The Lord of the Bible?

[Lalwendë]

Morgoth affects the very fabric of Arda before its even created, by giving his own 'tune' to the Music (I think it might be like some of that Hard House you hear banging out of barely legal modded Novas ), whereas yes, Satan might be bad from the beginning, but the world is created at least before he gets a chance to go and corrupt anything. So in The real World under Christian thought, the world itself is a good place, it's Satan and humans who are the 'sinners'; whereas in Arda, everything has the potential to be bad. You can see examples of this where Tolkien even describes flowers and animals which are 'evil'!

Hmm, wouldn't this be forcing it to fit though? Although there are so many interpretations of the Bible I'm sure it would fit at least one sect or faith? Come to think of it, this whole thread has proved one thing at least that The Bible and Tolkien's work have in common - both can be turned inside out and interpreted any number of imaginable ways!

Originally Posted by Raynor

And if we do agree that LotR reflects a Norse Light, what kind of Light is that, where men are sacrificed to gods? It looks more like un-light to me

Ah, but this Light would be, as Tolkien said to Milton Waldman:

It should possess the tone and quality that I desired, somewhat cool and clear, be redolent of our 'air' (the clime and soil of the North West, meaning Britain and the hither parts of Europe: not Italy or the Aegean, still less the East)

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Morgoth affects the very fabric of Arda before its even created, by giving his own 'tune' to the Music (I think it might be like some of that Hard House you hear banging out of barely legal modded Novas ), whereas yes, Satan might be bad from the beginning, but the world is created at least before he gets a chance to go and corrupt anything.

I don't know the Bible well enough to agree or disagree. Think that one might interpret Job 38:4-7 as meaning that the angels were singing while the Earth was being created, and so to me that would put their creation prior to Earth's. And maybe someone with a Sil handy could provide the Music quotes, as from memory I thought that at least the first few bars/chords weren't in discord. Anyway, maybe the argument could be made that at first Melkor/Lucifer were not ungood, then shortly after creation and during the shaping of the world started whistling their own tunes.

So in The real World under Christian thought, the world itself is a good place, it's Satan and humans who are the 'sinners'; whereas in Arda, everything has the potential to be bad. You can see examples of this where Tolkien even describes flowers and animals which are 'evil'!

I see the difference and admit that some extra effort may be needed with the shoehorn. Before Adam and Eve fall, there are no thorns or fangs. On the other hand, these two are driven out of Eden, which, if the whole world were affected by mankind's sin, then what would be the point of driving them from a specific place (except to keep them from the tree of life)? Did Eden stay good and, like Melian's Girdle, exclude the thorns and fangs which already roamed elsewhere?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by alatar

I see the difference and admit that some extra effort may be needed with the shoehorn. Before Adam and Eve fall, there are no thorns or fangs. On the other hand, these two are driven out of Eden, which, if the whole world were affected by mankind's sin, then what would be the point of driving them from a specific place (except to keep them from the tree of life)? Did Eden stay good and, like Melian's Girdle, exclude the thorns and fangs which already roamed elsewhere?

But in Christianity its the actions of the first two humans which causes evil to enter the world; if they had resisted then we must presume it would not have happened. Whereas in Arda, the peoples (peoples because I'm including Elves and Dwarves) are blameless. Rather than resisting the evil/sin that's become inherent in human nature, they must resist the evil/sin that's in the very fabric of the world.

I'm not sure why we would want to force it though; there are a fair few interesting avenues to pursue with regard to Christianity such as Grace, free will vs fate etc, and in essence the good/evil fight is in accord with a Christian morality (but not just a Christian one ).

[Raynor]

As I previously quoted from the Atrabeth and Myths Transformed, Tolkien's world is actually good, unless evil is stirred [after all, Eru's secret fire burns at the heart of it].

Concerning the timing of Ea and our world, he noted this in letter #211:

I hope the, evidently long but undefined, gap* in time between the Fall of Barad-dur and our Days is sufficient for 'literary credibility', even for readers acquainted with what is known or surmised of 'pre-history'.

*I imagine the gap to be about 6000 years : that is we are now at the end of the Fifth Age, if the Ages were of about the same length as S.A. and T.A. But they have, I think, quickened; and I imagine we are actually at the end of the Sixth Age, or in the Seventh.

Originally Posted by Lal

Ah, but this Light would be, as Tolkien said to Milton Waldman:

I am genuinly puzzled about what you are trying to say. [If you are reffering to the dedication of his myths to Englad, he admited this was something he attempted ("once upon a time") and amusingly asks the reader not to laugh at that - and ends by calling the whole enterprise as "absurd". But we have been through this already.]

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But in Christianity its the actions of the first two humans which causes evil to enter the world; if they had resisted then we must presume it would not have happened. Whereas in Arda, the peoples (peoples because I'm including Elves and Dwarves) are blameless. Rather than resisting the evil/sin that's become inherent in human nature, they must resist the evil/sin that's in the very fabric of the world.

Note that previously I'd stated exactly your point, as that's how it would seem. But when I'd read that, from the beginning, Satan was sinning, it made me consider this again. Now I doubt that there are answers out there, but wouldn't it seem that, if from the beginning, Satan were evil and were present in whatever form in the Garden of Evil, that, basically, one could state that evil were already in the world before Adam and Eve took their first bite of the same? It almost seems a legal technicality to be argued before a jury.

Now, one might counter that evil may have existed in the universe prior to Adam/Eve's sin, and that it was their willful choice of it that brought it into the world (tangent - if there is God and Free Will, sin would exist simply because one could chose 'not God.').

Anyway, I do like, as you state, that in Tolkien's world not everything is born with stain (there's a nappy joke in there somewhere), but with the choice to embrace or resist it. That may be why a 'works' theology (as opposed to grace) is popular even outside of Middle Earth - you feel like you're doing something, whether adding negative or positive chits, but that, in your beginning, you start out with a zero balance and not in debt.

[Raynor]

Sorry for double posting, things are moving at a fast pace here:

But in Christianity its the actions of the first two humans which causes evil to enter the world; if they had resisted then we must presume it would not have happened.

What about the snake? Was he wholly good? And isn't evil something of a moral quality? If so, how could Adam and Eve create it? How could they possibly amend God's creation in such a fundamental way? At most, they made an evil choice, possibly the first (most likely the second, considering the snake), but that is a far cry from amending God's creation.

Whereas in Arda, the peoples (peoples because I'm including Elves and Dwarves) are blameless.

How blameless were the Men that succumbed to Melkor's temptations? In the begining, he offered them gifts - and Eru promised them he would take care of them, should they call on to him - I really have to quote this, its an all time favorite:

Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time ye will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you

Was the temptation higher than they could handle - such as Frodo's temptation? In fact, they knew of Eru's power and assistance, but still fail to call on Him, they didn't mind about him - I have little if any doubt Eru would have kicked Melkor from one end of Ea to the other, should he have been supplicated. But no, Men failed and fell - in the end, to the glory of Eru.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Sorry for double posting, things are moving at a fast pace here:
What about the snake? Was he wholly good? And isn't evil something of a moral quality? If so, how could Adam and Eve create it? How could they possibly amend God's creation in such a fundamental way? At most, they made an evil choice, possibly the first (most likely the second, considering the snake), but that is a far cry from amending God's creation.

Was the temptation higher than they could handle - such as Frodo's temptation? In fact, they knew of Eru's power and assistance, but still fail to call on Him, they didn't mind about him - I have little if any doubt Eru would have kicked Melkor from one end of Ea to the other, should he have been supplicated. But no, Men failed and fell - in the end, to the glory of Eru.

Who knew of it? Men in LotR didn't know of it, it's only in the Athrabeth, in this it's stated as a kind of tradition, not as a current 'faith', there's no hint that the Men in LotR knew of it. It's up to these Men to work out what's right and wrong for themselves; and indeed part of the 'mission' of the Istari is to guide them (but not push them) towards good choices.

I'd like to see something that proves Eru would have kicked Melkor from one end of Ea to the other had Men called on him. It took Eru long enough to do something about him when the Elves sought help - and then he has simply been chained in the void, not destroyed, and his works go on right into the 4th age and beyond. "No-one can change the music in my despite" is what Eru says, so the fate of Arda is set out in the Music and it can't be altered; Melkor is chained in the Void until the end comes, though I've no doubt he might get a whupping at that point!

Back to Genesis...the serpent is not evil, the serpent simply suggests to Adam and Eve another way of doing things - the point about The Fall is surely that it is all Adam and Eve's choice. They can say no and simply obey (or trust), but they don't. Evil was only a potential possibility (as in Pandora's Box) and it was their actions alone which released it.

Originally Posted by Alatar

Anyway, I do like, as you state, that in Tolkien's world not everything is born with stain (there's a nappy joke in there somewhere), but with the choice to embrace or resist it. That may be why a 'works' theology (as opposed to grace) is popular even outside of Middle Earth - you feel like you're doing something, whether adding negative or positive chits, but that, in your beginning, you start out with a zero balance and not in debt.

That's the way i look at the world and morality anyway - that everyone must work towards doing good and doing the right thing ('moral credit at hole in the wall', as Radiohead say) and people are born good. I think in the Christian sense, the world itself is not evil, but people are born right from the beginning with the 'evil stain' and it must be fought against - Original Sin. In Tolkien's world, the world itself is evil, but people are not necessarily born that way, and they must work to avoid falling into the trap that the very world itself presents. This actually fits better with the world we see in Tolkien where we can even have evil trees, whereas the Christian view focusses on people not on flora and fauna.

[littlemanpoet]

I've always considered the Atlantis/Numenor sinking to be tied up with the Noachian worldwide flood. But maybe the Noachian comes later (if you want to play this game) and may be considered the last worldwide (or major) calamity.

You don't have to have LotR happening as late as you're suggesting for the whole thing to fit.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I've always considered the Atlantis/Numenor sinking to be tied up with the Noachian worldwide flood.

I'm with you there, at least part way. One may think that Plato, when speaking of Atlantis, really meant Numenor. Or that the sinking of Numenor was, as the facts became blurred over the years and retellings added to the tale, Noah's flood. Surely one can find some comparisons between the two (Noah's flood and the drowning of Numenor) to make a case for a common ancestor (as you say, if we agree to play that game).

But maybe the Noachian comes later (if you want to play this game) and may be considered the last worldwide (or major) calamity.

Agreed. You either have a local flood or a global flood that happens after the beginning of the Fourth Age (prior to that, you'd think that the Elves would have recorded such an event, should they have survived it).

You don't have to have LotR happening as late as you're suggesting for the whole thing to fit.

I think that we're agreeing here. LotR could have happened prior to Noah's building of the Ark.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

LotR could have happened prior to Noah's building of the Ark.

Intriguing possibilities being considered here, alatar. Would this suggest that hobbits, along with unicorns, were not brought onto the ArK? Did they start hiding away from the big people even before Noah was seeking his two by twos for the trip? And were orcs wiped out in the Flood? So many points to consider!

EDIT: And perhaps Noah had such difficulty trying to recognise a female dwarf that he unfortunately chose two male dwarfs?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Intriguing possibilities being considered here, alatar. Would this suggest that hobbits, along with unicorns, were not brought onto the ArK?

Are there unicorns in Middle Earth? Anyway, the answer regarding the Hobbits, whether there was a Flood, or whether the flood was local or happened before the Shirefolk existed is that, I think, there's a mention that in Frodo's time some of the Hobbits began getting a little bigger. You may have part of the group becoming more adept at hiding, and so eventually become completely hidden from 'human' sight - so much so that we bulldoze over their villages and wipe them out . The other part of the group becomes more and more 'man-like,' and eventually are subsumed into the race of Man. You can see today (sit for a while at any mall) and you'll see various sizes and shapes of people, which obviously demonstrates the presence of Hobbit, orc, elf, maia and other genes in the mix.

Regarding Noah's Ark, (again, if we're playing that game) is entirely possible for the nearly invisible Hobbits to have stowed aboard. Or to have missed the boat completely, which would explain their absence today.

[littlemanpoet]

I'm quite certain that there must have been Hobbits hidden aboard the Ark.

And I've seen Dwarves (not talking about midgets here, two different things); they insist that they're human, and with their beards shaven, they do resemble Dwarvish looking humans. But you and I know what they really are....

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Who knew of it? Men in LotR didn't know of it, it's only in the Athrabeth, in this it's stated as a kind of tradition, not as a current 'faith', there's no hint that the Men in LotR knew of it. It's up to these Men to work out what's right and wrong for themselves; and indeed part of the 'mission' of the Istari is to guide them (but not push them) towards good choices.

This is a loooooong quote from letter #156:

But in a kind of Noachian situation the small party of the Faithful in Numenor, who had refused to take pan in the rebellion (though many of them had been sacrificed in the Temple by the Sauronians) escaped in Nine Ships under the leadership of Elendil and his sons, and established a kind of diminished memory of Numenor in Exile on the coasts of Middle-earth – inheriting the hatred of Sauron, the friendship of the Elves, the knowledge of the True God, and (less happily) the yearning for longevity, and the habit of embalming and the building of splendid tombs – their only 'hallows': or almost so. But the 'hallow' of God and the Mountain had perished, and there was no real substitute. Also when the 'Kings' came to an end there was no equivalent to a 'priesthood': the two being identical in Numenorean ideas. So while God (Eru) was a datum of good Numenorean philosophy, and a prime fact in their conception of history he had at the time of the War of the Ring no worship and no hallowed place. And that kind of negative truth was characteristic of the West, and all the area under Numenorean influence: the refusal to worship any 'creature', and above all no 'dark lord' or satanic demon, Sauron, or any other, was almost as far as they got. They had (I imagine) no petitionary prayers to God ; but preserved the vestige of thanksgiving. (Those under special Elvish influence might call on the angelic powers for help in immediate peril or fear of evil enemies. ) It later appears that there had been a 'hallow' on Mindolluin, only approachable by the King, where he had anciently offered thanks and praise on behalf of his people; but it had been forgotten. It was re-entered by Aragorn, and there he found a sapling of the White Tree, and replanted it in the Court of the Fountain. It is to be presumed that with the reemergence of the lineal priest kings (of whom Luthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard. But there would be no temple of the True God while Numenorean influence lasted.

It does speak for itself, doesn't it?

It took Eru long enough to do something about him when the Elves sought help - and then he has simply been chained in the void, not destroyed,

Then again, "the indestructibility of spirits with free wills, even by the Creator of them, is also an inevitable feature, if one either believes in their existence, or feigns it in a story" (cf letter #211), so your alternative isn't appropiate.

the serpent is not evil, the serpent simply suggests to Adam and Eve another way of doing things - the point about The Fall is surely that it is all Adam and Eve's choice

The serpent was not evil? He "beguiled" Eve, inducing rebellion against God's words. And I think it is interesting to see his words:

Originally Posted by Genesis 3:5

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Since they are so similar to Sauron's:

Originally Posted by Of the rings of power and the third age, Silmarillion

Alas, for the weakness of the great! For a mighty king is Gil-galad, and wise in all lore is Master Elrond, and yet they will not aid me in my labours. Can it be that they do not desire to see other lands become as blissful as their own? But wherefore should Middle-earth remain for ever desolate and dark, whereas the Elves could make it as fair as Eressea, nay even as Valinor? And since you have not returned thither, as you might, I perceive that you love this Middle-earth, as do I. Is it not then our task to labour together for its enrichment, and for the raising of all the Elven-kindreds that wander here untaught to the height of that power and knowledge which those have who are beyond the Sea?

If the serpent was not evil, how come he was punished then?

Originally Posted by Alatar

Anyway, the answer regarding the Hobbits, whether there was a Flood, or whether the flood was local or happened before the Shirefolk existed is that, I think, there's a mention that in Frodo's time some of the Hobbits began getting a little bigger.

There is a quote, I can't remember the source, where Tolkien states that they will slowly diminish in numbers, getting very stressed with finding food and forgetting their lore. Rather depressing.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Are there unicorns in Middle Earth?

Well, seeing as they aren't fell beasts, there's less need to mention them in LotR in order to maintain the gothic aura of the story. It doesn't mean they weren't there.

Although, I am sure that some of our enterprising RPGers could well come up with an explanation which would explain their absence from the story. Could it be that the steeds of the Black Riders were unicorns who were pressed to the dark side, thereby losing their horns?

In the Prologue to LotR, we are told that hobbits developed the art of disappearing swiftly and silently to such a degree that it seems a property of magic. We aren't told that they no longer exist, just that they choose to avoid us. However, the same Prologue also says that

Originally Posted by Prologue LotR

It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves.... but what our relationship is can no longer be discovered.

So, I suppose that this does imply the hobbits did in fact survive the flood and were, as lmp suggests, hiding on the Ark. It isn't clear that there may at some time have been miscegenation between men and hobbits.

[littlemanpoet]

That which follows is the opinion of this poster. Anything said should be understood to be prefaced with "In my opinion..." or "I think that..." ... etc.

From the sixth paragraph of the Foreword:
"As for any inner meaning or "message", it has in the intention of the author none."

From a rather famous Letter Tolkien wrote:
"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little;"

Is there contradiction between the two texts? Only in part: "consciously in the revision". But Tolkien qualifies the nature of that consciousness in revision: "the religious element is absorbed into the story and symbolism". Tolkien is probably right that that this was clumsily put.

Before we try to resolve this issue, another piece must be brought to our attention: In paragraph eight of the Foreword, Tolkien says,
"I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one [application] resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other [allegory] in the purposed domination of the author."

I believe that we are talking about neither allegory nor application when "opining" that there is a Christian undercurrent in LotR. We are talking about something that the author did not intend, but could not help but do. Could he be unable to keep himself from it and still be conscious of it? He was not trying to keep himself from it. 'Consciously Catholic' is not a matter of intended, or unintended, meaning, but of world view. That which Tolkien believed about reality, formed the basis, the underpinnings, on which he constructed LotR. So there is no contradiction. Tolkien has not attempted to infuse LotR with Christian meaning, nor has he inserted any allegory. Nor is Christian content in LotR merely application by the reader. Rather, the Christian reader recognizes in LotR that which s/he has come to understand as deep reality precisely because the author wrote what he understood to be reality, into LotR.

One additional comment: Tolkien's work is just as infused with the content of the North, which he loved very much. I'm glad he did.

[davem]

Ok, so I said I wasn't coming back. However, a number of other Downer's have said they missed me (one of whom is especially close to me - we actually met through this site)

Secondly, I realise that some of my earlier posts upset some people so, I wanted to explain where I was coming from.

Without a shred of sarcasm or satire (just to prove I can do it).

I want to begin with a quote from To Translate a Hero: The Hobbit as Beowulf Retold by Jonathan A. Glenn, which Drigel kindly pointed me towards. http://faculty.uca.edu/~jona/second/hobbeow.htm

In spite of such multiple treatment, however, studies of these issues are with few exceptions flawed in three dangerous ways: by the general critical sin of Sloppy Statements, by a tendency to simple-minded and profligate Parallel-Hunting, and by the Voilà Syndrome, whereby the critic impressively points to something but fails to ask that first of all critical questions, "So what?"

I think this thread has suffered from all three of the 'flaws' Glenn has listed, but we've tended to get bogged down in the latter two especially..

Profligate paralllel hunting ('There's a 'holy' city in LotR & a 'Holy City in the Bible', 'There's a special tree in LotR & a special tree in LotR', etc, etc)

The Voilà Syndrome, whereby the critic impressively points to something but fails to ask that first of all critical questions, "So what?"

Now, the latter question seems to have gone by the board. Or when I asked it my point was misunderstood. From the start of this thread I've been asking ' So what?' Now, that was taken to imply that I was saying 'This thread is pointless', & many, in no uncertain terms responded 'If you think its pointless go away & let us get on with it. But that wasn't what I was saying at all.

In any analysis of a literary work, that 'So what' question must be asked when comparisons are made. What I was asking was 'So what are you getting at, what are you trying to prove?' The closest I got was 'We're not trying to prove anything at all, just making comparisons.' This is where I took a wrong turn, & I admit it.

In response to this statement I attempted to show the pointlessness of making comparisons for comparison's sake. Let's take a series of statements:

1) There's a special tree in LotR & a special tree in the Bible

2) There's a 'Holy' city in LotR & a Holy City in the Bible

3) Aragorn was a king born in obscurity who coming was prophesied

4) Aragorn had arms, legs & a beard, so did Jesus

5) LotR was printed on paper in ink, so was the Bible

6) Both are long books

7) Tolkien wore trousers & so did Bilbo

Now, what can we say about all those statements - before we start judging whether some are 'serious' & some are facetious or insulting? We can say they are all true[. All those statements are literally, factually, completely true. No speculation involved. The next stage is to ask are any of them relevant to the discussion we're having? And the problem there is, until we're clear as to the point of the discussion we cannot say whether any or all of them are relevant or not. If the thread is just about making general comparisons I don't see hoow any of the above statements can be found offensive. The fact that some were found offensive implies that there is more going on.

Now, this is not simply a matter of saying 'Welll, some of the statements are 'serious' & some are 'silly' because ''serious' & 'silly' are value judgements based on what posters consider to be the point of the thread.

Now, I want to share with you two negative rep comments I recieved in regard to my post where I responded to the 'tree in LotR & tree in the Bible' (where I said 'of course Tolkien couldn't have come across a tree anywhere else but the Bible, could he?) & introduced my potential thread 'Lord of the Trousers.

Please don't post private comments. ~Mister Underhill

Now, the first was unsigned, the second wasn't, but that's not the point (not is the fact that I actually recieved more positive rep for my posts on this thread than for any other I've been on (7 or 8 lots).

So why am I giving you these? Because I think it gives us a clue to the problem. Let's say this thread was about Tolkien & Shakespeare. If someone started such a thread, saying there's a forest in A Midsummer Night's Dream & a forest in LotR, & there's a Wizard in The Tempest & a Wizard in LotR, etc, etc one would feel obliged to ask 'Yes, so what?' (ie not 'This thread is very silly, I don't see the point of it', but 'So what point are you trying to make? Are you trying to show that Tolkien had read Shakespeare? Are you trying to show that Shakespeare influenced Tolkien? Are you trying to show that Shakespeare was the first & best writer to deal with those things & that we should all forget Tolkien & move on to the Bard? ie 'Ok, so you've found all those comparisons, so what?

Now, in the case of that thread, if I had come along in my usual obnoxiuous way & said 'Well, certainly Tolkien couldn't have come across wizards & forests anywhere else, could he? Its not like there's any wizards or forests in literature other than Shakespeare, there are no forests in England that could have inspired Tolkien, are there?' No-one would have taken that as an attack on the source (ie on Shakespeare), because it clearly is not - it is an 'attack' on the way the source is being used (or misused in fact).

So why is it that my post, which drew such criticism (the first poster so insensed by it that they even forgot their own name) when I posted it in reference to such points being made in regards to the Bible?

Who knows? But one can speculate. What I noticed at Oxonmoot this year was that out of about eight different talks only one was actually about M-e. The others were either biographical (dealing with Sarehole & the places Tolkien would have known as a child, & another about the TCBS & his schooldays) or interpretations of his work from a Christian pov.

Now the latter ones were most interesting to me, because this is something I've noticed as being a bit of a current trend. There are a lot of books, essays & discussion forumsd out there which are focussing on this very thing - Tolkien the Christian writer - everything from 'Finding God in LotR' to 'The Gospel according to Tolkien'. Dozens upon dozens of the things, & in this case there is a very specific agenda.

This agenda is evangelism. The books make the most tenuous links between the contents of LotR & the Bible & play them up to ''prove' that LotR is little less than a Christian allegory. The White Tree of Gondor is the 'inspiration' for a whole chapter of quotes & interpretation of the Tree of Good & Evil in Genesis, mention of Aragorn leads in to a whole chapter on Jesus. Now, the interesting thing for me in books like this is that they do not mention any other possible influences - especially not Pagan ones. The Pagan/folklore connections & inspirations are deliberately ignored in the desire to 'prove' LotR is not only a 'Christian' work but nothing but a Christian work. The interesting thing about this approach is that while there are direct & clear comparisons to be made between Northern myth & events in LotR ( the Balrog on the Bridge of Khazad Dum & Surtr crossing Bifrost, etc) the approach of the writers of these Christian books & essays is 'this is a battle between good & evil (followed by a series of Biblical quotes & analysis on every conflict between good & evil mentioned). Now, the difference between these books & the (far fewer) ones that explore the Pagan inspirations is that the writers of the 'Pagan' ones do a lot of research & can provide specific examples of Norse or Saxon influences on Tolkien's work, rather than the general Christian ones in those books.

An interesting book in this context is Greg Wright's Tolkien in Perspective. What Wright does is to divide Tolkien's M-e writings into 'wheat' & 'chaff'. The 'wheat' is any of Tolkien's writings in which he can find Biblical analogies (he has a soft spot for the Athrabeth) & the Chaff is anything else. In other words, as far as he is concerned, if you can't relate it directly to the Bible its worthless. He sees Tolkien's work as a means to an end - show his readers that the stuff they like in LotR is the same stuff they'll find in the Bible & by that means get them to move on from Tolkien to the 'real thing'.

Now, we all have a tendency to make statements which don't actually reveal our agenda, or complete our thoughts - earlier LMP stated

....which I find interesting (and have for a while) that perhaps there is more reality to Ragnarok from the perspective of the gods who, in Christian teaching, would be denizens of the enemy; knowing themselves to be condemned, they do the best then can and are true to themselves out of a kind of self-respect/pride of heart. Just a notion.(post 315)

Now, what is LMP's point in stating that Christians think of the Norse gods in this way - what is he saying here?

1)This is what Christians think (& as far as I'm concerned they're right)?

2)This is what Christians think (aren't they silly?)

3) This is what Christians think (..... .......) - ie 'I'm just stating it for the record'

Raynor has fought manfully against the idea of Gandalf being inspired by Odin because, well, he find's Odin's behaviour on the borderline between obnoxious & downright evil - which he, of course, has every right to do, but while that tells us a lot about Raynor it doesn't tell us very much about either Gandalf as a character or about the way Tolkien understood him or what inspired him. Its equivalent to me denying that the area around Moseley Bog inspired Tolkien because I went there & fell in & so have very bad memories of the place. Clearly Tolkien did not think of Odin as 'evil' - he loved Norse myth all his life (& actually spent more time lecturing on Norse myth than he did on Anglo-Saxon.

BTW in my dim & distant past I knew a few Odinists, sincere, decent people. They would have been grossly ooffended & deeply hurt by comments like the above. Its not only Christians who can be hurt by thoughtless comments.

So, there you have it. A sarcasm free post. An Apologia. A devastating comeback. A boring self-indulgent piece of self justificatory nonsense from someone who won't just go away & leave everybody alone...

[Hookbill the Goomba]

1) There's a special tree in LotR & a special tree in the Bible

There are actually two. There is the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis) and there is the Tree of Life (Revelation).

4) Aragorn had ... a beard, so did Jesus

The Bible doesn’t actually say if he did or not. For all we know, he was bald and clean shaven... Hmmm...

6) Both are long books

That depends on how good you are at reading.

Yes, I agree, you can make endless and sometimes obscure observations about similarities between The Lord of the Rings and The Bible. I come, once again to the first post of this thread that suggested that Tolkien stole things from the Bible, which I do not agree with. Perhaps themes and truths inspired him and he put the ones closest to him in his book, and he admits that a writer cannot be wholly unaffected by his experiences. He does admit in the interview I mentioned earlier that God is in The Lord of the Rings and it's history ("The One" obviously). But still, (I really have no idea where I'm going with this) I do agree that some of the more obscure comparisons (Believe it or not, I actually heard someone once say that, because Bilbo sounded a little like Bible that that was strong grounds to say it was a Christian book ) do not offer any help in understanding the full intensions of a writer.

Of course, the length of a book is always an interesting thing. I've noticed (thought it is not always true and there are some notable exceptions) that longer books seem to draw more interpretations because there is so much material to work with. The Bible is a book of history, poetry, prophesy and all that, and people have studied it for years, always finding new interpretations, new ways of looking at verses and so on. The Lord of the Rings is (or, at least, will eventually be, perhaps) heading in a similar direction. Many will look at passages and phrases and draw different conclusions (possibly due to the fact that we're all different... strange that, ) and some will think of new ways of looking at things all the time. Thank goodness for the Downs!

So, what I'm basically saying is... erm... Maybe.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

There are actually two. There is the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis) and there is the Tree of Life (Revelation).

And there are Two Trees in Norse myth - Ask & Embla (Ash & Elm) from which the gods create men & women...

The Bible doesn’t actually say if he did or not. For all we know, he was bald and clean shaven... Hmmm...

He is called 'Rabbi' which inplies long hair & beard....

I don't think Tolkien used his 'sources' consciously either. The point of my 'many trees' argument is that Tolkien would have been exposed to so many trees (both real & fictional) that to pick one out of all of them & imply it was a 'specially' significant source misunderstands the way his mind works. He took in a massive amount of material & it all came out as he wrote. Trees are just very strange & awe-inspiring things. Lalwende & I visited the Botanical Gardens in Oxford last week & stood beneath Tolkien's Tree - the gigantic Pinas Nigra. It is simply awe-full. Something so huge & alive is inspiring in & of itself - whether you have any mythical/religious knowledge at all.

If we pick out Biblical or mythological paralllels to anything in Tolkien it seems to me we have a purpose for emphasising those parallels as opposed to others. All along, as I said, I've been asking 'So what?' What is the point of this thread - or rather 'What is the point you're trying to make - where are you trying to take me. If facetious parallels are not to be made, then its because people want to focus on 'serious' parallels. Hence, they are trying to go somewhere with this. I'd just like to see the map so I know where I'm likely to end up..

[Hookbill the Goomba]

He is called 'Rabbi' which inplies long hair & beard....

I know. I was just splitting hairs. But who knows? He broke a lot of other traditions, why not that? Not that it matters, he probably never had time to shave anyway...

I think when all's said and done, Tolkien wanted to write a story for people to enjoy. As he said in his forward. The deeper meanings are not what are important. This is The Barrow Downs, a Tolkien appreciation site, so I'd say we all here enjoyed reading the books. And that's what counts. *Queue cheesy music and fade out*

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

And there are Two Trees in Norse myth - Ask & Embla (Ash & Elm) from which the gods create men & women...

In point of fact, Ask and Embla are the names of the first man and woman, so called because they were made from driftwood: pieces of ash and elm respectively. There are also two trees in Alexander's letter to Aristotle, which was a popular text in the Anglo-Saxon period both in Latin and in the English translation. In fact the trees of Sun and Moon seem a more likely direct source for Laurelin and Telperion, although it's possible that the trees in the dubiously ascribed letter were directly based on the two trees of Genesis: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I was trying to find a decent Old English text of Alexander's letter online, but all I can find is a graphotactic version that's very difficult to read. I'll try to add some quotations when I've had a chance to consult my own copy of the letter.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

As a point of fact, Ask and Embla are the names of the first man and woman, so called because they were made from driftwood: pieces of ash and elm respectively. There are also two trees in Alexander's letter to Aristotle, which was a popular text in the Anglo-Saxon period both in Latin and in the English translation. In fact the trees of Sun and Moon seem a more likely direct source for Laurelin and Telperion, although it's possible that the trees in the dubiously ascribed letter were directly based on the two trees of Genesis: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Accepted - though the pieces of driftwood must have come from trees (I take my permission for pedantry here from Hookbill ). I think we are dealing here with 'Archetypes'. Similar themes recur throughout myth, legend, folklore & many religious texts. We are not dealing with specific manifestations of the Archetypes - whether in myth or religion, but with the primal Archetypes. I don't see the Biblical trees as the Archetypes, but as manifestations of them. One can argue over the 'true' nature & origin of the Archetypes, but, according to Jung that 'origin' cannot ever be known.

The point is that the Trees in M-e are living trees, born from seedlings, mature, grow old & die. They are not mythological symbols - though they may have 'mythological' antecedents. Tolkien dies not just 'lift' things. Every tree Tolkien encountered is the source for the Two Trees.

[narfforc]

Maybe I am missing the point here, but going back to original reason for this post, if Tolkien was such a religious man, why would he steal things from what is said to be the word of God, surely this would be sacrilege and he would be condemned by his own religious community. To my mind the easier route to writing a book would be through his other love in life Norse mythology, if things are similar along the way, that is because most religions are. You cannot put your hand on your heart and swear: This is what Tolkien was thinking of when he wrote that. Tolkien could have had a multitude of things on his mind when he was writing. The question was did Tolkien steal from the bible, I say no, because he wouldn't, if the question had been: are there similarities between the bible and LotR I say yes, but there are also with many things. People will say :Ah but Tolkien was a Catholic, so he is using that when writing a book, however he was also born in South African, this doesn't mean that there is some form of aparthied in the book, and we would all be outraged if some group came forward with the weakest of links and claimed Tolkien a neo nazi, which he clearly was not.

[davem]

The major problem with reading LotR as a 'Christian' work is that so much of it is clearly not in any way Biblically inspired. the whole Tom & Goldberry/Barrow Downs 'world' for instance. If Tolkien was writing a Christian novel much of it would not be there - in other words there is, from Wright's perspective too much 'chaff' among the wheat, & that 'chaff' is in there intentionally.

Reading LotR in the light of the Bible leads one to force interpretations on it - Raynor's statement:

I have little if any doubt Eru would have kicked Melkor from one end of Ea to the other, should he have been supplicated. But no, Men failed and fell - in the end, to the glory of Eru.

cannot, as Lalwende pointed out, be supported by any textual reference in Tolkien's writings. It is a 'Biblical' reading. One may be able to claim that if Men had supplicated themselves to God He would have kicked Satan out - perfectly in line with Biblical statements. What one should not do is make similar claims for events & characters in LotR, without supporting evidence, because Tolkien wrote the story he wrote & set it up in the way he did, with its own rules & narrative structure.

This is where the whole approach of drawing analogies falls down & requires us to ask 'So what' so often in these kinds of threads. Assumptions cannot be made & stated as facts, posters must state clearly what point they are making, why they are making it, & when they are expressing personal opinions & when they are stating facts (& preferably give quotes).

LotR is what it is. Much has gone into the 'soup' which Tolkien ladled out, but also much has been attributed to it & many of those attributions cannot be supported. A thread which is simply about noticing similarities between two works will produce both serious & ridiculous examples (& in my opinion so it should - if only to get posters to answer that 'So what' question).

We have very limited 'evidence' of what inspired Tolkien & in what way it inspired him. This makes me think of earlier statements made about 'Pagan' attitudes. These statements were based, it seemed to me, on the surviving literature. Now, in the case of Anglo-Saxon literature we have very little - a few poems, homilies, riddles & Chronicles. The idea that we can make a valid judgement on the ordinary Anglo-Saxon's attitudes & world-view on such scanty evidence (as if for centuries they just recited the same verses over & over & over every single night) is not all that sensible. If all we had from the Elizabethan/Jacobean period was Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet, a handful of Dowland songs & the Authorised version of the Bible we'd have a very different view of the people who lived then. To conclude that they were a bunch of depressives who spent a lot of time in church would maybe be 'supported' by such 'evidence' but it would be far from the reality.

This search for 'specific' sources is dangerous - especially when those doing the searching have already decided what they want to find, already determined what is 'chaff' & what is 'wheat'.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

An interesting book in this context is Greg Wright's Tolkien in Perspective. What Wright does is to divide Tolkien's M-e writings into 'wheat' & 'chaff'. The 'wheat' is any of Tolkien's writings in which he can find Biblical analogies (he has a soft spot for the Athrabeth) & the Chaff is anything else. In other words, as far as he is concerned, if you can't relate it directly to the Bible its worthless. He sees Tolkien's work as a means to an end - show his readers that the stuff they like in LotR is the same stuff they'll find in the Bible & by that means get them to move on from Tolkien to the 'real thing'.

I find this kind of reading deeply troubling. Fine, if people wish to read texts in this way, and fine if they wish to draw analogies, but not fine if they wish to then build on this and effectively tell other readers that they are wrong, and furthermore, to even dare to tell Tolkien himself that he was wrong. It's a very peculiar form of criticism to dare to tell the author that they were 'sinning' with what they wrote. He says there is too much 'long defeat'. I have to question if such readings simply stem from some form of 'guilt' - guilt that they shouldn't really be enjoying this kind of work, this fantasy literature. What they read engages them as much as anyone else but then the little intellectual/theological pixie that sits on their shoulder intrudes and tells them what was wrong with it. Why can they not simply close the book if it disturbs their worldview so much? I also question if they can really be counted as amongst us, the fans, if they cannot accept such all-encompassing ideas as the 'long defeat'.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

He says there is too much 'long defeat'. I have to question if such readings simply stem from some form of 'guilt' - guilt that they shouldn't really be enjoying this kind of work, this fantasy literature. .

Wright is a 'fan' of Tolkien - but feels that LotR is not sufficiently 'Christian' - he'd have the Athrabeth added as an Appendix. Wright gives a very clear answer to 'So what' questions about his approach. LotR must (& is only valid if) provide a way to evangelise non-Christian readers & introduce them to the Bible. I don't mind this very much - at least he is honest.

Lest this be taken as another attack by me on Christianity I have to make it clear that I would be just as critical of Odinists, humanists, (or even my beloved Pink Elephantists) attemppting to use the book merely as a means to convert people without telling them that was their intent.

[narfforc]

In Tree and Leaf Tolkien states the following: So with regard to fairy stories, I feel that it is more interesting, and also in its way more difficult, to consider what they are, what they have become for us, and what values the long alchemic processes of time have produced in them. In Dasent's words I would say:'We must be satisfied with the soup that is set before us, and not desire to see the bones of the ox out of which it has been boiled. Though oddly enough, Dasent by 'the soup' meant a mishmash of bogus pre-history founded on the early surmises of Comparative Philology; and by 'desire to see the bones' he meant a demand to see the workings and the proof that led to these theories. By 'the soup' I mean the story as it is served up by its author or teller, and by 'the bones' its sources or material - even when (by rare luck) those can be with certainty discovered. But I do not, of course, forbid criticism of the soup as soup.

We cannot with certainty discover the sources or material from where LotR comes from, and the story is what it is, one of Faery. Tolkien sees Story as a big pot of soup into which from time to time things savoury and unsavoury are added and things taken out, LotR rings is such a thing, a great ladle full of soup. If when tasting my soup I find something I don't like I lay it aside and carry on with the remainder. The soup of tales has become extremely mixed, and if a soup has vegetables and meat in, then it cannot be wholly called either, this is how I see LotR, and I have a suspicion that is what Tolkien wanted.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Narfforc - Well said!

Now a general plea for complexity addressed to no one in particular....

Why does this scenario have to be "either"/"or"? Tolkien is the last author whom I would accuse of seeing things from only one perspective. That is my concern about a discussion like this. The richness of what Tolkien actually wrote sometimes gets flattened out in the process. There is so much depth and diversity within Tolkien: everything from Norse myth, Christian symbolism, and Arthurian legend to H. Rider Haggard, William Morris, and the rural traditions of Appalachia. Clyde Kilby's term "contrasistency" certainly has meaning. It's impossible to pin Tolien down! This is an author who one minute states that it is best to keep religion out of a subcreated world, and the next minute says that the book is Christian in its revision. Neither statement can be denied, though we may argue endlessly about how much weight to give to each. If we push a one-sided interpretation on the Legendarium in terms of either "Christian" or "non-Christian/pagan", we lessen the complexity of middle-earth .

While I am suspcious of any interpretation that's narrowly focused, I still find it intriguing that so many people approach Tolkien from so many different angles. Why not just accept such studies (or the statements on this thread) for what they are?: an honest expression of what particular people felt when they approached the Legendarium, given their personal background and view of the world. And if a few such people are foolhardy enough to claim they have found the "only way" of reading the Legendarium, we can smile wisely and put that down to the follies of human nature.

Davem -- I'm somewhat familiar with Greg Wright. He's essentially the most "extreme" proponent of the Christian viewpoint from among those writers who've written a "mainline" book--a popular title geared to a particular audience. It would be possible to point to many other Christian critics with a more moderate stance--Clyde Kilby, Jared Lobdell, Joseph Pearce, even Ralph Wood. (I will not bother considering the truly lunatic voices you can find scattered over the internet representing every shade of religious and political opinion.) Still, Wright is one among a large group of "Christian" critics.

From the mid sixties on, I've had a bad habit of reading Tolkien studies, academic and otherwise. I've read a ton of stuff from different perspectives: some trying to push the author into a single mold; others offering hints and connections to a particular viewpoint without claiming to be the one and only Way. I've read about Tolkien the Christian, Tolkien the Anarchist, Tolkien the Anti-Industrialist, Tolkien the Theosophist, Tolkien the Environmentalist, even Tolkien the unwitting spokesman for Jewish and Buddhist thought. Wright and other Christians are not unique in taking a single-minded approach.

Wright is an ordained minister who does judge the worth of Tolkien's writings almost solely in terms of whether or not they agree with his own Christian viewpoint. Wright makes no pretense of speaking for all Christians. He spends a chunk of his book arguing against the ideas of others who are also Christians, particularly the Catholic critic Joseph Pearce. Rather ironically, Wright's central point is very close to the one Davem has made: that other Christian/Catholic writers have gone overboard in viewing the Legendarium as a "Christian document". His stance and yours, Davem, may actually be closer than you think :

the powerful relevance of Middle-earth is not found in a distinctinctly Christian world view but a deliberately pre-Christian world view.

It's likely neither you or I would be comfortable with the term "pre-Christian" used but what's interesting here is that a Christian world view is denied. Wright would never call LotR a "Christian book". In that he is different from others on this thread who have eloquently argued that is how they personally see LotR. What all this suggest is that it is very difficult to generalize "Christian versus non-Christian". There is too much variety within both sides of that equation. We are all sitting at a very large table with countless other readers, each with a uniqe perspective, taking part in an endless discussion. Once anyone starts making judgments about who belongs at that table (i.e. who qualifies as a "fan"), we risk losing the richness of that interchange. My impulse is to err on the side of inclusion.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

We are all sitting at a very large table with countless other readers, each with a uniqe perspective, taking part in an endless discussion. Once anyone starts making judgments about who belongs at that table (i.e. who qualifies as a "fan"), we risk losing the richness of that interchange. My impulse is to err on the side of inclusion.

As is mine. I actually (positively) repped Mark 1230 for an early post on here because she had clearly put a lot of effort into it. My own feeling (right or wrong) is that some posters on here have been using the thread as an excuse for having a Biblical discussion - which is not the point of this thread or this board. As I said, any comparison made, any analogy pointed up, will have a reason behind it.

Of course, a Christian will read LotR from a Christian perspective, a Pagan from a Pagan perspective, a humanist from a humanist perspective, & a pink elephantist from a pink elephantist perspective. The more important point though, is that even if LotR was a deliberate Christian allegory a Pagan will likely not pick up on that, or actually ignore it in favour of their own interpretation. Hence LotR (whatever Tolkien intended) is only a Christian book if the reader reads it in that way.

The very fact that there are so many other analogies which can be drawn, from other myths, legends, fairy stories, historical events & characters, means that no amount of 'proof' offered by Christians, Pagans, Jews, Buddhists, Humanists or anyone else will sway many readers. And yet, it is possible that a particular interpretation of any work can become the 'accepted' one. There is clearly a 'movement' at the moment which seeks to claim Tolkien's work as 'Christian', yet all of the authors & essayists see the Legendarium mainly as a means to an end (that 'end' being conversion). The Art is put in service of the 'Church': LotR is used to get people to read the Bible by repeatedly making these analogies. To me this treats the Art with disrespect, because a work of great Art deserves more than to be treated as one of those 'clever', slightly whimsical signs one sees outside Churches.

If you think about it, it is a very 'materialist', utilitarian, approach to Art. For Wright, Tolkien's work only has value to the extent that it can be used to evangelise. Other than that it is worthless - even dangerous - if it distracts people from reading the Bible. Now that is not to imply that LotR is equal to, or better than the Bible - it is merely to say that it deserves better, being the work of a man's lifetime, than to be treated as a 'Primer' for Bible studies.

[narfforc]

Just to add to what LMP says earlier, this is what Tolkien has to say. In the introduction of my 1979 Pearl by Tolkien and the 1970 copy of Pearl by E.V. Gordon appeared these exact same words:

A clear distinction between 'allegory' and 'symbolism' may be difficult to maintain, but it is proper, or at least useful, to limit allegory to narrative, to an account (however short) of events; and symbolism to the use of visible signs or things to represent other things or ideas. Pearls were a symbol of purity that especially appealed to the imagination of the Middle Ages (and notably of the fourteenth century); but this does not make a person who wears pearls, or even one who is called Pearl, or Margaret into a allegorical figure. To be an 'allegory' a poem must as a whole, and with fair consistency, describe in other terms some event or process: its entire narrative and all its significant details should cohere and work together to this end.

Tolkien states on more than one occasion that LotR is not an allegory. Aragorn or Gandalf are the sum total of all of Tolkiens vast knowledge of myth, legends and religion, both concious and unconcious, they are nothing of one origin only.

[davem]

Originally Posted by narfforc

Tolkien states on more than one occasion that LotR is not an allegory. Aragorn or Gandalf are the sum total of all of Tolkiens vast knowledge of myth, legends and religion, both concious and unconcious, they are nothing of one origin only.

It seems that many people accept (because Tolkien stated it so plainly) that LotR is not an allegory. They then immediately set out out to make it into one, all the time denying that that's what they're doing. They struggle to make it into what they actually want it to be. Of course, PJ did the same thing in his own way - he wanted LotR to be an action adventure story & made it into just that.

I wonder why some people are so desperate to prove LotR is a Christian work. Does it have to be Christian for it to matter to them? Would it matter less if it could be shown not to be?

In a way the 'So what?' question comes back to haunt us. Even if one could prove that LotR was one thing & not any other thing one would still have to ask that question. Let's say it was proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that LotR was a 'Christian' work (whatever that means in practice), what would or should be done with it then? Should it be read from the pulpit? Taught in Sunday Schools? Only sold in Christian bookshops? In practical terms what would you actually have achieved?

To me it isn't, & never will be, a 'Christian' book - partly because I'm not sure what a 'Christian book' is, partly because I don't see how an inanimate object can become a 'Christian'. It is a book written by a Christian, but to go back to an earlier point, a shopping list written by a Christian is not a 'Christian' shopping list. It doesn't promote any uniquely Christian beliefs, but is, as Tolkien said 'fundamentally' (ie 'generally', 'more or less' - which is the way English people use the word 'fundamentally' btw) a Catholic work: ie its not an 'un-Catholic' work.

LotR, fortunately or unfortunately, is a 'blank slate' as far as 'inner meaning' goes - as Tolkien stated in the Foreword to LotR it has no 'inner meaning'. Any 'i.m.' you find there is one you've brought with you.

[The Saucepan Man]

Welcome back davem. And do I detect a faint trace of humility …?

I think we all understand your position by now. I certainly do, and I agree with you up to a point. It has always been my own position that people should not seek to claim their own individual (and unique) understanding of LotR as the “correct and true” meaning of the book and so superior to the understanding of others. I have made that position clear on this thread, and I seem to remember arguing with you at length over the point on a certain other thread which shall remain nameless. Still, nice to see that all that effort paid off …

So, your position having been made clear to one and all, I cannot for the life of me understand why you continue to restate it over and over again at length.

You ask, in response to the biblical (and other) parallels that have been drawn: “So what?”

It seems to me that an appropriate response might be: “Simply because”.

Why, on a Tolkien-based forum such as this, should those who see particular parallels in LotR not share and discuss them with others who are interested in hearing of and discussing them? There does not have to be a reason sufficient to satisfy you (or Jonathan Glenn) for them to do so. Perhaps they feel that it will enhance their own understanding of the book. Perhaps it is simply for the pleasure of sharing their own understanding and learning of others’ experiences (although that doesn't mean that they all have to agree).

But, really, what does it matter?

You raise the possibility of discussion of biblical parallels becoming an excuse for bible study, or even evangelicising. Well, I think that you will have to trust the forum moderators to step in if that happens.

You question whether such discussion should be classified as “serious” discussion and assert that the question of whether a particular discussion is “serious” or not is a subjective one. Perhaps. But ultimately, here, the question of whether a discussion is appropriate to the forum is one for the moderators. If you disagree with their assessment, well, tough.

Finally, I must say that I feel uncomfortable with your references to the rep system. Reps are a means by which members can register their approval (or disapproval) of what another member has posted. They are a private matter between the rep-giver and the recipient and should not really be reproduced by the recipient without the giver’s permission. Moreover, it is the right of someone giving a rep (whether positive or negative) to do so anonymously should they choose, and you should not seek to make capital from the fact that some may have chosen to exercise that right. Also, I am not clear why you feel the need to keep referring to the positive reps that you have received on this thread. Suffice it to say that, if you think that it makes your case any the stronger, then you are sadly mistaken. It is entirely meaningless on its own (for example, I myself positively repped you early on in the thread, before things went awry, thus preventing me from negatively repping you later on, when I felt inclined to do so ). But, in any event, the rep system is not about "who's got the best argument", and it’s inappropriate to try to use it in that way (if that is what you are seeking to do).

So let’s keep rep out of the discussion from now on, shall we?

[littlemanpoet]

In spite of such multiple treatment, however, studies of these issues are with few exceptions flawed in three dangerous ways: by the general critical sin of Sloppy Statements, by a tendency to simple-minded and profligate Parallel-Hunting, and by the Voilà Syndrome, whereby the critic impressively points to something but fails to ask that first of all critical questions, "So what?"

I agree that this thread has suffered from all three flaws.

Originally Posted by davem

Now, what is LMP's point in stating that Christians think of the Norse gods in this way - what is he saying here?

1)This is what Christians think (& as far as I'm concerned they're right)?

2)This is what Christians think (aren't they silly?)

3) This is what Christians think (..... .......) - ie 'I'm just stating it for the record'

The answer to your question was in the post itself: "just a notion". During the time that the particular post in question was written, this thread had moved away from an antagonistic bent (not in itself a bad thing, merely meaning two sides debating opposing sides of an issue), and conversations were occurring instead of debates. That post should be read in that light.

Originally Posted by davem

The major problem with reading LotR as a 'Christian' work is that so much of it is clearly not in any way Biblically inspired.

This is by no means clear. I will present evidence as time allows. .... by tasting directly of the soup, by the way.

Originally Posted by davem

What one should not do is make similar claims for events & characters in LotR, without supporting evidence, because Tolkien wrote the story he wrote & set it up in the way he did, with its own rules & narrative structure.

I agree; but take note of the words I've bolded.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I find this kind of reading deeply troubling.

I agree. It is a foolish analysis and I think this Greg Wright, if presented accurately, doesn't know what he's talking about or doing. He doesn't understand Tolkien at all, if what is told here of his work is accurate (which I don't doubt, just playing it safe).

davem, Mr. Wright may be saying "evangelize", but he means "proselytize". I realize there doesn't seem to be much difference, but there is sufficient difference to be careful with terms. "Evangelium" is a word found in Tolkien's "On Faerie Stories", as many of us well know, by which he means "good news", which is of course its original intent. "Proselytizing" is of course the effort of trying to persuade someone else to one's own faith; not in itself wrong, although no doubt offensive to some in this age of toleration of all faiths (except for the act of proselytizing?).

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, a Christian will read LotR from a Christian perspective, a Pagan from a Pagan perspective, a humanist from a humanist perspective, & a pink elephantist from a pink elephantist perspective. The more important point though, is that even if LotR was a deliberate Christian allegory a Pagan will likely not pick up on that, or actually ignore it in favour of their own interpretation. Hence LotR (whatever Tolkien intended) is only a Christian book if the reader reads it in that way.

Are we moving back into the canonicity debate here? The book is what the author wrote it to be, and the reader's mind interprets the story in whatevery way the reader's mind will; it does not therefore follow that the reader's mind somehow magically turns the book into something other than what the author intended, regardless if it sits in one reader's hands or another.

Originally Posted by davem

I wonder why some people are so desperate to prove LotR is a Christian work. Does it have to be Christian for it to matter to them? Would it matter less if it could be shown not to be?

Who said anything about desperation? It seems to me, davem, that you're the one characterizing Christians in this way. I'm not desperate about it at all. I'm eager to share what I've discovered. And if you want a "so what" answer to that, it goes like this: understanding something I didn't before is its own pleasure; beyond that, I gain wisdom. Life becomes richer. That's what I'm eager for.

On Uniqueness:

It is necessary, for the sake of fairness, to dispense with the double standard such that only that which is uniquely Christian is acceptable whilst all that is required of Nordic, pagan, and other sources, is evidence that the particular fits the accepted description of the source in question. We must apply one standard to both sides of the argument. If we insist that in every case only that which uniquely belongs to a given possible source, will be accepted, we will quickly run aground, realizing that the standard is frankly impossible; not a faith system or mythic source in the world can hold up to such a standard. Therefore, the only legitimate standard is as follows:

Does that which is found in the text adequately fit the description of the possible source?

Exhibit #1: Pity stayed Bilbo

In the Prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring, section four, paragraph seven, we read,
"...Bilbo was tempted to slay [Gollum] with his sword. But pity stayed him...."
First, this is precisely the same way it is presented in the revised "The Hobbit, Riddles in the Dark". Note the passive tense. It does not say 'Bilbo took pity on him', but 'pity stayed him'. Pity is thus something acting upon Bilbo rather than he doing the pitying. What is this pity? Does it have a source? If not, we are left with an unanswerable conundrum, or else not the best writing (passive tense instead of active). If this pity does have a source, what is it? Or are we dealing with a 'who'?
The question is too early to answer yet; we don't have enough information, and must read further to see if any answers are forthcoming.

to be continued....

[davem]

Originally Posted by SPM

You ask, in response to the biblical (and other) parallels that have been drawn: “So what?”

It seems to me that an appropriate response might be: “Simply because”.

Why, on a Tolkien-based forum such as this, should those who see particular parallels in LotR not share and discuss them with others who are interested in hearing of and discussing them? There does not have to be a reason sufficient to satisfy you (or Jonathan Glenn) for them to do so. Perhaps they feel that it will enhance their own understanding of the book. Perhaps it is simply for the pleasure of sharing their own understanding and learning of others’ experiences (although that doesn't mean that they all have to agree).

Well, it depends whether this is a 'serious' debate or not. If this thread is a serious analysis of possible Biblical influences on Tolkien's work then 'so what' questions have to be asked. One can draw parallels till the cows come home, all true, most more or less relevant, some just silly. Of course, Christians will want to compare their thoughts about LotR & good for them. But

This is an open debate, on a public forum, about Tolkien. And that's when everyone has to be careful. If you introduce a subject onto a public forum (cast your pearls before swine as t'were) you have to be prepared to have your points challenged. You also have to be very careful to distinguish between what Tolkien said, believed & intended & what you yourself believe & intend. If you say 'This reminds me of 'x', that's fine. If you say 'Tolkien intended ''x'', or 'This is Tolkien's inspiration for "y"' Then I'm going to ask you for quotes & references. So, its not a ''free for all" here Statements about Tolkien himself must be factual - & I think you'll find those are the only statements I've challenged. If I repeat myself on this thread I'm sorry but my feeling is tha claims made about Tolkien & his work have to be supportable - we can interpret the work in any way we choose, but we can't just make up things about the man himself.

Now as to the 'rep' thing. You'll notice that while I gave the text of the rep comments & pointed out the first was unsigned I didn't give the name of the person who gave out the second. There was a point to giving them.

Point. Both were criticising me for being 'disrespectful' about the Bible - & I'd picked up that that feeling was prevalent among some members. I then made the point that if I had said the same things in a Tolkien & Shakespeare thread no-one would have taken my comments as being 'disrespectful' to Shakespeare, but as an 'attack' on the way Shakespeare was being used.

I will add, though, that while I also have found some posters' comments on various threads here over the years 'offensive', I have never given out any negative rep to anyone & never will. As far as those comments go they should have been posted on the thread, because the question of 'disrespect' could have been cleared up that much sooner.

Originally Posted by LMP

Who said anything about desperation? It seems to me, davem, that you're the one characterizing Christians in this way. I'm not desperate about it at all. I'm eager to share what I've discovered. And if you want a "so what" answer to that, it goes like this: understanding something I didn't before is its own pleasure; beyond that, I gain wisdom. Life becomes richer. That's what I'm eager for.

Ok, not 'desperation' then. I appreciate you are 'eager' to share your Christian understanding of Tolkien's work. But I'm not sure you've shown it is a Christian work in & of itself, so what you're actually sharing is your faith, & I'm sure you could share with me your Christian understanding of everything from LotR to light bulbs, but I'm not sure that, while it would tell me a lot about Christianity, it would tell me much about the book or the bulbs.

n the Prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring, section four, paragraph seven, we read,
"...Bilbo was tempted to slay [Gollum] with his sword. But pity stayed him...."
First, this is precisely the same way it is presented in the revised "The Hobbit, Riddles in the Dark". Note the passive tense. It does not say 'Bilbo took pity on him', but 'pity stayed him'. Pity is thus something acting upon Bilbo rather than he doing the pitying. What is this pity? Does it have a source? If not, we are left with an unanswerable conundrum, or else not the best writing (passive tense instead of active). If this pity does have a source, what is it? Or are we dealing with a 'who'?
The question is too early to answer yet; we don't have enough information, and must read further to see if any answers are forthcoming.

Well, it may be in the passive tense, but one also has to say that its a bit flowery (or poetically expressed if you will) & I don't think it can be used to support the kind of metaphysical speculations you're making. But let's say Tolkien is referring to Eru's direct intervention there (though I note that in the original version of TH Bilbo's hand did not need to be 'stayed'. Bilbo's hand only needed to be 'stayed' once Tolkien had revised the story - & I note that it has been argued that this revision was part of the 'consciously so' Christianisation of the story. Which would mean that while it was a 'pagan' story pity may have been absent, but it wasn't necessary. When it became a 'Christian story' Bilbo has to be stopped from murdering Gollum. ....I'll leave that one there)

Even if we accept that this 'pity' has an external origin in Eru. I don't see that, while a parallel may be drawn between Eru & God that it is necessary to know about, or believe in the latter to understand the former or to appreciate the moment or its implications.

Point being, there is never a point in the Legendarium where Tolkien refers us elsewhere (to the Bible, the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala,) for an 'explanation' of something in the story. He explains who every character, from Eru down, is. There is no need to draw on external sources to be able to understand what's going oin in the story. Eru behaves in a loving, compassionate way, he is all knowing & all powerful & so is God (if you're a believer) but Eru is perfectly understandable as a character without reference to, or knowledge of, God. God may intervene to stay one's hand, Eru intervenes to stay Bilbo's hand. That does'nt make them the same being. A reader of LotR who knew absolutely nothing of the Bible would not find themselves flummoxed by anything in the Legendarium.

it does not therefore follow that the reader's mind somehow magically turns the book into something other than what the author intended, regardless if it sits in one reader's hands or another.

No it doesn't - but we're talking about the angle a reader comes from. As a Christian you will read LotR & find it full of Christian themes & images. I don't, because I'm not a Christian. We could both look at the same sunset & percieve it in diferent ways, because you see the Christian God behind everything, his hand in everything, & I don't. Its a bit like the old joke about the vicar walking down the road & stopping at a particularly beautiful garden. The householder is leaning on the gate & the vicar says 'Well, what a beatiful garden you have. Isn't it amazing what God & man can do together?' To which the man replies, 'I don't know about that - you should have seen the state of it when he had it on his own...'

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

If you introduce a subject onto a public forum (cast your pearls before swine as t'were) you have to be prepared to have your points challenged. You also have to be very careful to distinguish between what Tolkien said, believed & intended & what you yourself believe & intend. If you say 'This reminds me of 'x', that's fine. If you say 'Tolkien intended ''x'', or 'This is Tolkien's inspiration for "y"' Then I'm going to ask you for quotes & references. So, its not a ''free for all" here Statements about Tolkien himself must be factual - & I think you'll find those are the only statements I've challenged. If I repeat myself on this thread I'm sorry but my feeling is tha claims made about Tolkien & his work have to be supportable - we can interpret the work in any way we choose, but we can't just make up things about the man himself.

As I said, I understand your point here and agree with it, so no arguments from me on any of this. I'm just not sure that it needs to be continually restated. There is no problem with challenging statements made by others. That is a normal and healthy part of Downs discourse. It only becomes a problem when the challenge is made in an abrasive or disrespectful manner.

Originally Posted by davem

Both were criticising me for being 'disrespectful' about the Bible - & I'd picked up that that feeling was prevalent among some members. I then made the point that if I had said the same things in a Tolkien & Shakespeare thread no-one would have taken my comments as being 'disrespectful' to Shakespeare, but as an 'attack' on the way Shakespeare was being used.

As far as the moderating team is concerned, the earlier problems arose not because you were being disrespectful about the Bible, but because you were being disrespectful of other posters and their opinions and beliefs. That is not acceptable on this forum, whether you are discussing biblical parallels, Shakespearian parallels or whatever.

Originally Posted by davem

You'll notice that while I gave the text of the rep comments & pointed out the first was unsigned I didn't give the name of the person who gave out the second.

It makes no difference. The point is, they were private communications from other members to you and should not have been repeated openly without permission.

[davem]

This is straying off topic, but I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree. For the record though....

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

It only becomes a problem when the challenge is made in an abrasive or disrespectful manner.

As far as the moderating team is concerned, the earlier problems arose not because you were being disrespectful about the Bible, but because you were being disrespectful of other posters and their opinions and beliefs. That is not acceptable on this forum, whether you are discussing biblical parallels, Shakespearian parallels or whatever.

But I wasn't 'attacking' any individual or their beliefs. I was responding to the points they made. There is a difference between attacking an individual, or being 'disrespectful' of their views & beliefs, & attacking statements. I don't see that I was anymore 'disrespectful' of posters on this thread than I was of say, Philip Pullman or Michael Moorcock in another recent thread. I can see, however, that it could have been taken that way. So, I accept, as I said, that I took a wrong approach.

You have to understand that my approach to debate is to (in my own mind) 'depersonalise' it & just respond to the statement itself. As a statement it is either correct or incorrect, logical or illogical, sensible or silly. This is one reason why I never give out negative rep - because I think it is usually taken as an attack on the poster rather than on the post.

Finally, I can only say that if anyone is inclined to attack or abuse my beliefs they are free to do so - except that would be difficult for them, because I keep them to myself.....

It makes no difference. The point is, they were private communications from other members to you and should not have been repeated openly without permission.

I didn't give any names, therefore no-one knows who said what. In the first case I couldn't have asked permission anyway. As far as I'm concerned they were part of the debate which should have been posted on the board.

Private 'attacks' are no better, or respectful, than public ones.

This is a question of etiquette, I suppose, & it all comes down to what one feels is acceptable & what one thinks is a step too far. I remember reading Jung's works. He would give detailed accounts of cases, but never give the patient's names, so they could not be identified. Further, neither of the comments gave any personal information about the person who sent them, they merely expressed an opinion about my behaviour - so in effect they were about me, not about the poster. The communication, on the point of reciept, became 'mine' to do with as I would.

In conclusion, I can only say that if one is ashamed or embarrassed about something one says being made public, one should think very carefully before one says it in private.

But we should get back to the topic, I suppose. I'll be happy to continue this by PM, as it is a rather philosophical debate - & in this case I will promise not to reveal anything you say....

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

Point being, there is never a point in the Legendarium where Tolkien refers us elsewhere (to the Bible, the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala,) for an 'explanation' of something in the story. He explains who every character, from Eru down, is. There is no need to draw on external sources to be able to understand what's going oin in the story. Eru behaves in a loving, compassionate way, he is all knowing & all powerful & so is God (if you're a believer) but Eru is perfectly understandable as a character without reference to, or knowledge of, God. God may intervene to stay one's hand, Eru intervenes to stay Bilbo's hand. That does'nt make them the same being. A reader of LotR who knew absolutely nothing of the Bible would not find themselves flummoxed by anything in the Legendarium.

This can be reversed. A reader who knows nothing about the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala, will also be able to understand LOTR as it is. Are we then to believe that the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, and the Kalevala had no effect or affect on LOTR, that there are no parallels, that the works were not part of the 'compost' out of which the legendarium grew, and that they should not be discussed here on the Downs?

[narfforc]

That can also be reversed mark12_30, there are those who can see the bible and those who see paganism, what of those who see neither, those who see this as just a book, so now we have three view points. If Tolkien was alive today which of these view points would he be most likely to favour?. As I said in my last post #389, Tolkien states LotR is not an allegory, he dislikes allegory. The rules he himself sets down are written in his lifetime, and are published for all the world to read. So if LotR is not an allegory it is something else, it is neither wholly Christian nor wholly Pagan, it is a amalgam. Where the problem occurs is when one of either side of Christian/Pagan lobby claims a statement/symbol in the book as one of their own, this cannot and should not be done. Take pity for instance, it is arrogant to claim it only exists in one religion, that only one religion is fighting the good fight, or has understanding of it. When Tolkien states something in LotR, none know what he actually intended or was thinking at that time. I do not mind events in LotR being compared with events elswhere, in other books religious or fictional, I myself see similarity between the meetings of Elwe/Melian or Beren/Luthien and that of the meeting Alveric/Lirazel (The King of Elflands Daughter by Dunsany), yet I would not say Tolkien stole this from him, for this did not belong to Dunsany in the first place, the theme was old when he wrote it. Like I say the problem occurs when people claim things as their own, not everyone believes in religion and it doesn't make their viewpoint wrong, and just because you are devout in someway it doesn't make you right, it just makes you think you are, and I cannot say you are not.

I think the posts on this thread have become sometimes a battle of who is right or wrong, instead of examining the evidence, which has on some occasions been pretty thin. Maybe if posters used sentances like: In my view this may be compared to, instead of The Balrog is Satan, so that the other side could answer with: Yes maybe, and it is also, in my view comparable with Surt, then more of us would be happier bunnies.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

You have to understand that my approach to debate is to (in my own mind) 'depersonalise' it & just respond to the statement itself. As a statement it is either correct or incorrect, logical or illogical, sensible or silly.

Just a thought: Let's say you observed my children and had some 'advice' for me, as they were acting slightly less than angelic. You want me to hear what you have to say, but as it's concerning my kids, you know that, though I may want to be depersonalizedly objective and open (and may even whole-heartedly agree with your observation), you're still going to engage that part of me that's emotional, whether I like it or not. A person's faith/beliefs may be like that. Surely you know this.

Anyway...

Clouds. If you sit out on a green lawn and look out up at those white puffy cumulus clouds, and you let you imagination run a bit, you can see all types of faces, animals, shapes, etc, limited only by what's in your brain. The information that you have, from reading books, looking at pictures, your life experiences, all provide you with images into which to fit the random cloud shapes. If you've been reading LotR, you might see various Middle Earth imagery; if Disney, then 'the Mouse' may appear. Regardless, the shape of the clouds are the same and you choose, from the set within your head, the image that best matches. At that point you say, "See that one...that looks like Gollum's head." Your friend, sitting beside you and never having read nor saw anything Tolkien, can only respond with, "Huh? You mean the one that looks like Mickey?"

A very obvious point, but to make it anyway, is it any mystery why some see certain things in Tolkien's works while others do not? Plus, when we pattern-match the clouds, our brains are using 'fuzzy fitting,' meaning that the shape that looks like Galadriel really doesn't look just like the elf queen, but, say, 20% of the shape does and our brain fudges the rest. The cloud and image fit closely enough for our brain to engage our mouth so that we can tell the world of our obvious observation.

Tolkien was well-read (I assume) and also, like us all, had a unique life experience, and lived through some times that thankfully we won't see. All of those events put images into his head, and so when he wrote, looking at the white paper like a cloud, surely some of those images, fudged a bit, came back out. Some of the images may even have been Christian.

Hope that that makes some sense.

P.S. I too would argue that reps should not be posted without permission, as I would then have to continually be fretting that I wasn't writing 'good enough for primetime' reptext, which would then shorten the text (maybe that's not a bad thing) or leave it unsigned, just in case...but then if it were considered the best reptext ever on the Downs, then no one would ever know that it was from my pen...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mark 12_30

A reader who knows nothing about the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala, will also be able to understand LOTR as it is. Are we then to believe that the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, and the Kalevala had no effect or affect on LOTR, that there are no parallels, that the works were not part of the 'compost' out of which the legendarium grew, and that they should not be discussed here on the Downs?

They all had an effect. But what effect did they have, & how did they work on Tolkien's imagination? There is some of Odin in Gandalf, some of Gwydion, some of Vainamoinen, some of Merlin, perhaps some of Jesus even. One could go very deeply into the way Tolkien's mind worked. He himself stated that he could not study fairy stories as he constantly approached them as a source of raw material.

The question is, did Tolkien 'steal' from the Bible - ie, did he take any figure or event straight from the Bible or not. Clearly he did not. He wrote the story as it came to him & images & ideas arose.

Now, the next question is whether such analysis & parallel hunting tells us anything. Does it tell us anything about M-e itself? About what went into it, perhaps, but that way lies a real danger, one that Tolkien himself pointed up - 'Breaking a thing to find out what it is made of'. Yet we know that Tolkien had read all the works you list above, the Bible, & many more. We know they influenced his thinking. Its not telling us anything we don't already know. 'There's an 'x' in LotR & an 'x' in the Bible' is a process that can go on for months, beginning with 'There is a Creator God in both' down to 'There is a lot of letter 'e's' in both'. The interesting thing, to my mind, is not to look at the raw materials he used, but at what he did with them.

Let's say the Bible was his chief influence - how & why did he produce something like LotR - on the surface of it a work a million miles away from the Bible?

Originally Posted by Alatar

Just a thought: Let's say you observed my children and had some 'advice' for me, as they were acting slightly less than angelic. You want me to hear what you have to say, but as it's concerning my kids, you know that, though I may want to be depersonalizedly objective and open (and may even whole-heartedly agree with your observation), you're still going to engage that part of me that's emotional, whether I like it or not. A person's faith/beliefs may be like that. Surely you know this.

Well, yes, I do know it, but.... Let me clarify my position as regards faith & religion. I would defend anyone's freedom of belief & their right to worship. That is an essential human right. On condition they do not harm anyone else - or attempt to prevent anyone else practicing their own belief. However, I do not respect 'belief' itself, or any particular religion. People believe all kinds of odd things - they always have & always will. I actually like the fact that folk believe all kinds of wierd things - it makes for an interesting world. I will go down fighting for your right to believe in & worship Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Ceridwen, Odin, cosmic pink elephants or who or whatever you want, but at the same time as I'm taking a bullet for your right to believe & worship as you will I'll also quite probably be thinking that what you believe is a bit silly.

P.S. I too would argue that reps should not be posted without permission, as I would then have to continually be fretting that I wasn't writing 'good enough for primetime' reptext, which would then shorten the text (maybe that's not a bad thing) or leave it unsigned, just in case...but then if it were considered the best reptext ever on the Downs, then no one would ever know that it was from my pen...

But if you weren't named then it would hardly matter. Again, my position is that if one has a gripe with another poster one should come out with it publicly. Its too easy to play Mr or Ms Sweetness & Light in the public forum & then stick the boot in in private & demand no-one must be told about it. My reps (all good, btw) usually come with the comment 'Good one ....davem' & that's it. Don't give bad rep comments & there won't be any need to worry about them being posted - anonymously or otherwise.....

[Mister Underhill]

davem, what's up, man? If anyone here seems "desperate" to prove anything, or convinced that his view is the one true way, or determined to silence any view other than his own, it's you.

Since you don't seem to respond well to friendly suggestions from moderators and seem to prefer to handle these matters publicly anyway, let me lay it on the line for you:

1. Publishing privately made comments and private PMs without permission has long been a no-no here on the Downs. In the past when people have seen fit to take private comments and publish them on the Downs, we've often deleted them, as I have now done with the ones you published.

2. As SPM mentioned waaaay back upthread, discussion is not serious or relevant or appropriate only when davem deems it to be so. The moderators of the forum make those calls.

We are not extremely rigid about this; members are free to question a topic or to alert the moderators to a thread or a post or a member who has stepped over the line. But when we make a call -- such as that the "Lord of the Bible?" thread is a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion -- we expect members to respect that call, and not to continually challenge it or attempt to shout down or intimidate other members or otherwise hijack the thread.

I would think that the fact that Tolkien himself was willing to entertain the idea of drawing parallels between his work and his religion would be enough to justify the validity of the topic. In the past we've had threads that discussed WWI parallels, WWII parallels, parallels with ancient myth and fairy tale, and yes, biblical/religious parallels.

You don't think this activity reveals anything valuable or worthwhile for you. Okay, we get it. If that's all you have to say, stop saying it and let others who do find it valuable or even just interesting do it. If you can't see how disruptive your posts have been in the latter part of this thread, I can't help you, I can only urge you to find a topic that you do find more valuable and spend your energy there instead.

3. Respect forum policies and mod decisions and requests. In this case, I'm going to request that you do something that's going to be very difficult for you: resist the temptation to respond to this post line by line, justifying why you think you're right and explaining again why you think this topic isn't serious enough to meet your standards. If you (or anyone) have questions on our moderating policies or any of the calls we've made here, please feel free to PM me for further clarification.