The Lord of the Bible?

[davem]

I will step aside from this thread, as my reappearance on the Downs has been welcomed by many here & I don't want to deprive them of my wisdom & insights on Tolkieniana Its difficult to avoid repetition when the points one has already challenged are themselves repeated, but there I will leave it.

It seems to me that the question that started all this has been answered already with a resounding No! Where it can go from here I have no idea, but I will let others do as they will with it.

[narfforc]

An argument is very rarely Won, what tends to happen is that both sides go their seperate ways still believing what did from the start. It is not always won by the person who utters the last words, nor shouts down his opponent, and is never won when one side is independently silenced. The problem is that this thread turned into an argument and not a discussion, and that is usually the case when religion is involved. It is probably the best thing Davem to step away and not concede defeat, knowing that this discussion will continue in circles.

Originally Posted by narfforc

An argument is very rarely Won, what tends to happen is that both sides go their seperate ways still believing what did from the start. It is not always won by the person who utters the last words, nor shouts down his opponent, and is never won when one side is independently silenced. The problem is that this thread turned into an argument and not a discussion, and that is usually the case when religion is involved. It is probably the best thing Davem to step away and not concede defeat, knowing that this discussion will continue in circles.

The original question to the thread was a rhetorical one - the answer was always going to be a no. But out of it has come a greater appreciation of the LOTR & the Bible, & acknowledgement of the fact that there is great similarity between the two texts, suggesting that Tolkein gained many of his fundamental themes/ideas through inspiration from the Bible. Gandalf isn't Christ, but he is Christ-like. Saruman isn't Judas, but he is just as bad a traitor. The far green country isn't heaven, but it is the undying lands where the High Elves dwell in peace.

[narfforc]

I agree with many of your points Mansun, and the thread for the most part has been a success, I just haven't enjoyed reading some of the repetitive arguments.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mansun

The original question to the thread was a rhetorical one - the answer was always going to be a no. But out of it has come a greater appreciation of the LOTR & the Bible, & acknowledgement of the fact that there is great similarity between the two texts, suggesting that Tolkein gained many of his fundamental themes/ideas through inspiration from the Bible. Gandalf isn't Christ, but he is Christ-like. Saruman isn't Judas, but he is just as bad a traitor. The far green country isn't heaven, but it is the undying lands where the High Elves dwell in peace.

Um, well I'm just one of a few yet to be convinced by anything. The most interesting notion was that of having a 'holy city' of some description in Middle-earth, and even with that there's absolutely no evidence in the text that Tolkien intended it, it's just an interesting literary motif to be pursued.

And on that note....

Originally Posted by LMP

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.

Interesting point. I know that Pity is one of the Christian virtues, and in fact is pretty central to any genuine Christian (now aint the place to pursue what a non-genuine Christian is in this respect ) but I would also have to point out that its in no way exclusive. Pity is one of the attributes setting us out as distinctly human (and is naturally linked to another basic emotion - disgust). Pity is something also displayed to a great degree by non-Christians, e.g. Oxfam is a secular charity doing work to help people less fortunate. Amnesty International also works to lobby for more 'pity' even for people who have broken the law and done 'wrong'.

Saying 'Pity stayed him' actually to me seems more like the basic human instinct of pity coming to the fore, whereas 'took pity on him' suggests the conscious mind taking over, e.g. deciding to exercise the pity you are required to show as part of your religion.

[Raynor]

My congrats to Mansun too, I think he phrased his idea very well.

Originally Posted by Lal

Saying 'Pity stayed him' actually to me seems more like the basic human instinct of pity coming to the fore, whereas 'took pity on him' suggests the conscious mind taking over, e.g. deciding to exercise the pity you are required to show as part of your religion.

I think it is interesting to show Gandalf's comments too:

Originally Posted by Shadow of the past, FotR

Pity? It was Pity that stayed [Bilbo's] hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity

Now, it is interesting to note the capitalisation of Pity and Mercy - the ones who will bring about the saving grace in the end - also, the fact that Pity is rewarded, which, again, implies divine action.

To adress the second part of Lal's statement:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time.

So, in the light of this, unless we consider Frodo to be mad, we are left with the spiritual explanation of his action.

I would also compare Tolkien's words:

Originally Posted by Letter #192

Of course, he did not mean to say that one must be merciful, for it may prove useful later – it would not then be mercy or pity, which are only truly present when contrary to prudence. Not ours to plan ! But we are assured that we must be ourselves extravagantly generous, if we are to hope for the extravagant generosity which the slightest easing of, or escape from, the consequences of our own follies and errors represents. And that mercy does sometimes occur in this life.

to the Bible:

Originally Posted by Luke 6:35

But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Now, it is interesting to note the capitalisation of Pity and Mercy - the ones who will bring about the saving grace in the end - also, the fact that Pity is rewarded, which, again, implies divine action.

I have to add here that many Important Things are capitalised. In the UK the terms Government and Minister are capitalised too, but this does not imply divine action. The common Christian use of capitalisation too is to reserve it for naming or referring to God, and occasionally to Jesus and Mary, e.g. in His name, the lord our God, the Almighty, our Lady etc. so Tolkien capitalising the words in no way implies exclusively Christian virtues. It all depends if you would use capitalisation or not; as matter of fact, I sometimes might myself, when discussing as a concept. Note that Tolkien also capitalises Ring, East and West.

Blake also uses a capitalised Pity in The Divine Image (where he also links virtues like Pity directly to humanity and says that it is in our fellow humanity that we find God - something that also comes through in Tolkien's work to me - Frodo instinctively recoils from hurting Gollum, unlike Aragorn and Gandalf who treat him inhumanely, resorting to baser instincts - it is Frodo's innocence and recognition of himself in Gollum which I think stays his hand), but he like Tolkien also goes on to capitalise in an individualistic fashion, see Auguries of Innocence for some highly random capitalisation of simple things which he found important to emphasise, as Tolkien also did.

Originally Posted by Raynor

So, in the light of this, unless we consider Frodo to be mad, we are left with the spiritual explanation of his action.

Again, only if you read that into it. Pity at times which might seem foolish can include any number of instances which have little to do with faith, and a whole lot to do with simple humanity, e.g. the many stories of soldiers in war not killing someone from the opposing army when they could, something which Tolkien would have been well aware of. Whether that urge comes from God is entirely a personal thing, but with or without God, humans do that kind of thing all the time.

Pity is a common theme throughout culture, e.g. a hero not killing a creature who at a later stage will prove to return and save them. And it is possibly an even stronger theme in Buddhism (and Confucianism), but who is going to say that Tolkien was giving us a Buddhist message here?

[littlemanpoet]

.... I'll just make an observation.

It's really quite comical how this is going once you boil down the arguments:

"There is nothing uniquely Christian in LotR."

"On the contrary, there are aspects of Christianity all over LotR."

"I could just as well argue that there are aspects of Norse myth all over LotR."

"If so, why can't we also say that there are aspects of Christianity in LotR?"

"I insist, though, that LotR is not a Christian book."

"And I insist, that you can't say there is nothing Christian in LotR."

"And I insist that there is nothing uniquely Christian in LotR."

"On the contrary, there are........"

We're arguing past ourselves. I don't think any Christian appreciator of LotR here at the Downs is saying that LotR is strictly Christian. That would be stupid.

Nor is any non-Christian saying that there is NO Christian element in LotR.

I think that we can all agree that there is no EXCLUSIVELY Christian aspect in LotR, just as there is no EXCLUSIVELY Norse mythic, Baghavad Gita'ish, etc., aspect to LotR.

My exhibits (properly numbered of course) will continue to show aspects; we will see what the text itself reveals. ... later....

[narfforc]

Well said LMP, it is exactly what I have been trying to say, LotR is not an allegory, it is an amalgm, now can we please stop the merry-go-round (carousel) I want to get off.

[Lalwendë]

lmp - you've just boiled down the many lost hours of internet time for me, because basically you could say that about any discussion on the Downs, or indeed on any forum about any topic! Someone says something, someone else argues a different case. You've scared me now, I'm thinking I should be doing something useful instead! Hey ho.

I hope you're right that nobody is arguing that LotR is exclusively Christian! But even any one single aspect can be interpreted any number of ways. One thing that a lot of us agree on is that there are multiple influences and interpretations. That's one of the reasons why Tolkien's work is so loved by so many diverse people.

As I've said before, feel free to say what you like on here, even if its a bit mad, I'll happily discuss and argue with anything that anyone sticks on, but we should all think twice before posting if we don't want someone to challenge us on what we say. Hmmm, maybe I'm jumping the gun a bit but is there anyone out there who does seriously expect to be able to post statements, assumptions, opinions without having them challenged? Isn't challenge and discussion what its all about?

Keep 'em coming if you like, 'cause I enjoy examining these points. None of us will learn anything otherwise.

[mark12_30]

Lal, you baffle me.

My last serious post on this thread was (A) in answer to two specific questions and (B) provided extensive detail for those answers. My answer to Sharon was geared entirely towards (my grasp of) Sharon's worldview and how it would contrast between Tolkien's pre-incarnation worldview. Hence the extensive comparison/contrast between the OT worldview and the NT pre-incarnation worldview, explaining the difference in terms I hoped would resonate with Sharon and provide the contrast I thought she was looking for.

However, instead of responding to the difference between the two worldviews, or questioning my presentation of the information and processing it, and challenging the provided aspects of (New Testament, Christian) pre-incarnation hope and post-incarnation hope versus the Old Testament (Hebrew) aspects of hope-- challenging the information given on its own merit-- I was simply accused of proseletyzing, and otherwise the discussion ignored everything I had said in the post. I can hardly refrain from adding, that except for the comment about sheep and goats which was intended for humor, I did not claim "This is what I believe, and it is clearly true and all else is false." (Some others on this thread have, with impunity.) I simply presented my arguments regarding hope in context of the Christian worldview, supported by the texts, as thoroughly as I could.

Before it was over, I was rebuked for my textual support, and Sharon was rebuked for her question. I find this extremely unfortunate, since I thought Sharon had asked one of the most challenging questions on this thread so far.

Level of detail has been a point of contention on this thread. The repeated accusation is that those arguing in favor of Christian/ biblical influences offer only guesses and no proof. How are we suupposed to offer any proof for our points when as soon as we offer concrete textual support of our points we are accused of proseletyzing?

If my discussion had been about the Norse worldview and I had discussed the Eddas, providing textual quotes and summaries of ideas and worldviews, would anyone have complained?

I hope you'll pardon my skepticism, but in light of your reaction to my detailed answer to Sharon's question, I find your statement "Keep 'em coming if you like" a bit hard to trust. What are you looking for?

An afterthought, directed toward those who hold an 'anti-biblical-influence' stance or a neutral stance: -- what is it that you would like to see? Textual support? Summaries of overarching principles? One-liner, unsupported opinions? If I'm going to put real time and energy into this thread (as yet undecided) I'd like some indication.

[mark12_30]

Sharon-- please allow me to cast the worldview argument in an entirely different light, that of eucatastrophe.

Tolkien's view (stated in On Fairy Stories, Ballantine paperback p.88, 89; and also in Letters 89, page 100-101) was that the incarnation was the eucatastrophe of Man's history (for the pre-incarnation world, or the BC era) and the resurrection was the eucatastrophe of the story of the incarnation.

A eucatastrophe assumes a catastrophe-- does it not?

By definition, using TOlkien's worldview as illustrated by his definition of the incarnation and resurrection as eucatastrophes, LOTR (and most of the legendarium) takes place in a pre-incarnation time period. Correct? Therefore it is pre-eucatastrophe. So by Tolkien's definition, the LOTR world is in a catastrophic state.

Why should he present such a world-- that is in need of a eucatastrophe-- in a hopeful light? The eucatastrophe IS the hope. Those present in that world are hoping for a eucatastrophe-- but by definition of an eucatastrophe, to those waiting for the eucatastrophe, until it arrives, all hope seems lost.

Does that make sense?

Further edit: I think the Norse worldview plays into this, rather than opposes it. I'd be happy to discuss that thought further-- but RL calls.

[The Saucepan Man]

Helen, I rather hoped that I had already addressed this point:

Originally Posted by me

There is a fine line between stating Biblical text (or any other religious source) to justify a particular point (for example, in the context of this thread, a personally drawn Biblical parallel) and "sermonising" to others involved in the debate. The latter can come across as aggressive and cause offence, which is why I expressed my hope earlier in this thread that those who might be inclined to indulge in it would refrain from doing so.

Mark12_30 was answering a specific question that had been raised and was at pains to point out in her original post that she had no intention of causing offence. Nevertheless, and particularly in threads like this, a reasonable degree of sensitivity to the feelings and beliefs of others is required (on all "sides" of the debate). This may not be a matter of changing the content of what you want to say, but considering the manner in which you express it. Generally, personal beliefs should be expressed as just that - personal beliefs - rather than as assumed realities.

I hope that clarifies the position and would ask that all involved in this discussion bear these points in mind, since continued Mod and Admin intervention is both disruptive of the ongoing debate and time-consuming for the Mods/Admins involved.

As I recall, there was no criticism of Sharon for raising the question. Nor was there any issue about whether it was a proper question to raise and discuss. My own view was that your initial response erred on the side of pure biblical discussion, as opposed to discussion of possible biblical influence on Tolkien's works, but I had no issue with your edited post.

If people make clear (whether by words, tone, content or whatever) that a particular point is either a personal opinion/reaction/interpretation or that it involves speculation as to Tolkien's intent/approach (in which case, it would be sensible to provide supporting material), then I would hope that this thread can stay on track.

I trust such optimism is not misplaced.

[littlemanpoet]

Actually, Helen, I'm not sure I agree with all your points (below)

Originally Posted by mark12_30

A eucatastrophe assumes a catastrophe-- does it not?

I think it would be more accurate to say that a eucatastrophe assumes the potential and seeming inevitability of a catastrophe, or worse, a dis-catastrophe (another word Tolkien coined on the same page as 'eucatastrophe').

By definition, using Tolkien's worldview as illustrated by his definition of the incarnation and resurrection as eucatastrophes, LOTR (and most of the legendarium) takes place in a pre-incarnation time period. Correct?

Yes.

Therefore it is pre-eucatastrophe.

No. Such a reading assumes a one-to-one correlation between, on the one hand, eucatastrophe, and on the other, incarnation and resurrection. That would reduce eucatastrophe to allegory.

So by Tolkien's definition, the LOTR world is in a catastrophic state.

Not by definition perhaps, but it is readily apparent through his narrative description that much of the time Middle Earth is in a state of catastrophe; but much of the time it is not.

Why should [Tolkien] present such a world-- that is in need of a eucatastrophe-- in a hopeful light? The eucatastrophe IS the hope. Those present in that world are hoping for a eucatastrophe-- but by definition of an eucatastrophe, to those waiting for the eucatastrophe, until it arrives, all hope seems lost.

This is esepecially the case since those who are in the middle of the struggle are not even hoping for a eucatastrophe (Aragorn: "We shall have to do without hope"). They are struggling through because it's the right thing to do, even at the expense of their lives.

Further edit: I think the Norse worldview plays into this, rather than opposes it. I'd be happy to discuss that thought further-- but RL calls.

I agree. There is a mixture of 'mere' sense of duty as opposed to pushing forward because one hopes for the best. It seems to me that these two aspects are characterized by Frodo (duty) and Sam (hope). I hope I'm not oversimplifying, but Frodo is the one who most often speaks words of despair whilst Sam speaks words of hope.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen -

We are reading this differently. I did not feel earlier that I was being rebuked by anyone for the question I raised.

Now on to the second post.....

First, regarding my "take" on Tolkien's world view. My words on Satan's domination were poorly chosen. On catastrophe and eucatastophe, I would agree that, as a Catholic and the outside author, Tolkien sometimes viewed things in the way that you are describing. However, even here there were differences. It's difficult to see the small, stubborn optomism of the Shire as part of a world totally engulfed in catastrophe. Does your equation allow for this?

In certain other respects, however, I feel the author paints with an even blacker brush than you are seeing. His world is corrupted with evil in a way that goes beyond the traditional Christian view. It is a bleaker, more fatalistic place than that proposed in the Bible, whether because of certain influences from his beloved pagan myth or an intentional desire to portray Arda in a strikingly different light.

Just look at the creation story. The biblical story does not have any of the fallen angels actively participating in the creation of the world. Yet this is what Tolkien does. Morgoth's music is intertwined within the very fabric of Eru's world. To me, that is a very important distinction. It makes Arda laden with evil in a way that is not true of the Judaeo/Christian world where evil was introduced by the personal choices of two individuals. In the biblical paradigm, we are fighting against the evil impulses within our own soul. In the context of middle-earth, we must not only fight our personal impulses but contend with an evil that was woven into the fabric of the physical world from before the dawn of time. This makes the "long defeat" even longer! And because of this unique aspect of creation, I sometimes get the general feeling (a la Shippey) that Tolkien has presented us with an evil in middle-earth that is a great deal more substantial than the traditional Judaeo-Christian view of evil as the simple negation of good. Pretty heavy stuff, considerably bleaker than the orthodox story of creation as itirated in the bible.

Why is this? Why did Tolkien change this critical aspect of the creation story? He could have had Morgoth fall before the beginning of time and drop away from the group, yet still used the other Ainur to help him fashion the music. Why did he permit evil to be woven into the core of creation in a way that is very different than the biblical story? Perhaps if we knew the answer to this, it would help us understand how and why Tolkien used symbols and stories from the bible, but somehow changed them to create a world which is not exactly the same as ours.

EDIT: Littlemanpoet -- Sorry, we crossposted so my post doesn't take your excellent point on Frodo and Sam under consideration. I do think the Shire has to be considered in any attempt to weigh good and evil.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Why is this? Why did Tolkien change this critical aspect of the creation story? He could have had Morgoth fall before the beginning of time and drop away from the group, yet still used the other Ainur to help him fashion the music. Why did he permit evil to be woven into the core of creation in a way that is very different than the biblical story? Perhaps if we knew the answer to this, it would help us understand how and why Tolkien used symbols and stories from the bible, but somehow changed them to create a world which is not exactly the same as ours.

Interesting that you see it that way. I would say that Middle Earth/Arda is less bleak than the Christian world. In Arda I assume that I would not be born to evil, but could choose to follow that road, or not. In the Christian view I'm born already on the wrong road.

I may have asked this before, but in the Christian creation view, when is Lucifer and the other angels who follow him cast from heaven? My assumption, having not being able to find anything definitive, is that this takes place before Day 6 of Creation; before Man, but that could be completely wrong. I guess that as the Snake does not appear until after Eve that Satan could have been cast out after the creation of Adam/Eve. Any help?

My point here is that if Lucifer rebels pre-Creation or during Creation, then it may be closer to Arda than thought. And think that I may have included the Biblical verse previously where it states that Satan was sinning from the beginning.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

My point here is that if Lucifer rebels pre-Creation or during Creation, then it may be closer to Arda than thought. And think that I may have included the Biblical verse previously where it states that Satan was sinning from the beginning.

Hmm. It all depends on which 'Satan' one ascribes to. The Satan we know in popular culture is inherited from Milton. (And we ought to recall that Milton's Paradise Lost is/was on the Vatican list of proscribed books for its doctrinal irregularities, so we cannot automatically assume that Tolkien ascribed to a Miltonic Satan.) One very interesting, very different view of Satan is Elaine Pagel's The Origin of Satan

Her thesis is that in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, the satan was merely an adversary of humans, doing God's will to challenge or test us but that as Christianity developed in the first century he was literally demonised to be the enemy within. Melkor is not simply an antagonist of the Children of Illuvatar, but one whose desire to sub-create challenges Eru's status as The One. In fact, perhaps it can be said that Melkor's rebellion arises from the original treatment of him as the enemy within who is demonised.

[Lalwendë]

I just don't want to see long posts filled with personal, subjective interpretations of religious texts. We all already know just how many interpretations there are to the Bible, that's why there are so many religions based on it, and the danger of such posts is that other readers take this as Word. Just as I like to see a proper quote made of anything from Tolkien's work, I also like to see a proper quote made of Biblical text. Perhaps what's at the root of this thread is the struggle between objectivity and subjectivity.

Anyway, back to business.

Originally Posted by Mark12_30

By definition, using TOlkien's worldview as illustrated by his definition of the incarnation and resurrection as eucatastrophes, LOTR (and most of the legendarium) takes place in a pre-incarnation time period. Correct? Therefore it is pre-eucatastrophe. So by Tolkien's definition, the LOTR world is in a catastrophic state.

Why should he present such a world-- that is in need of a eucatastrophe-- in a hopeful light? The eucatastrophe IS the hope. Those present in that world are hoping for a eucatastrophe-- but by definition of an eucatastrophe, to those waiting for the eucatastrophe, until it arrives, all hope seems lost.

To begin with this would depend on whether you see Middle-earth as 'our' world or not. To me its clearly a secondary world because its simply a work of fiction (watch as hands are held up in horror and Downers are shaken out of their reverie!) and we know the world was not created in that way. There's no pre-incarnation and no post-incarnation as Jesus never did, never will and never would enter Arda, though he indeed came to Earth. I think that Tolkien sought out this kind of separation between a fictional and the Real world by a. not writing an allegory and b. trying to keep all mentions of religion absent.

Secondly it depends how we interpret what Tolkien says in the Athrabeth about any kind of Messiah. And to follow on from that, while we're all flinging ideas around from said text, it must be remembered that Tolkien himself felt distinctly uncomfortable with the text as he felt it was almost a parody of Christianity, something he did not want.

Finally, I'm not sure how someone could hope for a eucatastrophe as the word itself means something wholly unexpected (so while I might hope to win the lottery, any eucatastrophe I experienced would be something unimaginable happening to me). A eucatastrophe can surely only be seen in retrospect. And to follow on from that, to me, one of the most Christian ideals in the text is that all these incredibly powerful people, Kings, Wizards, Stewards, have only two little Hobbits in whom to place all their hopes, the most humble of people. That's one of those incredible moments where Christianity and Humanism come close. It must have been difficult for such powerful people to feel they could place their trust in two insignificant Hobbits (and indeed, only some of them do manage to do so), but that's the only little hope that they've got, and its a very humbling idea.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Her thesis is that in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, the satan was merely an adversary of humans, doing God's will to challenge or test us but that as Christianity developed in the first century he was literally demonised to be the enemy within. Melkor is not simply an antagonist of the Children of Illuvatar, but one whose desire to sub-create challenges Eru's status as The One. In fact, perhaps it can be said that Melkor's rebellion arises from the original treatment of him as the enemy within who is demonised.

As far as I understand it, the Satan of early Judaism was indeed simply God's assistant who would work under God's direction to test people. At some point the Satan of Zoroastrianism was incorporated into Judaism and also taken over into Christianity.

One other notable difference between Satan and Melkor is that Satan is cast out for his rebellion and he walks the earth trying to tempt people from God's will. Melkor however, is allowed to sing his discordant tune, allowed to taint not only the vision of Arda but the real thing, which Eru goes ahead and creates even though he knows what Melkor has done, and furthermore he is allowed to freely enter Arda and wreak havoc for some time before he is eventually chained in the void. So Earthly evil is Satan's doing, but the Earth itself is not evil, whereas in Arda there is no Melkor to tempt anyone, but the fabric of the world itself is evil.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Hmm. It all depends on which 'Satan' one ascribes to. The Satan we know in popular culture is inherited from Milton. (And we ought to recall that Milton's Paradise Lost is/was on the Vatican list of proscribed books for its doctrinal irregularities, so we cannot automatically assume that Tolkien ascribed to a Miltonic Satan.) One very interesting, very different view of Satan is Elaine Pagel's The Origin of Satan

Agree. Think that many think that Milton's work is in the Bible, word for word. Read Pagel's book, and it's interesting to see the 'evolution' of Satan.

Melkor is not simply an antagonist of the Children of Illuvatar, but one whose desire to sub-create challenges Eru's status as The One. In fact, perhaps it can be said that Melkor's rebellion arises from the original treatment of him as the enemy within who is demonised.

Did Melkor want to be like his father (assuming Eru is male) like Aule, but, from pride, not want to accept any criticism and so decided to become a 'spoiler,' not trying to add but to simply ruin the works and joy of others? Not big on the series, but isn't there a take in one the Anne Rice's (?) vampire books that describes things from the devil's side, where he takes the side of humans over God's plan, somewhat like Prometheus? In that version Satan rebels for the 'good' of mankind. Melkor cannot be confused with that version though, as by the time man arrives in Arda he's already well into his blackness.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Her thesis is that in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, the satan was merely an adversary of humans, doing God's will to challenge or test us

I concur. As someone who has more familiarity with the older Hebrew texts than the Christian Bible, I can tell you that this is how Satan is still presented within the Jewish tradition. In the rabbinic tradition, there is far less emphasis on Satan as an external force and more emphasis on the struggle within the human soul between the yetzer hara, the so-called "evil inclination," and yetzer hatov, the "good inclination."

But neither of these entities in the soul are totally evil or good.... That would take a lengthy explanation which would not be directly relevent to this thread.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

That's one of those incredible moments where Christianity and Humanism come close. It must have been difficult for such powerful people to feel they could place their trust in two insignificant Hobbits (and indeed, only some of them do manage to do so), but that's the only little hope that they've got, and its a very humbling idea.

Cool insight. That, to me, is almost Christian as it's not by might or by a person's works (not including Frodo and Sam) that salvation is achieved, but by faith/grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by alatar

Cool insight. That, to me, is almost Christian as it's not by might or by a person's works (not including Frodo and Sam) that salvation is achieved, but by faith/grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The way I see it is that those outside Mordor must have 'faith' in Frodo and Sam, no matter how hopeless or impossible their mission seems, but those inside Mordor, namely Frodo and Sam simply need 'courage'. In some ways Sam is the biggest hero of them all because its his courage that keeps them both going. It cuts both ways - salvation is found both through hope and through human courage.

I like that though - don't put all your faith in the great leaders, the Aragorns and Gandalfs and Faramirs (the PMs and presidents), put it in the least likely people, the Frodos and Sams (the ordinary ones plodding on just like us).

[Raynor]

so Tolkien capitalising the words in no way implies exclusively Christian virtues.

Did I [or for that matter, all those who more or less argue on this side of the fence] ever claimed the we can find exclusively Christian virtues in LotR? I am sorry, but your argument is a strawman. More to the point, I think you misunderstood me; I wasn't trying, in that particular post, to prove that this is Christian pity, but that it is a religious feeling, not a "merely" human one.

Whether that urge comes from God is entirely a personal thing, but with or without God, humans do that kind of thing all the time.

All the time?? I _really_ doubt that. It is really hard to see pity when it is required, let alone when it is safe; to do pity nowadays when it would present a mortal danger represents something very rare, almost unique. More to the point, I would argue that Frodo's pity wasn't singular, he did spare Gollum's life at just one moment - but throughout it all.

And it is possibly an even stronger theme in Buddhism (and Confucianism), but who is going to say that Tolkien was giving us a Buddhist message here?

Now that we are at it, I am really curious to see what redempting value is given to pity in Norse myths.

Originally Posted by lmp

No. Such a reading assumes a one-to-one correlation between, on the one hand, eucatastrophe, and on the other, incarnation and resurrection.

I disagre; in the letters, Tolkien noted that:

Originally Posted by Letter #297

The Fall of Man is in the past and off stage; the Redemption of Man in the far future.

So, to a point, this does indicate that LotR is at a time that is pre-eucatastrophic, as mark (Helen, if I may) pointed.

Originally Posted by Lal

And to follow on from that, while we're all flinging ideas around from said text, it must be remembered that Tolkien himself felt distinctly uncomfortable with the text as he felt it was almost a parody of Christianity, something he did not want.

Chris, in his comments, while he does admit that this presents a challenge to Tolkien's desire to present the religious truth only implicitly, also goes on to say that:

Originally Posted by Atrabeth Firnod ah Andreth

But this surely is not parody, nor even parallel, but the extension - if only represented as vision, hope, or prophecy - of the 'theology' of Arda into specifically, and of course centrally, Christian belief

An extension; not parody, not allegory.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Did I [or for that matter, all those who more or less argue on this side of the fence] ever claimed the we can find exclusively Christian virtues in LotR? I am sorry, but your argument is a strawman. More to the point, I think you misunderstood me; I wasn't trying, in that particular post, to prove that this is Christian pity, but that it is a religious feeling, not a "merely" human one.

Pinpointing an instance of particular behaviour and then analysing it to say that this marks a parallel with a point in the bible or a tenet of Christian faith is unavoidably 'claiming' it as Christian. And pity isn't a religious feeling, its a cognitive process.

Originally Posted by Raynor

All the time?? I _really_ doubt that. It is really hard to see pity when it is required, let alone when it is safe; to do pity nowadays when it would present a mortal danger represents something very rare, almost unique. More to the point, I would argue that Frodo's pity wasn't singular, he did spare Gollum's life at just one moment - but throughout it all.

I agree Frodo's pity wasn't just one instance but a generalised feeling towards Gollum. But I don't agree that pity is lacking in our world, in fact its alive and well, but most of us don't expect anything for it nor make a show of it (we just give the beggar a quid and walk on, help the old lady pick up her dropped shopping bags and continue on our way to work, have a direct debit each month to Amnesty International etc. etc.)

Originally Posted by Raynor

Now that we are at it, I am really curious to see what redempting value is given to pity in Norse myths.

Don't know, but Tolkien's inspiration isn't either/either Christian or Norse, it's a lot of things, not least English fairy and folktale, which is filled with instances of pity, usually a lesson where a hero stays his hand filled with pity for the injured wolf (or other scary creature), and later on finds said creature rescues him or turns out to be a princess etc.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagre; in the letters, Tolkien noted that:

So, to a point, this does indicate that LotR is at a time that is pre-eucatastrophic, as mark (Helen, if I may) pointed.

Yet we have to acknowledge that Tolkien doesn't have The Fall Of Man. Men do not Fall, the world is Fallen before Men even get there. There is no garden of Eden, no serpent, no tree of knowledge. Melkor is the cause and root of evil, not Men. There is no original sin to be saved from.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Chris, in his comments, while he does admit that this presents a challenge to Tolkien's desire to present the religious truth only implicitly, also goes on to say that:
An extension; not parody, not allegory

Christopher's thoughts, not his father's, which were as I stated distinctly uncomfortable with the implied parody of Christianity.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

Pinpointing an instance of particular behaviour and then analysing it to say that this marks a parallel with a point in the bible or a tenet of Christian faith is unavoidably 'claiming' it as Christian.

Well, this is quite a general statement; someone who is actually a non- or anti-Christian (whatever that means) could write something more or less similar. To claim that it is something Christian, knowing the background/intentions of the writer, it is quite a stretch.

And pity isn't a religious feeling, its a cognitive process.

Although I agree this is a bit off-topic, could you please expand on that idea? As far as my understanding of Christianity goes, pity is to be given regardless what reasoning says, and out from the heart.

But I don't agree that pity is lacking in our world, in fact its alive and well, but most of us don't expect anything for it nor make a show of it

I didn't say it was lacking (completely); rather that the level we encounter is a far cry from Frodo's.

Don't know, but Tolkien's inspiration isn't either/either Christian or Norse, it's a lot of things, not least English fairy and folktale, which is filled with instances of pity, usually a lesson where a hero stays his hand filled with pity for the injured wolf (or other scary creature), and later on finds said creature rescues him or turns out to be a princess etc.

Then I am curious in what folklore does pity save the world? And to keep on the Norse line, since you made a powerful argument concerning possible parallels, what sort of moral values does it promote? I would generally have the same questions about other belief systems in which you could find genuine/signifcant parallels.

Christopher's thoughts, not his father's

Yes, I stated so at the begining of my sentence; I do believe they represent a rather valid idea.

There is no garden of Eden, no serpent, no tree of knowledge.

Well, there is Valinor and Melkor tempting people with reasoning and gifts. As far as the Fall is concerned, it is attested in the Letters (#131 deals at large with it) and hinted at in the Silmarillion:

Originally Posted by Of Men, Silmarillion

But it was said afterwards among the Eldar that when Men awoke in Hildorien at the rising of the Sun the spies of Morgoth were watchful, and tidings were soon brought to him; and this seemed to him so great a matter that secretly under shadow he himself departed from Angband, and went forth into Middle-earth, leaving to Sauron the command of the War. Of his dealings with Men the Eldar indeed knew nothing, at that time, and learnt but little afterwards; but that a darkness lay upon the hearts of Men (as the shadow of the Kinslaying and the Doom of Mandos lay upon the Noldor) they perceived clearly even in the people of the Elf-friends whom they first knew.

[Lalwendë]

Although I agree this is a bit off-topic, could you please expand on that idea? As far as my understanding of Christianity goes, pity is to be given regardless what reasoning says, and out from the heart.

Well I mean quite literally that pity is something innately human, it is one of our instincts (and I suppose you could say it comes from the heart, as its usually felt without a conscious decision). Assigning it to come from God (any God) is ultimately neither here nor there as we feel it anyway. The only difference is that a genuine Christian should consciously think about showing Pity.

I didn't say it was lacking (completely); rather that the level we encounter is a far cry from Frodo's.

I don't know. People can be capable of tremendous feelings of Pity which can go on for a long time. I should feel just angry towards the bloke who crashed into my car a few years ago, but I actually feel pity for him as he now has no face and I was fully able to accept him not going to prison as I felt he would be suffering enough, even though I had the chance to challenge that judgement. Other people show vastly more compassion than I do!

Then I am curious in what folklore does pity save the world? And to keep on the Norse line, since you made a powerful argument concerning possible parallels, what sort of moral values does it promote? I would generally have the same questions about other belief systems in which you could find genuine/signifcant parallels.

Well a reading of a selection of folklore and fairy tales will soon give you plenty of instances. The Princess and the Frog for one shows a girl who shows pity to a little ugly frog who turns out to be a prince. Beauty and the Beast shows how a girl's turning to pity results in yet another happy ending. I'm not sure why the moral values promoted by a culture or a belief system would be relevant though as Tolkien's stories weren't putting forward a moral message?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

The Princess and the Frog for one shows a girl who shows pity to a little ugly frog who turns out to be a prince. Beauty and the Beast shows how a girl's turning to pity results in yet another happy ending.

The problem with these is that not them answers my question - regarding acts of pity that save the world.

Other people show vastly more compassion than I do

That could be so; I can't argue against. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on how common Frodo's pity is in real life.

I'm not sure why the moral values promoted by a culture or a belief system would be relevant though as Tolkien's stories weren't putting forward a moral message?

Well, the height of the story is the eucatastrophe; according to Tolkien, the greatest fairy-story produces the "essential emotion: Christian joy". Elsewhere, he notes that the religious truth should not be put out explicitly. Subcreation, which is the apex of an author's development, according to him, is also but a reflection of Truth. At least for him, the myth-maker, his work carried a potentially cathartic power, in the religious sense.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

The problem with these is that not them answers my question - regarding acts of pity that save the world..

Yet essentially they all serve the same purpose. Christ shows us that having pity for others is the right thing to do; fairytales tell us the same thing by simple cause and effect.

Well, the height of the story is the eucatastrophe; according to Tolkien, the greatest fairy-story produces the "essential emotion: Christian joy". Elsewhere, he notes that the religious truth should not be put out explicitly. Subcreation, which is the apex of an author's development, according to him, is also but a reflection of Truth. At least for him, the myth-maker, his work carried a potentially cathartic power, in the religious sense

Tolkien calls it Christian joy because that's his faith; however I know exactly what he means even though I define it differently. That's Tolkien being subjective, as much as any of us can be on that idea. And calling it Christian joy also depends upon the person's experience of Christianity - where this has been poor or bad (or simply unknown), they would never call it Christian joy as the two could never be linked, but for others the relationship is a good one. It's joy all the same.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

Yet essentially they all serve the same purpose. Christ shows us that having pity for others is the right thing to do; fairytales tell us the same thing by simple cause and effect.

Imo, Christ's and Frodo's pity (and their burdens/suffering/peril due to it) are incomparable with those to which you reffered.

It's joy all the same.

I disagree; this joy "produces tears because it is qualitatively so like sorrow, because it comes from those places where Joy and Sorrow are at one, reconciled, as selfishness and altruism are lost in Love" (letter #89). Quite not all the same .

[littlemanpoet]

Exhibit #2.: Bilbo's Will is Not his Own

In A Long-Expected Party, after Bilbo has put on the Ring and disappeared from the party, he is confronted by Gandalf at Bag-End. Gandalf insists that he keep his promise and give up the Ring to Frodo (who is not there). Then this:

'Well, if you want my ring yourself, say so!' cried Bilbo. 'But you won't get it. I won't give my precious away, I tell you.' His hand strayed to the hilt of his small sword.

Gandalf's eyes flashed. 'It will be my turn to get angry soon,' he said. 'If you say that again, I shall. Then you will see Gandalf the Grey uncloaked.' He took a step towards the hobbit, and he seemed to grow tall and menacing; his shadow filled the little room.

Bilbo backed away to the wall, breathing hard, his hand clutching at his pocket. They stood for a while facing one another, and the air in the room tingled.

Gandalf's eyes remained bent on the hobbit. Slowly his hands relaxed, and he began to tremble.

'I don't know what has come over you, Gandalf,' he said. You have never been like this before. What is it all about? It is mine isn't it? I found it, and Gollum would have killed me, if I hadn't kept it. I'm not a thief, whatever he said.'

'I have never called you one,' Gandalf answered. 'And I am not one either. I am not trying to rob you, but to help you. I wish you would trust me, as you used.' He turned away, and the shadow passed. He seemed to dwindle again to an old grey man, bent and troubled.

Quite a few things happen here. Most are presented as facts, but two are presented as seemings. Let's take a deeper look at the action.

1. Bilbo insists on possessing the Ring and accuses Gandalf of wanting it for his own. In the passage just preceding the above quoted, it becomes apparent that as Bilbo possesses the Ring, so it possesses him. And now at the beginning of the quoted text, Bilbo is so far gone as to cast an aspersion upon the character of Gandalf; by doing so he mimicks Gollum. Where does Bilbo get the idea that Gandalf might possibly want the Ring for himself? He himself is his only indication of how another might think and be motivated. Thus, this is a very subtle and effective way of indicating that Bilbo is completely under the influence of the Ring, for he is reduced to thinking precisely how Gandalf later describes the thinking of Sauron: anybody who attempts to wrest the Ring from another must necessarily want to keep it for himself. That Bilbo is thinking this way shows that he is heavily under the influence of the Ring; of evil.

2. Bilbo's hand strays to his sword, to defend himself against Gandalf! This is either great bravery or very foolhardy; it is, in fact, foolhardy and shows just how in possession of Bilbo the Ring is.

3. Gandalf's eyes flashed. They don't seem to flash; they do flash. We can imagine what this looks like, seeing it as a flexing of the muscles around the eyes so that the whites are less covered and appear to be enlarged, then recede back under the eyelids; this indicates a mix of surprise and indignation. Or, perhaps, Gandalf's eyes literally flashed; indicating the same thing in either case. Neither way of imagining it is out of the question.

4. Gandalf warns Bilbo. So far Tolkien has used Gandalf as his means of telling the reader what's true. We are given no indication that it is different in this instance.

5. Gandalf seems to grow tall and menacing. This is the first seeming, and presents a different challenge to the reader. What appears to be happening may or may not be what really is happening. What is happening is necessarily related to what seems to be happening, for this is high poesis. The seeming has to do with height, which suggests authority; Gandalf's shadow fills the room, indicating great power.

6. Bilbo backs away, breathing hard, clutching at the pocket where the Ring is stowed. This is a defensive posture, but 'breathing hard' indicates that Bilbo is under great strain. From the Ring? No, he has already given himself up to the Ring. He is defending his possession of the Ring from Gandalf, indicated by how he is clutching at it.

7. As they face each other, Gandalf remains cloaked (for Bilbo has not repeated the onerous words thus there is no call), yet he is revealed as full of veiled power, for the air tingles. The air does not seem to tingle, but actually does so. How? We are not told. What we do know is that there are three sources of power in the room: Sting, the Ring, and Gandalf. Sting's only power is to turn blue in the presence of Orcs. The Ring's powers are well known, and causing tingling in a room is not listed among them. That leaves Gandalf. Is he making the air in the room tingle? Not directly; it is a by-product of something else that he is doing, which is to allow what he really is, to be experienced in the room, and by Bilbo. What does the reader know, at this point, about Gandalf? That he has magic powers, and that he is good (despite being menacing!). It will suffice for now.

8. Gandalf's eyes remain bent on the hobbit. This indicates a contest of wills. Gandalf's is of course the stronger.

9. Bilbo's hands slowly relax: one its grip on the Ring, the other on the sword, and he begins to tremble. Trembling could indicate various things. It could suggest fear, or weariness. In either case, Bilbo has lost the contest of wills.

10. And then Bilbo says that Gandalf is the one who is acting strangely, as if it's all Gandalf and not himself at all. This is self-deception. His next words are revealing: "I'm not a thief". His conscience has been bothering him on this point for a long, long time, and he is afraid that he did indeed steal the Ring despite the 'deal' he had made with Gollum. But Bilbo is wise enough to understand that since Gandalf is acting so menacing towards him instead of friendly, that it must somehow be important, because he does trust Gandalf.

11. Gandalf's words of reconciliation come not after, but before, he seems to dwindle. This is significant because he shows gentleness from a mien of menace and authority instead of from a worried old wizard-man.

12. Here again we have a seeming, in reverse of the previous one. We will keep watch on Tolkien's uses of 'seeming' with the understanding that Tolkien, niggler that he was, went over his word choices with a fine-tooth-comb, as it were, especially in crucial scenes like this one.

What can we summarize from Exhibit #2?

• That Bilbo is not in control of his own will; it takes Gandalf's will overpowering Bilbo's, for the hobbit to begin to come to his senses.
• That Gandalf is powerful and good; we have as yet no indication where his power comes from.

to be continued....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree; this joy "produces tears because it is qualitatively so like sorrow, because it comes from those places where Joy and Sorrow are at one, reconciled, as selfishness and altruism are lost in Love" (letter #89). Quite not all the same .

Well we'll have to agree to disagree here. I can honestly say that Christian joy does not have the monopoly on this kind of emotion, and many non-Christians will agree.

To take another literary example, in His Dark Materials, the scene where Lyra and Pantalaimon are almost parted in Bolvangar but are saved from the blade evokes exactly the same kind of feeling as the scene at Mount Doom. We are at once terrified, upset to the core, but at the same time elated and joyful that they have been saved. This is because we have been at a point where a perfect Love has almost been permanently severed and at the very last moment has been saved. Reading this you find yourself in tears, of both joy and sorrow.

lmp - this is a reading of the text from a particular perspective, in a way, trying to get to a point by breaking it down into statements. What I want to see is something which is unequivocally Christian symbolism which this is not. This passage can be read in any number of ways. A simple exercise in describing a face-off. As an example of supernatural horror. Even as an instance of sanwe. But all of them would be speculation and personal interpretations because all that this is about is trying to show how Bilbo has been 'captured' by the Ring and underlining its status as a dangerous magical object when previously Tolkien had written the object as a handy trinket useful for hiding from the neighbours (the contrast between The Hobbit and the more serious LotR which he had to bridge). The points made are all fair enough (give or take one or two that I'd read differently), but to then build any more onto that we enter the realms of speculation, and possibly into reading too much into the text.

[littlemanpoet]

Well, Lalwendë, I must object.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What I want to see is something which is unequivocally Christian symbolism which this is not.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I hope you're right that nobody is arguing that LotR is exclusively Christian!

Do you see the contradiction between these two statements? Just to make it perfectly clear what I see in these two posts: in the first you want to see something that is uniquely Christian, while in the second you hope no-one thinks that such a thing can be produced. You simply cannot have both.

The reason for the "exhibit" format I'm using is to build, as with stones, a tower of evidence, the complete edifice of which will show what the individual parts cannot precisely because they are only parts. To be quite honest, I can only make an educated guess at what we will find, because my process is to read the actual texts and discern to the best of my ability what Tolkien is saying. Surely no-one cares to object to that!?!

Actually, there are a few more summary points that could be added, which I will later, but the evidence is up until now too tenuous to put them out there.

Remember, the test is NOT "is this uniquely Christian", but "does this adequately reflect that which Christians understand about reality"? No one has objected to this statement of the test, and so I'll proceed accordingly.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Remember, the test is NOT "is this uniquely Christian", but "does this adequately reflect that which Christians understand about reality"? No one has objected to this statement of the test, and so I'll proceed accordingly.

I think it's safe to say that, of the many sources of influence that Tolkien used, Christianity is very probably one of them. By his own admission, God is in The Lord of the Rings (The One).

I think many people look at The lord of the Rings next to Narnia, the latter being a very overtly Christian work and the fact that, not only was Tolkien a friend of Lewis, but Tolkien contributed to Lewis' conversion, many are tempted to say that it is also a Christian work. I think it would be foolish to say that Christianity or at least Biblical principals were the only part of the 'soil of experience', as he calls it in the forward, for, as he also says, how the story germ uses these experiences is incredibly complex and our attempts to identify and define them are, at best, guesses.

I think I've probably made this point before, but I'll say it again to entertain, at least, my own satisfaction. Plus, I have a terrible memory.

[EDIT] Ah yes, one last thought.
If there were all these many different influencces Tolkien drew from, perhaps we should have a Topic, "The Lord of the Myths."

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

Do you see the contradiction between these two statements? Just to make it perfectly clear what I see in these two posts: in the first you want to see something that is uniquely Christian, while in the second you hope no-one thinks that such a thing can be produced. You simply cannot have both.

Erm, there is no contradiction. Firstly I hope that nobody wants to pinpoint LotR as an exclusively Christian text as its plainly many things to many people. And secondly, I had hoped that someone could come up with an instance of imagery from somewhere within the text that was as I said, unequivocally Christian (and by that not also something else). Having the second does not mean that the first is true, and the first not being true does not preclude the second from happening.

Methinks the purpose of the thread has subtly changed. It began with a lot of fire about Gandalf being Jesus etc and now it aims to be somewhere for Christians to share their personal impressions? Which in itself is a subtle way of forcing things into the conclusion that LotR is Christian. Now we know that for some already it is Christian, and that's fine of course, but we've still not had any of the hard evidence promised early on.

[Raynor]

There is one other parallel I was pondering on lately: Mindolluin and the holy of holies. Both are approached by the priest alone (Tolkien reffered to Numenorean kings as being priests as well) and both contain a special manifestation of divinity (seeing that the white tree was linked through Nimloth, Celeborn and Galathilion to Telperion). Acknolwedging that this is not a temple, Tolkien states:

Originally Posted by Letter #156

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.

Originally Posted by Lal

I can honestly say that Christian joy does not have the monopoly on this kind of emotion, and many non-Christians will agree.

There is a big difference between "everyday" joy, to which you seemed to have related to in your previous post, and this sort of joy. Secondly, I haven't argued that this is something unique to Christianity, but, together with other refferences, arguing against your statement that Tolkien didn't have a message.

Now we know that for some already it is Christian, and that's fine of course, but we've still not had any of the hard evidence promised early on.

Hard evidenced? Promised? By who? As far as I am concerned, this is still an open debate and I am looking forward to keep learning.

What I want to see is something which is unequivocally Christian symbolism which this is not.

I have this question for you: can you point to one instance where it has been argued that the identified possible parallel is uniquely particular to Christianity? The most that I personally asked is to refute the weight/significance of whatever parallels were presented, and/or to present other significant parallels in other systems of beliefes. Lal, if you can't answer this above question positively, then it seems to me that you made the longest non sequitur I witnessed on this site. As it has been argued my others and myself, there is little if anything in Christianity that is absolutely unique, so, to me, your repeated request/critique of this kind doesn't seem to be on point.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

There is a big difference between "everyday" joy, to which you seemed to have related to in your previous post, and this sort of joy. Secondly, I haven't argued that this is something unique to Christianity, but, together with other refferences, arguing against your statement that Tolkien didn't have a message.

But your first statement here suggests that you have said that this is unique?

Originally Posted by Raynor

I have this question for you: can you point to one instance where it has been argued that the identified possible parallel is uniquely particular to Christianity?

Yes, see above Joy. Also in the case of Pity. Also in the Apocalypse/Ragnarok discussion. Also Eucatastrophe.

As it has been argued my others and myself, there is little if anything in Christianity that is absolutely unique, so, to me, your repeated request/critique of this kind doesn't seem to be on point.

Well I have to honestly say that this is not how posts have read. People have put forward ideas and when presented with evidence that these things are as likely something else entirely, other posters have either got upset or claimed that certain things are indeed unique to Christianity and that other people cannot possibly understand those concepts which is a bit much really.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Erm, there is no contradiction.

Quite right. Sorry for my daftness. Unequivocal = 'leaving no doubt'. I'm not sure that's possible, precisely because belief and doubt are choices made by people. The best I can promise is evidence as clearly laid out as possible, and each person is intellectually responsible (to the rest of us for those who think that way, and to our Maker for those who think that way) to examine it and come to the best conclusions they can.

Okay: As to Bilbo and the Ring. The points I made before were:

• That Bilbo is not in control of his own will; it takes Gandalf's will overpowering Bilbo's, for the hobbit to begin to come to his senses.
• That Gandalf is powerful and good; we have as yet no indication where his power comes from.

To these should be added the following:

• Bilbo calls the Ring his own: he claims possession. This is a critical point, and we shall see (or already know) how it compares to Frodo and Sam.

This theme of possession is central to Tolkien. Thorin Oakenshield was taken with lust for the Arkenstone and it completely warped his state of mind in regard to the others who had a claim to any of the treasure. Likewise, Tolkien wrote poems, the most appropo being The Hoard, which pretty much states his case quite clearly. In succession, a hoard of treasure is held by Elves, then Dwarf, a Dragon, a Knight, then no-one at all. The Dwarf, Dragon, and Knight are each in turn ruined by their greed for the Hoard. Now for that which is unequivocal in my view: there was a certain teacher in a land by a great sea who taught wisdom to those who would listen. One of the things that he said was:

Do not lay up for yourself treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal;
but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Even if one doubts the middle of these three lines, the first and especially the third are just good wisdom. They are not exclusive to Christianity, but that's not what I'm trying to show anyway.

Putting it together: Bilbo claims the Ring as his own; he treasures it. His heart is given to it. He tells Gandalf that he had hoped that giving all these other gifts would make giving up the Ring easier, but it does not. Because Bilbo treasures the Ring, going so far as to call it his precious, the Ring owns him. It takes what little will power Bilbo can muster, with a great amount of from Gandalf, to give up the Ring.

The Ring is beautiful and seductive, as well as powerful. Things that have good qualities but are still damaging to us are the hardest things to give up, even though they might be killing us, or in the case of Bilbo, dragging him into a state of undeadness.

It just so happens that the Ring is also evil, and has a will of its own. It is intriguing to me that Tolkien adds this degree of malevolence. It seems obvious that he had to for the sake of the story, but this was the story he chose to tell; it could have been a different story. What is it about this Ring? Why mix the charateristics of beauty, allure, willfulness, and evil? It is because this is precisely the nature of the struggle humans face, every day. Tolkien objectifies it in the Ring, but in real life we find a pull to wrongdoing already inside, right along with the pull to doing good and right. We're a battleground, every one of us. It's part of what's so Real about LotR.

So just to sommarize: the unequivocal theme that harmonizes with a Christian world view in this scene, is 'That which I give my heart to the possession of, enslaves me.' Bilbo is enslaved by the Ring because he insists that it is his. It's interesting, just as an aside, that the quote from 'the teacher' mentions thieving. I make no more nor less of it than just to note it.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

But your first statement here suggests that you have said that this is unique?

So, even if I stated explicitly several times that I am not looking for something uniquely Christian, even if I didn't use any restrictive qualifier, you still persist on this line of argument? When on the same page you repeated the "unicity" critique, I considered that in my reply as a strawman of my argument, a misrepresentation. As I already stated, in that post I was merely pointing out the existence of what I believed was a moral message, and my refference wasn't anymore restrictive that the original text of the letter was.

Yes, see above Joy. Also in the case of Pity. Also in the Apocalypse/Ragnarok discussion. Also Eucatastrophe.

Well, maybe it's the late hour, mabye the fact that I am not a native English speaker, but where are the restrictive qualifiers you are reffering to in those cases?

Anyway, what do you think of my comparison of Mindolluin? I would be quite interested to know if other religions have a similar setting/event. There is also a refference to Meneltarma in UT that I think might be interesting for our discussion:

Originally Posted by Description of the island of Numenor, Part two: The Second Age, Unfinished Tales

Near to the centre of the Mittalmar stood the tall mountain called the Meneltarma, Pillar of the Heavens, sacred to the worship of Eru Iluvatar; ... and no other likeness of a temple did the Numenoreans possess in all the days of their grace, until the coming of Sauron. There no tool or weapon had ever been borne; and there none might speak any word, save the King only. Thrice only in each year the King spoke, offering prayer for the coming year at the Erukyerme in the first days of spring, praise of Eru Iluvatar at the Erulaitale in midsummeer, and thanksgiving to him at the Eruhantale at the end of autumn. At these times the King ascended the mountain on foot followed by a great concourse of the people, clad in white and garlanded, but silent.

[This is a less strong comparison than the previous one, seeing that it is a community event]

[littlemanpoet]

The thing is, Raynor, that it is basically accepted that Christian analogies can be found in Unfinished Tales, The Silmarillion, and various segments of the HoME series. The real issue is, what about LotR?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The thing is, Raynor, that it is basically accepted that Christian analogies can be found in Unfinished Tales, The Silmarillion, and various segments of the HoME series. The real issue is, what about LotR?

We're in the midst of finding that out