being a christian too i would not agree with that.

yes murder is a very very bad crime. there is no excuse for murdering. one time i talked with friends about this topikc. i said i could never imagine a situation in which i would become a murder. they called me a hypocrite... but i just cannot imagine a situation in which i would kill... or give orders to kill a person which is about the same.

and if i am wrong about this... if i would kill, than i would put to death myself too... because i could not go on living with that guilt.

but does a murder deserve to be killed. to my mind not. if you kill a murder, you are a murder too.

being not only a christian, but also a man i would say that we all are sinners and that we are forgiven by gods mercy alone.

i remeber when i was and had my confirmation and i told myself "yeah, from this day on, i will never sin again" and i have sinned so many a times after that and it made me feel miserable as sin.

back then in my life situation i thought there were no other choices available to me, but i was wrong. one day a saw that there always is another choice and i turned my life around. and then i saw i had been a disgrace to me family and that i had made many good people unhappy. and i have to go on living with that. i have to tell myself "those were the choices you made". i have to deal with that.

and now: i always try to do the right thing... but don`t i sin now? of course i do. everybody does all the time.
each time you put something elese first and nozt got you sin, each time you are jealous at somebodies possesssions or somebodies life you sin, each time you smoke a cigarette you sin (because "do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? you are not your own" (1 cor. 6:19)

Recall the words of Gandalf in the Council of Elrond, "I shall roast the old fool over a slow fire". If the ring had been taken by the Nazgul, Gandalf would have killed Butterbur.

Yes, yes, but the old fellow wasn't being serious. Sure he was grumpy, but he wouldn't have done that. He was more likely to turn him into a toad and fill the garden with snakes.

I'm not sure if he meant it, as well as I am not sure that even then he would use exactly the method he named. I can hardly imagine Gandalf attacking, stunning and then burning Butterbur (not taking into account that he could hardly do so before the eyes of the townsfolk). Also note that it's Gandalf narrating, describing what he thought at that moment. It may be just "poetic licence" to express his feelings at the moment to the audience.
"Butterbur they call him," thought I. "If this delay was his fault, I will melt all the butter in him. I will roast the old fool over a slow fire."
He expected no less, and when he saw my face he fell down flat and began to melt on the spot.
It is the same way as I don't believe Gandalf wanted to "roast" Butterbur, I don't believe that Butterbur really started to "melt". "Poetic licence", as I said. Also if you look at the context, and take into account whole Gandalf's personality, I strongly disbelieve he would ever kill anyone similar to Butterbur, a simple person who just failed his duty but otherwise is okay. I can even hardly imagine him killing Men. Maybe if he was assailed by a troop of Easterlings, in self-defence, but he did not even kill any Gondorian who blocked the passage to Faramir (unlike Beregond - and not that I would even expect him to do that).

With the Ring taken by the Nazgul, & the fall of Middle Earth beckoning, there is no knowing what Gandalf could have done to Butterbur. Maybe he would have decided there was no time to lose & give chase to battle the Ring off the Nazgul before they reached Mordor.

On the other hand, Gandalf would be seen as the fool for letting all the responsibility of Middle Earth lay on a letter which Butterbur was entrusted to deliver. This is very foolish & I doubt anybody here would have done the same thing for such an important matter. The wise would acknowledge that the safety of the Ring should come first, ahead of the aid of Saruman.

Actually, if Gandalf returned to Bree and found that the Ring was taken by the Nazgul (and Barney is responsible), I doubt even more that he would waste time with him. "Fool! You don't know what you've done!" - then he'd jump on the horse and be away. And, let's face it and I say it for the last time, he would not kill anyone just like that. That what you are speaking about is NOT Gandalf. After all (and it's funny that we are returning to the main topic of this thread from the other way), he did NOT kill Gollum, who - deserved or not deserved - was surely (at least from what we know) more "guilty" than Butterbur.

Sorry for the little irony, but you here speak exactly like Saruman. Logical, technical, but it does not work like that and never worked. Saruman - and you, apparently - would have chosen some sort of similar "better" way to take care of the fate of Middle-Earth. The question what fool would let the fate of the Middle Earth lay on a forgetful bartender is exactly the same as what fool would let the fate of the Middle-Earth lay on a little hobbit. Had Saruman been there instead of Gandalf, and had he been still "on the good side" and wanted to destroy the Ring (and not used it), I am quite sure he would have planned carefully each step to Mount Doom, sent at least six Rangers and one Elf Lord (like Glorfindel) with the Ring and also send some "decoy Fellowships" to force the Nazgul to split (oh, I'm getting too far to it... lovely idea), but I doubt it would've worked. Because ultimately, he'd have persuaded the Council to choose someone else than Frodo to carry the Ring, probably a strong Man, like... for example Boromir. We don't have to press too hard on our imagination to think of what would've happened.
Sorry for the little off-topicness...

Prey, do not speak of others like you know them - stick to the Lord of the Rings, & not individual posters like Mansun, who has greater wit than you, & an education behind him that can only be bettered by Harvard or Oxbridge graduates.

I'd guess he DESERVED death. But as you said that he was the servant of the Enemy and servant of the Enemy deserves death. You're right. But he repented his own doing. This show he still had a part of him "alive." a part that wanted to come back from the swamp of evil. He deserved death, not because he was evil, but because he could no longer go on on his own(i.e. without the Ring), and his fate and life and death were tied to it. His life and death were tragedy.

Well said!

I would say that no one "deserves" death, but everybody deserves it, so what's the question? :cool: If the question is about death being a punishment or atonement for Gollum - no, I don't think it was. Consequence - yes, but even that wasn't necessarily necessary, if you get what I mean.

before i go any further,i would just like take my hat off to you downers,iv been reading your threads and posts and i was awed by all your knowledege on toilkens middle eart:cool:

No one deserves death; but you're going to get it sooner or later, deserving or not. Perhaps it was a mercy that Gollum died when he did, at a point beyond madness. Had he lived, the Nazgul would have taken the Ring from him, and it would have broken him utterly (and Frodo as well).

Hm death can be a blessed release, speaking as someone who has nursed much love parents until their deaths from cancer and dementia. When we think of not dying we imagine ourselves perpetually young and strong not held in a perpetual state of pain and fear completely beyond any pleasure. I think Gollum's death was a release from the torment of his long years. He had the ring and was happy. Possibly more than he deserved as a murderer but he was essential in the end to the triumph.

Gollum wasn't happy when he had the Ring,Mithalwen. was what Gandalf had said. This doesn't sound like being happy to me.

I think what Mith meant was that at the moment of Gollum's fall into the Cracks, he was then fully content. He had his Precious again, he was saving Frodo, for whom he actually did have some genuine affection, he was forever depriving Sauron of the Ring, and Gollum himself could die, finally free of the Ring's influence forever.

‘Precious, precious, precious!’ Gollum cried. ‘My Precious! O my Precious!’ And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell. Out of the depths came his last wail Precious, and he was gone.

I suppose that could be a credible insight into Gollum's psychology, although I can't help but think the final state of his mind might be more nearly and concisely summarized by the expression "Oh, bollocks."

Doesn't that sound like his "promise"? The promise he made to Frodo of never letting Him have the Ring.? Content thing is fine, I guess.

I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss.
I think that an effect of his partial regeneration by love would have been a clearer vision when he claimed the Ring. He would have perceived the evil of Sauron, and suddenly realized that he could not use the Ring and had not the strength or stature to keep it in Sauron's despite: the only way to keep it and hurt Sauron was to destroy it and himself together – and in a flash he may have seen that this would also be the greatest service to Frodo.

--Letter no. 246

This gives me chills! This letter has lots of information about the quest.