Tolkien-founder of new religion?

[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.

[VanimaEdhel]

Originally Posted by daeron

(Can someone give me proper proofs of existance of giants?)

No, but I can give you evidence that disputes your friend's theory about giants building the pyramids if you so desire.

Anyway, onto the subject at hand, I am sure that by now a lot of you have heard about the Church of Scientology, established by L. Ron Hubbard in 1951. Some people consider this religion to be just a cult, others think that it is on its way to becoming an established religion. I will not give my opinion either way, since that's not important to the discussion. Anyway, the church currently reports that they have over eight million followers with over 3,000 churches and missionaries set up in over 120 countries - this is no small little organization.

If you look at the biography of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, he was primarily known for his Science Fiction writing. He also wrote mysteries, westerns and adventures. Therefore, this church was created by a man who wrote mostly science fiction novels - among other types of fiction. He wrote down his own philosophy on life - about everything from one's being as a Thetan to the Eight Dynamics to the use of E-meters - and published these ideas. Needless to say, the ideas caught on - and with Tom Cruise's devotion to the religion, it's picking up popularity through its exposure in the media.

On the other hand, J.R.R. Tolkien himself was a devoted Catholic. I think that Hubbard's desire to create a religion as opposed to Tolkien's motives divides the two. Historically, it was not until 313 CE, when Licinius, coemperor to Constantine, issued what was known as the Edict of Milan, which officially outlawed religious persecution of any sort, thus ending the persecution of Christians as well. Constantine was the first Holy Roman Emperor - the first that declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. This was during the 330's, shortly before he passed away. Before this time, you do get religious relics and artwork devoted to Christianity, but many these were hidden in the form of what would be thought by Romans to be pagan images. Take, for example, the Mosaic of Jesus in his sun chariot - most of the people who would have executed the Christians for their beliefs would have interpreted this image as one of Roman devotion - one portraying the sun god. You do, however, get some images, such as the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, which depict Christian imagery. Actually, these are the best examples of typological exegesis that you can get as well.

In his original creation of The Silmarillion, Tolkien said, as cited in his letter to Milton Waldman in 1951 (it's in the forward of my copy of The Sil):

I am not 'learned' in the matters of myth and fairy-story, however, for in such things (as far as known to me) I have always been seeking material, things of a certain tone and air, and not simple knowledge. Also - and here I hope I shall not sound absurd - I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain, but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its 'faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.

For religion which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form or the primary 'real' world.

...

But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the largh and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story - the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths - which I could dedicate simply to: England; to my country.

...

Of course, such an overweening purpose did not develop all at once. The mere stories were the thing. They arose in my mind as 'given' things, and as they came, separately, so too the links grew. An absorbing, though continually interrupted labour (...): yet always I had the sense of recording what was already 'there', somewhere: not of 'inventing'.

And, if you want to read the rest - a lot of which relates to this very question of religion - an invention of a mythology to make up for where Tolkien feeled that one was lacking - I suggest you find the letter. Rereading it to find the quotes I used, I realized that the whole letter basically addresses the "why" behind the creation of The Silmarillion - in essence what one would most likely consider to be Tolkien's Bible, if one were of such a mind.

While I deeply believe Tolkien did not intend for his creation to effect a religious movement, he did seem to have a desire to create a mythology of sorts - a creation that tied to his own land, bringing in the essential elements of what little mythology they did have and calling on the complex mythology of the Finnish, Norse and others to inspire him. As he said, he felt almost as though he was recording what already existed, rather than making it up out of nowhere. I think this calls on the "magic" that many feels resides in Earth - that there is a heroic faerie/fantasy story tied to every land, whether true or not. It calls upon the human desire to believe in the supernatural - to believe that there are things beyond the scientific and even the dogmatic religious. So, believe what you will - it seems to be in human nature to believe in a "greater" - to want to believe in Elves, Giants, Dragons, in eras of mystery and magic, especially in such an industrial, scientific world. I don't believe I am myself in a position to dictate what is "true" and what is not, having lived only eighteen years (but then again, is anyone really in a position to say for sure what is real?), but everyone has a right to carry beliefs that can sustain them in the world.

[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.

[daeron]

Exactly Alatar! Are people who support such absurd notions saying mankind is not capable of achieving what they have without "external" help? Come on people, have faith in yourselves. People should read or watch "Asterix and Cleopatra". I gives a good picture of how they were constucted (the part without the Gauls' help of course).

As to giants, the pharohs skeletons don't seem gigantic and I don't think a pack of giants would accept a puny guy as their boss. They were normal human beings after all (normal???) . But I would still like to find Glorfindel's grave on the ocean bed someday.