The Lord of the Bible?

[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....

[littlemanpoet]

It would help us to be aware of a distinction between modern paganism and pre-Christian paganism. The modern variety has at its beck and call all the resources (of thought, technology, etc.) of the modern world, whereas the pre-Christian had only the culture and traditions thereof within each local people group. The pre-Christian is documented as having been quite pessimistic, despite the Balderic resurrection.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

It would help us to be aware of a distinction between modern paganism and pre-Christian paganism. The modern variety has at its beck and call all the resources (of thought, technology, etc.) of the modern world, whereas the pre-Christian had only the culture and traditions thereof within each local people group. The pre-Christian is documented as having been quite pessimistic, despite the Balderic resurrection.

Depends where you get your sources from really. The Romans of course liked to depict the British Celts as a brutish race and their scribes reserved particular hatred for the druids, seeing them as animals compared to their own sophisticated Gods. Yet archaeological and mythological evidence bears out that the Celts were possibly more sophisticated than the Romans in many ways - not least in the higher status of women, who had no status in Roman society. The druids were certainly not animals as they were depicted! Of course then the monks came along and they too had to make the old religions seem dangerous and unattractive. Some things could be absorbed whereas others had to be discredited - that's not just something that happens when new religions come along, but also when one nation conquers another. It's about power, and somehow inevitable.

Even going further back, the incredible amount of megalithic remains that litter the British Isles betrays that there was a highly advanced society with awareness of geometry and astronomy way before the Greeks, maybe even ways to predict eclipses. It doesn't suggest a pessimistic outlook to have societies which could spare the time and resources to build such monuments - it would have been the ancients' equivalent of having a Humber Bridge or Hoover Dam in every village.

And that's just in my own back yard. We've not even looked at other ancient 'pagan' faiths including some biggies such as Zoroastrianism, Shinto or Buddhism.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Some things could be absorbed whereas others had to be discredited - that's not just something that happens when new religions come along, but also when one nation conquers another. It's about power, and somehow inevitable. . . .
And that's just in my own back yard. We've not even looked at other ancient 'pagan' faiths including some biggies such as Zoroastrianism, Shinto or Buddhism.

True indeed. Those who write the history books control the representation.


Just for the sake of clarification, Lal, my comments pertained to Norse mythologies only. Also to clarify my point, I don't see where the statement that a world view is pessimistic necessarily means it lacks sophistication or is uncultured. Far from it! I personally find Norse myths incredible.

Okay, back to the regularly scheduled topic ...

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

This is admittedly a rough sketch of a post... I'm still hashing my way through the thoughts.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

that's not just something that happens when new religions come along, but also when one nation conquers another. It's about power, and somehow inevitable.

And the literature that Tolkien loved so well and drew so heavily upon comes from a society rife with conquering.

It's fun that we're discussing this just as I start a new class that's very heavily reliant on Middle English lit. First day of class we rehashed why it is the way it is: looking at Brit history shows a pretty grim life. Small wonder there's all this talk of doom and gloom in Tolkien's work, in the period work; sure there was Christianity, the life after death, the thought of hope, but there was also the pious monk that was writing his alliterative poetry about roods and was on watch those late nights when the Vikings sailed up to the coastal monastery and started pillaging. Life was hard.

The narrator of The Wanderer sums it up nicely with "It will be well with him who seeks favor, comfort from the Father in heaven, where for us all stability resides."

Yep. Doom and gloom. Belief and faith, but also logical pessimism. This wouldn't necessarily mean anything to me if these lines, just a few before that translation, weren't so... um... reminiscent... of something else.

Originally Posted by The Wanderer

Therefore the man wise in his heart considers carefully this wall-place and this dark life, remembers the multitude of deadly combats long ago, and speaks these words: 'Where has the horse gone? Where the young warrior? Where is the giver of treasure? What has become of the feasting seats? Where are the joys of the hall? Alas, the bright cup! Alas, the mailed warrior! Alas the prince's glory! How that time has gone, vanished beneath night's cover, just as if it had never been!'