ordained me a prophet. His blessing is on me wherever I go, and He has exhorted me to be steadfast in prayer and to give alms as long as I shall live. He has exhorted me to honor my mother and has purged me of vanity and wickedness. Blessed was I on the day I was born, and blessed I shall be on the day of my death and on the day I shall be raised into life.

Christianity and Islam have the same base. The truly major differences between the religions are cultural, rather than religious. For example, the five pillars of Islam are: Shahada (confession), Salat (prayer), Zakat (almsgiving), Saum (fasting), and Hajj (pilgrimage). Similar ideas can be found in Christianity. However, you could claim that, historically, Muslims have been more intelligent about using their faith, despite the lack of any concept of a secular state. In the Pact of Umar from the 7th Century, a set of conditions for non-Muslims under Muslim rule, requires non-Muslims simply to not ostentatiously display their religions or impede the Muslims in any way. They are also required to pay slightly higher taxes. However, if you take a look at what happened during the aftermath of the 1st Crusade, when the Christians actually accomplished something (taking Jerusalem), they gave no thought to making political enemies or alienating the people who lived there first. It was a massacre. During the penitential pilgrimages that took place between the major Crusades, the knights just wanted to go, kill some “pagans”, and leave. This wreaked havoc on the Christian leaders who had set up kingdoms in the area.

(For the record, I was Lutheran all my life, go to a Lutheran college in Minnesota, and am now far too apathetic to be religious. Furthermore, I refuse to believe in a God who tells someone to "kill thirty-one kings in all" (Joshua 12), or who appoints misogynistic jerks as his mouthpieces (Paul). I took a history class examining the Crusades and the Islamic counter crusade last semester and we read parts of the Qur'an (poorly translated) in another class this semester. I am not an expert on Islam, nor am I Muslim, and apologize for any mistakes or misunderstandings. :rolleyes: )

alatar

05-01-2006, 12:55 PM

Great post, davem, especially the end.

My position, from the science corner of the world, is that if there exists these Truths, then no one or group can successfully hide them. There are 6+ billion people on this planet, and if these truths are self-evident, surely persons will stumble upon them again and again.

And who can thwart the will of God?

When someone in the scientific community proposes a theory that cuts across the accepted paradigm, this person may be ridiculed, shunned, persecuted etc by the establishment. It happens, as we are dealing with humans who are prideful, in fear of change, desiring personal power and stability over openness, slothful...along with many other virtues and vices. However, eventually the truth will win out. Goodly objective people lend a hand, obstinate personalities die out, as does their power and influence, and so we move science and everyone with it over to the new paradigm. Shortly thereafter, the cement comes, forms the new floor and starts to solidify, making the new bosses much like the old bosses.

Religion follows a similiar process. Unchanging? Not likely, for the same reasons I give above. On the other hand, the religious can point to something purportedly outside of influence and say that that Truth is objective and in no need of change. Trouble is, is that one many want to look at that Truth to find out why it is considered to be so, not just accepting the finger pointing and statement "Truth." Is the truth robust enough to handle a little shaking?

I find it funny that the DaVinci Code has caused any uproar, as it has been resoundly debunked by both the Christian community and the pagan skeptics. Yet some Christians still doubt, which makes me think that either they do not really know what they believe, tend to believe in anything rather easily without evidence, or have not or are trained not to ask for the evidence.

Like the link that davem provided, the site provides a list of things one should do to be a good American or whatever. Each statement seems clear enough and simple enough to follow. But what if one looks a little deeper, or asks the dreaded "why?" Does that make one less American (or Republican or whatever)?

Paul had the Bereans; Denethor II Gandalf, and Manwë Fëanor.

littlemanpoet

05-02-2006, 09:54 AM

But I'm not asking for 'full' justice here & now, only a little intervention to stop the really bad stuff.Ah. Thanks for your persistence. God has put something in place to stop the really bad stuff, or at least when it happens, to be right there and fix or heal it. However, this 'something' has done by and large a deplorable job. No excuse. It's called the Church. That means us folks who say we follow Jesus. We've failed God and our fellow humans a lot over the last 2,000 years, and it's something we ought to be very remoresful about.

If God feels the need to 'punish' those who refuse to acknowledge him he seems a little tetchy to say the least.but he doesn't. He has been very merciful. And I still think that there is some way in which Christ's redemptive act works backwards into the past such that many who were believed to have never had a chance, will be numbered amongst God's people. There are references to this same kind of thing in the NT here and there: we will be surprised who's there and who isn't ... largely because we look at the outside while God looks at the heart.

I also have to point out that God actually made us (if you believe that) so He should take some responsibility for the way we turned out.That's one way of thinking about why he sent Jesus.

If I paint a picture that looks nothing like the subject I'd blame myself for my lack of talent, not seek to punish the painting.But the picture isn't nothing like the subject, to use your analogy. All humans still bear the image of God, however blemished it may be. Again, why do you think He reached out in the person of Jesus?

[quote=Nogrod]Hell is a medieval invention[/b] That would mean that Matthew 25 was written sometime after 450 A.D.? Not to mention the lake of fire in Revelation? I could have sworn those documents had been around before 450 A.D. ;)

davem's concerns about power are apt. However, the Church should not seek earthly power. It's not what Jesus put it here for.

I'm surprised, davem, that you didn't add one more phrase: One God

must run......

Nogrod

05-02-2006, 02:00 PM

[quote=Nogrod]Hell is a medieval invention[/b] That would mean that Matthew 25 was written sometime after 450 A.D.? Not to mention the lake of fire in Revelation? I could have sworn those documents had been around before 450 A.D. ;)

Thanks. I think I deserved this one, for being quite hasty in this discussion (well you all write so much and I only seem to be able to pop-in/pop-out occasionally). But then again, I'm not sure, whether you have just pinpointed the only two mentionings in the Bible that could be in any way interpreted as something like a Hell anyway (and of these the Revelation-stuff is just so sick - and most of the exegetics seem to be at wonder with it: why a writing of clearly a lunatic, full of hate against anyone not being a) a male b) thinking the same way he did, was incorporated into the holy text preaching love and solidarity?).

The Jews were quite low-toned about any afterlife to begin with. It was the charismatic movements all around the Mediterranean & Middle-Eastern world during the centuries surrounding the beginning of our year 1, that really brought this idea of an eternal afterlife to the fore. And these movenets were mainly from Persia (could be lendings from Indian thought-world, as they had this notion of eternall bliss in Nirvana?) - lending all those early agricultural myths of a God sacrifying himself for the new life to be born on springtime.

But back to the bussiness. What I meant, was that the doctrine of Hell was not anything particularily popular - if even outspoken - in the early Christianity. It became a subject of discussion (and an idea to frighten people with) only on medieval times. And thence should be seen as an invention of the medieval clergy, more than an original Christian stance, or a teaching of Jesus!

Celuien

05-02-2006, 03:24 PM

The Jews were quite low-toned about any afterlife to begin with.
Just popping in briefly...

There is an afterlife in Judaism (although details are somewhat open to interpretation and it really isn't the main focus). But I'm far from a religious scholar, so I don't know the historical timeline that well.

Click here for a pretty good explanation. (http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm)

Popping back out again. Carry on. :D

davem

05-02-2006, 03:47 PM

He has been very merciful. And I still think that there is some way in which Christ's redemptive act works backwards into the past such that many who were believed to have never had a chance, will be numbered amongst God's people. There are references to this same kind of thing in the NT here and there: we will be surprised who's there and who isn't ... largely because we look at the outside while God looks at the heart.

If the act took place in both time & eternity (uniting both in effect) this would be a valid interpretation - in fact it would be a necessary consequence. But that doesn't make it true, merely 'logical' within the 'Secondary World'. But this is the point - it doesn't prove it actually happened in the Primary World. Its also 'logical' that the destruction of the One Ring cause the fall of Sauron within that Secondary World. It seems that you inhabit a 'world' that I don't. Actually, I like your world a lot. There's something in me that responds strongly to the world of little country churches, the language of the King James Bible & the Prayer book, of evensong, of tradition stretching back into the mists of time, of the same hymns sung & prayers said in the same words. Part of me would love to enter into it & live there. But there's also a part of me that would love to go live in the world of Ealing comedy & Launder & Gilliat, with Alistair Sim & Margaret Rutherford, Terry-Thomas & St Trinians, when the world was in black & white & safe & comfortable. Or Middle-earth. Only problem is that world never really existed - its nice to go & visit though.

But the picture isn't nothing like the subject, to use your analogy. All humans still bear the image of God, however blemished it may be. Again, why do you think He reached out in the person of Jesus?

Well, I don't believe that He did. I do love the story, though. I'm reminded of that line from 'The Man who Shot Liberty Valance': 'When the Legend becomes fact, print the Legend.'

I'm surprised, davem, that you didn't add one more phrase: One God

Oh, but that's the problem: One God, One Story, Many Gods, Many Stories. The Elves made many rings, Sauron made One. I just like stories so much that I want as many as possible.

Formendacil

05-03-2006, 12:54 AM

Thanks. I think I deserved this one, for being quite hasty in this discussion (well you all write so much and I only seem to be able to pop-in/pop-out occasionally). But then again, I'm not sure, whether you have just pinpointed the only two mentionings in the Bible that could be in any way interpreted as something like a Hell anyway...

...But back to the bussiness. What I meant, was that the doctrine of Hell was not anything particularily popular - if even outspoken - in the early Christianity. It became a subject of discussion (and an idea to frighten people with) only on medieval times. And thence should be seen as an invention of the medieval clergy, more than an original Christian stance, or a teaching of Jesus!AS

Although I do not recall the word "Hell" being used, nor of it having the same connotations as that term does for us, there are definitely Biblical, indeed New Testament, references to it.

As LMP demonstrated with his reference to Matthew 25, in which Jesus -so yes, this is a teaching of Jesus- speaks of seperating the goats from the sheep, and condemning the former, on the basis of their lack of Christian service (not, interestingly enough, on the basis of their acknowledgement of Christ), there are definitely New Testament references to punishment for those who DON'T welcome the Kingdom of God.

Only a few chapters earlier, in Matthew 22, is another parable referring to the punishment of those who disobey God. This parable, the parable in which the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a wedding feast, has one of the unworthy (poor) guests attend garbed improperly (and disrespectfully). The king has this unworthy guest "bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth" ( Matthew 22:13)

Or, to jump to a different Gospel, Luke, there is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, in which both die, and Lazarus the poor man goes to Heaven and is with Abraham, but the rich man is seperated permanently from them:

"The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he called out, "Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame." (Luke 16: 22b-34)

There are other references, but this is enough to be going on... and the last reference even had fire in it.

littlemanpoet

05-03-2006, 09:29 PM

The question is whether in either case we are dealing with a 'fact' about the Primary World, or a particular Secondary World. Speaking as an Introvert I'd tend to give priority to a Secondary World over the Primary one.

Of course, the Primary World is also in some ways an amalgam of all our Secondary Worlds - we invent our own model of 'reality' which we project onto the things around us - we tell ourselves a story about it. The 'real' world has no colours, sounds, tastes, textures. Quantum theory tells us that all that is 'really' out there is energy. Our brains interpret that sea of energy & invent the colours, sounds, etc. 'I' exist as a character in my own invented secondary world, the one my brain has put together.

LMP, Formendacil & others 'really' see a fallen but redeemed creation when they look at the world. Many others see nothing of the sort. What happens though is that we get so caught up in our 'Secondary World ' that we forget that we're dealing with a fantasy.
We need to distinguish between how davem is using the phrases Tolkien coined, from how Tolkien used them. The difference is subtle but profound.

Tolkien meant, by Secondary Reality, a mental construct, passed, by means of the written word (in Tolkien's case), from the author's mind to the reader's mind, in order to engender Secondary Belief.

Secondary Belief is the act of entering into a story one reads, knowing it is not primary reality, but engaging the story as if it is while in the act of reading.

Willing Suspension of Disbelief, by contrast, is the act of choosing not to get derailed by a lack in either the story or the reader's ability to engage the story, in order to .... engage the story.

davem means a mental construct, created in the mind of the perceiver, by means of the senses from Primary Reality to the mind, engendering - by nature - Primary Belief.

As I said, a subtle but profound difference. Tolkien coined the phrases in order to shed light on story and the reading of stories. davem is using these same phrases in a way that confuses things; without the intention of doing so, I would bet. However, there are perfectly adequate words and phrases to describe what davem is really talking about: "world view; weltanschauung; philosophy of life".

Primary Belief is believing something to be real. It is unhealthy to have Primary Belief regarding Secondary Reality. Of course, what davem is more or less saying is that we're all delusional and we might as well enjoy it and let each other have the delusions of our choice. Sorry, that's not good enough.

I refuse to believe in a God who tells someone to "kill thirty-one kings in all" (Joshua 12), or who appoints misogynistic jerks as his mouthpieces (Paul).Thank you for kindly offering yourself as an exemplar of my contention that belief is a choice one makes. I am figuring that the pejorative appelation "jerk" is meant to be something that always is linked to "misogynistic", in which case we can dispense with it and concentrate on the main point. Note, first, though, that this is a psychological illness to which you are giving a moral valuation. In other words, what is being said here is that God is morally inferior to the one who refuses to believe because of the misogynist mouthpiece and the killing command. Now: (1) how is Paul a misogynist? (2) what are the facts of the case regarding the 31 kings? (3) How can a creature be morally superior to its creator?

Let me be clear: I sincerely believe that Christianity is the BEST way to Heaven. It is the easiest way, the way deliberately outlined by God as the RIGHT way. It offers benefits and help that no other path has.

Formendacil, are you sure this is what the Latin-rite Church believes? If so, it has sadly left the path of orthodoxy, accomodating itself to something it should not. I'd appreciate it if you could produce documentation, because I think you're incorrect.

That's all I can manage for now. Alatar, I'll respond to your post when I get a chance.

Formendacil

05-03-2006, 10:24 PM

Formendacil, are you sure this is what the Latin-rite Church believes? If so, it has sadly left the path of orthodoxy, accomodating itself to something it should not. I'd appreciate it if you could produce documentation, because I think you're incorrect.

You are, likely enough, right. What I'm trying to express is the idea that God is the final judge of who's going to get into Heaven or not- and that he's going to judge all of us individually- based on what we've done, not on what membership cards we've held.

If I say that only Christians are going to get into Heaven, then why shouldn't I say that only Catholic will get into Heaven? After all, the Catholic Church is the Right Church, and the other Churches are in contravention with the Church Christ established?

It says in the Bible that is better to be hot or cold than lukewarm. I find it a good deal more consistent for God to allow into Heaven a firm, if misguided, Moslem than a lukewarm "Catholic".

Anyone who has heard what the Church teaches and rejects it is definitely in much graver moral peril than someone who has never heard, but I have great difficulty in believing that one HAS to a Christian (or, by extension, a Catholic) to get into Heaven.

davem

05-04-2006, 02:48 AM

Primary Belief is believing something to be real. It is unhealthy to have Primary Belief regarding Secondary Reality. Of course, what davem is more or less saying is that we're all delusional and we might as well enjoy it and let each other have the delusions of our choice. Sorry, that's not good enough.

Maybe you're right - should we start with you? From my perspective you are clearly 'delusional'. At the moment I'm happy for you to keep your beliefs, but if we can only have the one 'true' belief you better start putting up your barricades.

I'm absolutely certain my 'weltanshauung' or belief system is as delusional as anyone elses. But I'm equally sure that all religions & philosophies are secondary worlds created in the minds of individuals & passed on either via the written word or via sermons, rallies or TV etc.

Of course, the problem comes when individuals confuse the primary with their own secondary worlds, but I'm sure we all do that - Tolkien himself certainly did, referring to certain individuals as 'Orcs' or to Satan as 'Sauron' ('Its a dangerous business, stepping into a Secondary World - if youdon't keep your common sense there is no knowing where you might end up.

I'd say that's what you've done - found yourself a Secondary world that you like so much that you've confused it with everday reality & I've no doubt you believe I've done the same. If there's a difference between us its probably just that I acknowledge I've done that.

Still, as long as we're both happy in our delusions, what's the problem?

drigel

05-04-2006, 07:42 AM

I think I see davem's point. The fact that no one on this plane of existence is actually one with God (which would be Primary belief), we all, in a sense live in a state of Secondary belief.

But, the author, in proposing the idea of primary/secondary world, I construe was implying that the whole act of creating a secondary world is a gift from God. Actually praising (complementing, validating) the Creator. The secondary world is impossible without the primary, and at least in the authors case, the primary includes the authors primary belief of a higher power in the Christian and Catholic sense.

alatar

05-04-2006, 08:46 AM

Still, as long as we're both happy in our delusions, what's the problem?
Here's the problems:
When I cannot speak of my secondary world for fear of retribution, and
When belief in a secondary world kills.

If you want to believe in Balrog wings and elves and lycanthropy and feng shui and pyramid power and Atlantis and God and the Devil and all things in between, well, have at it and enjoy. When I respectfully and humbly say that one, some or all of these notions are bunk, and suddenly must fear for my life as the pitchforked mob is coming, then I think we have a problem. If you believe that God will heal your child of X, and I have a scientifically proven cure for X that you will not utilize and the child suffers and dies, then we have a problem. If I wanted a bridge built, I would ask the help of an engineer (one with a proven track record) than someone who simply really really believes that with the help of Oompa-Loompas that he/she can do just as well.

Getting the placement of your keyboard, mouse and monitor 'just right' is a bit of an art, and no two persons would arrive at exactly the same configuration, just like when interpretting John's words in Revelations, or when considering why Peter Jackson spawned his Uruks from mud, or what really made Gollum fall. We can fill in with Art that which we cannot definitively nail down.

But for somethings, we'd better arrive at the same answer or one of us is wrong. The Mars Climate Orbiter crashed as someone confused imperial units for those metric. Oops!

Not even science has all of the Answers, but with a free market place of ideas and thought, for those physical/materials things within its scope we will continually arrive at the Truth (an approximation, as some of you well know ;) ).

And lastly, the first part of this (http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060428/BUSINESS01/604280348/1003/BUSINESS) article, coincidencely published today (spooky! :eek: ), gives a glimpse into why we do what we do.

davem

05-04-2006, 09:33 AM

I think the point is that, in effect, all philosophies, religions, worldviews begin as 'secondary worlds'. They may be in intention models of the primary world, but they all begin as fantasy worlds, same as stories.

What we refer to as 'myths', 'legends', folktales, were in origin models of the primary world. They only became 'secondary' worlds when they were replaced by a different model - one which may have subsequently been replaced by yet another.

Of course, a 'secondary' world may (as in the case of Middle-earth) have always been intended to be a 'secondary' world - though its possible that some mad dictator may attempt to make the primary world like M-e through genetic engineering & landscaping, etc.

The point being, a 'secondary world' can be the model of the primary world which you have in your head at this moment. If my model of the Primary does not match yours then effectively we do not inhabit the same, 'primary', reality, do we? Hence, all our 'primary' worlds are a step away from reality & are therefore 'secondary', inventions that are either unique or shared with a few others ('living shapes that move from mind to mind'). In other words, LMP's 'primary' world (Christianity) is, to me, a 'secondary one' as it is one that is only 'real' in Tolkien's 'secondary' sense, no more rooted in the primary than is M-e.

littlemanpoet

05-04-2006, 09:48 AM

If my model of the Primary does not match yours then effectively we do not inhabit the same, 'primary', reality, do we?In brief, if you are Cartesian, then no. I'm not Cartesian. I don't exist in my head. I exist in reality. I'm pretty sure you do too. So regardless of what model is in your head, where you really are is still the primary world, even if you don't choose to believe it.

alatar

05-04-2006, 10:03 AM

I think the point is that, in effect, all philosophies, religions, worldviews begin as 'secondary worlds'. They may be in intention models of the primary world, but they all begin as fantasy worlds, same as stories.
I'm with you. I would just want these models to be not only explanatory but reliably predictive if they are used in certain arenas. If you always got rain after sacrificing a virgin to the volcano, then maybe you have something there I can use.

Of course, a 'secondary' world may (as in the case of Middle-earth) have always been intended to be a 'secondary' world - though its possible that some mad dictator may attempt to make the primary world like M-e through genetic engineering & landscaping, etc.
Dagnabit, davem, quit spying on me! Engineering elven ears is hard enough without having Monday morning geneticists telling me that they're not pointy enough (or too pointy) or should look more like cabbage leaves. Shhh!

The point being, a 'secondary world' can be the model of the primary world which you have in your head at this moment. If my model of the Primary does not match yours then effectively we do not inhabit the same, 'primary', reality, do we? Hence, all our 'primary' worlds are a step away from reality & are therefore 'secondary', inventions that are either unique or shared with a few others ('living shapes that move from mind to mind'). In other words, LMP's 'primary' world (Christianity) is, to me, a 'secondary one' as it is one that is only 'real' in Tolkien's 'secondary' sense, no more rooted in the primary than is M-e.
I'm no philosopher or deep thinker, but think that we all work with a projection of the real world within our heads. You and I see the same wavelength of light and think 'orange' - even if I see it as grey and you see it more yellow than red. We have our own pretty little universes between our ears, and it's amazing that when they bump up against each other that there's any congruence. But we've worked that out for some things and not for others.

davem

05-04-2006, 10:30 AM

In brief, if you are Cartesian, then no. I'm not Cartesian. I don't exist in my head. I exist in reality. I'm pretty sure you do too. So regardless of what model is in your head, where you really are is still the primary world, even if you don't choose to believe it.

Define 'reality'. Is it where my body is, or where my mind is?

Define 'mind'. Is it limited to 'reality' - ie the 'primary' world, or can it also exist in a secondary world?

Am 'I' my mind, or my body, (or my soul or my spirit)?

drigel

05-04-2006, 10:44 AM

Hence, all our 'primary' worlds are a step away from reality & are therefore 'secondary', inventions that are either unique or shared with a few others ('living shapes that move from mind to mind'). In other words, LMP's 'primary' world (Christianity) is, to me, a 'secondary one' as it is one that is only 'real' in Tolkien's 'secondary' sense, no more rooted in the primary than is M-e.
It's still all about perception. Or, levels of voluntary hallucination. :)

But if one subscribes to this line of thought, I still say the concept of a higher power could still fit in the picture. In other words -

The point being, a 'secondary world' can be the model of the primary world which you have in your head at this moment. If my model of the Primary does not match yours then effectively we do not inhabit the same, 'primary', reality, do we?
Then our primary should also be derived from a higher model. Or, again in other words, from whose head did our primary spring from? Otherwise, we are the ultimate masters of the universe, or delusional animals.

:p

davem

05-04-2006, 11:08 AM

Then our primary should also be derived from a higher model. Or, again in other words, from whose head did our primary spring from? Otherwise, we are the ultimate masters of the universe, or delusional animals.

Not sure this follows – the use of 'higher' in this context is possibly a bit misleading as it implies superiority – a 'higher' power etc. There's no reason to bring in a 'higher' mind.

Of course, I don't deny the possibility of such a 'being'. I've had experiences which could be labelled 'psychic' or 'mystical' (which, incidentally, I neither believe nor disbelieve – or even attempt to 'explain' come to that. They were simply 'experiences'. Quite possibly part of my particular 'delusion').

I wouldn't consider myself a 'master of the universe' (not while Lalwende is around) & my natural humility (which other Downers will vouch for) inclines me more towards thinking of myself as a 'delusional animal'.

Laitoste

05-04-2006, 11:10 AM

Thank you for kindly offering yourself as an exemplar of my contention that belief is a choice one makes. I am figuring that the pejorative appellation "jerk" is meant to be something that always is linked to "misogynistic", in which case we can dispense with it and concentrate on the main point. Note, first, though, that this is a psychological illness to which you are giving a moral valuation. In other words, what is being said here is that God is morally inferior to the one who refuses to believe because of the misogynist mouthpiece and the killing command. Now: (1) how is Paul a misogynist? (2) what are the facts of the case regarding the 31 kings? (3) How can a creature be morally superior to its creator?

Firstly, I'd like to apologize for my use of the term "jerk". It was inappropriate, and I had let my emotions run away with me. It is my gut reaction to Paul, for more reasons than just misogyny. So again, I apologize.

However, the fact still remains that Paul was unsympathetic towards women, with no good reason. In 1 Corinthians 14:34, he says:

As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

My marginal notes for this passage consist of: WHAT?!! Now, when we discussed Corinthians in my Romans and Early Christians class, many of my classmates wanted to simply forgive Paul for this clearly antifeminist text on the basis of history. Well, that doesn't work. People, in general, don't look at the Bible in a historical context. It has been abused, and is still being abused, to push political agendas (slavery, homophobia, etc). Furthermore, there is no Biblical precedent for this behavior. In fact, in the letter to the Romans, chapter 16, Phoebe, “our sister”, is listed as a deacon, and a Junia is mentioned as an apostle. According to the footnotes, in many translations, “Junia” is actually mentioned as “Junias”, a male Latin name that was not used among the Romans at that time. The earliest manuscript the editors used actually reads, “Julia.” If a woman was preaching the Gospel, how can Paul even imagine saying that “women should be silent in churches”? (Another good place to look for Paul’s attitudes about women is 1 Timothy; however, many scholars doubt the authenticity of this text.) To me, this obviously denotes a misogynist, and not a very observant one, either.

About Joshua: these kings happened to be in the way of the Israelites. They inhabited the land that the Israelites wanted, and were therefore eliminated. For example:

So Joshua burned Ai, and made it forever a heap of ruins, as it is to this day. And he hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening; and at sunset Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree, threw it down at the entrance of the gate of the city, and raised over it a great heap of stones, which stands there to this day. Joshua 8:28-29

There is even one passage where one of the Israelites takes a few ornaments from the treasure gathered from Jericho, causing “the anger of the Lord [to burn] against them” (Joshua 7:1). This causes the Israelites to lose their next battle, and eventually, “all Israel stoned him to death; they burned him with fire, cast stones on them, and raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day” (Joshua 7:25). Now, in my class on Jihad and the Crusades, we were required to read this at the beginning of the term so as to understand where the medieval holy violence was coming from. They used texts like these to completely massacre various populations of “unbelievers” in Europe and the Levant. It is simply repulsive.

To answer your third question, littlemanpoet, a creature cannot be morally superior to its “creator”, if such a being exists. However, once a creature starts acting in morally repugnant ways in the NAME of that creator, another creature is perfectly free to make moral judgments on those actions. It is wrong to kill another human being. It doesn’t matter if you do it in the name of God or not, it’s wrong either way. It is wrong to try to repress the ideas of others. If God exists, it would, theoretically, not be possible for humankind to be morally superior to it. On the other hand, we don’t have proof God exists, and have even less proof that this God has commanded people to do anything at all, so it is very easy to use God’s name to commit morally wrong acts. I think it is clear that anything that is a basic human rights violation is wrong. I would like a clarification, however, of what you mean by “psychological illness.” To what are you referring?

Finally, to restate my personal beliefs: I do not yet know if there is a God, but if there is, God will not be found in “holy texts” such as the Bible. The Bible was written by men, even if it was “divinely inspired.“ Men (and women, to be gender-inclusive) are apt to get things wrong. If God is to be found anywhere, God is in collective worship, such as in a church, or in nature. There is some value, I think, in people gathering to worship together. The only issues surface when these groups become hateful and intolerant towards other groups. But respectful, collective meditation, prayer, and song can be good for one’s mental state. It just doesn’t work for me, as much as I love the liturgy of the Lutheran Church (which is pretty much the same as in any other liturgical church, like the Catholic or Episcopalian Churches). As I said in my previous post, I cannot believe in the God of the Hebrew-Christian Bible. That God has been twisted and changed from its original form, whatever that was. That God has been manipulated by humankind, and is, in my opinion, no longer a god.

EDIT: I used the New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV with Apocrypha 3rd Edition. The footnotes and introductions are amazing. :D

drigel

05-04-2006, 02:04 PM

Not sure this follows – the use of 'higher' in this context is possibly a bit misleading as it implies superiority – a 'higher' power etc. There's no reason to bring in a 'higher' mind.
Nor should there be a reason to deny a higher power. Except the absense of humility. Or, instead of asking: "..... from whose head did our primary spring from?", I should have asked "From whose loins did our primary spring from?" Higher Mind is misleading and not what I was striving for there. Power would be more apt.

Dont get me wrong, im just suggesting here.

Of course, I don't deny the possibility of such a 'being'. I've had experiences which could be labelled 'psychic' or 'mystical' (which, incidentally, I neither believe nor disbelieve – or even attempt to 'explain' come to that. They were simply 'experiences'. Quite possibly part of my particular 'delusion').
Or quite possibly a touch of something of a higher nature than yourself. Your "labels" might be substandard in describing the context of what you experienced.

:)

davem

05-04-2006, 02:47 PM

Nor should there be a reason to deny a higher power. Except the absense of humility. Or, instead of asking: "..... from whose head did our primary spring from?", I should have asked "From whose loins did our primary spring from?" Higher Mind is misleading and not what I was striving for there. Power would be more apt.

Dont get me wrong, im just suggesting here.

I wouldn't deny the possibility, but I don't think 'belief' helps there. You can believe in any kind of 'higher power'. I think its dangerous to stray into the area of 'intelligent design' without more support than the 'God of the gaps'. I can't explain how the primary world came to be, but I don't think that's sufficient justification for positing a Creator.

Or quite possibly a touch of something of a higher nature than yourself. Your "labels" might be substandard in describing the context of what you experienced.

:)

They might well. The danger is that you construct (or adopt) a very convoluted 'belief' in a 'God' to account for your experience. Just because you experience something doesn't mean you can explain it accurately. I & a man living 1,000 years ago both experienced seeing the sun on the eastern horizon at dawn, at different places in the sky throughout the day & on the western horizon at evening, but we interpret the experience in different ways. For him the Sun moved around a stationary earth, for me its the opposite. All I know is what I actually experience.

drigel

05-04-2006, 03:00 PM

I wouldn't deny the possibility, but I don't think 'belief' helps there.
totally agree. but, if you replace belief with humility, I think it would help there

I think its dangerous to stray into the area of 'intelligent design' without more support than the 'God of the gaps'. I can't explain how the primary world came to be, but I don't think that's sufficient justification for positing a Creator.
Inteligent design for me is a mistaken approach. It's lost it's purpose by its very format. Good science, like good information cannot be competed with. I am not defending that strategy, but I dont science will ever fill all the gaps either.

For him the Sun moved around a stationary earth, for me its the opposite. All I know is what I actually experience.
Ahhh but you learned that. Your experience is tainted with what you have read (and believed) from a book. Unless you have a space craft that you havent informed me about, and havent invited me on board (yet).
:)

davem

05-04-2006, 03:14 PM

Ahhh but you learned that. Your experience is tainted with what you have read (and believed) from a book. Unless you have a space craft that you havent informed me about, and havent invited me on board (yet).
:)

Exactly my point. We both experience the same thing but interpret it differently according to what we know & what we choose to believe. We may both be wrong.

Of course you can come on my spacecraft. I will need a cheque for $10,000 first, though. I'll let you have the address to send it to if you're interested.... :p

littlemanpoet

05-04-2006, 09:03 PM

And who can thwart the will of God?Anyone to whom God has given free will and chooses against Him. This is so because God does not take back this most fundamental of gifts; to do so would be to undo the very threads of human reality.

When someone in the scientific community proposes a theory that cuts across the accepted paradigm, this person may be ridiculed, shunned, persecuted etc by the establishment. It happens, as we are dealing with humans who are prideful, in fear of change, desiring personal power and stability over openness, slothful...along with many other virtues and vices. However, eventually the truth will win out. Goodly objective people lend a hand, obstinate personalities die out, as does their power and influence, and so we move science and everyone with it over to the new paradigm. Shortly thereafter, the cement comes, forms the new floor and starts to solidify, making the new bosses much like the old bosses.This is why intelligent followers of Christ like science; it's in touch with reality.

Is the truth robust enough to handle a little shaking?Yes. :)

I find it funny that the DaVinci Code has caused any uproar, as it has been resoundly debunked by both the Christian community and the pagan skeptics. Yet some Christians still doubt, which makes me think that either they do not really know what they believe, tend to believe in anything rather easily without evidence, or have not or are trained not to ask for the evidence.While I'm not familiar with DaVinci Code (yet), there are many followers of Christ who are ruled by their fears; which is sad. Their faith is weak and they feel that they can be waylaid by such things (Harry Potter's another example :rolleyes:). Because fear rules them, they can't think very clearly. It's a shame.

Why a writing of clearly a lunatic, full of hate against anyone not being a) a male b) thinking the same way he did, was incorporated into the holy text preaching love and solidarity?).Wow. You seem to have pretty much made up your mind about the man already. Are you talking about Paul the apostle? Could you provide examples of the hate?

the doctrine of Hell was not anything particularily popular - if even outspoken - in the early Christianity. It became a subject of discussion (and an idea to frighten people with) only on medieval times. And thence should be seen as an invention of the medieval clergy, more than an original Christian stance, or a teaching of Jesus!Well. Matthew 8:12; 2 Thess. 1:9; Romans 2:1-10; 2 Peter 2:4; Matt. 10:15&28; Matt. 5:29,30.

It says in the Bible that is better to be hot or cold than lukewarm. I find it a good deal more consistent for God to allow into Heaven a firm, if misguided, Moslem than a lukewarm "Catholic".This reminds me of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, the Calormene who sought Tash but really sought Aslan, not knowing it. I've always been rather enamored of the idea. I'm not sure whether it's true or not, but it's attractive. I do agree with your point that God is the judge, not some organized church's set of doctrines. Oh! and regarding "paraphernalia": I have a higher view of the sacraments than that word may connote. God's grace is communicated to us through the sacraments and many other rituals of the church, even icons. It's important not to confuse the things with the source of the grace, of course.

(post 175 next), much hie me to bed.....

davem

05-05-2006, 10:57 AM

Anyone to whom God has given free will and chooses against Him. This is so because God does not take back this most fundamental of gifts; to do so would be to undo the very threads of human reality.

But according to Christianity God does intervene. Miracles happen. The problem is that God will intervene quite eagerly sometimes & simply refuses to do so at others. If God never intervened it would not be a problem, but because He does intervene we have a right to ask why He doesn't bother in so many cases.

This is why intelligent followers of Christ like science; it's in touch with reality.

But Genesis states the Universe was created in six days approximately 6,000 years ago while science tells us it was about 15,000, 000,000 years ago. Science tells us life evolved & that humans & modern apes share a common ancestor. It also tells us that people can't walk on water & that dead bodies cannot come back to life. Its not 'scientific' to accept science until it conflicts with some aspect of your belief & then say ' well, that's a miracle.' Science attempts to explain the Universe without recourse to miracles.

alatar

05-05-2006, 02:15 PM

But according to Christianity God does intervene. Miracles happen. The problem is that God will intervene quite eagerly sometimes & simply refuses to do so at others. If God never intervened it would not be a problem, but because He does intervene we have a right to ask why He doesn't bother in so many cases.
That's one of my issues with the paranormal, God and all things supernatural. If you cannot predict with even a little certainty what could happen, then how can you determine anything? For example, if one were to pray for a certain event, and if the event happens, then one would say that the prayer was answered. If, however, the event happened awry, then either the prayer did not work, was not received or the event was determined not to be God's will and so the prayer was heard and answered but in the negative. It's not easy to test the divine, but it's easy to say that the test was passed after the fact when any answer will do.

Frank Herbert (of Dune fame and my other favorite author) collaborated on a series of books, the first being The Jesus Incident. Not his best work, but one thing within I found interesting. A woman, traveling through time with the assistance of God, is an eyewitness to the Crucifixion of the Christ. Jesus, of course, is aware that she's not as she appears to be. Afterwards, safe back in her own time, she finally comes to the realization of why Jesus was hung on the tree (besides for the Redemption of Humankind). The crowd was hoping to get God to tip His hand. Even if this meant their immediate destruction, for a moment they would know.

Religion begins where men seek to influence a god. The biblical scapegoat and Christian Redeemer are cast from the same ancient mould--the human subservient to an unpredictable universe (or unpredictable king) and seeking to rid himself of the guilt which brings down the wrath of the all-powerful.
--Raja Flattery, The Book of Ship
I thought that interesting.

But Genesis states the Universe was created in six days approximately 6,000 years ago while science tells us it was about 15,000, 000,000 years ago. Science tells us life evolved & that humans & modern apes share a common ancestor. It also tells us that people can't walk on water & that dead bodies cannot come back to life. Its not 'scientific' to accept science until it conflicts with some aspect of your belief & then say ' well, that's a miracle.' Science attempts to explain the Universe without recourse to miracles.
That's one of the problems with the religious science, as embodied in Intelligent Design. In ID, you have point A (i.e. Genesis) and point B and must to connect the two. In non-ID, you have point B and you attempt to work back to some point A. Are scientists free from already having a point A in mind which they desperately try to get to? I'll admit that that happens as well, but in that case one can argue with the person, whereas one cannot ask God for His notes etc.

Can't tell you the number of times I wanted to throw my TV out the window while watching some religious science (hmm, it'd be fair to note that this throwing behaviour is triggered by other topics as well ;) ). Watched one show where a "scientist" showed how the decay rate of uranium changed just after the flood. Also have read that the spead of light has slowed, and that light from distant galaxies was given a head start so that we could see the light that has traveled millions of light years to get here. All that and more to connect A to B.

Would have loved to have the chutzpah, on one of my exams, to set up the problem to a certain point, then state that there was some divine intervention, and just provide the answer.

davem

05-05-2006, 03:29 PM

Watched one show where a "scientist" showed how the decay rate of uranium changed just after the flood. Also have read that the spead of light has slowed, and that light from distant galaxies was given a head start so that we could see the light that has traveled millions of light years to get here. All that and more to connect A to B.

Robert Anton Wilson makes the point that you might as well say that the whole universe was created three minutes ago, including us & all our memories of it being older. Its not scientific, because it can't be disproven - I'd like to see anyone actually prove that Wilson's example is false. If you're going to bring an all powerful creator in as an explanation for things you can put forward any mad theory forward, but, hey, whatever lights your candle.

I take Herbert's point - I'd be tempted to push God to the limit just to get Him to admit He's there, even if it was the last thing I ever experienced. It seems to me that believers go to such extremes to construct reasons why God doesn't openly reveal His existence because they're afraid He doesn't actually exist. If a parent behaved the same way with their children, hiding from them, & dropping dubious 'hints' which may or may not 'prove' he's really there we'd either dismiss him as a fool or charge him with cruelty - particularly if he had left notes around threatening them with death if they didn't believe he existed & worshipped him regularly.

EDIT Must thank Bethberry for referring me to The Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/)

drigel

05-05-2006, 07:16 PM

FSM hehe
the essense for my faith is what is inside my heart, and what goes on between my soul and the other souls who cross my path, physically or otherwise. The rest - eh.... Ill side with science.

Bêthberry

05-05-2006, 09:40 PM

Perhaps I can drag this back to Tolkien .... :p

Please correct me if I have the wrong interpretation, but it seems to me that people are understanding 'miracle' merely as something which violates the natural order or principle of the material, physical universe.

However, if 'miracle' is understood as something that occurs other than what was expected, the concept of miracle can be related to Tolkien's idea of eucatastrophe. Think for a bit about the destruction of the Ring. Was Frodo's desire not to throw the Ring into Mount Doom a violation of natural principles or expectations? No, most readers understand that by that time he had come completely under its influence. Is Gollem's jump and the violence of his act to take the Ring a violation of our expectations? No, not at all. Competely what we would expect of him at that point in the story.

Wherein lies the unexpected? In his inadvertent fall into the volanco, taking the Ring with him. Is this contrary to physics? No. Is it, according to Tolkien's explanation of eucatastrophe, something not foreseeable which brings 'piercing joy', a result completely unexpected? I think so. It is the sort of thing which demonstrates--as others have argued elsewhere--Providence.

And that appears to be the essential nature of miracles, that they have an effect unexpected, a working out of things which does not in itself automatically or essentially mean a violation of the material world. And in the eyes of believers, demonstrate God's Providence. Something happens completely other than what we expect, and that something brings about a change. Evil is not destroyed forever in Middle-earth, but a balance has been altered.

So, if one accepts Tolkien's concept of eucatastrophe, must one accept the concept of miracle?

I assume davem got a laugh out of the FSM, a form of comedic political activism which I told him of in Private Message as something not unrelated to his idea of personal mythologies. I hope others can see the humour in the letter and the situation without being offended--the desire to avoid offending people is why I referred davem to it in private message rather than here.

littlemanpoet

05-05-2006, 09:58 PM

Maybe you're right - should we start with you? From my perspective you are clearly 'delusional'.Fine with me. I'm glad the truth is out. You think I'm 'delusional', I think you're deluded. Even - - - sort of. "de = un; ludens = light" - - - deluded = unenlightened; delusional = given to lack of enlightenment. Fair enough.

Tolkien himself certainly did, referring to certain individuals as 'Orcs' or to Satan as 'Sauron'Do you really think he was getting confused? Isn't it quite obvious that he was drawing analogies to make points?

I'd say that's what you've done - found yourself a Secondary world that you like so much that you've confused it with everday reality & I've no doubt you believe I've done the same. If there's a difference between us its probably just that I acknowledge I've done that.So basically what you're saying is that you admit to having lost touch with reality, and my problem is that I haven't admitted it. ;) But there's another difference. I've experienced positive changes in character directly attributable to this "delusion"; from bitterness to joy, despair to hope, confusion to clarity, et cetera. Any delusion that can do that, is one that I'm quite content to 'stay in the dark with'.

The fact that no one on this plane of existence is actually one with God (which would be Primary belief), we all, in a sense live in a state of Secondary belief.Which is to say that since we do not have union with God, we're all in a state of not knowing the truth. True as far as it goes, but I have chosen to believe, and with great reward, that God has in fact revealed Himself in such a way that we CAN know him, through Jesus. Care to test Him on it?

Still, as long as we're both happy in our delusions, what's the problem?
Here's the problems:

* When I cannot speak of my secondary world for fear of retribution, and

* When belief in a secondary world kills.Good points, alatar.

[/quote]I think this reveals what must result from a point of view that chooses against belief in the God of the Bible. Being that you're such a decent fellow, davem, yours is what I would call a conscientioushedonism: "Eat, drink, and be happy," and live well so that you can live with yourself while you live, "for some day we die and that's it". Makes perfect sense, nothing relativistic about it. Quite rational. And sad in its ultimate despair. It makes sense therefore to treat life as a big smorgasbord of ideas, trying out this, then that, but committing to none, since none really can satisfy that ultimate craving that lies in the depth of our being.

Not even science has all of the Answers, but with a free market place of ideas and thought, for those physical/materials things within its scope we will continually arrive at the Truth (an approximation, as some of you well know ).[/quote]As I said, intelligent Christians like scientists, because at least they're in touch with the reality they can be in touch with.

And lastly, the first part of this article, coincidencely published today (spooky! ), gives a glimpse into why we do what we do.Quite an excellent article, and something that has always been a part of my mental package since I was about 9 (for reasons I'd rather not go into right now); vigilance, self-knowledge, fooling myself as little as possible about what's really going on, no matter how bad it looks or feels. I wasn't always successful, but to the degree I succeeded, it did not do me harm.

I'm no philosopher or deep thinker, but think that we all work with a projection of the real world within our heads.How is it that all humans agree about so much of what's out there? It's as if we're 'wired' to engage the world. Come now! This Cartesian "i think therefore i am" business really has not done us much good at all. Science would have continued quite successfully without it. It has created a subjective versus objective split (thank you, Greeks :rolleyes: ) that only gets worse with time and has resulted in such relativistic non-reason-promoting reasoning as has done nothing but confused westerns.
it's amazing that when they bump up against each other that there's any congruence.What should be amazing is that there's so little in-congruence.

Define 'reality'. Is it where my body is, or where my mind is?Reality = God + what God has made.

Define 'mind'. Is it limited to 'reality' - ie the 'primary' world, or can it also exist in a secondary world?A secondary world is by Tolkien's definition (he did coin the term after all) a feigned reality. I don't accept your use of the term, nor should anyone else. What you mean is 'world view'. Thus: Is 'mind' limited to reality, or can it also exist in a feigned world? A feigned mind can exist in a feigned world. Simple enough.

Am 'I' my mind, or my body, (or my soul or my spirit)?You're not in it; you are all of it combined. We westerns run the risk of divorcing our thinking the more from reality with every distinction we make; all the more important it becomes to stay in touch with reality.

It's still all about perception.This is true if you choose not to have any certainties in life. That's also a choice. God has revealed himself. God has been born a human and lived and died and risen and made it possible for us to have unity with God, and to begin to learn from God what is real and what is false. And yes, a higher power can break through our limited perception, if we choose to let it.

Laitoste: Your apologies are accepted and unnecessary. :) You are addressing two issues at once. (1) Paul's supposed anti-feminism; (2) how moderns are abusing Paul's words. It's not Paul's fault that modern abuse his words. The only way the Bible should be read is be taking account of historical and cultural context. God certainly doesn't want us to turn off our brains! Misogynist - woman hater, correct? I have a hard time imaging that a woman as successful and obviously intelligent as Lydia would be willing to give ear to an obvious woman hater.

As to your contention regarding the Bible, I have discovered through experience how God speaks onto the written page through dictation. Make of that what you will.

Regarding the 31 kings, I'm not supposed to explain that ... yet ... or at least, not here.

So yes, you are going to have to see me either as delusional or on target. Take your pick. Anybody up to test God? You don't have to believe in God to do it...

The Bible was written by men, even if it was “divinely inspired.“ Men (and women, to be gender-inclusive) are apt to get things wrong.This is something you're probably going to choose not to believe, but the people to whom God spoke God's word had already gotten to know God well enough such that they were ready 'instruments' to get God's message right.

I think its dangerous to stray into the area of 'intelligent design' without more support than the 'God of the gaps'.I agree.

For him the Sun moved around a stationary earth, for me its the opposite. All I know is what I actually experience.Surely you're not suggesting that you might be wrong? That this is merely a matter of perspective? Come now....

But according to Christianity God does intervene. Miracles happen. The problem is that God will intervene quite eagerly sometimes & simply refuses to do so at others. If God never intervened it would not be a problem, but because He does intervene we have a right to ask why He doesn't bother in so many cases.This comes back to the Church. For 'some reason', God wants prayers to be made, which He answers. This is his preferred mode. I know the reason, but I don't want to say just yet....

But Genesis states the Universe was created in six days approximately 6,000 years ago while science tells us it was about 15,000, 000,000 years ago.Ever heard of "figurative"?

Science tells us life evolved & that humans & modern apes share a common ancestor.Science tells us that as far as can be determined by current methods, life evolved, et cetera.

Science attempts to explain the Universe without recourse to miracles.As it should. Miracle is God's action. God cannot be controlled by scientific experiment, and is therefore necessarily outside the domain of science. That does not mitigate the fact that science is a useful and viable means of gaining knowledge about the world.

It's not easy to test the divine, but it's easy to say that the test was passed after the fact when any answer will do.It's impossible to scientifically test the divine. I've already explained why.

The crowd was hoping to get God to tip His hand. Even if this meant their immediate destruction, for a moment they would know.On their own terms, not His. Very insightful of Herbert. I read that book. Very strange, very interesting.

'Intelligent Design' has an ulterior motive. Whereas I happen to agree with their contention, I think they're foolish and wrongheaded for trying to do what they're doing in the way they're doing it. It's "being Saruman to fight Sauron". Doomed.

It seems to me that believers go to such extremes to construct reasons why God doesn't openly reveal His existence because they're afraid He doesn't actually exist.If you have found that to be true of me, I would appreciate having it pointed out so that I can get my head straightened out about it. The fact is, God did & does openly reveal His existence; most of us lack the perception to receive it. Sin. Quite simply, really. Nothing extreme or elaborate about that. Merely offensive to the human ego, that's all.

Legolas

05-05-2006, 10:50 PM

As Bethberry has pointed out, this thread has gone way past Tolkien...please pull your thoughts back around to how they relate to the original question, or some subsequent, Tolkien-related point.

Digressions on who thinks who is delusional are misplaced.

davem

05-06-2006, 02:39 AM

Now, I don't deny the possiblity of an afterlife, of God, or even that Christianity is 'True'. I'm merely saying that there is no proof for any of them. My position is difficult to defend, admittedly, as I have had what could be called 'mystical' experiences. What I try to avoid is constructing complex theories to account for them.

Look, I've used tarot in the past & I know it has worked. There are various theories as to why. The 'traditional' theory is the 'Angel of the Tarot' - ie an Angel communicates the truth about the future through the cards. A jungian would call it synchronicity. A fundamentalist Christian would say it was demons attempting to lead me away from God. All I actually know is that for me Tarot worked.

As to the six 'days' of creation. It is possible to take 'days' figuratively. Except that in the Ten Commandments we are told to rest on the seventh day because God made the world in six days & rested on the seventh, so clearly God was referring there to actual days as we understand the term.

I don't take Bethberry's point on miracles. A 'miracle' must be something that cannot be accounted for by natural, scientific 'laws' - ie walking on water, dead bodies coming back to life, virgin births, etc (Occam's Razor should be applied here.

I also have to say that this is in no way off-Tolkien & I suspect that Tolkien would be joining in here with gusto. Certainly it is off Middle-earth, but I'm sure Tolkien considered God more important than Middle-earth. I'm pretty sure what we've been discussing here would be very close to the discussions the Inklings had pre-Lewis' conversion. And I have to add that if Tolkien had felt the same way as Legolas Lewis would never have converted, there would have been no Narnia, no Mere Christianity, no Screwtape Letters, Great Divorce, etc, etc.

It seems important to LMP that I & others adopt their worldview, as though that would in some way confirm its 'Truth'. I don't see this at all. There was a time when all our ancestors believed the earth was flat, but it wasn't. Certainly, I accept that reality is a certain way & not a whole lot of different ways all at once - in Chesterton's words:

4) Don't say, "There is no true creed; for each creed believes itself right and the others wrong." Probably one of the creeds is right and the others are wrong. Diversity does show that most of the views must be wrong. It does not by the faintest logic show that they all must be wrong. I suppose there is no subject on which opinions differ with more desperate sincerity than about which horse will win the Derby. These are certainly solemn convictions; men risk ruin for them. The man who puts his shirt on Potosi must believe in that animal, and each of the other men putting their last garments upon other quadrupeds must believe in them quite as sincerely. They are all serious, and most of them are wrong. But one of them is right. One of the faiths is justified; one of the horses does win; not always even the dark horse which might stand for Agnosticism, but often the obvious and popular horse of Orthodoxy. Democracy has its occasional victories; and even the Favourite has been known to come in first. But the point here is that something comes in first. That there were many beliefs does not destroy the fact that there was one well-founded belief. I believe (merely upon authority) that the world is round. That there may be tribes who believe it to be triangular or oblong does not alter the fact that it is certainly some shape, and therefore not any other shape. Therefore I repeat, with the wail of imprecation, don't say that the variety of creeds prevents you from accepting any creed. It is an unintelligent remark. (see http://www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/gkc13038.htm

All I'm saying is that I've seen no proof that one weltanshauung is truer than any other. Certainly there is one 'Truth' about Reality, but there are multiple attempts to explain it. One of those attempts may actually be True - its possible. But I'd say that to adopt one of those based purely on 'belief' is to live in a delusion. As another fantasy writer, Gene Wolf, put it: 'Belief insults the mind - a thing is either true or it is not.'

I see little difference between saying Middle-earth is 'Christian' & saying Christianity is 'Middle-earthian'. Christianity is a 'secondary world' which only (as far as scientific proof goes) exists only in the mind (whether that was the intention or not) of believers. I've read of people who believe Middle-earth was really this world in some ancient period of history. If we all believed that the 'secondary' world would suddenly become the Primary, secondary belief would become primary belief. At the end of the movie The Time Machine (the 60's version) the main character returns to the distant future permanently, taking three books with him to a world that has none. Its not stated which books. Suppose he had taken LotR, TH & The Sil & told no-one they were fiction. Would they not likely be taken as historical accounts?

For all I know Christianity may have been the invention of a bunch of drunken Greek philosophers who were a bit bored one night. Certainly the Gospels were not written as 'reportage' - John even states 'These things were written so that you might believe' - in other words he's not simply stating facts objectively so that people might think for themselves. (Robert Anton Wilson in Illuminatus depicts a painting of Moses coming down from the Mountain holding stone tablets on which were inscribed the words: 'Think for yourself, schmuck!)

littlemanpoet

05-06-2006, 08:36 PM

As to the six 'days' of creation. It is possible to take 'days' figuratively. Except that in the Ten Commandments we are told to rest on the seventh day because God made the world in six days & rested on the seventh, so clearly God was referring there to actual days as we understand the term.The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the original point; 'a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day' .... therefore, the two are analogous and the day-eon can be used as a prescriptive for the day-24-hours-long.

I also have to say that this is in no way off-Tolkien & I suspect that Tolkien would be joining in here with gusto. Certainly it is off Middle-earth, but I'm sure Tolkien considered God more important than Middle-earth. I'm pretty sure what we've been discussing here would be very close to the discussions the Inklings had pre-Lewis' conversion. And I have to add that if Tolkien had felt the same way as Legolas Lewis would never have converted, there would have been no Narnia, no Mere Christianity, no Screwtape Letters, Great Divorce, etc, etc.Hear! hear! :)

It seems important to LMP that I & others adopt their worldviewYes.
as though that would in some way confirm its 'Truth'.No. I've never been more certain of my world view as I am now; in fact, this discussion has strengthened my certainty. I want you to know the joy I've discovered.

Good quote from Chesterton. In summary, ONE of the world views has be true.

All I'm saying is that I've seen no proof that one weltanshauung is truer than any other. Certainly there is one 'Truth' about Reality, but there are multiple attempts to explain it. One of those attempts may actually be True - its possible. But I'd say that to adopt one of those based purely on 'belief' is to live in a delusion. As another fantasy writer, Gene Wolf, put it: 'Belief insults the mind - a thing is either true or it is not.'I disagree, of course, with Gene Wolf. Belief is unavoidable. To stay on the fence regarding all beliefs is not humanly sustainable. Everyone believes somthing about ultimates. It's impossible not to. Whether you're confident about your beliefs, that's another story.

I see little difference between saying Middle-earth is 'Christian' & saying Christianity is 'Middle-earthian'. Christianity is a 'secondary world' which only (as far as scientific proof goes) exists only in the mind (whether that was the intention or not) of believers.Not so. The primary reality of Christianity has been demonstrated over and over to me.

Scientific proof of Christianity is indeed impossible (although a very intelligent Christian friend of mine disagrees with me). Juridical proof is not. There are two kinds of juridical proofs: (1) proof beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) proof by weight of evidence. Obviously, beyond a reasonable doubt is much to be preferred to mere weight of evidence. When I say that my faith has been demonstrated over and over to me, I'm speaking of beyond a reasonable doubt. Too many things have built up a case for it such that to refuse to believe it would be the height of foolishness on my part.

For all I know Christianity may have been the invention of a bunch of drunken Greek philosophers who were a bit bored one night.There is documented proof that this cannot be the case.

Certainly the Gospels were not written as 'reportage' - John even states 'These things were written so that you might believe' - in other words he's not simply stating facts objectively so that people might think for themselves.John's and the other gospel writers' purpose was to persuade. That doesn't make their works 'not reportage', but reports designed to show what they knew to be the truth.

There is much in the bible that will seem dead, boring, unbelievable, or unpalatable, precisely because the reader has refused to entertain the possibility of God on the bible's terms. For the reader who does entertain this possibility, the rewards will be few but available, because that is only a first small step. If the reader allows that God speaks through the words of the bible, more will be understood, about life, God, and self. If the reader agrees that God inspired the bible, and that it, being the Word of God, has power to change lives, the reader will be changed. If the reader accepts the bible as true, including most especially the way of repentance from sin into life in Christ, the reader's eyes will be opened and the reader will understand that much which s/he had thought was natural, is revealed as fallen and unredeemed. If the reader receives the fire of the Holy Spirit, the Words of the Bible will come alive on the page, and new meanings before unseen shall be seen, and realities before unknown, will become known.

Now, the above could be written off as "well, it's all wish fulfillment". To believe that is a choice one may take; but to one's own detriment in the here and now at least.

Regarding 'Consciously in the Revision':

One obvious revision is the chapter, Riddles in the Dark from The Hobbit, as most here are well aware. I quote:

So they came to a dead stop. Gollum had brought Bilbo to the way out after all, but Bilbo could not get in! There was Gollum sitting humped up right in the opening, and his eyes gleamed cold in his head, as he swayed it from side to side between his knees.

Bilbo crept away from the wall more quietly than a mouse; but Gollum stiffened at once, and sniffed, and his eyes went green. He seemed to be crouched right down with his flat hands splayed on the floor, and his head thrust out, nose almost to the stone. Though he was only a black shadow in the gleam of his own eyes, Bilbo could see or feel that he was tense as a bowstring, gathered for a spring.

Bilbo almost stopped breathing, and went stiff himself. He was desperate. He must get away, out of this horrible darkness, while he had any strength left. He must fight. He must stab the foul thing, put its eyes out, kill it. It meant to kill him. No, not a fair fight. He was invisible now. Gollum had no sword. Gollum had not actually threatened to kill him, or tried to yet. And he was miserable, alone, lost. A sudden understanding, a pity mixed with horror, welled up in Bilbo's heart: a glimpse of endless unmarked days without a light or hope of betterment, hard stone, cold fish, sneaking and whispering. All these thoughts passed in a flash of a second. He trembled. And then quite suddenly in another flash, as if lifted by a new strength and resolve, he leaped.You know what happens next. The italicized section is the temptation. The first underlined section is Bilbo's conscience at work. The bold is new insight; it could be argued that this new insight finds Bilbo a passive receiver ... that is, he receives the insight; from where? Inside himself? Perhaps. But the second underlined section is clearly passive. Bilbo is lifted by a new strength and resolve. It's not something that he generated for himself, it was something he received. In other words, it was given to him. By whom? It has all the earmarks of grace received. This is beyond the ability of the Valar, and can only come from one Source. Thus, this is an example of 'consciously Christian in the revision'.

davem

05-07-2006, 02:44 AM

You know what happens next. The italicized section is the temptation. The first underlined section is Bilbo's conscience at work. The bold is new insight; it could be argued that this new insight finds Bilbo a passive receiver ... that is, he receives the insight; from where? Inside himself? Perhaps. But the second underlined section is clearly passive. Bilbo is lifted by a new strength and resolve. It's not something that he generated for himself, it was something he received. In other words, it was given to him. By whom? It has all the earmarks of grace received. This is beyond the ability of the Valar, and can only come from one Source. Thus, this is an example of 'consciously Christian in the revision'.

Of course, that is the revised version (I gave the original version here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=425039&postcount=10) So we are dealing with a change after the event. Tolkien is attempting to integrate TH into the Legendarium at this point, & Bilbo's story has changed, as has his character to an extent. I suppose it could be argued that the the fairy story world of TH has now been absorbed into the 'High, mythological world' of The Sil. (& changed for the worse in the process, some of us would argue). Bilbo has become a more 'Christian' hero & is now responding in a more 'Christian' way.

Yet, one could argue that these changes are not necessarily 'Christian' at all - we find the same kind of acts of 'compassion' in the heroes of fairy story. The change in Bilbo's character is necessitated by the change in Gollums', due to LotR, not by the need to make Bilbo more 'Christian'. The more of a 'victim' Gollum becomes the more understanding & compassionate Bilbo must become - or perhaps one could say the less of a 'monster' Gollum becomes the more 'human' Bilbo must become. Circumstances alter cases.

littlemanpoet

05-07-2006, 01:33 PM

Quite, davem. If this was the only evidence of "consciously Christian in the revision", it would be a weak case.

Now, I don't have the Christopher Tolkien books about Tolkien's process of writing LotR, but I've read them. I recall that the sudden deepening in his original draft occurred when Tolkien got to Weathertop, and he determined that he needed to start all over from the beginning with the new deepening taken into account. Therefore, it is logical to say that this new deepening is NOT "consciously Christian in the revision", but what Tolkien saw it to be: a more serious and adult story than The Hobbit had been.

Not having the HoME volumes, I can't check them against the final version in my possession. So I'd be interested to learn from those of you who do, how the original versions go compared to those that I quote as potential signs of "consciously Christian in the revision". But for now I must go do some research.

davem

05-07-2006, 02:14 PM

We started discussing the earlier drafts of LotR here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10847) but didn't get too far. Some interesting observations though.

Where I have a problem is with your apparent contention that Bilbo's display of compassion in regard to Gollum is a sign of Christian inspired revision, or that the new 'depth' in later drafts is either.

I don't see this at all - merely that Tolkien realised that far from writing a sequel to TH, aimed at children, he was writing for a more mature audience (even if that 'audience' was mainly himself, Christopher & the Inklings).

I just can't see this 'consciously so in the revision'. I suppose what we've been discussing on the 'Gandalf' thread could be put forward (Gandalf was originally not intended to die in Moria, but Tolkien later decided to have him die & be brought back to life). Also, Tolkien stated: (in Lobdell: 'A Tolkien Compass)

'The fellowship ... left on December 25th, which then had no significance, since the Yule, or its equivalent, was then the last day of the year & the first of the next year. But December 25th (setting out) & March 25th (accomplishment of the quest) were intentionally chosen by me'

'A guide to the names in LotR'

But these seem the most 'blatant' examples. I suppose one could argue that the language of later parts of LotR are quite 'Biblical'. All in all, though. I can't see any really specifically 'Christian' elements or changes introduced. Of course, it depends what Tolkien meant by 'Christian'. Lembas, as he acknowledged to one correspondent, is more than 'applicable' to the Host, Elbereth shares many aspects with the Virgin Mary, etc, but these things seem to me very superficial & someone with no knowledge of the book would not need to know anything about Christianity or make that connection to understand the book. If the Christian element has been absorbed into the story it has been absorbed so effectively that it is unnoticeable to most readers - & my suspicion is that the 'Christian' elements most Christian readers find in it are not ones that Tolkien put in ('Aragorn looks like Jesus').

Focus on self-sacrifice, compassion, humility, mercy, are hardly uniquely 'Christian'. Elbereth could well be an 'image' of the Virgin Mary, but she could also be an 'image' of Isis or Don.

Repeating myself, but its only a belief that Christianity is the Archetype from which all other myths devolve that leads to seeing these aspects of the story as 'Christian' revisions. Actually, they are simply 'mythical'.

littlemanpoet

05-07-2006, 02:32 PM

Where I have a problem is with your apparent contention that Bilbo's display of compassion in regard to Gollum is a sign of Christian inspired revisionThat is why I said that taken by itself, it is not enough.

or that the new 'depth' in later drafts is either.You misunderstood me.
it is logical to say that this new deepening is NOT "consciously Christian in the revision", but what Tolkien saw it to be: a more serious and adult story than The Hobbit had been.

But these seem the most 'blatant' examples.I intend to bring forth the consciously Christian subtext.

Focus on self-sacrifice, compassion, humility, mercy, are hardly uniquely 'Christian'. Elbereth could well be an 'image' of the Virgin Mary, but she could also be an 'image' of Isis or Don.However, Tolkien was not a follower of Isis or Don; he was Christian. I'm basing my research on his contention that his Christian understanding of reality pervades the subtext of LotR.

davem

05-07-2006, 03:11 PM

However, Tolkien was not a follower of Isis or Don; he was Christian. I'm basing my research on his contention that his Christian understanding of reality pervades the subtext of LotR.

From a Jungian perspective your first point is arguable, however, I'll leave it there.

Look, I accept that Tolkien considered LotR a fundamentally Christian work. I also accept that you, Formendacil, & others do also. The point is that for most readers it isn't that. If Tolkien did 'absorb' the Christian elements into the story he did this so effectively that they are unrecognisable to those who aren't looking for them. He has boiled 'Christianity' down to its bare bones: self-sacrifice, compassion, humility, mercy - concepts which can be found in just about any serious religion & not specifically Christianity. The dates he subtly introduces (Guide to Names), the style (Authorised Version of the Bible) will either not be noticed by most readers or any similarities will be deliberately ignored. If they could not be ignored, if they were necessary for understanding the story, we would be dealing with a form of allegory.

LotR is a great work of Art, Middle-earth is a true Secondary World, because it is self-contained & not dependent on the Primary world for explanation.

I don't doubt that you can find a 'consciously Christian subtext' to LotR. I'm saying that's irrelevant, because most readers will take no notice of it even if you point it out to them. If this 'subtext' is there to find is it uniquely Christian, things absolutely absent from every other religion or philosophy, or will you claim that, while it is a 'Christian' subext the fact that those things can be found in other religions/philosophies/myths are down to the fact that they are all drawn from Christianity?

My point here is that even if you do manage to prove the existence of a 'consciously Christian subtext' in LotR (I could probably do that myself if I felt inclined, as could any reasonably educated person) only Christians are likely to care. If someone proved there was a planet circling a star in the Andromeda galaxy that was made of cream cheese would you care one way or another? I don't why you'd want to do it, other than for intellectual exercise. Do you really think its likely to convert anyone? Its been done so many times in recent years - see my earlier post (no 36)on how many books I have on the Christian themes/symbols in LotR (& I don't have all the ones that have been published by any means) - that I don't see why you shouldn't repeat the excercise, but neither do I see why you'd want to.

I'm basing my research on his contention that his Christian understanding of reality pervades the subtext of LotR.

I'm sure it did, but it doesn't pervade mine. I try to approach the story with as little baggage as possible; if I'm leaving all mine at the door I'm damned if I'm going to carry yours (or his) in with me.

Lalwendë

05-07-2006, 04:13 PM

I think davem is right that the subtext is only really of relevance if you want it to be. From my own experience, Tolkien's work caused me to reject the church and find other meaning to life. I still think his work resonates deeply at a pre-Christian level, whether we wish to call that pagan or not. That essence struck me as I read it for the first time, and is possibly one reason why I was immediately taken with it. It rang true, but it was a wholly different true than what I learned in church.

However, I know that many readers will just not see that in the work. I also know that many readers will not see any deeper meaning, even if they do love the book. I also see it as an incredibly modernist work while others see it as a medieval revival of sorts. I like pondering the scientific explanations of what happens in Tolkien's world, others think it takes away the magic. Fair enough. :)

What Tolkien intended or did not intend is irrelevant really, as few of us would know the slightest thing about that when we first read his work. All we have to go on are our own impressions of it. And for a Christian to read it and then start to question their faith, demonstrates that even if Tolkien did intend it to have a Christian message, it wasn't ever going to get over to every reader.

My answer is that no one faith has the monopoly on the great things we pinpoint about Christianity - trust, honour, courage, honesty, hope etc etc. (nor does Christianity have the monopoly on the difficult things such as sacrifice, suffering and sin). Those great things are just great things about the very best in humanity, they are Universal, and we respond to them whoever we are and wherever we are going in life and spirit.

As a Christian Tolkien of course reflected what was great about his belief in his life work, but they are not exclusive to his faith; nor did he lay it on with a trowel and tell his readers what to think. He was anything but didactic. You really can read it your own way, because those messages are understood by all good people.

littlemanpoet

05-07-2006, 07:53 PM

davem & Lalwendë, I understand your points and appreciate them. There are minor points that I disagree with, but over all I don't. Therefore, I will indeed pursue this course that I've laid out as an appreciation of Tolkien's LotR from a Christian point of view. There are things that I think may not have been said yet, at least not to others here at the Downs. If you wish to take part, feel free. If not, that is your decision and I will of course respect it. .... but it may take a while for me to do all of this seeing as I'm moderating a certain (ahem) game on another part of this forum.... :rolleyes:

davem

05-08-2006, 07:23 AM

The main problem with showing a 'consciously Christian subtext' to LotR is that it is too close (imo) to implying the thing is an allegory. Even if you avoid doing that you're still treating it as a 'secondary' thing, in that you are putting it in service of something else, not treating it as a thing in itself. Effectively you are moving it from work of Art to 'parable'.

Now I can see that it is possible to read it in that way, but that will not actually 'prove' anything that we don't already know. I could construct an 'unconsciously Pagan subtext' to LotR. I could also show it is nothing more than what it appears to be (what Tolkien himself claimed it to be in the Foreword). I daresay I could also 'show' it was a genuine historical document translated by Tolkien & therefore it is 'actually' a factual work with no religious or philosophical subtext. At a push I could probably also show it was a 'received' text communicated psychically to Tolkien by Aliens from the planet Tharg.

I just don't see the point in doing any of those things. A Christian reader will pick up on the Christian subtext (they'd probably pick up on it even if Tolkien hadn't put one in there), a non-Christian won't care even if you do demonstrate it.

My own feelings change in regards to the work. If I'm in the mood I can read it in the way you imply, but I try not to do so, because what that approach does is to treat it as a 'code' to be translated – it doesn't mean what it says, it 'actually' means something else entirely.

What I don't understand is why you feel such a 'need' to prove it’s a Christian work – is it just because this work is so important to you, or do you do this with everything you like? Or are you using LotR to try to gain converts – in which case you are doing something I'm not sure Tolkien would have approved of at all. If the Bible doesn't convince people why do you think showing a Christian subtext to LotR will? Or do you just simply want to prove its there? If that's the reason I'm not sure anyone is going to argue that Tolkien didn't put in a Christian sub-text in there for those who want to find it.

What's far more interesting to me is that so many readers are so profoundly moved & affected by the work without being aware of the Christian sub-text. I suppose you'll argue that that's because they are 'really' responding to the work's Christian sub-text without realising it (like the Athenians worshipping the 'True' God without realising it) & that's why they're moved. Personally I'm not convinced by that, as its rather like me saying that people are moved by hearing The Magic Flute because they are secretly picking up on the 'consciously Freemasonic subtext' & they are Freemasons without realising it (hence 'proving' Freemasonry is 'True'). No. They're moved by The Magic Flute for exactly the same reasons as by LotR – because of what it is, not because of something its concealing.

Bêthberry

05-08-2006, 07:37 AM

They're moved by The Magic Flute for exactly the same reasons as by LotR – because of what it is, not because of something its concealing.

Ah! But we could have a notion of art as strip tease, wherein the power of its tantalising features lies in the adroit way it plays with both concealing and revealing what it is. :D

davem

05-08-2006, 08:11 AM

Ah! But we could have a notion of art as strip tease, wherein the power of its tantalising features lies in the adroit way it plays with both concealing and revealing what it is. :D

My feeling is that true Art opens us to a deeper experience of 'life, the universe & everything, But it doesn't do that 'at one remove' (ie by 'concealing' a Christian sub-text which then opens us up to that deeper experience). Introducing a Christian sub-text in the way LMP wishes to do moves us farther away from that depth experience, rather than bringing us closer to it.

In other words, I'm suggesting LotR(1) conceals/reveals that Deeper sense of 'reality' (Eucatastrophic experience leading to 'transcedent' experience)(2) while LMP seems to be suggesting LotR(1) conceals/reveals Christian 'Truth'(2), which 'Truth' then conceals/reveals that Deeper sense of 'reality' (Eucatastrophic experience leading to 'transcendent' experience)(3).

So LMP is introducing an unnecessary stage into the process as far as I can see.

alatar

05-08-2006, 01:43 PM

Look, I've used tarot in the past & I know it has worked. There are various theories as to why. The 'traditional' theory is the 'Angel of the Tarot' - ie an Angel communicates the truth about the future through the cards. A jungian would call it synchronicity. A fundamentalist Christian would say it was demons attempting to lead me away from God. All I actually know is that for me Tarot worked.
I cannot let this pass without comment ;). Seemingly it is easier for some to believe in the works of their own hands than for a creator for the universe (Isaiah 2:8). Not sure what davem means by "Tarot worked," but I can think of many ways for it to have provided a satisfactory result yet be completely non-supernatural (i.e. cold reading, vague answers that are interpretted as correct by the mark, etc). Found a link that was a little hard on the eyes and addled with a bit of crude language, but summed it up pretty well. I can provide the link to those so interested. This link (http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/coldread.htm) is more professional and very informative but not as funny. My point is that we can fill in the gaps with just about anything that is consistent within its own secondary world, but for the most part, there's a simpler more mundane explanation.

Back in the day a fellow lab rat talked about going to see a psychic. She'd seen the psychic at a party and the psychic was presumably the real deal. I was skeptical ( :eek: ) and suggested that before she blew the $30 for the reading that she ask one question of the psychic. "I have placed an object significant to me in a room in my house. What is it and where is it? Write out the specific room and the exact object on a piece of paper in front of both of us. I will not utter another sound and will not look at either you or the paper until you are finished. Any attempt to get me to speak or move will invalidate the test. I cannot give you $30 and expect to hear of my future until you've completed this simple task."

Of course the woman did not pre-test the psychic and handed over the money ("I see that you are getting ripped off..."). She told me of the revelations and stated that the psychic told her things that she just couldn't have known otherwise. I showed that I could do the same thing, but she knew that I was 'cold reading' and so that wasn't the same. And I noted that months later, regardless of the pretzel-logic used, none of the future came true.

Why don't we seek to test? It's been posited that if I tried to sell you a flask that would forever flow wine, ale or tea, you would tell me to take a hike. If, however, I said that the same flask could help your stereo speakers sound better by simply sitting atop them, or when spun tell the future, or if strapped to your wrist would help any pains that you might have that I might be able to become rich. In this thread we've considered some things that are beyond the ken of science/testing. Does God exist? Did He enter history? There's just no way to test these things. But tarot?

Ar-Pharazôn, the brash wise king who humbled Sauron, could not resist the Call of the Ban. Wise fool, with a little test he could have averted disaster. The Valar, in their silliness, set up the Ban to protect men from entering Aman, something that was just not permitted and would actually be hazardous for men. What were they thinking? Like in Eden, if you tell us not to go somewhere or do something, you just know what's going to happen. YHWH should have known better; Manwë was a poor leader - but that's not my point. Here we have the unknown, the Banned seas. Ar-Pharazôn had access to knowledge that the Ban might actually be for mankind's protection, and so should have sent a small party to see just what would happen to those who placed their feet upon Aman's jeweled shores ("Good idea, Sauron, and so maybe *you* should lead the way..."). A palantir may have come in handy. Sure, he would have technically broken the Ban, and most likely would have been destroyed, but if the Valar would have truly been wise, then they would have permitted the test so that, once and for all, it would have been observed that Aman was fatal to humans.

Yes, I know that in a few lifetimes that even those who had seen would have forgotten, but better to have permitted a test than to leave a big gap which attracts all kind of fantasies and horrors.

Please correct me if I have the wrong interpretation, but it seems to me that people are understanding 'miracle' merely as something which violates the natural order or principle of the material, physical universe.

However, if 'miracle' is understood as something that occurs other than what was expected, the concept of miracle can be related to Tolkien's idea of eucatastrophe. Think for a bit about the destruction of the Ring. Was Frodo's desire not to throw the Ring into Mount Doom a violation of natural principles or expectations? No, most readers understand that by that time he had come completely under its influence. Is Gollem's jump and the violence of his act to take the Ring a violation of our expectations? No, not at all. Competely what we would expect of him at that point in the story.
Miracle is a pretty big word. If you think about it, it's even bigger in Middle Earth. Why? We have a world where Balrogs have dragons for pets, and eagles fight with angels. The threshold for something to be a miracle, therefore, is much much higher than it is in our more bland world.

And just how eucatastrophic did Sauron think Gollum's fall to be? Isn't that word/idea slanted to the side of the good? Was the Fall of Fingolfin another eucatastrophe, but from the other point of view?

davem

05-08-2006, 03:17 PM

Alatar, Tarot works. I've studied it & used it, therefore I know it works. Sorry if accepting this would shake the foundations of your Weltanshauung. Actually, I'm not concerned whether you or anyone else believes in tarot, astrology, I ching, Faeries, or anything else, because I'm not out to convert anybody to anything. That was absolutely not the point I was making. The point was I tried Tarot with an open-minded attitude & it worked. That does not prove any particular theory about tarot. It is simply a 'fact'. I can't explain how or why it works. I don't 'believe' anything about it other than that it worked when I used it.

You apparently have a belief system that requires Tarot not to work. I don't even have a belief system that requires it to work. It just worked.

The wider point was the way we accept or reject things based on our underlying weltanschauung rather than approaching life in as unbiassed open-minded way. I'm not even saying it will work if I use it again, just that when I used it it worked.

Ok. true story. I once saw a UFO. I was watching what I thought was an aircraft moving through the night sky. It travelled in a straight line & then suddenly moved at a right-angle (it didn't 'turn', just stopped & moved on at 90 degrees). It then carried on for a while & instanly turned at a right-angle again.

I have no idea what it was. Maybe it was a space-craft. Maybe it was an atmospheric phenomenon. Maybe it was an angel. Maybe I was deluded. The point is I have no idea what it was, but I experienced it & have no explanation to offer. I could have adopted any of those theories & explained it away. I'm not prepared to do that though. It just happened. I've met faeries & an angel & I've seen 'across time' at a stone circle. But I don't hold any complex theories to account for those experiences, because I'm not interested in doing so.

What fascinates me is the way people adopt complex belief systems (whether religious or materialistic) which will not permit certain things to actually exist, so that they have to construct all kinds of convoluted reasons as to why they're 'fake', or have to account for them in terms of 'Fallen Angels' mating with humans &/or animals or other equally outlandish 'theories'.

I'm sure you could put together a fascinating 'explanation' as to why my experiences happened (if only that I'm a bit of a looney or a liar), but I'm not interested, because your theory would merely be your attempt to fit my experiences into your reality. I'm not interested in putting together my own explanation so I definitely have no interest in anyone else's.

'Cold Reading' is simply an attempt to show you're cleverer than someone else - they're just so dumb that they can't see what's glaringly obvious to you. The fact that you can fake something doesn't in any way prove that every instance of that thing is a fake. People fake everything from dollar bills to Rembrandts - does that prove that all dollar bills & Rembrandts are fakes?

alatar

05-08-2006, 03:52 PM

My apologies, davem if you took my post as another of the 'the poster's deluded' kind.

My point is that there are things that we can test. Your UFO experience is not one of those. It happened and may never occur ever again. We'll never know, and, as you, I really don't care what persons believe about it.

Your tarot experience is another thing entire. You may be done with it, but it shows that you believe that 'something worked.' I assume that your future was foretold? How does that work? Is there a 'future' out there that can be read? Does the future already exist?

Did the reader provide some clairvoyantly-acquired information? If so, in what medium does that information travel?

Whatever. I just thought it interesting that you discount the existence of a god yet seemingly accept a magical universe. And don't worry about my world view; if you say it works, then that's good enough for me. Just like others have belief systems that work for them (and me ;) ), we all exist, as I think you said, in our own secondary worlds. In my world, if I cannot test it, then it's not that interesting...unless I'm discussing it on a web forum. Sometimes the explanation is not angels nor devils, quantum mechanical vibrations or auras, but that we do not yet know.

Gaps indeed.

And regarding cold reading: in the example that I gave I was not showing how much better/smarter I was (I have a lot to learn and always try to keep that in mind), but that there is a simpler explanation for 'psychic abilities.' Same with faith healers. The point here is that scientists are as blind as the rest of us, and we may be expert at some things, but there are areas in which we are wide open to the fake.

Because we want to believe so much, we do not see clearly. I do it too (though am too proud to ever admit it).

Humans create paintings and dollar bills. Some are legit; some not, and some so cleverly made that it's hard to tell the difference. All are made by people just like you and me. So why do we seek to limit the abilities of humans (benign and otherwise)? Why cannot psychic abilities simply be someone adept at reading people and telling them what they want to hear? Nope. Too mundane. Have to add the supernatural to really sell it.

Maybe Ar-Pharazôn knew, down deep, that Sauron was playing him for the fool and that crossing the Ban would be his downfall. But did his pride take hold, driving out his rationality, making him believe even his own lies?

Lalwendë

05-08-2006, 03:59 PM

What fascinates me is the way people adopt complex belief systems (whether religious or materialistic) which will not permit certain things to actually exist, so that they have to construct all kinds of convoluted reasons as to why they're 'fake', or have to account for them in terms of 'Fallen Angels' mating with humans &/or animals or other equally outlandish 'theories'.

This is why I am not part of an organised religion. I wish to experience the world and learn about it, including its mysteries, and come to my own conclusions.

I am skilled in Tarot reading, it is one of the many 'tools' I have used to examine myself and the world around me. The cards are not random images but Universal images, and to really read them you need to go into the layers of meaning, the numbers, the symbols, the representations from many religions (including Christianity). A reading will as often as not turn up cards which cannot be fully interpreted as these things have not yet happened; a 'cold reading' could not account for these or make up theories as to what they might be. Those things may not even happen if we choose to follow advice given or not.

I love science and love trying to explain things with scientific theories. But even if science could explain why Tarot works as it does, it still would not take away the fact that as an experienced reader, it gives me a kind of insight I cannot get elsewhere. Even if it is 'merely' a meditative tool, it is a very effective one. I suppose the fact that I use this is partly why I do not deride anyone for their faith; a lot of us follow seemingly illogical paths.

davem

05-08-2006, 04:22 PM

Did the reader provide some clairvoyantly-acquired information? If so, in what medium does that information travel?

I'm afraid I was that 'reader'. I read for myself & gained a deal of insight into myself - which is the main purpose of Tarot.

Whatever. I just thought it interesting that you discount the existence of a god yet seemingly accept a magical universe. And don't worry about my world view; if you say it works, then that's good enough for me. Just like others have belief systems that work for them (and me ;) ), we all exist, as I think you said, in our own secondary worlds.

I neither accept nor reject a 'magical universe' (or of a God either). I have had 'experiences' which are part of my universe (magical or not).

So why do we seek to limit the abilities of humans (benign and otherwise)? Why cannot psychic abilities simply be someone adept at reading people and telling them what they want to hear? Nope. Too mundane. Have to add the supernatural to really sell it.

I don't see why they shouldn't be. But neither do I see proof that are. I'm really not all that interested in explaining things away. Its boring for one thing. I'd rather live in a universe that includes Elves & Fairies, Tarot & Astrology, but that's just me. I want mystery, the unknown. That's my main problem with restrictive 'religions' & belief systems. I like the idea of turning a corner & meeting an angel, or laying out cards & learning something I didn't know. I have no desire either to have them 'explained' to me by a religious or or explained away by a scientist, because what both are saying is that I can only have them on (if at all) their terms.

alatar

05-08-2006, 04:29 PM

I don't see why they shouldn't be. But neither do I see proof that are. I'm really not all that interested in explaining things away. Its boring for one thing. I'd rather live in a universe that includes Elves & Fairies, Tarot & Astrology, but that's just me. I want mystery, the unknown. That's my main problem with restrictive 'religions' & belief systems. I like the idea of turning a corner & meeting an angel, or laying out cards & learning something I didn't know. I have no desire either to have them 'explained' to me by a religious or or explained away by a scientist, because what both are saying is that I can only have them on (if at all) their terms.
Guess that I'm just bitter :(. So many times in my youth I wanted to 'believe' (aliens, Bigfoot, life-after-death, magic, etc), yet time and time again when I would look a little closer - obviously a character flaw - the facade would fall flat.

Maybe that's why I like LotR so much. For a time, when reading, viewing or listening, I can actually suspend disbelief and walk in that secondary world where magic exists as the world is so well constructed that I don't see the seams. Intentionally.

davem

05-08-2006, 04:38 PM

Guess that I'm just bitter :(. So many times in my youth I wanted to 'believe' (aliens, Bigfoot, life-after-death, magic, etc), yet time and time again when I would look a little closer - obviously a character flaw - the facade would fall flat.

So for you now all the Dollar bills are fake, even the ones you haven't examined?

Remember how you felt when you thought they were 'real'? Its that feeling that matters.

I'm not sure any of the things you mentioned have been 'disproven', merely that they haven't been 'proved' (ie no gap has been found in the current scientific model to fit them into).

Personally, I like the idea of all of them, but refuse to believe in any of them. Or disbelieve in any of them come to that.

alatar

05-08-2006, 05:11 PM

So for you now all the Dollar bills are fake, even the ones you haven't examined?
If you come across any US dollar bills, I would happily examine them (and, mostly likely, report them to be fake...though we might find me suddenly a little too happy to be explained by chance.)

Remember how you felt when you thought they were 'real'? Its that feeling that matters.
I do, and thankfully my children/life stil provide me with that feeling. I need not look too far to find that sense of wonder. On the other hand, I remember all too well the feelings of betrayal when 'I'd been had.' It's a balancing act, to be sure.

Some might say that I've been betrayed not by God or the spiritual world but by their earthly exemplars, but, alas, here we are. You can even see this in my comments in the SbS, as PJ did not make the movies as I saw them (imagine that :eek: ).

Again I think that's why the books work so well; I can gloss over the errors, everything is how I would have it, and in the end, there's something in which to believe.

littlemanpoet

05-14-2006, 04:32 PM

I'm suggesting LotR(1) conceals/reveals that Deeper sense of 'reality' (Eucatastrophic experience leading to 'transcedent' experience)(2) while LMP seems to be suggesting LotR(1) conceals/reveals Christian 'Truth'(2), which 'Truth' then conceals/reveals that Deeper sense of 'reality' (Eucatastrophic experience leading to 'transcendent' experience)(3).

So LMP is introducing an unnecessary stage into the process as far as I can see.No.

Tolkien said that the purpose of Fairy Story is escape, consolation, and recovery; namely to recover a clear view. Clear view of what? Reality. What he's saying (and I think you agree) is that Fairy Story (mythic story) reveals reality better than, and in a way that, mimetic fiction cannot.

You need to understand that from my point of view there is no unnecessary stage, since Deeper sense of reality and Christian reality are one and the same.

It seems to me that believers go to such extremes to construct reasons why God doesn't openly reveal His existence because they're afraid He doesn't actually exist.It occurred to me today that the Christian subtext in LotR and the evidence of God in the world are of the same nature. In both, the "thing itself' is so pervasive and knitted into the very fabric of the sub-creation that we're too used to looking at it and don't see it for what it is. For example, God's reality is in the very fact that the sun shines by day and the stars by night. That the planets continue to spin and revolve and our hearts keep beating. We take all of it so for granted that we don't even consider that God's creative and maintaining will are behind everything continuing to work. It doesn't matter that there's a scientific explanation for all of it rooted in physics and/or biology; those are merely explanation of what we see actually happening. There is no satsifactory explanation for WHY it keeps happening the way it does. Scientists are forced to answer, "Well, that's the law of (fill in the blank)." What's behind the law? God is behind the law. In the same way, Tolkien's faith is deeply ingrained in LotR. I'll being showing this.

The Losses of the Ring show some revealing variation.

1. Isildur cuts off Sauron's finger and the Ring falls to Isildur.
2. The Ring slides off Isildur's finger at the Gladden Fields, betraying him to the murdering arrows of the orcs.
3. Déagol is murdered by Sméagol for its possession.
4. The Ring slides off Gollum's finger uner the mountain.
5. The Ring drops from Bilbo's hands; Gandalf quickly picks it up before Bilbo can retrieve it.
6. Gandalf quickly places the Ring which he places on the hearth.
7. Sam removes the chain from around Frodo's neck, thinking him dead and the errand in need of completion.
8. Sam gives the Ring back to the demanding Frodo.
9. Gollum bites of Frodo's finger and regains the Ring.
10. The Ring and Gollum melt in the fires of Mount Doom.

Gandalf, when explaining the Ring to Frodo in 'Shadows of the Past', says that Bilbo gave up the Ring voluntarily, but the narration in the previous chapter reveals a more complex situation. Bilbo 'accidentally' drops the Ring.

'You have still got the ring in your pocket,' said the wizard.
'Well, so I have!' cried Bilbo. 'And my will and all the other documents too. You had better take it and deliver it for me. That will be safest.'
'No, don't give the ring to me,' said Gandalf. 'Put it on the mantelpiece. It will be safe enough there, till Frodo comes. I shall wait for him.'
Bilbo took out the envelope, but just as he was about to set it by the clock, his hand jerked back, and the packet fell to the floor. Before he could pick it up, the wizard stooped and seizedit and setit in its place. A spasm of anger passed swiftly over the hobbit's face again. Suddenly it gave way to a look of relief and a laugh.

What causes his hand to jerk back? What causes the packet to fall to the floor? Both circumstances are laid before the reader in such a way that we understand Bilbo to be passive; one acted upon rather than causing action. So Gandalf picks up the envelope holding the Ring, and quickly places it on the hearth. Bilbo is about to get mad, but freed of the burden of the Ring, he suddenly feels relief, and laughs - he is himself again at last (or so we hope) - and leaves Bad End lighter of heart than he has been for many years.

So is Gandalf lying to Frodo when he says that Bilbo gave up the Ring voluntarily? No. Bilbo's obvious relief at being rid of it, shows that he would have given it up, if he had been able. He wasn't able. His will had become enslaved to the Ring.

There is only one voluntary relinquishment of the Ring, by Sam.

Three times the Ring is violently removed fromt its holder.

Three times the Ring falls from the hand of its holder.

Two of these times, the Ring is certainly the will at work: leaving Isildur and leaving Gollum. What about when Bilbo drops it? The sense I have is that the Ring causes Bilbo's hand to jerk back; but does the Ring cause itself to be dropped from Bilbo's hand? Does it drop in hopes of being claimed by Gandalf? Perhaps. Was it just an accident? If so, it is an unusual exception to everything we know about the history of the Ring. Or was there another will at work? If so, what will could overpower the Ring's will to remain in the hands of Bilbo? What will could overpower the Ring's potential hold on Gandalf? It's obvious that Gandalf doesn't trust himself. He is exerting all his effort to separate the Ring from Bilbo while putting every effort of will that he can spare to resist the temptation of the Ring himself! It's not Gandalf's power that gets Bilbo to drop the Ring; Gandalf doesn't dare exert his will in that way, or he will himself succumb to the Ring's lure.

So what will is this? What power? The Valar? If so, which of them has the power to overcome the will of the Ring, that even Gandalf and Galadriel fear? None of them. Is this dropping of the Ring just an accident? How many 'accidents' are there in LotR? More specifically, how many 'acidents' seem to tip the precarious scales of 'chance' toward the good of the free peoples, and away from Sauron's advantage ... if 'chance' we call it? What power is this? There is only one power, one answer that fits the narrative. Eru.

davem

05-15-2006, 04:42 AM

If you're arguing for a religious sub-text to LotR (TH, The Sil, et al) I don't disagree – as I've said. I don't think any of the examples you've cited would argue against it being a Jewish, Muslim or Hindu sub-text though. You haven't offered evidence for a specifically Christian sub-text imo.

Its impossible to argue against there being a loving Deity behind the events in Middle-earth, but apart from the reference in Athrabeth I can't see Eru bears any relation to Jehovah.

As an aside, on the news today the Government are planning to teach 'Britishness' in schools, in order to bring about a more 'integrated & co-hesive' society. Apparently this will include teaching children about 'tolerance, democracy & equality' as well as the contribution made by all ethnic groups to our culture. Now, I'm sure you'll agree that all those things are uniquely 'British' & cannot be found in any other country in the world :confused:

I can't help feeling that you're doing something similar with the examples you've given of 'Christian' themes in LotR.

Of course, one could argue that it is all down to chance, & that M-e is simply the kind of world where odd synchronicities & serendipities just happen – I'm sure many of the inhabitants believe just that, & I'm sure there are some readers who think the same.

However, even if one accepts a 'Christian sub-text' to the story all that proves is that Tolkien was a Christian & the story reflected his worldview. That said, he deliberately 'concealed' any explicit reference to his religion, which means that if you don't want to pick up on the sub-text you can safely ignore it.

The point being, the story can be understood & enjoyed without any knowledge of, or reference to, Christianity. The unique thing about Christianity is the Incarnation, nothing else. There is no actual Incarnation in the Legendarium, only a single reference to the possibility of something like that happening 'one day'. Again, most readers do not pick up on any Christian subtext, though they probably pick up on a religious one. I'm still not sure I see the relevance of it all though. And it certainly doesn't prove anything about the Primary world anyway.

There is no satisfactory explanation for WHY it keeps happening the way it does. Scientists are forced to answer, "Well, that's the law of (fill in the blank)." What's behind the law? God is behind the law.

Well, the scientists are merely being honest there & I can't see how you can criticise them for that. I don't think you can bring God into it as an 'explanation' without more evidence. That's just back to the 'God of the Gaps' again

For example, God's reality is in the very fact that the sun shines by day and the stars by night. That the planets continue to spin and revolve and our hearts keep beating. We take all of it so for granted that we don't even consider that God's creative and maintaining will are behind everything continuing to work.

Only if you want to see it that way. I'm not saying its not exactly like that, but I'm not smart enough (or, to be frank, interested enough) to decide which of the various religious or scientific 'traditions' are True.