The Lord of the Bible?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

The Northern pessimism is different, but it still agrees with the Christian idea that this world is coming to a crash and burn some day. The difference, of course, is in regard to what happens after that.

The Pagan view is that the 'end' is simply part of the natural cycle. There may be many ends and many beginnings. Possibly a response to the ancients' observations on the cycle of organic life and death itself; as they saw themselves and their own lives, so they reflected this in their Mythologies. Ties in with Campbell's thoughts on how each religion/mythology reflects and serves the culture and society within which it was born.

Now let me step aside for a moment and ask that people do not post deeply personal interpretations (sermons?) of their own faiths as 'information'. I was enjoying the debate but it so easily slides back into what has already caused trouble and I am feeling provoked (as predicted, and as such, why hit 'send' after this week's events?). One person this week was admonished for their own thundering and tendency to hit 'send' without thinking, and I can add that he is very sorry to have caused offence and knows that to step back would have been the better move. I am sorry myself to have seen this done again so soon. I could have argued against what has been said and given my own interpretation (as I spend a lot of time thinking about faith and philosophy - it's important to me), but I do not see the point, enough upset has been caused for one week.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The Pagan view is that the 'end' is simply part of the natural cycle. There may be many ends and many beginnings.

Physicists tell us, however, that as the universe continues to expand, there will, some time in the far distant future, be a final end. A whimper as the last bit of light fades into dust. So even in the natural cycle there is a bitter end.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Physicists tell us, however, that as the universe continues to expand, there will, some time in the far distant future, be a final end. A whimper as the last bit of light fades into dust. So even in the natural cycle there is a bitter end.

I saw a fascinating documentary about this a few weeks ago (a BBC one, if you get those in the US? Possibly on Discovery? Worth looking out for anyway!). There are several ages to the Universe and to all matter (about seven). We are currently in the second of these, which will last for billions of years after humans die out. As each age progresses, the nature of matter will change, ultimately ending in ages (aeons?) where all matter will be incredibly dense, and then will one day be nothing but residual energy and then everything will just go 'pft' and 'lights out' so to speak.

This theory doesn't give any kind of rebirth, though one theory does - that of the Elastic Universe.

Though of course my attempts at explanation of scientific theory will not be troubling Stephen Hawking for any time.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Though of course my attempts at explanation of scientific theory will not be troubling Stephen Hawking for any time.

I think that you've stated it well enough. Some theories indicate (and I can't remember if these theories hinge on whether 'Dark Matter' is found or not) that the universe will expand to a certain point, then fall back on itself, becoming a single point...at which time it will explode blazingly once again into a completely new universe, complete with new car smell.

At least we'll all be back together for a time.

Or, as stated, the universe will expand until everything is a large homogenous soup of atoms, die a heat death, and silence (and darkness) will reign.

Regardless, I doubt that I'll be around. Think that the last sound heard will be either "Is too," or "Is not." Whether from this thread, the Gandalf vs Witch King thread, or the infamous Balrog's wings thread, we'll just have to wait and see.

Learning a lot from this thread. Cheers.

[Mister Underhill]

Well, there's also the rather dramatic Big Rip theory, which does have to do with dark matter and such.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This theory doesn't give any kind of rebirth, though one theory does - that of the Elastic Universe.

We don't get too much BBC here in the States, except for what they choose to show on Public Telly (PBS); but then I don't have cable or dish either. But I've heard of the Elastic Universe theory; it is considered the least viable of those having to do with the subject.

Actually, the dichotomy you speak of, Child, is not at all esoteric or psychological. Tolkien's primary areas of thought are well known to have been his faith and his area of professional expertise; the former of course providing source material for his Catholic thought, the latter by way of Germanic and Northern language, myth, and legend (and all things adhering thereto), providing source material for his pagan-rooted (that is Germanic, Celtic, and Finnish) thought.

What strikes me as so interesting is that this particular dichotomy is not at all that which normally bedevils Western civilization, which is the dichotomy between mind and matter for which we can thank the Greeks (may they boil in dichotomous mental oil for the bequest. ).

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Now let me step aside for a moment and ask that people do not post deeply personal interpretations (sermons?) of their own faiths as 'information'. I was enjoying the debate but it so easily slides back into what has already caused trouble and I am feeling provoked (as predicted, and as such, why hit 'send' after this week's events?). One person this week was admonished for their own thundering and tendency to hit 'send' without thinking, and I can add that he is very sorry to have caused offence and knows that to step back would have been the better move. I am sorry myself to have seen this done again so soon. I could have argued against what has been said and given my own interpretation (as I spend a lot of time thinking about faith and philosophy - it's important to me), but I do not see the point, enough upset has been caused for one week.

Well, mark12_30 has edited the original post, and I hope that addresses your principal concern.

But let me make clear the "official" position on this so that there can be no misunderstanding and no lingering doubts that double-standards are being applied.

There is a difference between stating one's beliefs and commenting unfavourably and disrespectfully on the beliefs of others. The former is perfectly acceptable, provided that it is relevant to the subject matter of the thread and otherwise in accordance with the forum rules. The latter is not acceptable as it is contrary to the principles of this site, which strives for tolerant, courteous and respectful debate. I fully accept, as a committed advocate of freedom of speech myself, that there is a slight tension here between freedom of speech and the forum rules which we apply. Anyone who has visited a less ordered site than this, and there are many where insults, cruelty and the flaming of other peoples' posts are common-place, will appreciate, I am sure, why those rules are in place and therefore the justification for the (very limited) limitations on freedom of speech which they impose.

That said, I do have some sympathy for your point Lal, and my position has always been to challenge any statement of belief which is made in such a way as to suggest that it should or must necessarily be accepted by others, either generally or as the basis for the discussion in question. There is a fine line between stating Biblical text (or any other religious source) to justify a particular point (for example, in the context of this thread, a personally drawn Biblical parallel) and "sermonising" to others involved in the debate. The latter can come across as aggressive and cause offence, which is why I expressed my hope earlier in this thread that those who might be inclined to indulge in it would refrain from doing so.

Mark12_30 was answering a specific question that had been raised and was at pains to point out in her original post that she had no intention of causing offence. Nevertheless, and particularly in threads like this, a reasonable degree of sensitivity to the feelings and beliefs of others is required (on all "sides" of the debate). This may not be a matter of changing the content of what you want to say, but considering the manner in which you express it. Generally, personal beliefs should be expressed as just that - personal beliefs - rather than as assumed realities.

I hope that clarifies the position and would ask that all involved in this discussion bear these points in mind, since continued Mod and Admin intervention is both disruptive of the ongoing debate and time-consuming for the Mods/Admins involved.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Thanks for your thoughts--- Helen, Littlemanpoet, and many others. I admit I purposely pushed hard on my previous posts to generate discussion. The line I enthusiastically drew was probably too dramatic. As a Catholic, Tolkien would have accepted and understood that evil is real…. that it is personal and possessing in a way some modern thinkers totally fail to see . Even so, the Northern pagan world view is, in my eyes, ultimately more negative, fatalistic, and pessimistic than that espoused by the Christian faith.

The best way I can address this is by stressing the Christian and pagan views of hope and hopelessness.. This contrast is one of the most poignant themes running through the Legendarium. I think it's fair to state that Hope is rarely seen in the context of the old Northern myths. In speaking of Beowulf, Tolkien himself described the pagan era as “heathen, noble, and helpless.” In several interviews and published writings, Tom Shippey has argued that one of Tolkien’s main motivations was to consider how pre-revelation men, who were placed in an utterly hopeless situation, still chose to make moral choices.

All of this leads us back to the question of the world's end, something others also talked about on this thread. In Christianity, goodness remains even if it lies beyond the walls of the world and we can not reach it in our human state. In paganism, there is no ultimate goodness that survives after the end (and perhaps not in our modern theories either where everything ends with a bang or poof).

LotR is filled with examples of pagan hopelessness. Just a few come to mind. There is Aragorn’s grim statement after the loss of Gandalf that “We must do without hope”, the totally hopeless assault of the Free Peoples at the Black Gate, and Frodo’s grim comment to Sam, “It’s all quite useless….You are the fool, going on hoping and toiling.” These could be multiplied a hundred times. Yet there are also the other statements and examples of hope strewn throughout the book, which we have discussed a hundred times before on this board. The presence or absence of hope best sums up the Christian/pagan dichotomy for me.

When I read biographical accounts of Tolkien, I see some of this dichotomy in the author’s personal life. (My apologies to Bêthberry--I can't resist.) Tolkien apparently fought back against moodiness and depression much of his life. He was constantly struggling back to hope. This could also explain why he appended the Athrabeth to the Legendarium. He felt the need to resolve the vexing dilemma of pagan hopelessness and Christian hope late in his own life. In the end, Tolkien came down at least publicly on the side of hope and his own religious faith.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

When I read biographical accounts of Tolkien, I also see this dichotomy in the author’s personal life. (My apologies to Bêthberry as I can't resist.) Tolkien apparently fought back against moodiness and depression much of his life. He was constantly struggling back to hope. This could also explain why he appended the Athrabeth to the Legendarium. He felt the need to resolve the vexing question of pagan hopeless and Christian hope near the end of his own life and, in the end, came down at least publicly on the side of hope and his own religious faith.

Please, Child, there's no need to apologise, as I always enjoy your historical observations. I don't by any means wish to deny the possibility of historical study. My interest is simply to suggest that a biographical/psychological motivation is not the only reason why LotR might harbour this kind of dual vision. Writers can be inspired as much by what they read as by their own lives; what I think is interesting is that one of Tolkien's favourite poems demonstrates a quality which we find--or which some find--in his work.

There are writers whose work is constantly reduced to their lives, everything explained by recourse to their personal lives and self-expression. This tack really does a disservice to the works which the authors produced and so I am leery of always going solely to the life to explain something in the work. There could well be an artistic or storytelling purpose for the text which the biographical methods misses.

Originally Posted by Child

All of this leads us back to the question of the world's end, something others also talked about on this thread. In Christianity, goodness remains even if it lies beyond the walls of the world and we can not reach it in our human state. In paganism, there is no ultimate goodness that survives after the end (and perhaps not in our modern theories either where everything ends with a bang or poof).

This reminds me of a saying in philosophy: "When the ends keep receding, the means must justify themselves." Is there a moral basis for behaviour which does not depend upon an end-time scenario? Is this admittedly very modern morality explored in LotR?

[Lalwendë]

Yes, and I'd like to extend some genuine thanks.

I was just disappointed that after what's happened this week I saw information across in a deeply personal way which was admitted might provoke people. I know one person who has learned something from what's happened, I hope others have also learnt when to wave the white flag. I also know I have! And I might add that my reasons for calling it 'deeply personal' is that I saw posts peppered with exclamations and asides expressing primacy of faith, not strictly from one person either so I'm not picking on anyone. I have also noticed a few posts where Pagans have been associated with demons etc, which will be offending some Downers as I know we have Pagans here, and that faith is also a deeply held one. And they're too scared to post now.

I guess we have to accept that whatever we might think, not everyone else is going to believe it too. I know that all too well as the last Socialist in the Western World (no I don't sell those newspapers).

Anyway, back to it, as I might be a terrier at times when challenged, but I know when to drop the bone. Not least to give SpM a chance to have his tea.

Originally Posted by lmp

But I've heard of the Elastic Universe theory; it is considered the least viable of those having to do with the subject.

Originally Posted by alatar

Some theories indicate (and I can't remember if these theories hinge on whether 'Dark Matter' is found or not) that the universe will expand to a certain point, then fall back on itself, becoming a single point...at which time it will explode blazingly once again into a completely new universe, complete with new car smell.

At least we'll all be back together for a time.

Or, as stated, the universe will expand until everything is a large homogenous soup of atoms, die a heat death, and silence (and darkness) will reign.

There's as many scientific theories on the Universe as there are religions! Which suggests that even followers of strict Reason have a few schisms, and they're not united in any way. I'm often struck by how mystical science can be, too. Ever since I read of The Walls of the Universe, I've been a little obsessed with the phrase (not just with the concept) as it's just so...poetic! Basically we're all trying to find what it all means - and therefore I'm not surprised Tolkien's own views can seem confusing and even contradictory. Hey, we were knocking Pullman not that long ago (still reading HDM and hoping to get some new conclusions because I do love the book, and Pullman is really a nice guy by the sounds of it) but is he really any more 'confused' than Tolkien?

If we do look at what he reflects of Pagans, I don't think it's pessimism or anything like that at all, partly because that's not what paganism is broadly about. He writes of characters like Eowyn who want to die gloriously, of Eomer who goes into battle full throttle, and Theoden who dies expressing the consolation that he will go to his forefathers. Paganism is not pessimistic! Death is a welcome thing as much as it can be in other religions; the warrior who dies in battle is going to feast with the other great warriors who preceeded him (or her!). Ragnarok is not bad, it is to be welcomed. It's the ultimate chance for glory, and a 'good death'. Of course, there are as many flavours of Paganism as there are of Christianity so some may disagree.

Originally Posted by Child

In paganism, there is no ultimate goodness that survives after the end (and perhaps not in our modern theories either where everything ends with a bang or poof).

But there is. After Ragnarok, Balder will return and all the dead will live together and enjoy life everlasting.

Other Pagan faiths don't even have an end time philosophy.

The modern scientific theories all end in lights out however. Even if we all go back to helping make up a new star, (if from stars we came) even the atoms will cop for it in the end.

[Child of the 7th Age]

But there is. After Ragnarok, Balder will return and all the dead will live together and enjoy life everlasting.

Ah, that is interesting....