[mark12_30]

But I think I need some Christian input here before I draw any more parallels!

Mind if I give it a shot...?

Strider on Good Versus Ill:

....said Éomer. ‘It is hard to be sure of anything among so many marvels. The world is all grown strange. Elf and Dwarf in company walk in our daily fields; and folk speak with the Lady of the Wood and yet live; and the Sword comes back to war that was broken in the long ages ere the fathers of our fathers rode into the Mark! How shall a man judge what to do in such times?’

‘As he ever has judged,’ said Aragorn. ‘Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man’s part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.’

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I don't see rendering something holy as being the same thing as making it divine. Holiness to me means making something pure (or something being pure) without any sort of taint whatsoever.

IMO you're on the right track. "Holiness" is to be set apart, to be set aside, to be dedicated, consecrated to a purpose-- the purpose of worship, of being led to the divine. It is not the same thing as the divine.

For example, an Old Testament illustration: the Tablernacle was holy, but it was not divine; God , who indwelt it, is divine.

Everything in the Hebrew Tabernacle was holy-- but the Tabernacle was not in itself divine. It was a place set apart so that God could manifest himself there in the Holy of Holies. In other words the Tabernacle was dedicated to the worship of God, and ONLY the worship of God. You didn't use it for anything else. So it was holy; set apart; dedicated. And (in the course of that process) everything that was going to be used there had to be pure or purified (simply because God said so.) He ordered that the utensils would be made of pure metals, the flours and oils were to be untainted, the incense was of a specified mixture and none other, the priests wore special dedicated linens which they donned on entry and removed on departure, In this way the entire Tabernacle was set apart from common useage and dedicated (always and only) to the worship of God.

Being divine means...being divine. I don't think it is the same thing.

Very true.

The only problem with this definition is that if being holy also means being pure and without taint, then many of the Ainur fail, even the 'good'.

Wrong angle, I think. The point to the Ainur is that they were "set apart" to the service of Eru. They were fallible (else they would be divine.) But they were dedicated. Their mistakes were made with good intent, not in rebellion. Melkor by contrast indulged in rebellion, wanting to usurp Eru's place. Aule was dabbling in sub-creation looking for an outlet for his own fatherly heart. Big difference; and it's all in who you are serving. Aule-- wants to be like more like Master Eru, more fatherly, caring, having children to look after. Melkor-- wants to replace Eru and be his own master.

(Gollum, gleefully waving clenched fist: "Then We be the master!" )

Surely if holiness is allowable where moral/spirtual failures or mistakes have happened, then what we might see as bad traits or behaviours are actually allowable for 'holy' figures? That seems tangled to me.

It's all about allegiance of the heart, both on the large and small scale. "Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!" Yet Strider would not dismiss a man who sought to aid him but made a mistake.

Or is it a case of 'God's will'? Even if what is done by God seems wrong or cruel to us?

Oh, here's a can of worms. Maybe this should go to another thread. But it's hard to be a casualty in the grand scheme of things, isn't it? We see Eru's mercy and grace at the Sammath Naur when Gollum participates in the destruction of the Ring, but those who fell during the war never saw that moment, and may have asked "why me?" What about those who fell as the Westfold burned, those who were cut down by orcs as they fled? Doubtless to them their death seemed cruel, wrong, and pointless. Is their death the fault of Eru? Or someone else? Going back further, what about the journey across the Helcaraxe? Some of the travellers, especially women and children, must have been following loved ones, and been essentially disinterested in the oath and the Silmarils. Is Eru at fault for letting them freeze to death?

Maybe it is that anything less than Eru can never be as divine

True

or pure.

Purity of intent, of devotion, of allegiance, is different than perfection of action and behavior. Aragorn made mistakes, but we think of him as pure-hearted. Likewise Sam, Faramir, etc.

And that would include such items as Palantiri. If so, then there is a message in the creation of and the lust for the Silmarils, almost as if they are 'graven images'; and they do, after all, contain the Light within and as such are representations of it.

Yes, I agree with you (and with Kuruharan).