Tolkien-founder of new religion?

[Lalwendë]

There are some differences between LotR and the Bible (surprisingly, ). Tolkien's work was published, was put into print, and though there have been some small differences with edited, 'new' versions, his work has pretty much been set in stone from the beginning. The Bible has had a different evolution, being translated from many other languages into the form it takes today, so much that was originally there may have been 'lost in translation'. We also have to take into account that even though scribes aimed to be faithful in what they copied, they often worked under a system of patronage and may have been required to excise unpalatable elements, according to their sponsors.

Three of the four gospels apparently are drawn from one source, which I was taught was known as 'Q', John is the exception. But Matthew, Mark and Luke were all written for different audiences. Imagine if LotR had evolved in this way. Though it does beg the question of whether, in future years, the author could be lost, and differing versions (the 10th film version, the 15th cartoon version, the sit-com, the soap, whatever the imagination may conjour up...) may dilute the original.

This is a world which in many cases is more secular, and we see people seriously calling themsleves Jedi Knights or Vampires or reincarnations of Cleopatra, so the idea of Tolkien's work forming the basis of a faith is not entirely off the wall.

[daeron]

Well Arwen, I didn't mean the Bible was modified along the centuries.
I meant, it was written to suit prefrences (in the 3rd century of so, by the church), but here is not the place to discuss it.

What I wanted was whether illiterate and ignorant can be swayed by a "Tolkienian Bible" which is quite complete with Genisis and all?

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by daeron

What I wanted was whether illiterate and ignorant can be swayed by a "Tolkienian Bible" which is quite complete with Genisis and all?

I doubt it. The real Bible is (allegedly, anyway) written by holy men and priests and Moses and the such. Plus it has a few thousand years of history behind it.

Tolkien, on the other hand, was quite definitely a man who lived in the 20th Century. He doesn't claim to have been influenced by a Holy Spirit either. When the author himself maintains that his work is one of fiction, I cannot see anybody hijacking it and using it as an actual account of the past.

You speak also of the illiterate and the ignorant. Neither of these groups would be reading Tolkien, and to have it read to them, they would need to seek the literate, who would be able to explain the fictional nature of the books.

Oh, and welcome to the Downs. It's most pleasing to see a man from the motherland here.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Odd -- I always thought of Catholicism as a rather well-established religion, not a new one at all...

[alatar]

Personally, as I may have stated elsewhere, I kind of like the 'religion' as inferred from LOTR and the Sil.

And note that the small 'hobbit' people that were found have a biological explanation. Something to do with minimizing energy output and lack of space.

Anyway, regarding Tolkien becoming a religion, I would say that it is possible though probably not going to happen. However, I've seen the beginnings of another religion based on pop art, and so cannot rule out the possibility.

Ever been to Graceland? For those of you unfamiliar with the name, it is the former home of Elvis Presley. I visited the place once, as also once I'd gone to a Star Trek convention, as I just wanted to be able to gauge how nuts I was. (note that I 'liked' Elvis, but when I found out that my old boss absolutely hated Elvis, I went in to 'love' mode just to be ornery ).

And I thought that I was a geek until I went to the Star Trek convention...

Anyway, what struck me when visiting Graceland was not the gaudiness of the place, but that I was in the presence of some true believers, and so I put my satire back in my pocket and was careful about what I said and did for fear of being assaulted. One person actually cried when viewing Elvis' gravestone, while another left a paper note on the same. Every inch of the wall that surrounds the place is etched with a message. This includes the sidewalk and public phone booth.

Have read that people have gotten married in the name of Elvis.

Who knows what it will all look like 100/1000 years from now...

[Durelin]

I bow down and pray to Tolkien five times a day, don't you?

Odd -- I always thought of Catholicism as a rather well-established religion, not a new one at all...

In the name of the Valar and the Maiar and the Istari, Amen? *awaits a lightening bolt*

What I wanted was whether illiterate and ignorant can be swayed by a "Tolkienian Bible" which is quite complete with Genisis and all?

What about the 'literate' and 'learned'?

[daeron]

I was talking about the literate and power hungry swaying the illiterate and ignorant. That has been going on for centuries. If any of you have the time, get to know a bit about Indian (probably a few other Asian as well) religion and most importantly, the caste system, through which the 'learned' have always oppressed the so called lower classes, but actually, the poor and ignorant in the name of God.

And yes, the Bible was written somewhere around the third century, or atleast throughly revised, not by Moses.( He was too busy to sit down and write the whole thing)

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by daeron

Well Arwen, I didn't mean the Bible was modified along the centuries.
I meant, it was written to suit prefrences (in the 3rd century of so, by the church), but here is not the place to discuss it.

Compiled. Not written.

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by daeron

And yes, the Bible was written somewhere around the third century, or atleast throughly revised, not by Moses.( He was too busy to sit down and write the whole thing)

Hehe. According to my Christian mateys, Moses only wrote one or two chapters of the Bible (or was it 5?). In any case, this certainly isn't the place to be arguing about the Truth in Christianity or other faiths, there's plenty of other places to discuss that.

Originally Posted by daeron

I was talking about the literate and power hungry swaying the illiterate and ignorant. That has been going on for centuries. If any of you have the time, get to know a bit about Indian (probably a few other Asian as well) religion and most importantly, the caste system, through which the 'learned' have always oppressed the so called lower classes, but actually, the poor and ignorant in the name of God.

Agreed, the caste system is wrong, but again, I don't think this is the place to discuss the failings of Hinduism or any other religion.

Now to the question at hand: could the literate and power hungry sway the illiterate and ignorant into believing in Tolkien?

Certainly not in the More Economically Developed (MED) World, where literacy is commonplace.

In the Less Economically Developed (LED) World, why would they want to? They have established religion, so they wouldn't need to introduce Tolkien to keep people under their sway. Moreover, why Tolkien? There are so mant established religions, why introduce a new one?

I don't see why anybody would introduce Tolkien for religious purposes in the present day. I find it unlikely in the future, post-apocalyptic world too.

[daeron]

I didn't mean someone would or should in the present day. I meant, would 'Eruism' work just as good as any other if it had been started in the past, if Tolkien had existed in Homer's time? Today's "hobbit folk" fossils would supply a fine vindication.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by alatar

And note that the small 'hobbit' people that were found have a biological explanation. Something to do with minimizing energy output and lack of space.

Whoa! That's sent me off on a mad train of thought. Maybe living on an island and being isolated from Europe explains the strangeness of us British people then? Does this mean that other groups who live tightly packed on islands might suddenly 'adapt' to their environments? We could see genetic mutations in people living on Manhattan or in Hong Kong, people suddenly becoming smaller because they have less space to live in. What about The Shire and the Hobbits? Did they grow larger because they had more room after the War of the Ring?

Originally Posted by tgwbs

Now to the question at hand: could the literate and power hungry sway the illiterate and ignorant into believing in Tolkien?

Thinking about this brought to mind what happened when missionaries went to convert people living in isolated areas. Apparently in a lot of African communities native beliefs have become closely linked to Christian beliefs and this is still strongly evident today. There was recently a case where a girl had been tortured as her family believed she was a 'witch'. Reading more about this, it seems there are quite a few churches in the community which have incorporated their fear of witches and demons into their Christianity. In this unfortunate case it lead to torture. Historically, Christianity has always incorporated older beliefs as a way of getting people to convert. Just one example of evidence is that the festivals of Christmas, Easter, Harvest and All Souls are concurrent with pre-existing pagan festivals.

In many if not most cases, missionaries have been the literate and more powerful people in instances of conversion, and while the former pagans/heathens (however you wish to word it) were not necessarily ignorant, they often lacked the power that the missionaries had. In some cases conversion brought benefits to people but in others it has not, it has only exposed them to the vagaries of the wider world. Conversion has not always been carried out simply by spreading the gospel, sometimes it has been done in conjunction with bringing wonders like running water or electricity, and whether this was intentional or done through the kindness of said missionaries, it definitely had an effect in getting people to listen to the missionaries. So I would assume that the same could be done with any belief?

I have to add, it is not just missionaries who have used this tactic, so I'm not 'picking on them'. It was also used by the great explorers I admire, bringing guns to distant lands in order to gain friendship and ultimately territories for Western rulers. The difference would be that who would benefit by seeking to convert anyone to Tolkienism/Eruisn? Tolkien is popular, just as is Elvis or Star Trek, but his 'word' is not dominant, so why would anyone seek to try?

I hope that made any sense, I've a fever so I'm a bit 'eyuw' in my head right now.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Historically, Christianity has always incorporated older beliefs as a way of getting people to convert. Just one example of evidence is that the festivals of Christmas, Easter, Harvest and All Souls are concurrent with pre-existing pagan festivals.

Of course, if one wishes to apply a sceptical point of view, one could take this cynical position cart blanche. And I am sure that such thoughts were undoubtedly on the minds of some Church Fathers at the time (for most of the similarities, the third century), human nature being what it is.

However, there is also another perspective, one that likely Tolkien himself was quite well aware of. It is the idea that, first of all, the human instinct for ritual finds a similarity of symbol in light, water, song, procession, and, second, that for true believers, evidence of God's grace has touched all human life, even in religions founded before Christ. Where elements of paganism were not found congruent with Christianity, they were not adapted or assumed. But where they were found similar, they were kept.

Such an attitude represents the idea of the universal applicability of symbols and acts. Given how Tolkien set Middle earth in a pre-Christian era but loaded LotR with events, objects, ideas and persons with many similarities to his faith--such as lembas--I would think that he likely held this belief rather than the more cynical one of "getting people to convert." Of course, I don't doubt that one person could in fact hold both perspectives simultaneously, for revealed religion obviously raises this problem of what to do about people who pre-dated the revelation. But I think it should at least be acknowledged that there could be sincerity of belief in the applicability of some pagan symbols and events.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Whoa! That's sent me off on a mad train of thought. Maybe living on an island and being isolated from Europe explains the strangeness of us British people then? Does this mean that other groups who live tightly packed on islands might suddenly 'adapt' to their environments? We could see genetic mutations in people living on Manhattan or in Hong Kong, people suddenly becoming smaller because they have less space to live in.

Lalwendë, this 'Merican did not mean to imply that the island on which you live would somehow shorten your or your fellow islanders' stature. One must also take into account that the British Isles, being the tropical paradises that they are, would obviously produce such fresh produce (i.e. mangos, bananas, pineapples, etc) which, when coupled with all of that sunshine and surfing, would tend to stave off the shortening effects that islands obviously produce.

And one day, when your homogenously-populated island receives visitors from the outside world, whether by boat (those things that float on water [not witches!]) and/or by airplane (those shiny bird-looking things), some 'tall' genes are bound to get through and help out.

I think what the link and I were trying to point out is that on an island, resources are more limited. If, for a species that is large on a big island (like a continent), there is no reason to be 'large,' like to ward off predators or to appear in a Peter Jackson movie, then a species may tend to become smaller over time, thereby increasing the number of unique individuals that can live on the same limited resource.

Wasn't there a book by the name, "It Takes an Island to Feed a Mumakil"? And just what would this one mumakil do after it sacked the one city and stomped the one horse on the island? Two mumakil would starve...but if they got smaller, like the size of rats...hmmm.

P.S. Hope that your fever has come down.

And regarding giants and pyramids...please!

Just why can't we allow that ordinary people can build extraordinary things? It's always giants or space aliens or some super-advanced society that mysteriously sunk under the sea (all of which conveniently leave no traces, yet there's all of these ordinary tools that ordinary humans could have used to construct a pyramid laying about. It's obviously a conspiracy!). You, yes you, could build the pyramids. Sure, it would take a little know-how, a little time and effort and most likely a little more help than just your close friends, but it could be done.

If you are great at sales, have a high charisma score or happen to be the leader with a large and compliant following, you could actually have people build a pyramid for you - and if you sell it right, the builders may even pay you to participate.

Anyway, all for now and I'll try to get back on thread in the morning.

[Neurion]

A new religion? Egad! I hope not!

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The Bible has had a different evolution, being translated from many other languages into the form it takes today, so much that was originally there may have been 'lost in translation'. We also have to take into account that even though scribes aimed to be faithful in what they copied, they often worked under a system of patronage and may have been required to excise unpalatable elements, according to their sponsors.

Three of the four gospels apparently are drawn from one source, which I was taught was known as 'Q', John is the exception. But Matthew, Mark and Luke were all written for different audiences..

That's why we have a little something called Infallibility