Of another world

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kath

lmp's point here is a fair one davem. The difference is small but important. The pagan religion is akin to the Old Testament view of religion, in that followers must meet demands and conditions in order to ensure their salvation, whereas the New Testament view is that salvation will occur via love and grace. The seemingly nit-picky difference in words, whether the phrase is said negatively or positively, is also important. A negative phrasing relates to a vengeful God, whereas a positive phrasing relates to a loving one.

I'm not so sure. If we look at Jesus' words (John 6 52-58) we find:

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

Mithras says 'No salvation unless & so does Jesus

[alatar]

Originally Posted by lmp

This is a cause of confusion. They knew that they were naked. This expresses negative self-consciousness. "Nakedness" refers to the symptom of the deep rooted state of Adam and Eve having cut themselves off from communion with God, realizing that their disobedience had caused their shame. They had stained the image of God in themselves, and they had unleashed in themselves the seed of every evil known to humanity. Sexual desire had been corrupted into lust, which is wanting to take without giving the requisite commitment that such taking entails in God's order. Et cetera.

Nice post, lmp. You answer my question and point out yet again what I'm seeing. Living in a culture where persons are typically dressed modestly, you have people thinking about Adam and Eve and how crazy it was when they realized that there weren't wearing the latest in fig fashion. This is how these persons see the text as they do not look through the eyes of Adam or Eve, but through the eyes of their own experience. Would eyes from a more primitive culture see this? I think that you rightly state that it was more of a spiritual nakedness that was the cause of shame, but your understanding of the text is more mature and thoughtful.

And I can understand when you say that life must live on the path set by an omniscient Creator, as what else can it do, but as 1/3 of the angels fell, as Adam and Eve fell, I question if God does not want at least some of His creations to take the road less travelled.

Eru was generous to Aule.

[Lalaith]

I don't think that Tolkien did, other than perhaps in Tom Bombadil's comment about "the dark when it was fearless", portray a prelapsarian Arda. (Of course, I'm going by the Sil here and he may well have written other versions, so maybe HoME readers can prove me wrong) But in the Sil, Arda was marred by Melkor before any sentient life appeared.
I always assumed the Maia who joined Melkor = Fall of the Angels.

Atlantis/Numenor, of course, but what about parallels between Numenor and the Flood?
(I must say, I agree with the reservations davem and others have expressed about Adam and Eve and the serpent, but what I find really difficult getting to grips with, is the Flood. Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?)

Re Tolkienian deluges, it's not just Numenor of course. The breaking of Arda during the Valar-Melkor battle must have involved thousands of innocents perishing.

[Kath]

Mithras says 'No salvation unless & so does Jesus.

Perhaps, davem, this is more fact than promise.

[Aiwendil]

Perhaps, davem, this is more fact than promise.

Fact or promise, one could say the same things about Mithras. If you read Jesus's statement as a "fact" and Mithras's as a "promise", that is you, not the texts.

[Kath]

Fact or promise, one could say the same things about Mithras. If you read Jesus's statement as a "fact" and Mithras's as a "promise", that is you, not the texts.

Indeed but this very argument is based on opinions and how you read it. I don't actually think that, it's just an opinion and I was welcoming opposing ones.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Atlantis/Numenor, of course, but what about parallels between Numenor and the Flood? (I must say, I agree with the reservations davem and others have expressed about Adam and Eve and the serpent, but what I find really difficult getting to grips with, is the Flood.

You read about a local 'flood' and see the Noachian deluge. Númenor was wiped out by a tsumani-like wave. Survivors escaped on a multitude of ships, not an Ark, and they did not have to carry all species of fauna back to Middle Earth. There was no mountaintop landing, no dove, no waiting for waters to recede. No rainbow at the end of the road.

And yet you, me and others see Genesis 6 in the Akallabêth.

Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?)

Animals are under man's dominion, and so I guess are of no consideration. They are not infilled with souls like we see in Arda. And at least in Arda babies are born 'not guilty.'

Re Tolkienian deluges, it's not just Numenor of course. The breaking of Arda during the Valar-Melkor battle must have involved thousands of innocents perishing.

Like I said, at least in Arda there are true innocents. I leave the last words to Eowyn and her quote regarding dying on swords.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

And for myself, getting back to the original question, I am most interested in (1) Tolkien's use of Elves in reference to the Atlantis legend, and (2) the many legends of sea-faring peoples who came from advanced cultures to northern Europe and delivered their wisdom and culture to the indigenous. There are the Milesians who came to Ireland, which may be the inspiration for that old Historia Britonum (please correct me someone, I know I just murdered it) which has the Trojans establishing Britain. In like manner, Tolkien has the Numenoreans come from the sinking Isle to establish their culture in Gondor and Arnor. What grabs my attention is the disconnected legends of the Irish and the known history we have of Asia Minor, giving us on one hand the folkloric "Milesians" and on the other, the citizens of Miletus, just a hundred or so miles south of Troy, which surely was just as affected by the fortunes both good and ill that befell Troy, and sent whole citizenries to their ships to find harbor in far-off ports anywhere from Carthage to Asturia to Brittany to Ireland to the Shetlands. And then there is the legend of the Fomori from the north ... there's that thing of the north again ... which puts me yet again in mind of Tolkien's choice of Morgoth in northern Thangorodrim. But now I'm wandering all over the folkloric map.....

Where would Tolkien's mythology be without a Great Flood? Most mythologies seem to have flood stories, so why should his be any different? Perhaps all these Great Floods originate from ancient memory of real floods, of Tsunami, of previous meltings of the polar ice caps and maybe times when meteorites have struck the earth and caused massive global flooding? I'm sure that there is something in the idea that British Atlantis myths such as Lyonnesse spring from the time the islands were cut adrift by the creation of the English Channel. There are also stories that in Roman times, the Scilly Isles were once one big island, which may even have been joined to Cornwall at some point.

There seem to me to be some direct parallels between the Tuatha De Danaan and the Elves. The land of Tir Na Nog could be reflected in Valinor, although this could also be an underground kingdom according to Irish folklore.

Apparently the Milesians are not the same as the Greek/Aegean people. These incomers to Ireland may have come from Spain. Although new archaeological evidence has shown that Ireland did not suffer from waves of invasion as some of the histories and myths state; in the main, Irish DNA has remained unchanged for millenia. This has also dispelled the myth that the Celts were invaders from Europe; it seems that Celtic culture spread, but not the people. Maybe a lot of the Irish tales of 'invaders' go incredibly far back, right to the times when farming cultures took over from hunter/gatherers, maybe even to when modern Man took over from Neanderthals?

I'm often uncomfortable with tales that ancient Greeks 'founded' British cultures. Evidence does not prove this in any way, and I often wonder if it was an attempt by scholars to impose a Classical 'nobility' onto the history of the Britons and Celts. All the evidence to suggest that these islands had a rich culture anyway are there for all to see in the huge amounts of Megalithic remains to be found all over the islands.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

(I must say, I agree with the reservations davem and others have expressed about Adam and Eve and the serpent, but what I find really difficult getting to grips with, is the Flood. Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?)

I feel the same! I can only accept a God who is Good. But Tolkien's personal view of God and his works was of a very cruel God. He himself lived through scenes of slaughter and senseless killing, and it does seem that he indeed struggled to come to balance his Faith with his experiences during the 1920s. From his writing it does become apparent that he accepted a God who did allow people to die needlessly, one who demanded blood sacrifices. In that respect, I think Tolkien would have accepted the biblical Flood as simply God's work.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'm often uncomfortable with tales that ancient Greeks 'founded' British cultures. Evidence does not prove this in any way, and I often wonder if it was an attempt by scholars to impose a Classical 'nobility' onto the history of the Britons and Celts. All the evidence to suggest that these islands had a rich culture anyway are there for all to see in the huge amounts of Megalithic remains to be found all over the islands.

My comments here are quite tangential to the main argument. Concommitant with this tale of classical source was the British sense that they are the 'new chose people', the new Israelites.

Dash me if I can find all the sources to support this claim now. Memory tells me it is part and parcel of Milton's works but I've lent out my (personally annotated) copy of Paradise Lost. Possibly the idea arose from the story that Joseph of Arimathea brought the Holy Grail to England. (no, no, not to be confused with the Da Vinci Code.) Then there is Blake's quietly affirming hymn about Jerusalem being refounded on England's green and pleasant land.

Anyhow, I guess I am simply pointing out that a group of people can create many different myths of origin, many of which bear little resemblance to the historical fact of the peoples who 'founded' the societies which tilled the land and hunted the animals and timbered the forests and left the barrows for others to discover.

[davem]

I suppose the interesting thing about the Flood from a Tolkienian perspective is not the Biblical connection (which was most probably inspired by the Gilgamesh story), but Tolkien's own 'Atlantis' complex, which was also 'inherited' by one of his sons - Michael?

This is fascinating to me - the concept of an inherited 'dream'/fantasy. Tolkien uses the idea in his time-travel stories. It doesn't seem to have any personal reference - though I suppose a Jungian could put forward a theory along the lines of him being overwhelmed by the contents of the Collective, or Mythic, Unconscious.

Its a powerful image, but not a Biblical one (Alatar has pointed out the significant differences). This makes me wonder about the Biblical inspiration behind Tolkien's Legendarium generally. Tolkien could have had a Great Flood in his work which matched the Biblical account, but he didn't - instead he went for the 'Pagan' version - 'Atlantis' destroyed by an angry Deity.

Its another example of Tolkien being able to tie his Legendarium more closely into Biblical 'history' but choosing not to. Only Numenor is annihilated, not the whole of Middle-earth. Its as if he is deliberately avoiding Biblical parallels. If his theory that Myths are 'distored' versions of Biblical Truth why would he do this?

Of course, the easy answer would be that he was creating a Myth himself & because all Myths are 'distortions' he felt his own Myth should be as 'distorted' as all the others. Yet we know that his approach was to try & discover 'what really happened'. So the problem arises - if he was attempting to tell the 'real' Truth of the ancient past, is writing about a devastating flood which changed the whole world, why doesn't his account echo the Biblical account more precisely?

Unless we are to understand that there were really two (or possibly more) floods - but then how come the Bible only mentions one - & of a totally different sort ? What we seem to have is an account of a flood which rather 'confirms' the 'truth' of the various Pagan versions of the Myth - Plato's in particular.

Odd....

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Its a powerful image, but not a Biblical one (Alatar has pointed out the significant differences). This makes me wonder about the Biblical inspiration behind Tolkien's Legendarium generally. Tolkien could have had a Great Flood in his work which matched the Biblical account, but he didn't - instead he went for the 'Pagan' version - 'Atlantis' destroyed by an angry Deity.

Its another example of Tolkien being able to tie his Legendarium more closely into Biblical 'history' but choosing not to. Only Numenor is annihilated, not the whole of Middle-earth. Its as if he is deliberately avoiding Biblical parallels. If his theory that Myths are 'distored' versions of Biblical Truth why would he do this?

Of course, the easy answer would be that he was creating a Myth himself & because all Myths are 'distortions' he felt his own Myth should be as 'distorted' as all the others. Yet we know that his approach was to try & discover 'what really happened'. So the problem arises - if he was attempting to tell the 'real' Truth of the ancient past, is writing about a devastating flood which changed the whole world, why doesn't his account echo the Biblical account more precisely?

Whilst surfing the Net this morning I came upon a reference to this very point of the Legendarium's parallels with Christianity. I don't have HoMe X, so I can't verify the context and idea.

The relevant passage:

Originally Posted by Damien Casey, fn 12

In constructing his mythology Tolkien was concerned not to paralleled the Christian biblical story too closely lest his tale parody Christianity . Commenting upon an imaginative dialogue between an elf and a woman on the nature and destiny of human beings Tolkien questions whether it is already "(if inevitably) too like a parody of Christianity. Any legend of the Fall would make it completely so?" J.R.R. Tolkien, Morgoth's Ring. The History of Middle Earth Volume 10, edited by Christopher Tolkien, (London: Harper Collins, 1993) 354.

This I find fascinating, for it suggests that Tolkien had a poetics of parody in his head even if he did not articulate it on paper. (Oh what would he say of REB?) He also clearly was aware of how similar or not to make his work to the Bible.

Perhaps those who have HoMe X can elaborate?

The article I was reading: The Gift of Ilùvatar: Tolkien's Theological Vision

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not so sure. If we look at Jesus' words (John 6 52-58) we find ...
Mithras says 'No salvation unless & so does Jesus

They are indeed similar. I grant it. You have brought out one of the most mysterious passages of the Bible, one that I'm still uncertain how to understand. I could see it as metaphor, but I think Jesus is saying something more fundamental than that. To say it's a spiritual meaning is to say something too general, as the term needs to be qualified before real understanding can be had. I need to think and pray about this one more.

Originally Posted by alatar

I can understand when you say that life must live on the path set by an omniscient Creator, as what else can it do, but as 1/3 of the angels fell, as Adam and Eve fell, I question if God does not want at least some of His creations to take the road less travelled.

Eru was generous to Aule.

He was. Another passage worth considering is that of Abraham asked by God to sacrifice Isaace to him. It has to be one of the most heartwrenching and profound stories in the Bible. Abraham, a fallen sinner, believed God and obeyed. His obedience was richly rewarded.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I always assumed the Maia who joined Melkor = Fall of the Angels.

Me too.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Atlantis/Numenor, of course, but what about parallels between Numenor and the Flood? Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?

You know how to ask the hard questions. It's not understood from Scripture that animals had moral sense. My thought is that God saw the loss of the animals as tragic. It's an aspect that I don't understand as well as I would like to.

As to great floods on record or legend, there are reports that there are remains of civilization at the bottom of the Black Sea, suggesting that at one time it was an area that though below sea level, was dry .... until some kind of rather large disaster (which literally means 'undo-star') .... filled the basin with water. And then there is the legend of Broceliande, which it has been suggested was an actual forest that spanned from the edge of the Plain of Salisbury across the valley between, to modern day Brittany..... and is now under the waters of the English Channel. Both things suggest that the mean sea level may have at one time been much lower than it is in our own day. Pure speculation.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

There seem to me to be some direct parallels between the Tuatha De Danaan and the Elves.

In my reference to the Milesians earlier, that legend had it that the Milesians taught the folk, but over time hid themselves below ground and became known as the Tuatha De Danaan. I'm quite convinced that these are akin if not the same as Tolkien's Elves.

The story I read did have the Milesians coming from Spain. It was my awareness of the seaside city of Miletus that caused me to make the connection. For them to have come from Aegea by way of Spain seems not too great a reach.

You're quite right, Lalwendë, that it was the same impulse in Virgil as it was for the later writers to find cultural roots in Classical Greece. .... all of it quite untrue.

I too accept a God who is only good. However, I also understand that I am a mere human who can't comprehend the vastness of God's purposes, or I'd be God. I know that God is good and loves all of his creation; that's the basis for all my understanding. Whatever I don't understand, I admit it and try to learn based on what I already know. What I don't do is decide that God can't exist, or is cruel, or is evil, on the grounds that I can't understand how something evil fits into a good God's plan. That would be quite presumptuous of me.

Originally Posted by davem

...probably inspired by the Gilgamesh story

Unless it really happened.

Originally Posted by davem

the concept of an inherited 'dream'/fantasy ... not a Biblical one

Actually, this is quite biblical. God's words to Adam, Eve, and the serpent are resplendent with references to 'seed'. Our modern words are 'inheritance' and 'genetics'. Just as sinfulness passes down through genetics, so can mental capacities such as dreams.

Originally Posted by davem

Its as if he is deliberately avoiding Biblical parallels. If his theory that Myths are 'distor[t]ed' versions of Biblical Truth why would he do this?

Why not? I don't see that Tolkien's (assumed) understanding of myths as distorted versions of Bilbical truth, forces his hand to write everything imitatively of the Bible.

So the problem arises - if he was attempting to tell the 'real' Truth of the ancient past, is writing about a devastating flood which changed the whole world, why doesn't his account echo the Biblical account more precisely?

Again: why must it? One will find the true echoes not in the details, which one would hope are different, but in the themes.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

You know how to ask the hard questions. It's not understood from Scripture that animals had moral sense. My thought is that God saw the loss of the animals as tragic. It's an aspect that I don't understand as well as I would like to.

Not sure that I see that God sees the loss of animals as "tragic." Though He may not forget sparrows (Luke 12:6) and knows when one of these 'pennyworth' birds hits the ground (Math 10:29), He also states that he is grieved that He created men and animals (Gen 6:7), and in the Flood wipes them all out (Gen 7:212-23). Adam sinned, yet the animal kingdom is also cursed for his disobedience.

Animals to me seem better treated in Arda.

And if you'd like a harder question, in the same vein as above, well...Let's assume that God had just cause to wipe out everything that breathed air on the planet. He's God, He has a reason for killing off the animals as well as mankind, okay. Later, when the Hebrews are moving to the Promised Land, they are called to wipe out a peoples, men, women and children (Deuteronomy 2, 3 and especially 1 Samuel 15:1-3). The common apologetics that I hear is that these people were very evil, and like a cancerous tumor, must be excised completely to protect others from being infected. Presumably even the infants were so genetically evil that sparing even these babes was a danger, as they would grow up to pollute the community.

That's a bit hard to accept.

Worse, to me, is that God did not call down fire or whatever to terminate these people in a humane fashion. He had them butchered, which is bad, but worse is that He used other humans as His sword. Can you even imagine what it would be like to be in Saul's army, having just exterminated a city, men, women and children? What does that do to one's soul, and if that's to be to the greater glory of God...

And with that, I'll end by pointing to Jonah 4:10, where suddenly God has pity on a city and its cattle.

At least orcs are not humans, and maybe that's why I don't feel for them when they are obliterated. Is that why ME and Eru is more palatable?

As to great floods on record or legend, there are reports that there are remains of civilization at the bottom of the Black Sea, suggesting that at one time it was an area that though below sea level, was dry .... until some kind of rather large disaster (which literally means 'undo-star') .... filled the basin with water.

Saw a documentary of the same thing. It's interesting that so many cultures have a Flood story (even Middle Earth ), and one wonders of the event that sparked the story, back when humans were all together in one central location.

Why not? I don't see that Tolkien's (assumed) understanding of myths as distorted versions of Bilbical truth, forces his hand to write everything imitatively of the Bible.

Again: why must it? One will find the true echoes not in the details, which one would hope are different, but in the themes.

While citing the Biblical quotes above, I noted (yet again) that in Genesis the river Tigras in mentioned as a boundary of Eden. Who then has not looked at a map and played the 'where's Eden' game? You can find the Tigris, but have to speculate from there. Is there more entertainment value when we are given only seeds and not the full-blown tree? Like the other game where one looks at the maps of the Third Age and wonders if Belfalas were...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

And if you'd like a harder question, in the same vein as above, well...Let's assume that God had just cause to wipe out everything that breathed air on the planet. He's God, He has a reason for killing off the animals as well as mankind, okay. Later, when the Hebrews are moving to the Promised Land, they are called to wipe out a peoples, men, women and children (Deuteronomy 2, 3 and especially 1 Samuel 15:1-3). The common apologetics that I hear is that these people were very evil, and like a cancerous tumor, must be excised completely to protect others from being infected. Presumably even the infants were so genetically evil that sparing even these babes was a danger, as they would grow up to pollute the community.

That's a bit hard to accept.

Worse, to me, is that God did not call down fire or whatever to terminate these people in a humane fashion. He had them butchered, which is bad, but worse is that He used other humans as His sword. Can you even imagine what it would be like to be in Saul's army, having just exterminated a city, men, women and children? What does that do to one's soul, and if that's to be to the greater glory of God...

And with that, I'll end by pointing to Jonah 4:10, where suddenly God has pity on a city and its cattle.

At least orcs are not humans, and maybe that's why I don't feel for them when they are obliterated. Is that why ME and Eru is more palatable?

Well, yes. More palatable to people like us who seem to have developed a different mindset toward such things than those who lived as late as the 17th century. Not that I agree with people of pre-18th century! But to the answer. This is going to seem somewhat off-beat in terms of traditional Christian apologetics, but so be it. It has to do with Genesis 6 and references following thereupon. Perhaps you're familiar with the famous passage about the sons of God producing offspring with the daughters of Man? ... and how this seems to have been a direct cause of the Flood? Well, there are two theories (I'm aware of) as to what this was about. (1) The sons of God refers to the descendants of Seth, Adam and Eve's surviving son, such that this is about the morally pure line of Seth corrupting itself by mixing with unclean sinners. I think that this particular reading is incorrect (spurious tripe, really). (2) The sons of God are fallen angels who have taken bodily form .... and the Hebrew being patriarchal, it glosses over the likelihood that there were probably "daughters" of God and 'sons' of Man. Now, the theory is that Satan and his fallen angels's purpose is to sabotage the the prophecy of God in Genesis 3, and the way to do that is to corrupt the seed of all humanity. And we are told in Genesis 6 that only Noah's family remained pure. Thus, all other humans must die off so as to protect the prophecy so that the seed of the woman can bring forth Jesus. So the Flood. That, however, was not the last of this attempt to corrupt the seef of humanity. Look for references to the Nephilim and the Rephaim, and (instead of rolling your eyes at references to Giants) consider that the people who populate Canaan when the Hebrews arrive there are in fact completed corrupted by the seed of fallen angels. Thus, they must be destroyed if this is to be the promised land where the promised savior is to be born, for how can the line remain uncorrupted if Satan's efforts to destroy its purity have such a strong foothold in the very "land of promise"? Whether you accept this or not is your call, of course, but it seems to take the most of those weird, odd, inexplicable passages, into account, and gives a more believable and understandable context for the "genocide" commanded by God in Canaan.

As an aside, I've always found it intriguing that Grendell in the Beowulf story is supposed to be from the lineage of Cain. Not entirely to the point, but not completely unrelated.

[The Saucepan Man]

Elempi, if you don’t mind me saying so, you seem to be going through some fairly tortuous paths to explain some of these passages from the Bible. And, as you appear to accept, they are merely theories, designed no doubt to make the unpalatable more acceptable to those who regard the Bible as fact but are uneasy about the rather “fire and brimstone” aspects of the Old Testament God. (Which are, incidentally, quite out of keeping with his portrayal in the New Testament – did he, like many new fathers, undergo a personality change with the birth of his son? )

Not being a Biblical scholar, I was unaware of much of the detail of some of these stories, but was aware of course of the more “popular” tales, such as the Flood. I share the unease that others have expressed over this. But the story of Abraham and his son has always struck me as quite horrific. God asked him to sacrifice his son – and he was just about to do it! OK, so God had no intention of Abraham actually killing his son, but even to ask him to do so is unpardonable in my view. Especially since he was merely seeking to test Abraham’s faith. He was effectively saying: “I am not sure if you believe in me, so kill your son to prove that you do”. Doesn’t that seem rather vain? My own reaction would undoubtedly have been: “Well, if that’s the kind of God that you are, I’d rather not believe in you, thank you very much”. And so, off to Hell with me simply because I was unwilling to kill my son (surely a sin in God’s eyes anyway). That just doesn’t seem right.

Now, as I understand it, the traditional Christian approach is that one either accepts the Bible as a whole, or one does not accept it at all. And this is one of the things that has always troubled me about Christanity as a faith (and all faiths which adopt a similar approach). You see, I accept that there are many great things that the Church can and does achieve, and that there are many useful messages that one can take from the teachings in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. But I do not accept the Bible as historical fact. I see it as a myth, probably based loosely in parts on historical events. And nor do I accept a God that is willing to relegate decent, law-abiding, moral people to Hell just because they don’t believe in Him or adhere to a particular way of worshipping him.

Which all boils down to one question for me, and here I will try to drag this post back vaguely back on to topic. Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God? I am aware that there are some who have, in recent times, taken a more “flexible” approach to the Bible (regarding, for example, the stories of Creation and Eden are allegorical, rather than factual, in nature) but they, I believe, are in the minority.

If one believes that The Lord of the Rings is an inherently “Christian” work and that it we can extract good and worthwhile messages from it, yet nevertheless can accept it as a work of fiction, why cannot one apply similar reasoning to the Bible? There is, of course, a major difference in that the Bible is expressly set in our world and incorporates elements which may be viewed as historical events. But the principle is surely the same. As I see it, they are both, in their different ways, myths. Ones from which we can perhaps learn much. But myths nevertheless. And accepting that fact surely does n ot in itself mean that one must relinquish one's belief in God.

[Lhunardawen]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God?

In a way you answered your question yourself. Faith - being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1). If everything is believable, tangible, and undeniably true without a shadow of a doubt, what's the use of calling it "faith"?

To drag this on a little more, Christians who are foolish enough (from the world's point of view) to have faith in God find themselves seeing the reality of the Bible in their own lives. That's as far as I can go - it is rather difficult to explain to someone who does not believe. That's like describing the color purple to a blind person.

Sorry if I come off too harsh, that's not my intention.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

[B]
Now, as I understand it, the traditional Christian approach is that one either accepts the Bible as a whole, or one does not accept it at all. And this is one of the things that has always troubled me about Christanity as a faith (and all faiths which adopt a similar approach). You see, I accept that there are many great things that the Church can and does achieve, and that there are many useful messages that one can take from the teachings in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. But I do not accept the Bible as historical fact. I see it as a myth, probably based loosely in parts on historical events. And nor do I accept a God that is willing to relegate decent, law-abiding, moral people to Hell just because they don’t believe in Him or adhere to a particular way of worshipping him.

Which all boils down to one question for me, and here I will try to drag this post back vaguely back on to topic. Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God? I am aware that there are some who have, in recent times, taken a more “flexible” approach to the Bible (regarding, for example, the stories of Creation and Eden are allegorical, rather than factual, in nature) but they, I believe, are in the minority.

.

Those planets must be in alignment sinceI am largely in agreement with Spm!! Except that there is rather more external historical evidence than he supposes and I think there are many Christians who haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater and accept a creator while taking the story of Adam and Eve as allegory. Also who realise that the books of the bible are not contemporary accounts and are open to interpretation. In such a mainstream Cof E church was I raised not particularly recently!!! and I know people who successfully reconcile their careers as scientists with sincere Christian beliefs which would be hard to do if they took the bible literally.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lhuna

In a way you answered your question yourself. Faith - being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see ...

But surely one can have faith (and the attendant absence of proof) without taking everything in the Bible as literal (as Mithalwen has pointed out, there are those who adopt this approach). Indeed, if one accepts the Bible as a factual account then it rather proves the existence of God, and so obviates the need for faith.

But my main (on-topic) point was that, if one can perceive God's message in a story like LotR, which is clearly a fictional account, why can one not accept that God's principal message may successfully be conveyed in an account which, while historically relevant, is nevetheless not strictly literal?

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I think there are many Christians who haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater and accept a creator while taking the story of Adam and Eve as allegory.

True. And this apppoach to faith I find easier to accept and understand. Yet there is also the problem associated with any faith that requires one to adhere to a particular doctrine or face eternal damnation. I recall once speaking to someone who was convinced that she would not see her parents in the afterlife since, although they were decent enough people, they did not share her faith and her particular beliefs and were therefore (in her mind) slated for a one-way trip to Hell. It rather put me off Christianity, or that particular doctrinal approach at least, for life.

I think it was you, Mith, who brought up the distress caused to Tolkien's wife by his insistance that she convert to his faith. Have I got that right? If so, I presume that his insistance was grounded in a similar approach.

[drigel]

Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God?

and I know people who successfully reconcile their careers as scientists with sincere Christian beliefs which would be hard to do if they took the bible literally.

This discussion has been circling around a subject that I have been contemplating. The theology of the author and the works are the subject of many essays, books, and this thread, but as I read all of this (great article, Beth), I become more and more appreciative of the author, and his serious treatment of the actual, literal history of Britain (or western Europe), with the conscious acknowledgement (and historical implications) of Christianity. Incoporating themes that are universal, Christian, and humanity oriented, that are as subtle as they are - is really quite impressive. Especially being Catholic, when one regards the history involved in the early years of the church through the middle ages and into recent history.

It's a subject of reconciliation of our past, a validation - perhaps even a justification, yet still within the realm of the canon of Catholisism, and Christianity. One can debate the flood, literal interpretation, and etc, I think that the real gem is the ability of the author to fold in our ancestor's pre-Christ reality in to the historical context that the dimension Christianity brings to our history. The inhabitants of Europe that lived and struggled and died all those many years before Christ had a place in the Plan (if one subcribes to the idea), or a movement in the Song. Or, the concepts of forgiveness and salvation for an entire culture and people who had not yet heard the word of Christ. That subject very few people are compelled to approach.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Not being a Biblical scholar,. . .

Now, as I understand it, the traditional Christian approach is that one either accepts the Bible as a whole, or one does not accept it at all. And this is one of the things that has always troubled me about Christanity as a faith (and all faiths which adopt a similar approach). You see, I accept that there are many great things that the Church can and does achieve, and that there are many useful messages that one can take from the teachings in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. But I do not accept the Bible as historical fact. I see it as a myth, probably based loosely in parts on historical events. And nor do I accept a God that is willing to relegate decent, law-abiding, moral people to Hell just because they don’t believe in Him or adhere to a particular way of worshipping him.

Which all boils down to one question for me, and here I will try to drag this post back vaguely back on to topic. Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God? I am aware that there are some who have, in recent times, taken a more “flexible” approach to the Bible (regarding, for example, the stories of Creation and Eden are allegorical, rather than factual, in nature) but they, I believe, are in the minority.

If one believes that The Lord of the Rings is an inherently “Christian” work and that it we can extract good and worthwhile messages from it, yet nevertheless can accept it as a work of fiction, why cannot one apply similar reasoning to the Bible? There is, of course, a major difference in that the Bible is expressly set in our world and incorporates elements which may be viewed as historical events. But the principle is surely the same. As I see it, they are both, in their different ways, myths. Ones from which we can perhaps learn much. But myths nevertheless. And accepting that fact surely does n ot in itself mean that one must relinquish one's belief in God.

While I also am no biblical scholar, I think there are other ways in which to view the Bible. This true/untrue literalism tends to belong to the more fundamentalist wings of the faith, but not all Christians view the Bible with a literal eye. There are other ways of understanding historical documents.

Another way of considering it is as the history of God's revelation. Or, if you will, the developing stages of a people's awareness of what or who God is. I suppose this is akin to the way of explaining things to children. When six year olds ask where babies come from, they are happy with a 'simplied version' of events (which does not mean the old birds and bees or cabbage patches) and don't really want a medical-school level lecture on human reproductive technology. (Come to think of it, neither do teens, who are often bored in "Personal Health" classes with physiological details but who don't get the open and frank discussion about the psychology of human sexuality. I digress, though.) Adult understanding too, of all of life and not just theology/religion/sex, (should I add politics? Next paragraph!) undergoes change and development. There are more than a few people who have better knowledge of themselves at 40, 50 and 60 than they had at 25. And of other people.

One problem with this POV is that is sounds similar to arrogant assumptions about human progress. Yet at the same time I think people do, slowly and often times with regression, change awareness. Most people on earth today would not accept slavery as a fair condition, yet there is still much "white slavery trade" going on with women. Yet by and large among the human communities, more are agin it than for it. I'm not quite so sanguine about our understanding of war. The other problem with this approach to revelation is that it tends to understand the Old Testament solely in terms of the terms set out in the New Testament. There's misrepresentation here. I suppose something similar must happen in Islam, where previous revelations are accepted as prior prophesies. (At least, I think this is what happens.)

So, an understanding of the Bible as revelation involves an active, ongoing understanding of interpretation as process rather than as archeology.

Originally Posted by SpM again

I recall once speaking to someone who was convinced that she would not see her parents in the afterlife since, although they were decent enough people, they did not share her faith and her particular beliefs and were therefore (in her mind) slated for a one-way trip to Hell. It rather put me off Christianity, or that particular doctrinal approach at least, for life.

I think it was you, Mith, who brought up the distress caused to Tolkien's wife by his insistance that she convert to his faith. Have I got that right? If so, I presume that his insistance was grounded in a similar approach.

It was Mithalwen as I recall who most vociferously posted about this. But there is nothing in Carpenter's biography of Tolkien which provides a clear explanation of Tolkien's insistence--at least not that I can recall is an adequate treatment of the subject, other than to point out how the decision cut Edith off from one avenue of artistic pursuit, her music playing.

Tolkien's insistence is all the more perplexing given that the Church never insisted upon conversion of a heathen partner. It required a promise that children be brought up Catholic, but it never forced conversion on the partner as a condition of marriage. Strange that Tolkien who was so anti-bullying in LotR should have been so demanding in this instance.

Does that tombstone, stating Luthien and Beren, imply something here?

And, umm, what was the topic here?

EDIT: Opps, cross posted with drigel. I'm glad at least someone bothered to read that article!

[littlemanpoet]

I had a post up early yesterday but being on an unfamiliar computer at a certain conference I was attending, I was unsuccessful in posting it.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

...the Christian group (or just LMP, since he has comprised most of it, to date) has been a lot more willing to give and take, to say "you have a point".

I'm not saying that one group has been, or ought to be, accepting the other group as right. I'm not even saying the Christian group is right (although as a card-carrying member, I obviously feel that way). What I am saying is that the Christian group has thus far been more willing to say "you have a point" whereas the non-Christian group hasn't been willing to say that.

As noted, however, that is simply things as I am seeing them- on this thread. Possibly my vision is being coloured by the side of the fence that I'm on.

I think this last sentence is apt. I used to get on the defensive when such astute questions were put to me, but that has changed. I understand why I did get on the defensive: I was afraid that I wasn't up to defending the Faith, that I had to be the next C.S. Lewis in order to do what I felt needed doing. At the conference I attended I heard a lot of useful stuff, and here's one quote, from Marilynne Robinson of the Iowa Writers' Workshop at the U. of Iowa.:

Nothing true can be said about God in a posture of defense.

The reason is that defense is all about setting borders, confining oneself into a small area so as to protect oneself or one's beliefs. But God is bigger than our beliefs. God exceeds defense, proof, et cetera.

Originally Posted by Betberry

Well, this is a bit of a sticking point, I would think, as I doubt if there is general concensus about where it is literal, where symbolic, where metaphorical. I rather liked the explanation of the Catholic sense of letter and meaning (the article used the terms sign[ifier (sic)] and signified) in the article I referred to above.

Originally Posted by [i

THE GIFT OF ILÙVATAR: TOLKIEN'S THEOLOGICAL VISION[/i] by Damien Casey]Tolkien has a strong dislike of allegory with its one dimensional correspondence of sign and signified. [12] Tolkien's imagination is thoroughly Catholic in this regards. Whereas C.S. Lewis thought allegorically, Tolkien thought symbolically. The Catholic understanding of symbol is not simply something that stands for or points to something else. This is no more than a sign, or in its narrative form, an allegory. Rather, the symbol both points beyond itself and makes present that to which it points. It is the nature of sacrament and symbol to bear within themselves the objects to which they refer. Hence Tolkien's imaginary world hopes in some sense to bear the true world within itself.

I like this. However.... literal versus symbolic versus metaphorical. First off, symbolic seems to be an umbrella term under which metaphor finds itself, no? "Literal" would be the histories and stories, unless the text itself indicates a figurative reading such as the parables. If the Bible calls them histories, so I read them, even if many scholars disagree.

More later.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I want to make sure that my words aren't misunderstood. What I was referring to with the term "this POV" was this idea I presented of historically unfolding understanding. I was acknowledging a problem with the idea I presented, rather than suggesting anyone else's ideas were arrogant.

I get it. Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by alatar

In the New Testament we have demonic possession and less, if any, children of the 'sons of God' (as in Genesis 6).

The questions then seem to be, (1) "Why did the fallen angels stop incarnating themselves some time after the Flood, but not as a result of it; and when?" And related: (2) "Why did the fallen angels choose demonic possession as their evil-de-jour?"

The questions seem linked. Maybe the fallen angels got smarter and began to realize that they could be much more effective as invisible, possessing agents, rather than as physical beings wielding physical power while trammeled to many (if not all) of the limitations thereof.

What's even a bit more confusing is that the Nephalim are considered "heroes of old," which to me seems to be placing them in a somewhat positive light.

That does seem to have a positive connotation, doesn't it? The problem is that we can only guess at who these "heroes of old" were by way of judging the appelation. My "tortuous" tendency is to link these to the demi-gods of various mythologies both known and unknown in our time.

If the fallen could produce hybrid offspring, then why not the unfallen doing the same to provide a counter?

I've thought about this. Could there have been a second Fall involving precisely this temptation? Fodder for a great feinged history, this would make! (I'm already working on it by the by) No proof for this, just speculation, but it does seem to be (absent the idea of it being a second Fall) what Tolkien posed as Melian's story.

Did Tolkien have this superbeing/human pairing because he too believed that Genesis 6 spoke of angels mating with humans?

At the conference I went to I picked up a book that talks about this very thing.

It seems to me that Tolkien has made more sense (mythologically speaking) of this mysterious passage in Genesis than anyone else. He discusses the "Children of God" at great length in numerous letters (Letters, pp. 146-47, 203-4, 284-86, etc.) and in The Silmarillion. Tolkien explains that Men and Elves are known as "Children of God" and that the Valar, who were also created beings but of far greater age and knowledge, loved and yearned after them. All of this fits the Genesis stories very well.

So says this writer. I personally had not felt this way, which is why I have been working on my own feigned history using a my own "tortuous" understanding of precisely the same passages. For any who cares to learn more about that, check out this post and this one too. Enough of that.

Originally Posted by alatar

My point was that if, as you state, that they are to be imprisoned or were imprisoned, then what is the need to drown them?

It seems harsh, but apparently the lines of seed had to be cut off so that they could not pollute the seed through Noah. However, this answer is weakened because of the Rephaim and Nephilim still extant in Canaan when the Hebrews crossed the Jordan. Weakened but not undone. God gave the Hebrews a Law they failed to keep more than they kept it, and God still achieved his purpose in spite of their disobedience; God's big enough to be able to overcome the obstacles of destructive seed. Then why drown the humans? I don't know. A 'fresh' start? It's more complicated than that, and God's purpose is fraught with mystery, so that's the best I can offer for now.

[Formendacil]

Going back a fair ways to the below quote, let me first say that I have been extremely hesitant to enter this thread. It is, first of all, not really Tolkien-based anymore. Secondly, it has gained a very anti-Christian feel to it. LMP has bravely stuck it out, but for the most part it feels like he's just standing here taking the blows for Christianity, doing his best to apologise and admit the validity of other people's questions, while the non-Christians seem to just be standing there inflexibly, willing to throw out monkeywrench after monkeywrench, while refusing to admit the potential "maybe it could be" validity of a single Christian viewpoint.

Anyway, I've hesitated to get involved here, and I think there's something about anti-Christian thought in general that I could learn from this...

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But myths nevertheless. And accepting that fact surely does not in itself mean that one must relinquish one's belief in God.

If that is your convinced opinion, Master Saucepan Man, nothing that I say is very likely to change it. However, allow me to try and explain WHY we take the Bible- or most of the Bible, anyway- as fact, or close to fact. (For most Christians are not fundamentalists. We admit the existence of story and metaphor- something that Balrog-wingers do not... )

In the 4th Century, the Church in an Ecumenical Council, selected the books today known as the Bible, assembled them officially into one, and declared -using their authority as the representatives of God on Earth- that these books were the Inspired Word of God. This was not done hastily, but after careful consideration, and the books they canonised were by and large books that had been held in reverence by Christians since they were written- or in the case of the Old Testament, since Christ Himself.

If you do not adhere to the Christian faith, there is no reason in the world for you to believe the Bible. If you DO claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, then it would be well to exhaust all the options open to you BEFORE deciding that the Inspired Word of God is a "myth", "legend", or "distorting of the truth".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

LMP has bravely stuck it out, but for the most part it feels like he's just standing here taking the blows for Christianity, doing his best to apologise and admit the validity of other people's questions, while the non-Christians seem to just be standing there inflexibly, willing to throw out monkeywrench after monkeywrench, while refusing to admit the potential "maybe it could be" validity of a single Christian viewpoint.

The warnings about 'pearls before swine' spring to mind. Unfortunately, if you stand up & declare your faith someone is going to challenge you on it, even say nasty things about it.

My feeling is that all things should be open to criticism. If there is a logical explanation for something that can be offered. Events like the slaughter of the Canaanites, or the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son, (or Balaam's particularly talented donkey come to that) are 'challenges' to Christians. 'How can a loving God demand such things' they will ask themselves & struggle to find the answers through prayer. Ironically, non-Christians will ask themselves exactly the same question & decide there's no point trying to answer them & decide to just forget the whole thing.

Now, what's interesting is that in Tolkien & Philip Pullman we see these two approaches set out in the form of Secondary worlds. Tolkien attempts to explain through his Legendarium how God/Eru could be a loving creator & at the same time permit suffering to exist. He shows us the extreme of evil but still clearly states that both Eru & His creation are Good' (though Marred by evil). Tolkien refuses to give glib answers.

Pullman, on the other hand, sees the evil & suffering in the world & decides God is a senile old so-&-so, & we need to be rid of Him once & for all so we can take over & run the show ourselves.

Perhaps the difference is down to what you give priority to - if you focus on the evil & suffering in the world you'll decide that either there isn't a God at all, or that if there is he's like the one Pullman depicted & live in hope of the consumation depicted in HDM.

If you focus on God you'll see evil as ultimately insignificant because God was, is, & will be, & 'all shall be well, & all shall be well, & all manner of thing shall be well'. Both sides seem to be looking at the same thing but from different perspectives.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Elempi, if you don’t mind me saying so, you seem to be going through some fairly tortuous paths to explain some of these passages from the Bible.

What parts? If tortuous, that says more about my failure so far to sufficiently understand and explain than it does about God's porpose.

Originally Posted by SPM

And, as you appear to accept, they are merely theories, designed no doubt to make the unpalatable more acceptable to those who regard the Bible as fact but are uneasy about the rather “fire and brimstone” aspects of the Old Testament God.

It depends upon which one you refer to. Some of my replies are more theoretical, others are more strongly held and more defensible.

Originally Posted by SPM

(Which are, incidentally, quite out of keeping with his portrayal in the New Testament – did he, like many new fathers, undergo a personality change with the birth of his son?)

Hmm.... tortuous and 'out of keeping' are in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. After all, descriptions of the complexities of reality have always run the risk of seeming so. It should be said that 'tortuous' does not necessarily equal 'incorrect'.

Originally Posted by SPM

But the story of Abraham and his son has always struck me as quite horrific. God asked him to sacrifice his son – and he was just about to do it! OK, so God had no intention of Abraham actually killing his son, but even to ask him to do so is unpardonable in my view. Especially since he was merely seeking to test Abraham’s faith. He was effectively saying: “I am not sure if you believe in me, so kill your son to prove that you do”. Doesn’t that seem rather vain? My own reaction would undoubtedly have been: “Well, if that’s the kind of God that you are, I’d rather not believe in you, thank you very much”. And so, off to Hell with me simply because I was unwilling to kill my son (surely a sin in God’s eyes anyway). That just doesn’t seem right.

You're not Abraham. I can assure you that God will not put such a test to you any time soon, because you are not anywhere near the place with God, if all my reading of your words are any indication, that Abraham was when God tested him in this way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would be fair to say that God's test to you, SPM, is simple belief that a God who loves can allow evil into the world. Abraham had already exhibited faith to take God at his word to go to a foreign land with no certainty of wellbeing or future wealth, had been promised a son in his old age, by a wife almost as old as he, and had been established in his new land because he did believe. And God had actually spoken to him on numerous occasions so that there was a real and deep relationship. This final test was for Abraham to prove that he still put God before the son God had given him. Vain? No, because this test was not an end in itself. God had a purpose to save humans from themselves through this man's seed, and it was necessary that this man put God first in his life, or else God would have found it necessary to go find someone who would. Why did God need Abaraham to put Him first? Mary. There had to be a precedent and likelihood of people putting God first, a tradition of holiness, so that a young woman in the time of the Roman Empire would submit her body to the purpose of God. "Let it be to me as you have said." God never tests us for vanity. Such would be a misunderstanding of Him.

Originally Posted by SPM

Now, as I understand it, the traditional Christian approach is that one either accepts the Bible as a whole, or one does not accept it at all. And this is one of the things that has always troubled me about Christanity as a faith (and all faiths which adopt a similar approach). ...Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God?

LotR never claimed to be divine revelation. Tolkien would have been horrified. By contrast, the Bible speaks of itself as revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. If God is who he says He is in the Bible, then it is necessary to believe him as he presents himself. To disbelieve any of the Bible is to place human understanding as greater than God's revelation. There's a verse in the Bible that says "lean not on your own understanding, but upon every word that comes from the mouth of God". It's that kind of message that keeps some of us who follow Jesus saying to ourselves things like 'I don't understand it', but that says more about me than it does about what I'm reading. It is I who lack understanding, not God who lacks justice, or goodness, or what have you. Not long ago I tended toward a universalistic approach to the understanding of life after death. But then I made choice of "Okay, God, no more 'yeah buts'." I was humbled, finally stopped competing with God. (yeah, go figure, me competing with God ... how foolish can one get? ) Since I made that choice, so much that I used to misunderstand has become clear.

Originally Posted by SPM

And nor do I accept a God that is willing to relegate decent, law-abiding, moral people to Hell just because they don’t believe in Him or adhere to a particular way of worshipping him.

Decency, law-abidingness, and morality are not enough, nor are they the issue. It's all about who Jesus is.

I've answered this above. Those who have taken a more "flexible" approach (which included me until recently) have compromised their faith. How they can hold to what they do, without holding to the rest, is a rather tragic demonstration of irrationality.

Lhunardawen's answer is good as far as it goes. But faith should never be irrational. If someone believes that Jesus died and was raised by God, that person should be convinced based on the best reasoning he or she can muster.

Originally Posted by alatar

How do angels mate with humans, one creature being completely spirit while the other material? Sucubi/incubi perhaps? Or do fallen angels have some kind of inherent physicality?

As you comment yourself, this little problem didn't seem to bother Tolkien as it relates to Thingol and Melian. My sense is that angels apparently had the ability to incarnate. But even that is different from Jesus. They did not choose to humble themselves so as to be born of a woman. The New Testament speaks of Jesus' resurrection body in such a way that it seems to be perhaps more real than our own, as if maybe this is what could have been for Adam and Eve had they passed their test; but that last bit regarding Adam and Eve is speculation, of course.

Originally Posted by alatar

Though you may simply be stating what others have said, I agree that it's a bit convoluted and makes God seem less omnipotent as He must rely on human agents to execute peoples so that His plan will succeed.

This is a very important point. By allowing humans free will, God has necessarily placed limits upon his own omnipotence. This is rather frightening concept that most Christians don't want to try to get their minds around, but when you look at it, it's pretty obvious. What is also necessary to conclude from it, is that God is an exceedingly brilliant craftsGod (can't exactly say craftsman although we could about Jesus I suppose), in that he still works all of human free will with all of its mix of good and evil and chaos into his ultimate plan for the good of those that love him and keep his word.

Originally Posted by alatar

And just how does one destroy spiritual beings by breaking the material bodies?

They were not destroyed, but imprisoned. Check out 2 Petere 2:4-5.

Warning: speculation: regarding sub-human or super-human, I've been wondering these last few years about such myths as the minotaur, or hippogriffs, or what have you. Now, they may just be fantasy, but if one posits the power of fallen angelic beings to incarnate as they wish and commit whatever unspeakable acts they wish to, who knows what might not result? But as I said, that's just speculation.

As to "literally": Where the Bible speaks literally, I read it literally. Where is speaks metaphorically, I read it so. Where it speaks mythically, I so read it; however, I take my lead from Tolkien and do not equate myth with falsehood.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

...the developing stages of a people's awareness of what or who God is.

I think this aspect is there to be found in the bible, but this does not remove (what I understand to be) the reality of its divine inspiration.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

One problem with this POV is that is sounds similar to arrogant assumptions about human progress.

This is something I wrestle with. What I come down to is that I will inevitably be seen as arrogant by some people, and that is something I have no control over. What I can control is what I say and write. By accepting the Bible on its own terms, as God's word, I am led to certain honest conclusions with all due humility, aware that it seems like arrogance to some.

Originally Posted by Bb

The other problem with this approach to revelation is that it tends to understand the Old Testament solely in terms of the terms set out in the New Testament. There's misrepresentation here.

I suppose this could be viewed as a problem. I don't. I take my lead from Jesus who said he and the Kingdom of God were the fulfillment of the OT.

Tolkien's insistence is all the more perplexing given that the Church never insisted upon conversion of a heathen partner. It required a promise that children be brought up Catholic, but it never forced conversion on the partner as a condition of marriage. Strange that Tolkien who was so anti-bullying in LotR should have been so demanding in this instance. ... Does that tombstone, stating Luthien and Beren, imply something here?

Now there's a fascinating thought! Anyway, Tolkien's insistence in this one case, being as odd for him as it was, emphasizes the importance with which he viewed it.

Hell is probably the single most difficult stumbling block. I realize that no matter what I say with this one, it's going to seem like an insult. I can't help that, and I don't mean it that way. I had a bit of an epiphany that hell is actually best seen as God's final grace to those who refuse him. 'What about the fire and brimstone?' you may ask, or the lake of fire? Here's a case in which I see those things as metaphorical. Hell is best understood as the absence of God. Not that God is absent from anywhere in existence; but humans have this unusual gift that they can choose not to be a part of God's reality. It's stunning, really. But God does finally say to some, "Your will be done; exist for eternity without Me." I can imagine this feeling like a lake of fire, or like fire and brimstone, especially if the person must live with the regret of "if only I had allowed him in, but I finally know better." That's hell enough.

Originally Posted by Formy

LMP has bravely stuck it out, but for the most part it feels like he's just standing here taking the blows for Christianity, doing his best to apologise and admit the validity of other people's questions, while the non-Christians seem to just be standing there inflexibly, willing to throw out monkeywrench after monkeywrench, while refusing to admit the potential "maybe it could be" validity of a single Christian viewpoint.

I had to laugh about this. However, I don't see it quite that way. I'm more than happy to entertain the questions, tough as some of them are. Wrestling with them honestly helps me to understand my faith better, and it just doesn't matter what the motivations are of others on this thread. I'm responsible for mine alone. But thanks for the support, Formy. As to everything else you said, I say 'yes'.

There's a certain sense in which I think the 'pearls before swine' analogy is not apt to this thread. Swine were unclean, and content to live in their filth, and were apt to mistake pearls for more of their filth. Given that all who post here have a high regard for Tolkien, I would say that the analogy does not obtain, on that merit alone. Must run..... dinner and a conference...... back later.....

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

There's a certain sense in which I think the 'pearls before swine' analogy is not apt to this thread. Swine were unclean, and content to live in their filth, and were apt to mistake pearls for more of their filth. Given that all who post here have a high regard for Tolkien, I would say that the analogy does not obtain, on that merit alone. Must run..... dinner and a conference...... back later.....

Actually, pigs are highly intelligent & scrupulously clean animals - its only human farming methods which have created the image of the pig as a 'dirty' creature.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

As you comment yourself, this little problem didn't seem to bother Tolkien as it relates to Thingol and Melian. My sense is that angels apparently had the ability to incarnate.

I've read up on the matter a bit, and it's definitely not clear whether fallen angels have the ability to incarnate. Jude 6 seems to state that the fallen ones are not even around, having been chained as was Melkor. On the other hand, Jacob (Israel) wrestles with a being that can bless him, and the angels at Sodom had physicality enough to attract some unwanted attention, but in these examples seemingly these are not angels of the fallen sort. In the New Testament we have demonic possession and less, if any, children of the 'sons of God' (as in Genesis 6) . What's even a bit more confusing is that the Nephalim are considered "heroes of old," which to me seems to be placing them in a somewhat positive light. If the fallen could produce hybrid offspring, then why not the unfallen doing the same to provide a counter? It's not clear, and so I will quit the point as I'm not sure what else to say. But thanks for your thoughts.

The angels, the maia, in Arda can incarnate yet do not mate with humans, at least directly. I guess the elves are something of a hybrid, allowing Melian's spirit/blood to flow in Aragorn's veins. Did Tolkien have this superbeing/human pairing because he too believed that Genesis 6 spoke of angels mating with humans?

By allowing humans free will, God has necessarily placed limits upon his own omnipotence. This is rather frightening concept that most Christians don't want to try to get their minds around, but when you look at it, it's pretty obvious.

As a finite being that is so out of my league it's hard to comment, as I think that you've just said is that the infinite imposes limits on itself. That's one big rock it can't move!

They were not destroyed, but imprisoned. Check out 2 Peter 2:4-5.

My point was that if, as you state, that they are to be imprisoned or were imprisoned, then what is the need to drown them?

Warning: speculation: regarding sub-human or super-human, I've been wondering these last few years about such myths as the minotaur, or hippogriffs, or what have you. Now, they may just be fantasy, but if one posits the power of fallen angelic beings to incarnate as they wish and commit whatever unspeakable acts they wish to, who knows what might not result? But as I said, that's just speculation.

That's interesting that you see it through that lens, as I too have wondered what put those ideas into people's heads, but instead of considering fallen angels as a source, would consider some unusual animal that, with the passage of time, took on a more impossible visage. I've always wondered what our lives would be like back then, when one permitted oneself more time in which to dream and name clouds.

With the 24/7 media blitz in which we live today, could something as spectacular as LotR even make it to the presses? Or would Professor Tolkien be blogging instead?

Hell is probably the single most difficult stumbling block. I realize that no matter what I say with this one, it's going to seem like an insult. I can't help that, and I don't mean it that way. I had a bit of an epiphany that hell is actually best seen as God's final grace to those who refuse him. 'What about the fire and brimstone?' you may ask, or the lake of fire? Here's a case in which I see those things as metaphorical. Hell is best understood as the absence of God. Not that God is absent from anywhere in existence; but humans have this unusual gift that they can choose not to be a part of God's reality. It's stunning, really. But God does finally say to some, "Your will be done; exist for eternity without Me." I can imagine this feeling like a lake of fire, or like fire and brimstone, especially if the person must live with the regret of "if only I had allowed him in, but I finally know better." That's hell enough.

Hell actually makes sense. You don't want to be with God; fine, have it your way. Like has been said, to truly say yes you must have the option to say no. And just where do unrepentent men in Middle Earth, or say those like the Mouth of Sauron, go when they die?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

Though you may simply be stating what others have said, I agree that it's a bit convoluted and makes God seem less omnipotent as He must rely on human agents to execute peoples so that His plan will succeed.

Originally Posted by me

This is a very important point. By allowing humans free will, God has necessarily placed limits upon his own omnipotence. This is rather frightening concept that most Christians don't want to try to get their minds around, but when you look at it, it's pretty obvious. What is also necessary to conclude from it, is that God is an exceedingly brilliant craftsGod (can't exactly say craftsman although we could about Jesus I suppose), in that he still works all of human free will with all of its mix of good and evil and chaos into his ultimate plan for the good of those that love him and keep his word.

Correction

I was wrong. No entity in the universe is freer than God. Allowing free will to humans didn't change that at all. God is not bound by our choices. In fact, any of the oaths and promises He swore to in Scripture, do nothing more than agree with God's character anyway, so God is not altering a thing by having spoken those oaths or made those promises. God is free. God is bound by nothing other than God's own character.

Passive tense in LotR

For a clue into the Christian sub-text in LotR, take note Tolkien's use of the passive tense. Try to decipher what agent is active in these passive tense phrases. What person, entity, power, or what-have-you is acting upon the hobbits, men, elves, whomever? 'Twould make a most interesting study.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Perhaps you're familiar with the famous passage about the sons of God producing offspring with the daughters of Man? ... and how this seems to have been a direct cause of the Flood?

Yes, I'm familiar with it as with the opposing argument. How do angels mate with humans, one creature being completely spirit while the other material? Sucubi/incubi perhaps? Or do fallen angels have some kind of inherent physicality? My understanding always has been that any angel or devil is permitted only that which God allows. And again, if this isn't so, then one can then question Christianity's keystone, the Resurrection, as any angel or devil could easily mascarade as the Christ. He could live out a life, get crucified, seemingly die then come out of the grave, as he's a spiritual/material being hybrid of some kind?!?

Though you may simply be stating what others have said, I agree that it's a bit convoluted and makes God seem less omnipotent as He must rely on human agents to execute peoples so that His plan will succeed. And what of the livestock? Are these too somehow infected with fallen angels? And just how does one destroy spiritual beings by breaking the material bodies? Wouldn't it have been loverly if only the physical body of Satan could have been so broken so that he could not thwart so many godly plans?

Can't help but noting that we again have a peoples labeled as 'subhuman' (which is interesting as they purportedly are superhuman) so that their extermination can be justified. Orcs.

Eru has it otherwise, stating that despite everyone's best efforts Its will will be done. On the other hand, Maia can mate with elves who can mate with humans...