Of another world

[Legolas in spandex]

I have NO idea where to post this, therefore I am posting this here and if anyone feels obliged to move this, than feel free to do so.Okay, I have been told and have guessed that by Gandalf returning from a death that was hardly a death, Tolkien was representing Jesus in some manner. However, I find a greater representation of ideas of the Christian faith by means of the elves.Think about it carefully. The elves were of the most angelic beings who watched the world go by; they watched it begin to fall. They mourned because of the fact that they weren't of the world of Middle-Earth, and they longed for their land across the sea.This is a perfect representation of the "ideal" Christian. Christians in their faith are not of this world in that they belong to the kingdom of God-their land across the sea where they may exist forever. No, we don't live for thousands of years, but Christians watch the world fall in its sinful pleasure or when it becomes of darkness by its rulers i.e presidents, etc. Also, in the Silmarillion, from what I have read so far, it reminds me very much of the clash of God and Satan. Melkor wished for something that was not his-the newly created world. Satan wanted to rule over God.Melkor desired himself to be in place of Iluvatar. Melkor sang out against Iluvatar-Satan tempted god w/ music. Satan tries to destroy good. Melkor undid the creations of the Valar. I saw a pretty good relationship between the two ideas. Anyone else see these things?

[Inziladun]

Well, I don't recall ever hearing that Gandalf's return was intended by Tolkien to reflect the Resurrection. Gandalf did not sacrifice himself for the remission of sin: he did it because he was the only one in Moria capable of facing the Balrog. He was sent back because his task was not complete: the overthrow of Sauron, which only he was capable of effectively organizing.
As for the Elves representing angels, the 'angels' in the world were the Valar and the Maia. The Elves were not forced to remain in mortal lands. During the time of LOTR they could pass to the Blessed Realm at any time they chose.Therefore their sadness and longing for the Immortal Shores was self-induced.
As for the parallels between the Ainulindalë and creation, I certainly see them. Whether they were intentional or not I don't know if Tolkien explicitly said.

[Legolas in spandex]

I did not say the elves represent angels, but I see your point . i said the elves were angelic yes...

[Glirdan]

Ooo!! Finally! Someone else who sees the biblical representation!! YAY!! Here's a link to the thread I started up awhile back. It was basically devoted to talk about any symbolic representations that you could find in any of the books. Now I and many others have already stated our thoughts on any of these subjects, so feel free to start it back up again.

[littlemanpoet]

I remember reading magazine articles way back in the early 1970s about how Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn were "Christ figures". So it seemed to many of us in that first heady rush way back when the books really took off for the first time in America. And so it often seems to many who come to Tolkien for the first time these days.

I used to think it was obvious that they were Christ figures. But I've learned a lot about myths and myth making since I first read those articles, and I've discovered that, even though such connections can be drawn, it doens't tell us the whole story about these characters.

Gandalf is an incarnated angel. The Sil tells us that. He dies while killing a Balrog, then Eru brings him back to life and reassigns him the same task he had, only at a higher level. So far so good. But Gandalf is not saying, "I am the way".

Frodo carries the burden of the Ring. This reminds us of the burden of our sins that Jesus carried on the cross. But Frodo in the end said "I will not do what I came to do." One cannot (honestly) conceive of Jesus saying that! It takes Gollum biting Frodo's finger off to get the Ring into the Fires. Frodo is thus wounded for life and does not experience resurrection; rather, he must go to Tol Eressëa to receive healing.

Aragorn is the promised and expected King who will take back his throne. He is virtually a chosen one. But he dies in the end and passes his crown to a son.

Sauron is the Dark Lord, the mover of great evils in the world. However, he is not responsible for every evil in the world. Nor is he a spirit who puts tempting thoughts in the minds of ordinary folks.

So yes, there are many harmonies between LotR and Christian faith. This is no surprise, since Tolkien was a Christian. But they are harmonies only, not direct linkages.

The Silmarillion, it seems to me, is a different kind of story. Eru resembles the Christian God in every way except for (1) the Trinity; (2) being directly involved with a chosen people. If Tolkien had included these two specific things in his story, it would have ceased to be a story unto itself, and would have been a mere retelling of biblical history. Obviously, Tolkien didn't want that. Nevertheless, there are even more harmonies between Christianity and the Sil than there are between Christianity and LotR.

Other members of the Downs will contend with great erudition that the Sil and LotR are no more Christian than they are Buddhist, Pagan, or what have you. I think they have a difficult case, though, seeing as Tolkien himself was Christian, and stated that LotR was consciously Christian in the revision.

[Aiwendil]

Littlemanpoet wrote:

The Silmarillion, it seems to me, is a different kind of story. Eru resembles the Christian God in every way except for (1) the Trinity; (2) being directly involved with a chosen people.

True, but I would point out:

1. I think it is possible to find a Trinity in the Legendarium:

Father = Eru
Son = Eventual incarnation hinted at in "Athrabeth"
Holy Spirit = Flame Imperishable

This has been touched on before, for example here.

2. The events depicted in the Silmarillion and LotR are apparently supposed to be pre-Judaic. It seems quite plausible that we are merely seeing in the Legendarium a stage in history before Eru establishes his covenant with a chosen people.

[goldfinger]

Very good points. We as Christians don't wish to die we just simply can't wait to get Heaven. Like a kid on Christmas Eve.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Other members of the Downs will contend with great erudition that the Sil and LotR are no more Christian than they are Buddhist, Pagan, or what have you. I think they have a difficult case, though, seeing as Tolkien himself was Christian, and stated that LotR was consciously Christian in the revision.

I've stated before that the whole 'consciously so in the revision' thing, its simply not sustainable. I'm not saying Tolkien was lying - I'm sure he believed that - but if you can find any examples in HoM-e vols 6-9 where the revised LotR is more obviously Christian in form or content than the earlier drafts please show me them. In the Letters in particular we see Tolkien on the defensive a great deal of the time, being challenged by Christian readers on the orthodoxy of many elements of the story. Tolkien is clearly thinking in his feet in many of those letters & attempting to convince himself as much as his correspondents of the Christianity of his story.

As to finding clear & obvious 'Christian' elements/themes in the story. I suppose you can, but only if you know nothing of myth & fairy story. Incarnate spiritual/magical beings who die & are resurrected are legion - Odin, Osiris, Leminkainen, Llew Llaw Gyffes. The victory of the small insignificant youngest son achieved through an act of kindness to another, the lost King who returns to save his people - all these themes are commonplace in non-Christian traditions.

I'm reminded of an anecdote in 'The People's Guide to Tolkien'. The writer relates seeing a grandmother with her grandson in a bookshop, pointing out LotR & telling him he should read it, because it was a Christian book & would do him good.

[Lalwendë]

If you want to find elements of Christianity in Tolkien's work, then you can find them there, yes. You can also find a lot of other elements too. I think its all too easy to find a situation or character that reminds us of a biblical situation or character and put that together with Tolkien's own Catholicism and make the claim that this is a Christian book. We also have to remember that LotR is not an allegory, and that the world Tolkien created is a secondary world, a world which stands thoroughly on its own. There really is little other work like Tolkien's - he managed to create not only a world but a cosmology, and one which has logic and meaning outside our own world. If you wish to apply Christianity to it, then there is nothing to prevent this, but I think it is best appreciated and understood within itself.

The text does not exist within a vacuum and nor did Tolkien write it that way - not only was he a Catholic but he was also steeped in thoroughly Pagan mythology, and all these elements inevitably find their way into the text at points. So we can and should consider the text against those backgrounds, but ultimately, as this is its own world, final answers can only come from the text.

Tolkien was not always the devout Catholic; he created much of his myth when he was not a regular worshipper, and the evidence can be found in the oddities like Ungoliant who was conceived as a being who came from outside Eru's control. It is when we start to consider these kinds of elements that applying Real World religion can become problematic.

I would also seriously question what Tolkien's intentions were for the Silmarillion. He did not leave us with a final version, what we have now is someone else's version, and as you look through HoME you see just how many different versions there were, the later ones becoming ever more theologically tangled.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

In the Letters in particular we see Tolkien on the defensive a great deal of the time, being challenged by Christian readers on the orthodoxy of many elements of the story. Tolkien is clearly thinking in his feet in many of those letters & attempting to convince himself as much as his correspondents of the Christianity of his story.

This is how you choose to interpret the Letters. I don't find this in them at all. I'm not surprised by this; it shows that you and I view these issues through different lenses.

Originally Posted by davem

As to finding clear & obvious 'Christian' elements/themes in the story. I suppose you can, but only if you know nothing of myth & fairy story.

This is a rather objectionable statement. I do happen to know plenty about myth and fairy story, as you should know; yet because I view these issues through different lenses than you, I see things that you don't see, and vice versa. The lens through which I see these things is that the myths to which you refer are not unlike the "unknown god" on the Acropolis in the book of Acts that the apostle Paul uses to present the Christian gospel to the Greeks. In like manner, the myths are dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflections of the truth as presented in the Christian bible. That is my lens.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

This is a rather objectionable statement. I do happen to know plenty about myth and fairy story, as you should know; yet because I view these issues through different lenses than you, I see things that you don't see, and vice versa. The lens through which I see these things is that the myths to which you refer are not unlike the "unknown god" on the Acropolis in the book of Acts that the apostle Paul uses to present the Christian gospel to the Greeks. In like manner, the myths are dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflections of the truth as presented in the Christian bible. That is my lens.

Joseph Campbell pointed out the irrationality of Paul's action re the Unknown God. Saying 'I know something you don't know about your own Gods' was at best ignorant & at worst insulting. I don't recall him going to any of the Athenians & asking them to explain their beliefs, or what the statue symbolised. To claim that he was revealing the hidden truth to them simply showed that he had not the faintest grasp of philosophy. The 'Unknown God' symbolised the mystery of God, the Cloud of Unknowing, those things about Deity which cannot be known, & ultimately a humble & very public statement on the part of the Greeks that there are mysteries beyond human understanding. Paul coming along & claiming to know those mysteries was tantamount to telling them he knew the whole mystery of God (ie that he could explain what God was). The reaction of the majority of Athenians was quite understandable.

In like manner, the myths are dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflections of the truth as presented in the Christian bible.

I suspect that our forefathers would find that statement quite 'objectionable'. I think our 'pre-Christian' ancestors saw their religious traditions (which is what myths were) as quite 'whole'. The idea that because Christianity contains elements that can be identified with aspects of other religious traditions it is Christianity which has the 'true' version & the others are all the result of ignorant savages struggling to get at the 'Truth' simply displays the same kind of hubris & ignorance as Paul displayed.

Plus, I think you'll find that to the extent that myths are 'dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused' it is pretty much down the early Christians destructive hatred of anything non-Christian. The great artworks of Antiquity lost, destroyed, defaced, the stories, the sacred places, twisted, corrupted & made to serve the 'new religion' is both beyond count & almost beyond mourning. For Christians (including Lewis & Tolkien) whose forerunners revelled in that very destruction to effectively look on what had survived & say 'Well, look at that confused mess! Its all quite hopeless, but there are sure signs there that they were struggling to be like us.' merely adds insult to injury. Is it not equally possible that it is Christianity that is a 'dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflection of the truth as presented in the Pagan traditions - after all any objective observer can find more of Hellenism (where demi-gods, virgin births & the like abound) than Judaism in the Christian story?

Sorry to rant - but I hope, as G. K. Chesterton said that one should “never let a quarrel get in the way of a good argument.”

[Legolas in spandex]

[QUOTE=davem] To claim that he was revealing the hidden truth to them simply showed that he had not the faintest grasp of philosophy.
QUOTE]

I should have something to say about that. The problem with philosohpy is that it is by all means unstable. Philosophy can contradict istelf by taking on double, triple, even many more meanings. It is not ignorance to simply find yourself believing something and then want to share it. It is actually the way of a human concept. Fighting by means of philosophy can be productive as well as destructive. Paul was not out to fight by means of philosophy, he was shown a way of life and a higher power. It was real to him. It wasn't something he manifested in his mind and came to prove he was right about. He wanted to prove a real thing should be real to all. Agree with me or not, you can't deny that half of what the world exists on is by theory or philosophy. We find a real thing and try to explain it. That is philosophy. Paul wasn't trying to "explain" so much as he was trying to show that it was real. If we sat around and explained everything to everyone and never told them about it, then they'd never get to experience it and explanation is pointless without experience or the promise of experience.(Laughs) and here I am being philosophical about the instability of philoshophy. This world trips me out I tell you. Anywhosit , all I'm saying is that a grasp of reality is far more valuable than a grasp of philoshophy at times.

[davem]

Well, he didn't have the faintest grasp of theology either.

The 'Unknown God' is a symbol - like the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. If someone came along & said, 'Look guys, I know who this guy was - he was Private First Class Joe Bloggs, so you can put his name on the gravestone & forget all this 'unknown' malarky. There, I've solved your problem - I hope you're grateful' we'd seriously wonder about his grasp of symbolism (not to mention his IQ). Both the 'Unknown God' & the 'Unknown Soldier' have a meaning & relevance in & of themselves & don't mean that some ignorant fool simply forgot the name of the dedicatee.

[Lalaith]

dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflections of the truth

There may well be an infallible, perfect Truth, but surely, given the imperfect and fallible nature of humanity, all versions of this truth, whether oral or literary, will have been filtered through human perception and will thus be dim, shattered, debased, diffused etc?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

There may well be an infallible, perfect Truth, but surely, given the imperfect and fallible nature of humanity, all versions of this truth, whether oral or literary, will have been filtered through human perception and will thus be dim, shattered, debased, diffused etc?

Suppose so - things are a certain way. All opinions are not true. Even if we didn't know what shape the earth was, we'd know for certain it was one specific shape. I think the point LMP was making was that the 'specific shape' of Truth is the Biblical one & that that one was not 'dim, shattered, debased, diffused etc' - only the 'variations' of it - indeed we could only speak of myths & legends being 'corrupt' version of something else if we believe that that 'something else' is uncorrupt.

[alatar]

Note that our world (that includes Christianity) and Tolkien's secondary world are at best parallel. As much as I would choose it to be so, the Sil and LotR do not document 'pre-Abrahamic' events. If you really think about it, Tolkien's world actually excludes Christ as there is no need for such a saviour. No Adam, no need for a Second one.

Think that I may have said this before, and others have too, but we see in the text those things that are familiar to us. As lmp sees images of the Christian world whereas davem sees other things (of some I have no idea), I see some of these things too, knowing what each poster is talking about. However, I also can see my self in the text, but as none of you have spent hours pouring over my autobiography (shame that ), it's really not worth discussing further. So we discuss Christ, or Odin, or the story of the hidden king regaining his throne as these things are more common to many of us.

And for a thought that might make even less sense: Ministers use text from the Bible (and I assume it may be similar in other churches/religions) to relate to 'today.' As things were back in the day, so goes it today. People are people, and the same situations occur even after thousands of years have passed. With ease the ministers can transform the text so that we understand and empathize with it.

Turning that around, we take our every day experiences and look back into such texts (even LotR) and find those experiences again, regardless of the text or experience. It's how we're wired.

Look, and ye will find.

[Aiwendil]

Alatar wrote:

Note that our world (that includes Christianity) and Tolkien's secondary world are at best parallel. As much as I would choose it to be so, the Sil and LotR do not document 'pre-Abrahamic' events. If you really think about it, Tolkien's world actually excludes Christ as there is no need for such a saviour. No Adam, no need for a Second one.

Obviously, I agree that Arda is not our real world. However, does Tolkien's world really "exclude" a Christ-figure? Is there no Adam? Tolkien intentionally left the awakening of Men out of the Silmarillion; it seems to me that he intentionally left room for the Eden myth. Moreover, he refers in Letters to the first "fall of Men" as an event not actually depicted in the Legendarium. In fact, he did at one point write a short account of that fall - presented in the guise of Adanel's ancient Edainic lore. Although that story is certainly not exactly the same as that told in Genesis, it does seem to fill the same theological role. And then, of course, we have the Athrabeth, with its Messianic hints (a work that is quite connected with Adanel's tale of the Fall).

I think that Tolkien did, at least at some points in his life, consider Arda to be a fictional version of the real world in pre-Abrahamic times.

Of course, this is a separate question from the one that littlemanpoet and Davem debate - i.e. whether elements of Christian theology are explicitly present in Tolkien's works.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Alatar wrote:
Tolkien intentionally left the awakening of Men out of the Silmarillion; it seems to me that he intentionally left room for the Eden myth. Moreover, he refers in Letters to the first "fall of Men" as an event not actually depicted in the Legendarium.

I think that Tolkien did, at least at some points in his life, consider Arda to be a fictional version of the real world in pre-Abrahamic times.

Well, the fact that the 'Fall of Man' is not mentioned is a rather odd thing for Tolkien to play up - he never says in any Letters that the 6.15 to Paddington, or those little plastic tabs on the ends of shoelaces are not actually depicted in the Legendarium. I don't think either of those things would be assumed to be present by readers of the Legendarium & neither would they expect (unless they were Christians) to find the Fall of Man there - at least not the Biblical version of it.

This just strikes me as yet another example of Tolkien attempting to make the Legendarium 'fit' in response to challenges from Christian correspondents. 'Oh, its really there, but I just didn't mention it' is a cop out. The real point is that for the purposes of the Legendarium there was no need for a Fall of Man - it played no significant part - unlike the Fall of the Elves.

The Athrabeth is a work of great beauty & profundity, but if it is read as a reference to the Christian story it ties the Secondary world too closely into the Primary world - something he himself said would be fatal. It would then both cease to be a self contained Secondary World but couldn't be accepted as a 'genuine' possible history of the Primary World - in other words it would be neither one thing nor the other. The thing is, Tolkien knew this well but he still felt driven to attempt this disastrous move. If he'd succeeded his creation would have been no more than another Narnia-type 'allegory'.

Of course, this is the danger of the Translator Conceit, because the TC actually does attempt to tie the Legendarium into the Primary World. Interestingly, most readers pay no attention to the idea. They actually don't want Middle-earth in the long distant past - they really want it to be a place that exists 'now', just round the next corner or over the next hill.

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by davem

- after all any objective observer can find more of Hellenism (where demi-gods, virgin births & the like abound) than Judaism in the Christian story?

While I agree entirely with the case you are making, I feel moved to intervene with a point of information. Comparison to Danae and the golden rain may seem vaguely Annunciationesque, but the virgin births really came from Persian tradition-probably via the Jews, who were influenced in important ways by Zoroastrianism.

As for your example of demi-gods, Herakles and co. don't show remotely Christ like characteristics-with the glaring exception of Dionysus, who is certainly a god, not a demi-god, and a great and terrible one at that after a reading of the Bacchae. Demi-gods is a rather misleading term I think unless we're dealing with the Arian heresy.

So...in short...Hellenic similarities come down to coincidence and fundamental motifs in myth and legend. Persian influence on Judaism and Christianity is more hirstorically traceable; it must be remembered that Christianity is a religion of the east.

There's my quarrel to sidetrack the argument, in which I am entirely of davem's view.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

So...in short...Hellenic similarities come down to coincidence and fundamental motifs in myth and legend. Persian influence on Judaism and Christianity is more hirstorically traceable; it must be remembered that Christianity is a religion of the east.

Point taken, though I think there was a good deal of 'Eastern' influence on the Hellenic world. Certainly the Eastern influence on the Roman Empire was profound. A major influence on Christianity was Mithraism. The following words from the Mithraic Rite may strike a chord:

"He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

[Sardy]

Mithraism, Mithrandir... hmmmm...?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

This just strikes me as yet another example of Tolkien attempting to make the Legendarium 'fit' in response to challenges from Christian correspondents. 'Oh, its really there, but I just didn't mention it' is a cop out. The real point is that for the purposes of the Legendarium there was no need for a Fall of Man - it played no significant part - unlike the Fall of the Elves.

Yet the 'Athrabeth', as a private piece of writing, can hardly be viewed as an apologist work. I cannot believe that Tolkien was not 'serious' about introducing elements of Christian theology into the Legendarium when he wrote it - even if the impetus to do so did originally arise from his defensive replies to Christian critics. If Tolkien considered a criticism to his work and altered it in response, does that make the resulting work any less valid?

The Athrabeth is a work of great beauty & profundity, but if it is read as a reference to the Christian story it ties the Secondary world too closely into the Primary world

Please clarify: is this thread dedicated to the facts about Tolkien's works or to Davem's opinions of them?

You're free to view the Athrabeth any way you like, but let's leave such subjective appraisals out of the discussion.

Of course, this is the danger of the Translator Conceit, because the TC actually does attempt to tie the Legendarium into the Primary World.

Are you arguing that Tolkien did not intend Arda to be a fictional version of the real world - an "imaginary history"? I find this hard to believe given the fact that he spent so much time linking his sub-creation with our world.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Davem wrote:
Yet the 'Athrabeth', as a private piece of writing, can hardly be viewed as an apologist work. I cannot believe that Tolkien was not 'serious' about introducing elements of Christian theology into the Legendarium when he wrote it - even if the impetus to do so did originally arise from his defensive replies to Christian critics. If Tolkien considered a criticism to his work and altered it in response, does that make the resulting work any less valid?

It doesn't invalidate it at all. the question is whether it weakens its effect or not.

Please clarify: is this thread dedicated to the facts about Tolkien's works or to Davem's opinions of them?

Shan't.

You're free to view the Athrabeth any way you like, but let's leave such subjective appraisals out of the discussion.

Shan't

Are you arguing that Tolkien did not intend Arda to be a fictional version of the real world - an "imaginary history"? I find this hard to believe given the fact that he spent so much time linking his sub-creation with our world.

(Of course, I can only respond to this question because of my obstinate refusal of your request to me to leave out personal appraisals & opinions.....)

I am not arguing that Tolkien did not intend Arda to be a fictional version of the real world - an "imaginary history". I actually said:'Of course, this is the danger of the Translator Conceit, because the TC actually does attempt to tie the Legendarium into the Primary World.. I was referring to the danger involved in the idea that the events of the Legendarium were Primary World historical events - because we know they weren't. This was ultimately the cause of the confused mess CT presents is 'Myths Transformed'.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

I am not arguing that Tolkien did not intend Arda to be a fictional version of the real world - an "imaginary history". I actually said:'Of course, this is the danger of the Translator Conceit, because the TC actually does attempt to tie the Legendarium into the Primary World.. I was referring to the danger involved in the idea that the events of the Legendarium were Primary World historical events - because we know they weren't. This was ultimately the cause of the confused mess CT presents is 'Myths Transformed'.

Okay . . . actually, I largely agree with you. But whether this tying together of real and fictional worlds is a good thing and whether it exists in Tolkien's works are two separate questions.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Okay . . . actually, I largely agree with you. But whether this tying together of real and fictional worlds is a good thing and whether it exists in Tolkien's works are two separate questions.

That's what I was saying

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

However, does Tolkien's world really "exclude" a Christ-figure? Is there no Adam?

Yes & no. Evil (an active force) enters Arda the day it becomes real; evil enters creation when Adam falls.

I think that Tolkien did, at least at some points in his life, consider Arda to be a fictional version of the real world in pre-Abrahamic times.

It may be in his mind, but I'm not sure how he ties in all of the Bible into Arda. More thought would place his works post-Adam (duh!) and pre-global Noachian flood.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, he didn't have the faintest grasp of theology either.

This is actually humorous. davem, you are, I fear, being as vituperative in regard to Paul the Apostle as you accuse the "critical elite" of being regarding Tolkien.

Originally Posted by davem

Is it not equally possible that it is Christianity that is a 'dim, altered, sometimes shattered, often debased and diffused, reflection of the truth as presented in the Pagan traditions - after all any objective observer can find more of Hellenism (where demi-gods, virgin births & the like abound) than Judaism in the Christian story?

Well, of course it's possible. But, of course, I don't believe that, since I'm convinced that God has spoken to us through the Christian Bible and revealed himself to us through it, including through the apostle Paul.

My faith consists of definites. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." Et cetera. I know it's unpopular and deplorable by the standards of currently generally acccepted, tolerant opinion, but according to my faith, there is indeed only one path that is true. Either we are the most arrogant people on earth, or we have been humbled by Someone who has revealed Himself to us directly. If it seems like the height of hubris, I can't help that.

Originally Posted by alatar

...evil enters creation when Adam falls.

Not so. Satan is a part of creation, and came in the form of a serpent. Since Jesus speaks of a real Satan, so must I. It would be more accurate to say that evil mars creation with the fall of Adam.

[davem]

This is actually humorous. davem, you are, I fear, being as vituperative in regard to Paul the Apostle as you accuse the "critical elite" of being regarding Tolkien.

Not at all. Paul was clearly a great mystic. Unfortunately, as with all great mystics he could only communicate to the rest of us in either nonsense ('I went to the third Heaven') or platitudes about loving each other. Not his fault. The point I was making was making was about his claim to be able to 'explain' the Unknown God. Just because you've met God it doesn't make you smart.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." Et cetera. I know it's unpopular and deplorable by the standards of currently generally acccepted, tolerant opinion, but according to my faith, there is indeed only one path that is true.

Yes, & as I pointed out Mithras said: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." & he said it before Jesus.

[Lalaith]

the Fall of the Elves

Davem, are you referring to the corruption of elves into orcs, the revolt of the Noldor, or something else?

the impetus to do so did originally arise from his defensive replies to Christian critics

I wonder, if the wish to see so much religious content in Tolkien's works today is driven by a similar impetus. In the US, there is a mistrust of fantasy within many Christian churches (this was something, as a sheltered European, that I was only made aware of since joining the Downs!) and it strikes me that Tolkien's religious credentials, both as a writer and as a man, are helpful to American Christians who may feel the need to justify their enjoyment of his works.

[littlemanpoet]

That's an interesting thought, Lalaith. In my case, Tolkien's works served as a necessary balance to a very rigid theology that had me mentally tied in knots for years. Through Tolkien's ministrations I was able to find a deep spirituality that was free from the pinned-down-ness of such rigid theologies.

Originally Posted by davem

Mithras said: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." & he said it before Jesus.

Mithras' words were said in the negative. A similar thing was true of the Golden Rule. "Whatsoever you would not have someone do to you, do not do it to another." Jesus took those words, which no doubt were reasonably well known in general society, and stated them positively. Compare:

This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me. This cup is the new covenant of My blood, which is shed for you.

and

Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

[Legolas in spandex]

What you said may be true for some Lalaith, but not all christians are the same, and others may simply recognize the similarities between some of Tolien's works and the gospel. Nothing more. Looking at both, I see a resemblance without much process to it. I wasn't tying to prove something in particular, just that it was interesting how the two stories mirrored each other a bit.

As for what you said Davem, intelligence surely has nothing to do with meeting God . Intelligence will always be sinful as it causes us to feel more important with each bit of information we earn. The ability to think destructs almost as much as it constructs. The knowledge of God however, is a totally different matter. If God wants to get information of some kind across to people, he will do so by whomever he chooses, intelligent or not, for having God on your side would surely call for nothing else other than doing what you are asked. Also, since you mentioned something about tolkien being Catholic, some aspects of the Cathlolic religion are a derivation of the Christian faith.

[Lalaith]

some aspects of the Cathlolic religion are a derivation of the Christian faith.

Eh?

[Anguirel]

Yeah, exactly. Some Shintoists don't even accept the Pope as one of their number, calling his doctrine "suspiciously Christological"...

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Legolas in spandex

Intelligence will always be sinful as it causes us to feel more important with each bit of information we earn. The ability to think destructs almost as much as it constructs.

Eh? A certain confusion between intelligence and knowledge here surely? And to my mind not very logical. If there is a creator he created people to have intelligence in which case it would be somewhat perverse for said creator to deem intelligence sinful. As for knowledge being sinful - well for the sake of my blood pressure I am not going there..... ( especially since knowledge = science, literally in latin - and the maligned philosophy is "love of wisdom" in Greek)

[Legolas in spandex]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Eh? A certain confusion between intelligence and knowledge here surely? And to my mind not very logical. If there is a creator he created people to have intelligence in which case it would be somewhat perverse for said creator to deem intelligence sinful. As for knowledge being sinful - well for the sake of my blood pressure I am not going there..... ( especially since knowledge = science, literally in latin - and the maligned philosophy is "love of wisdom" in Greek)

He actually created them without "real" intelligence and 'twas man that sought it.(i.e. adam & eve.)By seeking it, we put ourselves no longer in the position to live in a perfect world, for with the acception of intelligence, we also accept the ability to know right from wrong and we therefore would know of our wrong ways if we did them, putting the blame on us, and causing us to have the ability to go somwhere other than heaven. Intelligence does corrupt. Knowledge is simply the recognization of known ideas or facts, but intelligence is the ability to concieve or choose or decide. As I said, intelligence does corrupt nearly as much as it creates.There was no confusion of intelligence and knowledge here.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Davem, are you referring to the corruption of elves into orcs, the revolt of the Noldor, or something else?

What's interesting is the way the Fall of Man goes unmentioned in the Sil writings until very late on. If Men Fell as the Elves (repeatedly) did it is either assumed by Tolkien, or it is not necessary to the plot (which it actually isn't). Tolkien stated the story is about a Fall, that a Fall is necessary. Yet it is only the Fall of the Elves which plays a necessary part in the drama. Indeed, most races don't Fall - there is no Fall of Hobbits. Dwarves or Ents. Even with the Elves its only some of them that Fall - specifically the Noldor. Yet whole groups of Elves are involved in repeated Falls (as you've mentioned).

If Tolkien hadn't written the Athrabeth, or more precisely, if CT hadn't published it, we'd have no reason to believe that Men Fell at all. Of course, we can't ignore the Numenoreans. But they were a relatively small group, & there is no sense that the Rohirrim Fell, or the Dalemen, or even the Dunlendings.

The Athrabeth is the closest thing Tolkien wrote to a work of Christian theology, & I personally felt that the whole piece, while it works as an 'attempt to justify the ways of the (Christian) God to Man' sits a bit ill with the tone of the rest of the Sil writings. It was Tolkien attempting to integrate his faith into his Secondary world, & makes me a bit uncomfortable for that reason.

I wonder, if the wish to see so much religious content in Tolkien's works today is driven by a similar impetus. In the US, there is a mistrust of fantasy within many Christian churches (this was something, as a sheltered European, that I was only made aware of since joining the Downs!) and it strikes me that Tolkien's religious credentials, both as a writer and as a man, are helpful to American Christians who may feel the need to justify their enjoyment of his works.

There does seem to be a need among some Christians to make the Legendarium 'safe' - ie to make it a Christian work. I have a number of books (Birzir's 'Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth', Pearce's 'Man & Myth', Caldecott's 'Secret Fire', Smith's 'Tolkien's Ordinary Virtues', Wright's 'Tolkien in Perspective' & Brunner & Ware's 'Finding God in the Lord of the Rings - there are numerous others) which attempt to demonstrate/confirm the specifically Christian nature of the Books. One is certainly free to do that kind of thing if that is the kind of thing one likes doing, but I think it is a false road.

Of course, Tolkien was himself prone to this retrospective Christianising if his works, but what we actually see is that the starting point of this process was for him the letters he got from Christian correspondents in the years after publication of LotR which questioned the work's orthodoxy. He certainly goes to some long (& quite convoluted) lengths to convince them (& probably himself as well) that there was nothing heretical in the tale.

This is not to ignore the desire he had from the start to contribute to some kind of Moral regeneration of the English people. Apart from a long period in the 1920's (indeed for most of that decade) he was a committed Catholic & regular attender of Mass. But the 20's were the period of greatest development of the Legendarium & in that decade the stories took on the form which they were generally to keep.

My feeling is that he simply never questioned the orthodoxy of the tales till he was challenged to demonstrate it to readers. When he attempted to do so, he struggled. Put simply, there is no specifically 'Christian' dimension to LotR (or most of the Legendarium), or any aspect of it which requires Christian belief (or even any knowledge of Christianity) to make sense. The themes which are picked out by Christian readers as evidence of the work's underlying Christianity can be found in many myths, legends & fairystories. This simple fact is what throws Christians back on the theory LMP has put forward - that the Myths, Legends & Fairystories Tolkien drew on 'actually' contain the truth of the Christian story (even though they pre-existed Christianity by, in some cases, Millennia), because we were all made by the Christian God & in some unconscious way were therefore our ancestors were struggling to express that 'truth' without realising it. A clever theory, & one that liberated both Tolkien & Lewis to use Myth & fairystory in their subcreation, but one for which a great leap of faith is required, there being absolutely no evidence for it.

Of course, Tolkien came to believe his Legendarium was a reflection of Truth, that Eru was the God he worshipped (to a far greater extent than Lewis believed that Aslan 'was' Jesus. But Lewis knew from the start that he was writing a Christian allegory & was being fully orthodox. Tolkien perhaps only realised later that he hadn't been - all his assumptions aside).

In short, the Legendarium is not a 'Christian' work at all - but why should it have to be - well, why should it have to be for us? For Tolkien it had to be a Christian work if only for his own peace of mind. To claim that is what it is in its essential nature is without foundation so far as I can see (& as I say, I've read a fair number of books & articles which claim to show it is).

[Mithalwen]

I don't have the time nowto go in to the many aspects of how I disagree with you and since you regard knowledge as sinful I suspect it would be a waste of energy. I suggest you increase your own knowledge at least to the extent of finding out why this statement is grossly inaccurate:- " Also, since you mentioned something about tolkien being Catholic, some aspects of the Cathlolic religion are a derivation of the Christian faith".

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Mithras' words were said in the negative. A similar thing was true of the Golden Rule. "Whatsoever you would not have someone do to you, do not do it to another." Jesus took those words, which no doubt were reasonably well known in general society, and stated them positively.

Now that's a very fine distinction. I'm not sure it holds up as in effect it means exactly the same thing as Jesus' words. Mithras says 'if you don't do X you won't be saved' Jesus says 'if you do X you will be saved'. Same thing as far as I can see.

Originally Posted by LiS

As for what you said Davem, intelligence surely has nothing to do with meeting God . Intelligence will always be sinful as it causes us to feel more important with each bit of information we earn. The ability to think destructs almost as much as it constructs.

Yet Jesus told his disciples to be as 'wise as serpents'. Paul, as Jung pointed out, underwent a very powerful, life-changing experience, but the psychological effect was to turn him from a rabid anti-Christian to a rabid pro-Christian. This was a man who could decare at one moment that in Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, & in the next lay down the law that women must be silent in church.

Intelligence is morally neutral - it depends only on what use we put it to. I have to say that the more I learn the more ignorant I feel. There's so much I'll never know.

By seeking it, we put ourselves no longer in the position to live in a perfect world, for with the acception of intelligence, we also accept the ability to know right from wrong and we therefore would know of our wrong ways if we did them, putting the blame on us, and causing us to have the ability to go somwhere other than heaven.

But without intelligence how could we know the world was 'perfect'? And for me no world would be 'perfect' if I was stupid.

(Hey - maybe that's why I'm always finding fault with things......hmmmmmmm )

[Legolas in spandex]

Originally Posted by davem

Yet Jesus told his disciples to be as 'wise as serpents'. )

And that falls under whether you believe wisdom and intelligence to be the same thing.

[Legolas in spandex]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I don't have the time nowto go in to the many aspects of how I disagree with you and since you regard knowledge as sinful I suspect it would be a waste of energy. I suggest you increase your own knowledge at least to the extent of finding out why this statement is grossly inaccurate:- " Also, since you mentioned something about tolkien being Catholic, some aspects of the Cathlolic religion are a derivation of the Christian faith".

As for this, I mean some things in more modern day Catholic society, depending on the denomination, have derived from christian society. A teacher told me this. I have reason to believe them, however, they could be wrong. I sahll research it further if you want more proof, but if you simply want to argue, then you find me other proof as to why it is wrong , and I will gladly stand corrected.

As for the ideas everyone on here has posted, though the debating is nice, we must relize we are straying a bit from the point. I am not asking whether Tolkien could have possibly meant to mirror aspects of the Christian faith in his writing, I am asking if anyone else sees the resemblence, whether they agree with a certain religion's basis or not. Also realize that not everything can be explained by human thought. Sometimes we have to rely on faith.Be content on this.