Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
View Poll Results: Is Eru God? | |||
Yes | 43 | 66.15% | |
No | 22 | 33.85% | |
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-30-2005, 02:41 PM | #201 | |
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
Quote:
And am I an extra special person, alatar, for participating in the thread without even having voted?
__________________
peace
|
|
11-30-2005, 02:48 PM | #202 |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,458
|
Hear! Hear! I have clicked post reply umpteen times to justify my choice but the noise was making my ears bleed.
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
11-30-2005, 02:54 PM | #203 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
But anyway, I really see what the now-visible davem is saying. After receiving some criticism regarding the paganness of the LotR, JRRT continually points to 'similarities' and says, "See? There's yet another reference to Christianity." Who can argue with the author? And if you all see something stellar in a post of mine that makes my point, surely I'll claim the accident to be intentional - diamond in the rough for those adept at digging, as it were, and not just some lump of compressed carbon.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
|
11-30-2005, 03:11 PM | #204 | ||
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
Quote:
Quote:
Since Tolkien didn't write anywhere the exact words "Okay guys, pay attention now: Eru is God.", it's really no skin off my nose whether he is or isn't. Call me a stubborn block-head that would be unable to see through a brick wall no matter how long a time given for it, but delving through subtlety in search of some Freudian concept of slightly hidden messages doesn't appeal to me unless I'm in it for the sheer hilarity of it all. Tolkien intended to secretly convey to us that the all-powerful Eru is God? No way, are you serious? He's also Santa Claus?!? Seriously though, you can find anything you intend to look for, if you simply know where to look. Gimli and Legolas as well as Sam and Frodo are gay. Elrond is sexist as shown by him not appointing females to the Fellowship. Celebrian was raped. Feanor wasn't nearly as bad as he was made out to be. Elves have ears shaped like maple leaves. Balrogs look like emus. When you get a bunch of sophists running around with a point in their head that they're intent on, they can prove anything, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that that's what makes this argument so much fun.
__________________
peace
Last edited by Feanor of the Peredhil; 11-30-2005 at 03:20 PM. |
||
11-30-2005, 04:08 PM | #205 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it.
Posts: 1,696
|
Quote:
All we have to go on is avgue textual references, the author's statements, and the author's possible motives. The motives have no proof that would hold up to a review board, court of law, etc, the text is vague and could be interpreted any way you want to, so the most concrete evidence we have are the author's statements, and those clearly say that Eru is God. But you know what they say: "When all else fails, manipulate the data."
__________________
We can't all be Roas when it comes to analysing... -Lommy I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen |
|
11-30-2005, 04:18 PM | #206 | |
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
Quote:
__________________
peace
|
|
11-30-2005, 04:33 PM | #207 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
What it is, rather (I would say) is a work that came from his heart, & one that he didn't have much control over - he wrote & re-wrote it, till he found out 'what really happened'. He then attempted to understand it, make sense of it - mainly for himself, but also for the readers who quizzed him on it. I think we're talking something much closer to [i]revisionism[i] than 'revision'.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 11-30-2005 at 04:37 PM. |
||
11-30-2005, 07:04 PM | #208 | |||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
For example, with specific reference to the poll that I linked to, one can, at the very least, conclude from it that a sizeable majority of those Downers who responded (and therefore had an interest in, and a view on, the issue) were of the opinion that the meaning of LotR was to be found in the reader's experience rather than authorial intention (or any of the other given choices). Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|||
11-30-2005, 07:31 PM | #209 | |||||||||||
Banshee of Camelot
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 5,830
|
I finally finished reading the whole 5 pages of posts – another fascinating (but time-consuming) discussion!
I voted yes, not only because for Tolkien Eru meant God, but because he pretty much reflects my own conception of God. In fact, reading Tolkien’s works was rather like a revelation to me!! I must admit that my own faith is rather vague – that is, I have a deep longing to believe in God, and with my feelings I do believe, but as soon as I start thinking rationally, I start doubting. There’s just too much injustice and suffering in the world to believe in a God that is omnipotent AND loving. It doesn’t need the direct experience of suffering – just read history (“a long defeat” indeed!) or listen to the news every day –it could lead one to despair! For years I just tried to evade thinking too much about that. It was reading Tolkien’s works and letters that caused me to reflect on my own belief again. I feel rather like one man who wrote to Tolkien about his experience with LotR: letter #328 Quote:
As Tolkien said himself in letter 142 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
from Letter131 Quote:
On the whole I find the end of LotR a well-balanced mixture of sadness and hope. Hope without guarantees perhaps, but the book “lifts up my heart”. I get the comforting impression that a merciful providence is behind everything. Now the Silmarillion is quite different. So sombre and pessimistic, everything seems doomed from the start. At first I found it really hard to believe that such tragic and hopeless stories like the one about Túrin were written by the same author… But the more I read in it – and especially after reading U.T., I grew more and more fond of it. It seems to me that Tolkien's works, especially the Silmarillion, are partly his own way of pondering over those questions that engage us all: about death and immortality, good and evil, free will and providence and the meaning of suffering and injustice in the world. And I think Davem has hit upon a truth (for me anyway) when he wrote: Quote:
“For of us is required a blind trust, and a hope without assurance, knowing not what lies before us in a little while.” And with king Meneldur asking “If either way may lead to evil, of what worth is choice ?” Eru is inscrutable indeed (as is God in my eyes at least), yet there is some attempt at a justification Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Yes! "wish-fulfilment dreams" we spin to cheat our timid hearts, and ugly Fact defeat! Last edited by Guinevere; 12-01-2005 at 05:01 AM. Reason: to correct a quote that wasn't quite correct. |
|||||||||||
11-30-2005, 10:00 PM | #210 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
Luckily I have sack clothe to match. And note that it's easier to start with the answer and work backwards assembling the evidence to fit, as that way you're sure to reach the conclusion that the evidence points to 100% of the time. As long as no one was watching your backtracking, you can pretend that the evidence speaks for itself. And Guinevere's post regarding the world light by an invisible lamp is excellent.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
|
11-30-2005, 10:41 PM | #211 | |
Dead Serious
|
Quote:
I'm not saying that your theory is entirely discreditable, but it does make Tolkien's statement that it was CONSCIOUSLY Catholic in the revision to be either a misstatment, or- to take the facts in the most simply presented way, to be a lie. Lies, as far as we are shown, are very much not in keeping with Tolkien's style (he was quite often blunt in his letters, as I'm sure you are aware), and it's very much not in keeping with his Catholic faith, which we know he was fanatical about. There are definitely some thing about what you are saying that seem to ring true, Davem, but your theory is directly at odds with what Tolkien said, and I'm loathe to directly contradict a clear statement made by Tolkien himself. Of course, the people on this forum would probably STILL give Balrogs wings even if Tolkien had deposited the same statement "Balrogs do not have wings" in the bank every year of his life, to be produced at the time of his death as the final authority in the Balrog wing debate. For some reasom, people seem to have a problem dealing with direct statements as meaning exactly what they say.
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
|
12-01-2005, 05:35 AM | #212 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
I think Tolkien had convinced himself that LotR was made 'consciously Catholic' in the revision - but (if you've read HoM-e) can you tell me where the evidence is for that? As I said, I think Tolkien spent years after the publication of LotR attempting to understand it & make it fit with his beliefs. He constructed a Catholic interpretation of the story - which many of his readers (though not all) have accepted. I don't know where the Legendarium came from - his constant references to 'finding out what really happened' rather than 'inventing' are clearly true & I think it was only the critical & readerly responses & challenges that made him actually start analysing it for meaning & conformity to his faith. One point Hutton made in his talk: Tolkien's claim that LotR was about 'the elevation of the humble' & that this somehow confirmed its Christianity. Fairy stories were the 'literature' of ordinary folk, & their heroes tend to be ordinary, humble heroes - ie a 'humble flittle man elevated to the status of 'hero' is not a uniquely Christian theme. Tolkien supplied that interpretation of his Hobbit heroes & then claimed that tsuch things made it a specifically Christian story. Not 'lying', then, but not exactly stating the 'facts'. |
|
12-01-2005, 08:27 AM | #213 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
The full quote is, if I am not mistaken:
Quote:
davem used the example of 'the elevation of the humble' as being something Tolkien used to 'prove' the Christian credentials of his work - while it is actually a far more universal factor. This is just one of many examples throughout the Legendarium which can have mulitple meanings and interpretations. Symbolism such as sacrifice is not exclusive to Christianity, it is Universal. I'd wholeheartedly agree with Tolkien that his work is fundamentally religious, but in a truly Universal way. I think that his infamous statement/soundbite can be re-interpreted as it is Tricksy. A 'fundamentally' religious and Catholic work may be said to have its roots in those things; the origins of the work were both from the 'religious' i.e. sacred but not necessarily Catholic (bearing in mind Tolkien was steeped in knowledge of Pagan literature, both European and Classical) and from the 'Catholic' i.e. his own idiosyncratic and intensely personal interpretation of Catholicism. Tolkien seems to be saying that at first he did have reference to rites and rituals in his work (unconsciously, as though he could not help but do this) but that in order to make his work coherent as a representation of a Secondary World he had to ensure that such references were excised. The things which happen in his works follow his own (as a Catholic) moral standards (How could they not reflect his views on what is right and wrong behaviour? Are there many writers who would produce something which they found morally repugnant?) and he wrote of these 'unconsciously' at first. When it came to revision of what he had written, he bore in mind (consciously) his own Primary World faith and ensured he had excised explicit references to this. Note that what was left was not Catholic, but 'religious', a very different kettle of fish. His statement, if viewed as proof positive that he did revise his work to make it more Catholic actually does not make sense. If looked at that way then he seems to be saying "Well, I started off unable to do anything but write a Catholic work. Then I had to edit my work and realised it had to be a Catholic work so I removed all the Catholic references."
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
12-01-2005, 08:54 AM | #214 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,997
|
Lalwendë, that is a very interesting analysis of Tolkien's comment in theological terms. However, I have always interpreted Tolkiens comment about the absorption of the religious element into the story and the symbolism as an aesthetic statement.
To explain my interpretation, I compare LotR with Lewis' Narnia series. I must admit to complete failure to ever being able to finish reading Narnia, no matter how much I am delighted by the idea of a wordrobe into another world. I have tried, and tried recently as preparation for viewing the movie (the trailers of which attract me very much). Yet time and again I cannot get over the abject obviousness of Lewis' allegory. I find it wearyingly boring. I very much prefer the indeterminacy of Tolkien's hints and suggestions. Perhaps this says more about me as a reader than about either author but I think that Tolkien was a more astute storeyteller than Lewis. I think he had a surer hand in understanding what drives audiences/ readers to adopt stories keenly and closely and I think it was this concept of the relation between author and audience that drove his thoughts about the Catholic references rather than any theological desire per se.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
12-03-2005, 01:10 PM | #215 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
I just found this in an essay by Verlyn Flieger, 'A Cautionary Tale' in an edition of The Chesterton Review. The relevant issue is avaiable as a free download from the website.
Quote:
|
||
12-03-2005, 07:31 PM | #216 | ||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it.
Posts: 1,696
|
*gives up and gets involved in the theological debate*
I can't let this go unanswered. It seems that one Verlyn Flieger has a rather onesided view of Christian beliefs. Unfortunately, this shortcoming is shared by far too many people, on all sides of every debate involving it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Many would say that the fall was inevetible because of how things were set up in the Garden. I could argue till I'm blue in the face about why the fall happened, why there was a forbidden tree in the first place, and what God was doing while all this was going on (surely He was aware) but that would be a bit off topic. All I'll say is that the Fall was an onvious possiblity, maybe it was even supposed to happen. Quote:
__________________
We can't all be Roas when it comes to analysing... -Lommy I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen |
||||
12-04-2005, 04:43 AM | #217 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
I think those last three words sum up the difference perfectly - in Judeo-Christian myth the Fall is a tragedy because it didn't have to happen. Tolkien clearly implies that if a Fall was not necessarily 'inevitable' (though I wonder from his words whether he didn't actually consider it was inevitable) it was certainly very likely. God creates a world which He considers 'Good', Eru creates a world which is already flawed in such a way that a Fall is 'an accident waiting to happen'. Eru chose to allow Melkor's dissonance to be included in the creation. Why? To give Melkor the chance to repent when he saw his 'dissonance' made real? Fine, but real people area going to suffer as a resullt of that act of compassion. Or was it all about 'free will' - too easy. If I leave a group of of children alone in a room where I have placed a load of sharp knives in full view because they have 'free will' as far as what they do with those knives, am I thereby absolved of any responsibility as to what they do? Would I be justified in punishing those children if they stabbed each other? In short, Tolkien clearly saw a difference between his myth & the Biblical story.... Then again, which of his letters do we go with - in other letters he implies there is no difference: Eru is God, Middle-earth is our world. This illustrates Hutton's point about the Letters - we can't depend on them to present us with a coherent view re the theology of Middle-earth & its correspondence or otherwise with Christianity. He wanted the two to match up, & wherever posssible he tried to make them 'fit'. There were certain things that didn't match up, that he couldn't make match up, & in those instances he was forced to admit that (as in the letter quoted by Fleiger). His later writings show his attempt (need???) to make them fit. The whole 'Myths Transformed' section of HoM-e 10 shows him trying to force his creation into the Judeo-Christian model & (as even Christopher acknowledges) failing to do so & in the process harming his own creation. He wanted the two to match up perfectly, but he couldn't make them do so. His mythology was his real religion, what he really believed, how he really thought the world worked. Yet he considered himself an orthodox Catholic. Doublethink I would suggest. And this doublethink allowed him to create one of the greatest works of Art in the history of literature. Only when he was challenged as to its unorthodoxy was he backed into a corner. Like Frodo on Amon Hen, caught between the Voice & the Eye, he writhed. |
||
12-04-2005, 09:51 AM | #218 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it.
Posts: 1,696
|
Quote:
In the Garden of Eden, God set up a failure- the Tree- allowed Satan in to tempt Adam and Eve, and then He wasn't there at the crucial moment. Many Theologians look at this and say it was inevitable. Given Tolkien's pessimisstic view of God, it's possible that he belonged to this school of thought. Therefore, perhaps he wasn't trying to insert Catholicism into the story, but trying to make it look more positive and optimistic, as was the status quo of that time. Looking like a Calvinist (which is a sect of Protestantism) would not be acceptable to an Orthodox Catholic. So, if we can't trust his statements, and the text is vague, and there's no hard evidence about his mindset, what are we left with? Our own interpretations? Eru help us.... EDIT: My pastor made my point about the fall of Man for me this morning. "We tend to view the fall like this: God created a perfect world, and declared it good. Then Adam and Eve come along and screw it all up and 'Ooops!' God is caught off guard. He says, 'Oh no! Whatdo I do? Anyone have any ideas?' Jesus stands up in the back and says, 'It's ok, Dad, I have a plan.' It seems silly, but that's how we really think of it. God had a perfect plan A, we screwed it up, and He had to come up with a Plan B. The truth is more likely to be that God planned in the Fall, that in fact it was part of his Perfect Plan A to reveal His love through our reconciliation to Him. The Fall of Man was supposed to happen." This is not a widely accepted thought, especially not in Catholicism. If this is the idea that Tolkien had, in some form, he may have tried later to bring it back to the more accepted "We screwed up God's Plan, now we have to pay for it." Galileo, when he suggested the world was round, was nearly excommunicated untill he recanted his idea. Tolkien may have felt the same pressure to conform to the Catholic Church, not by inserting Christianity, but by fixing the view of it, even openly admitting that his version didn't coincide with the truth, even if that thruth may have been wrong.
__________________
We can't all be Roas when it comes to analysing... -Lommy I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen Last edited by Roa_Aoife; 12-04-2005 at 12:56 PM. |
|
12-14-2005, 06:35 AM | #219 |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
This question came to me while listening to a radio discussion of the Christian God's omniscience in regards to free will. The caller was perplexed, as having free will in the same universe with a God who knew the future didn't seem to be tenable.
The show host responded that the omniscient God sees the future as we see the/our past. We do not cause things to happen in the past, yet can have full knowledge of the events. Anyway, the question then is: Is Tolkien's world Eru's replay? In the Christian world I assume that even though God knows the future, we are still moving from some start point in time to some other for the first time - it's all a new game. The future has yet to happen, and we're playing the game to some end. Tolkien's God Eru has already played the game once, and Arda is a replay. Surely I know that there are new things that arise in the playing of Arda that might not have been heard in the Music, but I assume that Eru heard all themes, notes, etc, and from His perspective, Arda's life is a replay. How does Tolkien reconcile these differences in 'theology?' Hope that that makes sense.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
12-14-2005, 07:07 AM | #220 | |
Deadnight Chanter
|
alatar, it seems to me you repeat the mistake the show caller made - how exactly Eru's omniscience differs from real world God's omniscience?
Indeed, did Eru 'play the game' once, or was it a rather a 'theme' - a rehearsal, a plan, rails along which the train of the world would move? I can't see 'difference of ideologies' here. The 'rehearsal' was made for Ainur's sake, to let them see what it was all about, to give them 'general idea', not to help Eru see what He was doing. Besides, terms 'first time', 'second time' seem inapplicable to me in the case - the Music was before world's time, and if there is any other kind of time in the Halls of Eru we do not know. I once made a following analogy, I believe it may be applicable here: Quote:
Let's further tune the image by saying Man at the Table may be seeing an Ant for each given moment of it's progress along the Rope, but all individual Ants are, in fact, same Ant stretched through the length of the Rope-Time.
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
|
12-14-2005, 07:35 AM | #221 | |||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,997
|
Quote:
Actually, the Bible does not tell us it was "Satan" who instigated the Fall by messing with Eve's mind. Our contemporary concept of Satan is very much derived from New Testament sources and, even, Milton's Paradise Lost, which is a work on the Vatican's list of proscribed works for its irreglarities in dogma. In fact, satan in much of at least the Hebrew Bible is simply a minion of God who helps to do God's work by challenging people, to see if they are truly good. (He gives God the idea to make Job prove his faith.) He is not a full blown adversary until far later in Christian history. Genesis3:1 reads: Quote:
A footnote to the study edition notes: Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|||
12-14-2005, 02:53 PM | #222 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
In ME we have actors that obtain foreknowledge as they remember the original Music/hear echoes of the Music whereas in Christianity (I assume) prediction/foreknowledge comes directly and only from God.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
|
12-14-2005, 03:26 PM | #223 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Surely its possible that the Music & Ea are 'simultaneous' events. The Music happens outside the world of time & Ea is its 'reflection'. Certainly, from Eru's perspective if all things are known they would all be known simultaneously. There's no need for Ea to be a 'replay' of the Music. If the Music happened in 'Eternity' it cannot therefore have happened 'before' anything (or 'after') for that matter. Perhaps we're talking 'above/below' rather than 'before/after'?
|
12-14-2005, 03:58 PM | #224 | ||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
Quote:
It makes me wonder what would happen if the echo ceased. Would the world end?
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
||
12-14-2005, 04:41 PM | #225 |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Is the echo God?
And again, is my perceived difference in foreknowledge in the two different worlds a problem for Tolkien - one from God and one 'external' of God?
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
12-14-2005, 05:13 PM | #226 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
|
|
12-14-2005, 07:49 PM | #227 | ||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it.
Posts: 1,696
|
I think you confused a few things...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is important to recognize that Satan is not the opposite of God. He is the opposite of Michael. To be the opposite of God, he would have to be equal to God, and that he can never achieve. As for the omniscience, the Music, and Ea: It wasn’t really that Ea was a replay; rather, the music was a pre-play, if that makes any sense. I think that Eru knew what was going to happen, and then allowed things to progress to a greater melody (much as God used Satan in the book of Job ). It’s easy to suggest that God had a general plan in mind when starting things out. Eru, being omniscient, would have known before the music how everything would work out. God, being omniscient, would have known how everything would work out before Genesis 1:1.
__________________
We can't all be Roas when it comes to analysing... -Lommy I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen |
||||
12-14-2005, 08:54 PM | #228 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Roa_Aoife wrote:
Quote:
And I think a great number of Jews would disagree about having to take both Testaments or nothing . . . Quote:
In any case, it seems to me that what's relevant to a discussion of Tolkien's works is Tolkien's belief concerning Satan's fall. And he quite clearly stated, as Davem quoted: Quote:
|
|||
12-15-2005, 12:53 AM | #229 | ||
Deadnight Chanter
|
the post best described as 'it seems to me'...
Quote:
Simultaneous - well may be. It is for an 'ant on the rope' that events seem to replace one another in succession of 'time-flow'. Quote:
In Orthodox theology there is a term 'teogumen' (if I remember it correctly). I could not find translation employing online resources, but generally it stands for 'idea of a person in faith, which is not officially accepted by the Church, but does not contradict it's general teaching and is acceptable to be had by the person'. It seems to me that God's Word (which is not defined in Bible as to what did it sound like) seen as Music is such a 'teogumen'. It seems to me that Host of Angels (as Valar) who may have 'worked' in Creation (even if after it was accomplished), since we do not have direct indication that they did not take any part in 'working' in it, may be a 'teogumen' as well. Satan/Minion - it seems to me wonderfully rendered with Melkor/change of the name to Morgoth, as a mark of turning point in his 'career'. It seems to me...
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
||
12-15-2005, 03:37 AM | #230 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
I think 'what changes' is how we think of the relationship between the Music & Ea. Was the Music in a sense 'over' before Ea began? From reading Ainulindale it may seem so, but Tolkien is having to use language to communicate ideas & concepts for which it was not designed (language originated in the need to communicate 'Don't go into those trees - there's a sabre-toothed tiger in there' & 'Give me some of that mammoth fricasee', etc). I really think we are dealing with 'emanations'/'harmonics'. as in Qabalah, where each Sephirah emanates the succeeding ones http://www.crystalinks.com/kabala.html. (I'd speculate that we could place Eru in Tiphareth, the sixth Sephirah (TIPERETH...THE SUN, HARMONY, BEAUTY, PERFECTION, UNITY, CREATION), the Ainur in Hod & Netzach (seven NEDZACH...THE LOVER, VENUS, ART, CREATIVITY INSPIRATION & EROTIC SPIRITUALITY & eight HOD...THE INTELLECT, MERCURY, COMMUNICATION), the Music in Yesod (nine YESOD...THE MOON, VISION & DEEP MEMORY, THE CYCLES IN & AROUND US, ILLUSION) & Ea as the tenth MALKUTH... PHYSICAL REALITY, DEATH, PAIN, HEALING) - but that's just an idea. The point is that in Qabala all the Sephirah exist within the first, the sephira of 'God'/Primal being'. Process may occur in the higher spheres, but 'Time' only comes into being in the tenth. Of course, other attributions/allocations are possible - Manwe can be associated with Sephirah four (CHESED...THE RULER, MAJESTY, POWER & AUTHORITY, CONSOLIDATOR OF THINGS). Varda with Sephirah three( BINAH...YIN ENERGY, COMPASSION, PURE LOVE & UNDERSTANDING, THE COSMIC MOTHER), Orome with Sephirah five (GEBURAH...THE WARRIOR, SPSERER OF MARS, STRENGTH, JUSTICE, PHYSICAL POWER) etc, but I digress. |
|
12-15-2005, 01:22 PM | #231 | |||
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
I have no idea what point I was attempting to make . Quote:
Quote:
Tolkien's Satan heard the Music, had creative powers (though did not have access to the 'fire') and was a visible physical force in Arda.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
|||
12-15-2005, 03:06 PM | #232 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
|
|
12-15-2005, 04:01 PM | #233 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Time does matter, as it's a measurable thing, while those things which are 'outside time' are immeasurable - things like God or Eru. So if the Music happened outside Time we couldn't (or beings in Ea couldn't) necessarily pinpoint a beginning or an end, a little like the idea of God being the Alpha and the Omega, both beginning and end.
Time only seems to exist in Ea itself, as there is also the Void, which is outside this. I say that as the Void is not necessarily empty (Ungoliant came from the Void for example) as would be say, a void space as we understand it, but it is outside the Music and Time. A fitting place to put Melkor?
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
12-15-2005, 04:39 PM | #234 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Davem wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
12-15-2005, 04:43 PM | #235 | ||||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,997
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for my thoughts on time, which is intriguing most of you here on this thread, well, it is woefully little available to me to engage in a timely fashion.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 12-15-2005 at 04:48 PM. Reason: codes |
||||
12-15-2005, 07:11 PM | #236 | ||||||||||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it.
Posts: 1,696
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We must nnot forget that Eru imparted the melody to the Ainur, so even the seemingly creative powers of the Valar are not really theirs, as a priest has no power of their own, and angels have no power of their own. It is all allowed by Eru/God (respectively). Melkor tries to create outside of Eru's design, and he can't. He is reduced to distorting the already present beings, which were in Eru's Music. In the creation of the dwarves, a fully living being cannot be made, and it is Eru who must give life. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
We can't all be Roas when it comes to analysing... -Lommy I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen |
||||||||||||
12-16-2005, 01:23 AM | #237 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Deadnight Chanter
|
In quotes
1. Eru
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
5. Humankind Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The selection of quotes I derive from dispute that ocurred some years back between people who would accuse Tolkien of being gnostic and those who defended Christianity of his writing. More quotes can be dug if need and will and time be, but these suffice for the purposes of comparison. It seems to me (yet again) that it would be hard to find much deviation between Tolkien and Christian Theology. At the most - Valar, but than again, it is explicitly stated they are not 'creating' per se, but rather 'creating as form of art', 'sub-creating' (Hence 'working' of my previous posts). Besides, there is even a division between Ainur corresponding with division of Angelic Order - why not assume that Auinur that stayed back in Halls of Eru, correspond with first two choirs (Supernals, Celestials, Illuminations, Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones), since they are with God always, Valar correspond with Third Choir - Dominations - Virtues - Powers (mark words) and Maiar with Fourth Choir - Principalities - Archangels - Angels. (It is even easier when comparing with Orthodox teaching, where there are Three Choirs only, First choir being Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones). But I digress. What I was pointing at: Therefore, I assume, Eru is God, seen through prism of sub-creative work. That Tolkien's 'sub-created' world should not concur with Bible word to word is obvious - would not it than be a parody rather than independent work of Art? But in principle, the one is image of Another.
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12-16-2005, 03:02 AM | #238 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
What I still see is a conflict in Tolkien between 'Imagination' & 'Orthodoxy', & that this 'conflict' is what produces his Art (the conflicting 'forces' of thesis & antithesis producing synthesis, if you like). Without that 'conflict' he would have produced nothing (or nothing worth having). The fact that he could not leave the Legendarium alone, & had constantly to return to it, to 'make it right', to 'find out what really happened' speaks to this inner conflict as plainly as can be.
|
12-18-2005, 06:54 AM | #239 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
This is a radio interview with Tolkien (hope the link works) where he discusses some of the religious aspects of LotR.
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/jrrt_int.htm |
12-18-2005, 07:21 AM | #240 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,997
|
Wonderful link, davem! I suppose for this thread the relevant bits involve his comment on The One, but these were the comments I found the most interesting:
Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
|
|