[Kalessin]

Gilthalion

Thank you for what I found to be an interesting post. Whatever you might think, I have a profound respect for faith and spirituality (I know this word is open to many interpretations), so I hope you will believe me when I say I found your personal reflections on the nature of your 'Christian experience' very readable, and that your convictions were well articulated. Please note also my request at the end of this (typically infinite) post.

Your main response to the various lines of reasoning in my post was the qualification -

"The true believer, who reverently studies Scripture with an open heart will have meanings divinely revealed, and will indeed appreciate them far more than the person who ... (does not - K) ... To a lesser extent, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, this will be true of Tolkien's work as well ...
I thought it was understood that ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL my assertions would hold true."

Well, this is the key point that I have been making all along. This last assertion I have no problem with - because it is inherently speculative theory. Speculative and theoretical (ie. unproven and unprovable) because 'ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL' is NEVER true. "ALL ELSE", encompassing education, culture, life experience, imagination, and so many other things that make up an individual are NEVER equal (to the same in another individual) in a way that would allow one to assume any axiomatic or a priori 'rule'.

My argument is not with your faith, or the empathic or moral depth of any Christian (or anyone else). My point is about axiomatic (or absolute) statements that are philosophically (logically) unsound which imply the superiority of one individual over another (in whatever aspect, and for whatever reason) ... an examination of history should show you why.

This point - and therefore the nub of our exchange - is not to do with statements of faith or spiritual conviction. You said -

" (being ...) born again ... describes a spiritual birth that occurs supernaturally when a person believes and surrenders to the Lordship of Jesus and thus enters into his Kingdom. This is an act of heartfelt faith. That faith, in and of itself, is a gift given by the grace of God to the open, seeking heart."

I think this is a well-worded summary, with personal and spiritual resonance, and an eloquent explanation of a particular kind (or nature) of a particular kind (or nature of) personal experience.

But the axiomatic assertion, even changed and then qualified as you have done, is problematic. If I heard the assertion that "all else being equal, well-educated people will appreciate fine art more than ill-educated people", I would challenge it on exactly the same grounds. As a loose generalisation, it might be 'anecdotally' correct, or even 'often' true. But it cannot be axiomatic.

I also notice you didn't address Maril's point that some Christians consider Tolkien immoral because of the element of 'magic'. Surely this also illustrates the logical flaws in the original assertion ... or my point about the role and purpose of the author - the skill and vision in the communicative process that allows a work to transcend 'resonant' (or "similar") worldviews. Surely Tolkien, above many, achieved that (and continues to).

You chose to address my point about the difference between one who is blind and and one who is seeing and their experience of a sunset in terms of physics/mathematics, of purely intellectual (or cerebral) inequalities. That was not the essence of my point. I was speaking about the specific perceptive act (rather than a conceptualised or rational one), in which the heightened non-visual senses of the blind person meant their experience of a sunset was as unique and valid (and could be described as equally profound) as the primarily visual experience of a sighted person. In my example, a sighted person would not have "the best of both worlds". As to whether people with sensory disabilities are missing something ... well, maybe. But we all miss things, we are all imperfect. And blindness on the inside is far more insidious - and common - than failings in the optic nerve.

Lastly, in reference to the aspect of "judging", you said -

"The act of committing Art ... CANNOT be considered in whole apart from a living appreciation for the Creator. If a reader lacks this belief ... he may well have a profound intellectual and emotional understanding, but he simply CANNOT get the same thrill. To deny it is real is willfull disbelief, an act of faith in a worldview that collapses in the face of such a fact."

My translation of your argument would be -

'If a reader does not believe that experiencing art is linked to experiencing Christianity through a deeply-held faith, he will not experience the same level of transcendent spirituality when reading works by a Christian that a reader who does hold that belief and faith will. To deny that Christians can and do experience transcendent spirituality is a false position, because it happens'

I hope that is fair. But I will try and distil more precisely -

'If a reader is not a Christian, he will not have the same Christian experience (when reading works by a Christian) as a reader who is a Christian. Non-Christians cannot deny the experience of Christians.'

Well, at the risk of reductio ad absurdam this IS, on closer inspection, a somewhat circular argument. At its heart it says 'a non-Christian will not have the same experience as a Christian'. Yes, okay, but one human being is always different enough from another human being to not have the same experience.

As you can nodoubt tell, I admit to a certain amateur fascination with philosophical reasoning (which often ends with micro-semantics). On the other hand, in the more general (or conversational) analysis of the range of influences in Tolkien's work, and the moral sensibility apparent in his books, I am not really in disagreement with much of your first post in this thread, maybe just one or two assumptions or implications. Reading back, perhaps we have painted ourselves into opposite corners, but we're probably in the same room, if you see what I mean [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

IMPORTANT : to put the whole matter into perspective ... you can read the whole of this post of mine and use the words "rich", or "white", or "old", or "Buddhist" every time I have used the word "Christian". My argument, which has to do with logical reasoning, challenging axiomatic assertion, and implications of superiority, would be exactly the same. I have no special bias or issue for or against Christianity as the particular exemplar - it's just what this thread is about.

By the way, it is worth talking. And listening. Being open-minded (and open-hearted), to any who are willing to engage in reasonable discourse. I aspire to this, and sometimes fail. Of course, I and other people seldom change their minds - or appear to, at that moment, especially when challenged. It can happen later, or unnoticed, sometimes. But the discourse itself has value, and enriches us. It's not about just scoring points. Hence my re-reading of the thread, and I hope a more sympathetic reading of your arguments. You referred above to "a final post" on this matter. But I would be gratified to at least know you had read my reply, and would naturally read any further post by you with interest.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]