Can atheists appreciate/understand Lord of the Ring?

[jallanite]

The unnamed priest who is responsible for the tirade at http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/201...lkien-was.html had much to say about miracles, but in fact, there is not much done by Moses, Elijah, Elisha, or Jesus in the Bible that could not just as well be called magical or miraculous, if one chose.

Good magicians were commonplace in medieval legends: Menw son of Teirgwaedd in medieval Welsh Arthurian tales, Merlin and Gansguoter in continental Arthurian tales, Maugis of Aigremont in tales of Charlemagne, Arrow-Odd in Norse saga, and numerous others who appear occasionally.

Nor do modern times appear more dangerous than former days when teachers like Eliphas Levi, Madame Blavatsky, Rudolf Steiner, Samuel Liddell MacGregor, and Aleister Crowley were at their height. Wolfgang Smith and Louis de Wohl are indeed odd modern people to be searching for truth. Perhaps the priest wanted to believe what these people wrote just because he wanted to believe it, until he caught them obviously claiming to be dabbling in the occult, which should not have taken much searching. Then he starts his fear-mongering.

The apocryphal book Judith is commonly thought to be unhistorical by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Judith . More importantly most critics believe the Book of Daniel is also unhistorical and was written during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, not during the last days of Babylon and the beginning of the Persian period as it claims. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel . These Biblical books have long been believed to be not history. Information agreeing with this was included in the Roman Cathlic Jerusalem Bible translation, for which J. R. R. Tolkien aided in translating the Book of Jonah. This information can also be found on the web in the conservative Catholic Encyclopedia, originally published in print in 1917. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04621b.htm .

The anonymous priest who wrote the Tolkien article either did not know this, which I think unlikely, or is simply neglecting to include anything that disagrees with his claim that the Bible contains no myths. Or perhaps this priest means something odd by myths.

Why this priest goes on and on about Gnosticism I do not know. See http://gnosis.org/library/advh1.htm which contains almost everything known about Gnosticism until the Nag Hammadi Library was discovered 1945. The most coherent account is in chapter XXX. The high God gives birth to a number of beings, and the last of these is named Sophia (Wisdom). She gives birth to Ialdabaoth, the name apparently derived from Aramaic yalᵊd- (‘begetter of’) [s]abaʼōt (‘hosts’). In this heresy Ialdabaoth becomes the Hebrew God, but is rather an evil being. Ialdabaoth subcreates the physical universe and 365 angels. He also creates the human race. In them some of the divine sparks from the original heavenly Father are to be found. Jesus Christ is then sent by the ultimate Father and Sophia to obtain this heavenly matter and return it to heaven.

This does not resemble Tolkien’s imaginings very closely. The Zoroastrian story of the creation of the universe is closer. See http://wisdomlib.org/zoroastrianism/...shn/index.html . The anonymous priest probably is not aware to this story. He wouldn’t like it either, even modified.

[Morthoron]

Hmmm...based on the hereticating rhetoric from various fanatical religious sites presented here in the last several posts, perhaps a better title for this thread should be:

Can Christians appreciate/understand The Lord of the Rings?

[IxnaY AintsaY]

These Christians are to the majority of Christians approximately as giant, man-eating robots are to the majority of atheists.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by IxnaY AintsaY

These Christians are to the majority of Christians approximately as giant, man-eating robots are to the majority of atheists.

Indeed. Broad-brush generalizations are unwise, whatever side of a debate one happens to be on.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Indeed. Broad-brush generalizations are unwise, whatever side of a debate one happens to be on.

My post was meant to be ironic, given the original poster's utter disbelief in atheists appreciating the books. Perhaps an emoticon, that modern age marvel of internet writing, should have been inserted to alleviate any comprehension issues.

And Ixnay, I am a giant man-eating robot. Pass the mustard, m'dear.

[jallanite]

Note that nothing I have posted in this thread was intended to prove or disprove any scientific theory.

What I did try to show is the results of a search on the web for oppositions to Tolkien where supposedly Tolkien’s teaching in his fictional work was against what according to some thought Tolkien ought to have believed.

I found only three such articles, very view indeed, none of which, in my opinion, actually pointed out anywhere where Tolkien really disagreed with Roman Catholic doctrine. Tolkien can be accused of inventing much, if one wishes. But Tolkien has proclaimed in many places that he was writing or intending to write fairy stories.

Tolkien was writing imaginative fiction, for the enjoyment of readers, not works of Roman Catholic doctine—though part of his intent was that his tales should not specifically contradict Roman Catholic doctrine, as he understood it. Tolkien, for this purposes, was quite justified in setting his tale before 6,000 BCE, introducing angelic beings in a role somewhat corresponding to pagan deities, and introducing Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Ents, Orcs, and Trolls into his story. He was quite justified in producing pterodactyl-like creatures from an older geological age, regardless of whether some Biblical literalists would also wish to deny that any such era existed in reality. Roman Catholic teaching did not deny an age of dinosaurs long before Mankind existed.

What seems to have bothered Tolkien more was his story of the creation of the Sun and Moon and that the Earth was at one time physically flat, and that seems to have bothered him more from a scientific point of view than theologically. In The Lord of the Rings itself Tolkien did not mention anything of this late creation of the Sun and Moon. In the last three books in the HoME series Tolkien restricts this account to a supposed Silmarillion proper, but otherwise imagines his early Elves as living under the Sun, the Silmarillion proper being purportedly partially derived from inaccurate Mannish legend.

Tolkien appears to have drawn his beliefs from Pope Pius XII who held the papacy from 1939 to 1958, as to what is allowed, though Tolkien began writing his Silmarillion fantasies much earlier.

If indeed Tolkien did stumble on occasion I note how few readers seem to care.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

My post was meant to be ironic, given the original poster's utter disbelief in atheists appreciating the books. Perhaps an emoticon, that modern age marvel of internet writing, should have been inserted to alleviate any comprehension issues.

Ya, and (if there was any doubt) mine was meant to be amusing not admonishing. Thread is now about pointing out irony after the fact, yay! <-- That last bit may not have been completely serious, by the way. <-- Totally serious.

And Ixnay, I am a giant man-eating robot. Pass the mustard, m'dear.

A kindred robot, and mustard-lover, I knew it. <--This was typed in solemn tones.