The Lord of the Bible?

[mark12_30]

Philomythus to Misomythus

You look at trees and label them just so,
(for trees are 'trees', and growing is 'to grow');
you walk the earth and tread with solemn pace
one of the many minor globes of Space:
a star's a star, some matter in a ball
compelled to courses mathematical
amid the regimented, cold, inane,
where destined atoms are each moment slain.

At bidding of a Will, to which we bend
(and must), but only dimly apprehend,
great processes march on, as Time unrolls
from dark beginnings to uncertain goals;
and as on page o'er-written without clue,
with script and limning packed of various hue,
an endless multitude of forms appear,
some grim, some frail, some beautiful, some queer,
each alien, except as kin from one
remote Origo, gnat, man, stone, and sun.
God made the petreous rocks, the arboreal trees,
tellurian earth, and stellar stars, and these
homuncular men, who walk upon the ground
with nerves that tingle touched by light and sound.
The movements of the sea, the wind in boughs,
green grass, the large slow oddity of cows,
thunder and lightning, birds that wheel and cry,
slime crawling up from mud to live and die,
these each are duly registered and print
the brain's contortions with a separate dint.
Yet trees are not 'trees', until so named and seen
and never were so named, tifi those had been
who speech's involuted breath unfurled,
faint echo and dim picture of the world,
but neither record nor a photograph,
being divination, judgement, and a laugh
response of those that felt astir within
by deep monition movements that were kin
to life and death of trees, of beasts, of stars:
free captives undermining shadowy bars,
digging the foreknown from experience
and panning the vein of spirit out of sense.
Great powers they slowly brought out of themselves
and looking backward they beheld the elves
that wrought on cunning forges in the mind,
and light and dark on secret looms entwined.
He sees no stars who does not see them first
of living silver made that sudden burst
to flame like flowers bencath an ancient song,
whose very echo after-music long
has since pursued. There is no firmament,
only a void, unless a jewelled tent
myth-woven and elf-pattemed; and no earth,
unless the mother's womb whence all have birth.
The heart of Man is not compound of lies,
but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,
and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,
Man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned,
and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned,
his world-dominion by creative act:
not his to worship the great Artefact,
Man, Sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with Elves and Goblins, though we dared to build
Gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sowed the seed of dragons, 'twas our right
(used or misused). The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which we're made.

Yes! 'wish-fulfilment dreams' we spin to cheat
our timid hearts and ugly Fact defeat!
Whence came the wish, and whence the power to dream,
or some things fair and others ugly deem?
All wishes are not idle, nor in vain
fulfilment we devise -- for pain is pain,
not for itself to be desired, but ill;
or else to strive or to subdue the will
alike were graceless; and of Evil this
alone is deadly certain: Evil is.

Blessed are the timid hearts that evil hate
that quail in its shadow, and yet shut the gate;
that seek no parley, and in guarded room,
though small and bate, upon a clumsy loom
weave tissues gilded by the far-off day
hoped and believed in under Shadow's sway.

Blessed are the men of Noah's race that build
their little arks, though frail and poorly filled,
and steer through winds contrary towards a wraith,
a rumour of a harbour guessed by faith.

Blessed are the legend-makers with their rhyme
of things not found within recorded time.
It is not they that have forgot the Night,
or bid us flee to organized delight,
in lotus-isles of economic bliss
forswearing souls to gain a Circe-kiss
(and counterfeit at that, machine-produced,
bogus seduction of the twice-seduced).
Such isles they saw afar, and ones more fair,
and those that hear them yet may yet beware.
They have seen Death and ultimate defeat,
and yet they would not in despair retreat,
but oft to victory have tuned the lyre
and kindled hearts with legendary fire,
illuminating Now and dark Hath-been
with light of suns as yet by no man seen.

I would that I might with the minstrels sing
and stir the unseen with a throbbing string.
I would be with the mariners of the deep
that cut their slender planks on mountains steep
and voyage upon a vague and wandering quest,
for some have passed beyond the fabled West.
I would with the beleaguered fools be told,
that keep an inner fastness where their gold,
impure and scanty, yet they loyally bring
to mint in image blurred of distant king,
or in fantastic banners weave the sheen
heraldic emblems of a lord unseen.

I will not walk with your progressive apes,
erect and sapient. Before them gapes
the dark abyss to which their progress tends
if by God's mercy progress ever ends,
and does not ceaselessly revolve the same
unfruitful course with changing of a name.
I will not treat your dusty path and flat,
denoting this and that by this and that,
your world immutable wherein no part
the little maker has with maker's art.
I bow not yet before the Iron Crown,
nor cast my own small golden sceptre down.

In Paradise perchance the eye may stray
from gazing upon everlasting Day
to see the day illumined, and renew
from mirrored truth the likeness of the True.
Then looking on the Blessed Land 'twill see
that all is as it is, and yet made free:
Salvation changes not, nor yet destroys,
garden nor gardener, children nor their toys.
Evil it will not see, for evil lies
not in God's picture but in crooked eyes,
not in the source but in malicious choice,
and not in sound but in the tuneless voice.
In Paradise they look no more awry;
and though they make anew, they make no lie.
Be sure they still will make, not being dead,
and poets shall have flames upon their head,
and harps whereon their faultless fingers fall:
there each shall choose for ever from the All.

[The Only Real Estel]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

So, to my friend, to christians, or anyone who chooses to see it that way, LOTR is a 'Christian book.' To me, it's not a Christian book, but it's a historical fantasy adventure. To others it may look like a Hindu book...etc. Which one of us is right? No one is more or less right than the other.

Eventhough to me I don't see it as a Christian book, I see no purpose to be stubborn and say, "whoever believes it is, is wrong, flawed, and it is useless to read it as a Christian book." Because that would deny one of the very many and passionate influences of the author.

Yes, they have their own interpretation - certainly. But it is not logical that everyone's individual interpretation of the book is 'right.' If anyone attempts to argue that then he has, as the saying goes, "both feet planted firmly in mid-air."

There is one meaning to a book - what the author intended. There can be trillions of different interpretations (not the one meaning) by different readers. That is fine. But it doesn't change the intent of the author, which is what I think we have to look at if we want to know if LotR is a 'Christian book' or not.

Originally Posted by SpM

I have no objection to people having their own interpretation. I only object when they try to foist it on me, either directly or indirectly by implying that my appreciation of it is inferior to theirs because I do not share their view of it.

davem brought up that point earlier when I was discussing a slightly different matter with him on this thread.

I am not trying to 'foist' my interpretation of LotR being a 'Christian work' on you. I am simply saying look at what the author's intention was - if that is that it was a Christian work, then consider Tolkien to be foisting his intentions on you.

And I don't see how your appreciation could possibly be inferior to mine or anyone else's if you choose to value your interpretation over Tolkien's. As far as I'm concerned LotR being a 'Christian work' means very little in the sense of how you read the book.

At any rate, I guess I'll be pulling back to a spectator's seat (most likely ) because the discussion is drifting farther from the original topic in my opinion & I'd rather not help it along.

[mark12_30]

The first N posts: Character oriented. Some quick notes, although I don't think the meat is really here, and I don't want to get bogged down.

the Balrog - Satan;{or} Melkor-Satan

Melkor gets my vote.

Saruman/Grima - Judas

Hmmm. Not quite; although Grima is a better possibility than Saruman. I'm still mulling this one over, and could be prevailed upon to expound... for Fea in particular, if she asks us nicely, preciousss. The other treasonous varmints to consider are Smeagol/Gollum, and, Denethor. Hoom. Smeagollum is worth some more thought-- after some more homework. EDIT: Actually, Boromir is also worth considering. (My poor Boromir!) (end edit)

Gandalf the White resurrection

Well, yes, but not the resurrection of Jesus. There are several resurrections in the scriptures. This is worth taking a closer look at later. Remind me.

Elrond - Jesus?

Again, not the similarity I would have focused on-- although Elrond's role in healing, preaching, history-linking, and counsel is certainly notable, it doesn't shout "redeemer" to me. Maybe "prophet." Healings happened under more hands than Jesus' alone. Elrond reminds me more of Elijah & Elisha than he reminds me of Jesus. .

Originally Posted by Mansun

Another important comparison is the ending to the LOTR - Gandalf passes into the far green country where the undying lands await. Does this not ring bells as to where Jesus ends up when he has done his tme on earth? Tolkien was a devout Christian I can imagine.

The very word paradise, means garden. This is a whole interlocking, interlacing theme throughout scripture. It probably also shows up in other myths-- I can't speak to that; but I can definitely speak to the scriptural theme. More later if folks are interested.

Now, post number 8:

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Though I hadn't noticed the correlation between Elrond and Jesus before... I usually see Jesus in Aragorn. The child, raised by his mother and one not his father; one who did great things for his lands; one with compassion, with the hands of a healer; one who descended into the terror of the lands of the dead to bring those there into light; one who compelled strength and hope into those around him; one that was loved and trusted by nearly all; one willing to die so that others could live; the King that Returns.

Could hardly have said it better myself. I tried, about ten years ago, and this is stil posted on my old website:

From an obscure-- but ancient and royal-- lineage, a prince rises. He keeps his lineage secret. He is faithful to a fiancee (1) and a life-vision (2) that he has had since he was a very young man. He carries a sword (3) before which the darkness gives way; he has a name (4)-- the Heir of Isildur-- which the darkness fears. After numerous journeys, skirmishes and battles (5) with the darkness, in which his character is proven practically fautless (6), he travels--- three days (7)--- on the paths of the dead, bringing a spiritual, ghostly host with him when he emerges (8); fights a battle beside them against the darkness; he then releases the souls from their bondage to go in peace.(8) He continues against the darkness until he is at the very gates of the kingdom of darkness. At this point in time, the kingdom of darkness is defeated (granted, not by the prince directly, but he is there when it happens.) All of Middle Earth is released from the authority of Sauron.(9) (However, there are pockets of resistance left over that must be cleaned up. In a similar vein, we are released from the authority of Satan; his power is broken; but there are still battles to be fought.) The prince then returns to the seat of his fathers(10), claims his throne, sits in judgement, and then marries a bride (11) (a bride that has the heritage of eternal life, although she chooses to forsake it and become mortal. The parallel fails there.) Together, they reign in peace over a prosperous and joyful kingdom. (12)

1. The church, not formed yet during Jesus' ministry, but clearly foretold.
2. To win the Kingdom back so that he can marry the bride.
3. The Word Of God.
4. The Name of Jesus.
5. The ministry of Jesus.
6. The sinlessness of Jesus.
7. "Just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale..."
8. The "Harrowing of Hell"-- release of Hell's captives.
9. Satan defeated by the cross and resurrection of Christ-- destruction of Satan's power.
10. Minas Tirith-- Jerusalem.
11. The church.
12. The post-millenial reign with the church (after the judgement.)

Originally Posted by Fea

And why must each borrowed character have only one place in a story? Does there really have to be just one Satan? Why not multiple? Why not several heroes? Why not several Christ figures?

A very, very perceptive point-- especially since, in the Old Testament, there are a bunch of them. They are not allegories (achoo.) They are imperfect Types. ONe aspect of their life forecasts a specific trait of the messiah. Obviously the Types have their faults (otherwise they'd be sinless.) However, taken together as just Types, the Types give a cumulative portrait of the expected one. Off the top of my head,
Biblical OT Messianic TYPES:
Adam-- the first of a new race. (Christ is the first (and firstfruits) of the New Creation..)
Noah: End of the old creation, beginning of the new. (According to Paul, a symbol of baptism -- passing through death to new life.)
Isaac: (The Son of promise, (almost) sacrificed. Redeemed.)
Joshua: (Ushers in a new kingdom. Jesus is named after Joshua.)
David as Shepherd. David as worshipper. David as King. Solomon as King. Daniel. Jonah. Hoseah. I'm missing some. Anyway you get the point. More than one forecasting Type is not only allowed, but required to form the broader picture.
So Fea's question is extremely perceptive, and yes I'd be happy to elaborate. Bottom line, I see three main pre-messianic Types, each forecasting a different Messianic aspect. Aragorn forecasts the kingly aspect, Gandalf the prophetic aspect, Frodo the sacrificial aspect. And no, none of them are complete picture in and of themselves; but taken together, the picture begins to form-- as it does with the OT types.

Phew! I'm only on post number 8 ?!?!? Moving on. Post number 10:

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Gandalf died to save his companions from the balrog. Because of this, and because his quest was not yet fulfilled, he was resurrected. Jesus died and came back to save mankind from their sins. I'd say this is a significantly different motive. It is a resurrection, but not 'The' resurrection.

Correct. Neither is Aragorn's emerging from "three days in the belly of the" paths of the dead. Neither is Frodo's being stung into unconsciousness by Shelob, waking up to hellish torture, and then waking up again at the call of a loved one's voice. Neither is Frodo's being lifted off of Hellish Mount Doom, unconscious, and borne off by eagles to sit on Aragorn's makeshift throne at the field of Cormallen. However, they make pretty good Types. Not allegories; no-no-no, don't go there! But Types? Yes. Highly applicable Types.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Preaching and counselling was not everything Jesus did in his life, so I don't see the connection. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the bible to tell whether one of the prophets of the old testament could have a similarity to him.

I believe Macalaure was referring to Elrond here? In which case, I've already agreed with him. Very Elijah-Elisha-ish. Now, this begs the question: Did Tolkien steal Elijah-Elisha from the bible and squeeze him into the pages earmarked for Elrond? Hardly. More on this later.

Post 12, from Boromir88, and I paraphrase: :

...egads, don't use the word allegory

To which I also agree. Tolkien didn't want to shove anything down anybody's throat; that wasn't his style. No allegories. Allegories Nyet.
Post 13, Fea: You make me smile.

Originally Posted by Gurthang'sPost14

Now, as far as specifics are concerned, I can see some. There could be strong cases made that Gandalf, Aragorn, and even Frodo were Christ-like. A case could even be made that Elrond was also. I wouldn't initially make that connection, but links between the two do exist. Although, I don't think any of them could really be said to represent Jesus.

Amazing. And I've never lectured Gurthang. Ever!

Originally Posted by Gurthang'sPost14

Although, I do say otherwise about Melkor. He, in my mind, exactly represents Satan. Sauron does also. Their aspects of being good at one time, falling into evil, often appearing likeable or pleasant, but deeply desiring to hold and corrupt everything sounds extremely close to the story of Lucifer that I've heard. In my mind, Melkor and Sauron directly represent Satan.

Melkor I've already agreed about. While Sauron comes close, he's too vulnerable to tactical defeat via physical destruction of the Ring. Melkor (versus Earendil) on the other hand, was a spot-on Foreshadowing..

Originally Posted by LalwendePost15

You can't deny that things such as his faith will have had an influence but at the higher, deeper level in forming archetypes to work from

Aaaahhh, now we come to it. Archetypes and myth. Hold that thought. And kudos to Lal for bringing it up.

I suppose we could say that some of the characters that seem Biblical could equally be from similar archetypes found in say Norse myth.

Yes; but read On Fairy Stories and read Mythopoeia, to see that Tolkien believed all myths point to the One True Myth.

The point is that the mind is a big old stew and influences definitely come through, but Tolkein did not intend them as allegories of certain Biblical characters.

Mustn't say the a-word. Agreed. No allegories here.

Originally Posted by TheOnlyRealEstel_post16

No, Tolkien didn't "effectively steal" anything from the Bible because he wasn't trying to. As others have said, Tolkien seemed to be a firm believer in leaving things up to the mind of the reader (applicability rather than allegory) instead of leading their minds to a certain point. Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se.

That said, I think you can draw many similarities (obviously). There are several reasons for this - the most obvious being that you can find similarities anytime, even when there aren't any. But also, I think there are parallels that are in Tolkien's books, whether he meant them to be or not. You can not be so devoted to something (his faith) without it seeping into what you do.

In my opinion, this agrees quite nicely with most of the above, except perhaps my enthusiastic, specific, one-to-one endorsement of Melkor as Satan. But Estel isn't done yet:

I agree. I don't quite see the Balrog=Satan line of thought either. Considering there were mainly Balrogs, I'd think they represented more the "fallen angels" that followed Satan when he was cast out. Of Sauron & Melkor, I'd say that Melkor more directly paralleled Satan because he was cast out by Illuvator & really was the beginning of evil in Tolkien's world. Sauron was simply a pawn of his (though a powerful one).

Another agreement.

However, in the interest of a good night's sleep I think I will pause here at Post 16. Grace and peace, all.

[davem]

Well, firstly, as regard's Mark's quotation from Mythopoea – I have to say that I am not arguing with the possibility of some kind of spiritual dimension to LotR, that it may provide an open minded reader with a glimpse of something 'more'.

As to her list of Biblical figures who are similar to LotR characters, are we talking a deliberate taking up by Tolkien of those specific characters into his secondary world, or simply an example of 'applicability' due to some, often vague, similarities? I don't think the former can be the case, as Tolkien specifically denied 'inventing' very much of the story. Hence, it seems we are dealing with a case of the 'leaf mould of the mind' – Biblical figures & imagery were part of the subconscious store he drew on, along with myths, legends, fairy stories etc.

The fact that one can find such correspondences with Biblical figures does not prove the work is 'Christian' any more than the fact that one can find correspondences with Pagan figures proves it is a Pagan work.

[Lalwendë]

I think the chief sticking point here is this idea that all myths point to the truth, because yes, I can see aspects of certain characters reflected in Biblical myth (though not whole characters, who seem to have a distinct integrity within the separate cosmology of Arda) e.g. I can see the aspect of Gandalf that was 'reborn', though Gandalf is most definitely not Christ, he is Gandalf. However, there are as many if not more apsects which do not stem from Christianity, or which could equally be from other beliefs/myths/folklore.

However, as I say above, I know that I will be told again that all myths point to The Truth. I have to stick my neck out and venture to say that though Tolkien may have put forward this idea, it is by no means accepted by everyone, and possibly only by a small proportion of Tolkien readers. It is also a shaky argument which in order to accept ourselves, we first have to accept that Christianity is the only acceptable belief and that all others are just 'little copies' of it, and their followers are really just Christians. News - they're not. They're Moslems, Jainists, Wiccans, Taoists etc. But everyone is indeed under the same umbrella, yes, its just that its a bit more multi-coloured. The concept is basically similar to those put forward by Jung and Campbell of Collective Unconscious, but ring-fencing it in favour of one religion of the many available, which defeats the object of what Campbell suggests - that there is indeed one myth, but it cannot be 'claimed' by anyone. It belongs to us all, and we don't have to have a pass to get in.

It is also an idea put forward in a quite obscure text which Tolkien would not have considered would even be read by many (if any) of his fans - so my argument is that how would he have expected anyone to know, let alone accept this argument and system of interpretation. He simply gave us non-allegorical stories which he accepted could be read in any way. He kept his own interpretations under his hat (or in his desk ) because he did not wish to impose. He was not an evangelist.

Really, if we are hoping to pinpoint any Primary World 'messages' that he wants to put to readers, shouldn't we only be focussing on those texts he intended for us to read? If said messages can only be vaguely supported in principle by papers he determinedly did not publish or make otherwise generally available (and lecture notes are not such documents), then can we truly say that he wanted those messages to be read in that way?

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It is also a shaky argument which in order to accept ourselves, we first have to accept that Christianity is the only acceptable belief and that all others are just 'little copies' of it, and their followers are really just Christians.

Why this?
The way I understand it, which could certainly be wrong, the "One True Myth"-Theory just says that there is an amount of truth in every myth and religion and the "One True Myth" itself isn't equal to Christian Myth or any other, and it is approachable from Christianity as well as from every other one. Other myths and religions aren't copies of Christianity, but each contains a different component of the Big one.

And, of course, if Tolkien wanted the Lord of the Rings to point to this true myth, then it is no wonder that people find application in it, regardless of their religion.

It is also an idea put forward in a quite obscure text which Tolkien would not have considered would even be read by many (if any) of his fans - so my argument is that how would he have expected anyone to know, let alone accept this argument and system of interpretation.
...
Really, if we are hoping to pinpoint any Primary World 'messages' that he wants to put to readers, shouldn't we only be focussing on those texts he intended for us to read? If said messages can only be vaguely supported in principle by papers he determinedly did not publish or make otherwise generally available (and lecture notes are not such documents), then can we truly say that he wanted those messages to be read in that way?

I don't see why there shouldn't be elements or messages in it that Tolkien didn't expect people, or at least not the majority of people, to understand. He was also writing a book he himself would want to read, after all.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Why this?
The way I understand it, which could certainly be wrong, the "One True Myth"-Theory just says that there is an amount of truth in every myth and religion and the "One True Myth" itself isn't equal to Christian Myth or any other, and it is approachable from Christianity as well as from every other one. Other myths and religions aren't copies of Christianity, but each contains a different component of the Big one.
.

No - for Tolkien Christianity was this 'One True Myth' of which all others were flawed copies.

A case of 'There's only one True religion, & blow me! it just so happens its the one I'm already following. That's lucky! Imagine what a pain it would be if I'd been following the wrong one all these years. Looks like everybody else is going to have to change their religion but I'm ok to carry on as I am!' perhaps?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

It is also a shaky argument which in order to accept ourselves, we first have to accept that Christianity is the only acceptable belief and that all others are just 'little copies' of it, and their followers are really just Christians. News - they're not.

If we can suspend disbelief into declaring that Gandalf is Gandalf and not just a conglomeration of words on paper, surely we can suspend disbelief on religion long enough to think [openly]?

Mark, that was a fantastic post. Don't just feel free to expound, know that I'm sitting here hoping that you will. I don't know enough about Christianity to do a credible job of it. Right now, for me, it's all rather like spotting a blue bird and saying "Hey, that looks a bit like the sky." Sure, in thinking, they are inextricably connected: yes, on the surface they share a color, but that is merely illusionary. Looking more deeply, one survives within the other. Talk about attachment.

*uncomfortable silence*

So that parallel just worked way too well for comfort. I'm going to class now and thinking about fixing the ozone. That's easy.

[davem]

What I don't get is why, if people want to know about Christianity they don't just read the Bible - is that book so difficult or so boring that the only way to make sense of it is to read it in the 'light' of LotR.

I begin to wonder whether its not a case of trying to find the Bible in LotR but of trying to find LotR in the Bible...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

No - for Tolkien Christianity was this 'One True Myth' of which all others were flawed copies.

A case of 'There's only one True religion, & blow me! it just so happens its the one I'm already following. That's lucky! Imagine what a pain it would be if I'd been following the wrong one all these years. Looks like everybody else is going to have to change their religion but I'm ok to carry on as I am!' perhaps?

Exactly why I think the theory is bunkum. It's terribly convenient that believers in this theory just happen to have chosen the right one; and I mean of whatever faith, I'm not just picking on one! However, nobody has to change their religion as the theory says, ultimately, we're all Christians, and so were our ancestors who built Stonehenge and so were the builders of Mecca, hey, even Pullman is one!

It interests me though, why would someone come up with such a theory? Is it to explain away a lack of comfort with a love for distinctly bloody Pagan myth while being devoutly Catholic? To forestall critics who would be horrified at world-building and playing God in an Act Of Literature?

Originally Posted by Fea

If we can suspend disbelief into declaring that Gandalf is Gandalf and not just a conglomeration of words on paper, surely we can suspend disbelief on religion long enough to think [openly]?

No, because this would require me to start thinking as though Christianity is the only acceptable Truth in this world, and I do not deal in absolutes. If I had the capacity to suspend my intellectual disbelief on any religion then I would follow it. However I strongly believe that no one religion has got the handle on the 'Truth' so that would be entirely impossible.

Accepting Gandalf as Gandalf takes very little suspension of disbelief as he is there on the page, crafted in words for me to see and hear, and he is part of an entire, coherent and entirely self-supporting secondary world. That's how Tolkien made him, and if he wished Gandalf (or any other character) to be viewed in the light of the Primary World, he should not have set them within an entirely self-contained, non-allegorical, Secondary World context.

[The Saucepan Man]

Just as I expect people to respect my right not to have any particular belief system foisted on to me as an essential element of my understanding of LotR, so I respect the right of those who do hold strong beliefs and see them mirrored in LotR to explain the connections that they see.

I don’t expect anyone to belittle me for having no strong religious beliefs. Equally, I don’t think that we should be in the business of belittling or ridiculing the beliefs of others.

It seems to me that some comments on this thread are getting close to doing that.

Please can all posting here make sure that they do so courteously and with respect for other posters’ beliefs and opinions.

Thank you.

[davem]

Well, in the Bhagavad Gita Krishna claims: Even those who worship other gods, because of their love, they worship me.

But who's going to take seriously a Hindu text which claims that the One True Myth from which all the others devolved is Hinduism?

I know that Muslims believe that the 'True' versions of Biblical stories are to be found in the Koran.

Perhaps there is no One True Myth. Perhaps LotR is just a very entertaining story & we should just enjoy it without trying to find the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe & everything in there.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

.....several tempting things.....

Ai Ai, Lal! Almost thou temptest me to leave my systematic post by post approach. Very tempting! But no. I shall resist.

I shall return to my post-by-post track...

But perhaps not right away. The sun is shining, the grass is drying, and my sons have been cooped up for far too long....

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Please can all posting here make sure that they do so courteously and with respect for other posters’ beliefs and opinions.

Thank you.

Can I just state for the record that I hold all belief systems in equal respect - whether that's Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Paganism, Platonism, Comunism, Fascism, Scientology, Free-thinkerismology, Satanism, Blue Meanyism, Jedi-ism or whatever else is currently doing the rounds. It is a matter of simple human decency to respect whatever anyone happens to believe, however ridiculous or unfounded or self-contradictory it may be.

I myself believe there is an invisible pink elephant in my attic & that this can be proven by a hidden code in the Athrabeth. I hope no-one will make fun of that sincerely held belief.

If any cartoons depicting my elephant appear in mirth I shall complain to the mods in the most vociferous fashion....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

I myself believe there is an invisible pink elephant in my attic & that this can be proven by a hidden code in the Athrabeth. I hope no-one will make fun of that sincerely held belief.

If any cartoons depicting my elephant appear in mirth I shall complain to the mods in the most vociferous fashion....

Now now, how could an invisible pink elephant be depicted in Mirth? In fact, how do you know it is pink?

Seriously - if anyone feels belittled then please argue away. I'm not an atheist much as it may seem, but part of my own beliefs is that all are equal (where harm is not done to others, so I wouldn't support you were you to admit to being a believer in Combat 18 say) as belief is intensely personal; that there is no Truth owned by any religion; that souls should not be 'claimed' as belonging to any one faith in acts of religious imperialism; and finally, that all debate is rigorous and open. That might even include questioning the beliefs of Tolkien. So stone me for it if you must.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

In fact, how do you know it is pink?

Faith.

[Macalaure]

Are you sure it isn't a unicorn?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

A reminder to all mice playing here - the cat may not have been monitoring the hole constantly, but it's still on the premises. Please heed Saucepan's admonition to post respectfully and without personal rancour. Threads involving discussion of religious matters are on the top of the "most frequently closed due to flaming" list...

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

It is a matter of simple human decency to respect whatever anyone happens to believe, however ridiculous or unfounded or self-contradictory it may be.

And it is deliciously respectful to refer to them as ridiculous.

What I don't get is why, if people want to know about Christianity they don't just read the Bible - is that book so difficult or so boring that the only way to make sense of it is to read it in the 'light' of LotR.

I've already read it. And while the Old Testament was infinitely more interesting to me than the New, they're both fascinating. What can possibly be more interesting than to study something for which people are willing to die and kill?

But now that I've read it once, I'd like to get a better grasp on it. And an easy way to get a better grasp on things is to associate them with things with which you're already familiar. Have you never taken a Psych class?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

A reminder to all mice playing here - the cat may not have been monitoring the hole constantly, but it's still on the premises. Please heed Saucepan's admonition to post respectfully and without personal rancour. Threads involving discussion of religious matters are on the top of the "most frequently closed due to flaming" list...

So far two people have made fun of my Pink Elephant faith. May I request that all faiths are respected or that all are equally open to ridicule?

This is how wars start.

[mark12_30]

It strikes me that there is also another "faith" or "religion"-- and that is the faith that says, there is no God, no truth, and no moral law, and everyone who says that there is, is wrong, untrue, and false. That 'faith' has started a few wars of its own.

Proof or refutation of this 'faith' is left as an exercise for the reader.

[narfforc]

May I be allowed to join The Worshippers of The Pink Elecorn or is it The Pink Uniphant, Oh no God we've fragmented already, expect war......


P.S I've tried all the other ones Davem mentioned, but I never won the lottery or had visions (only when I drank too much at a party once), In fact Religion has done absolutey nothing for me, LotR has, it makes me happy just as a book.

[davem]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

It strikes me that there is also another "faith" or "religion"-- and that is the faith that says, there is no God, no truth, and no moral law, and everyone who says that there is, is wrong, untrue, and false. That 'faith' has started a few wars of its own.

Proof or refutation of this 'faith' is left as an exercise for the reader.

How about the one which says my faith is the One True Myth from which all other myths & religions devolved & are second rate versions of my own?

My own belief teaches the equality of all faiths, love for humankind, respect for the natural world & free buns.

[mark12_30]

Well, there it is. Glad that's settled.

Narfforc-- your sig is absolutely hilarious. Pardon me while I go to the "sig" thread and say so.

[The Saucepan Man]

I know that it has at times embarked on diversions away from the original post, but can we at least please get back to discussing Tolkien and his works.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Even if we accept that the incidents you describe are a consequence of 'grace' this merely means that the behaviour of Eru is similar to the behavour of the Christian God. That does not prove that LotR is a Christian work, merely that it doesn't contradict Christian teaching.

It seems to me that your statement disregards the source of the work. I am curious, if the pope would have been the author of this story, and if he declared it is catholic, would you still express your doubts about it?

Allah, Vishnu, the 'God' concieved by many cultures & religious traditions could be represented by Eru. If a non-Christian read the book they would have no reason to take it as a Christian work.

How much did he know about Allah or Vishnu, or the other cultures you reffer to? It seems that you have gone from ignoring the author to atributing him something he likely didn't have at all, which raises the question of the "glorious mistake" to which I reffered previously.

it does not evangelise, does not mention Jesus or the crucifixion & resurrection of Christ, or the need for repentance & acceptance of His sacrifice. If it mentioned, either directly or indirectly (as in Aslan's death & resurrection on LWW) I would happily accept it as a Christian work. It doesn't, therefore it isn't.

Let me put it another way: is a painting Christian only if it represents Jesus, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the need for repentance and acceptance of His sacrifice? Personally, I guess any serious painter would laugh if one were to impose such restrictions on him. Even if so, are these themes supposed to be shown only "photographically"? Can't they be shown in more subtle or abstract ways, in a form, which though not "photographical", still conveys the substance?

Because Fate would take away the important choices which characters must make in order to do the right thing.

It seems to me that the limits of the extension of Fate are arbitrarily set too large; if anything, Tolkien stated:

Originally Posted by Letter #153

Free Will is derivative, and is only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences.

And if we take this to reffer to mean solely to the ainur, as it would appear from the letter, we must keep in mind about his Children that they are given expressely the gift of free will. If Fate operates in any way, it is to fulfill Eru's design: "the joy of his Children".

As to her list of Biblical figures who are similar to LotR characters, are we talking a deliberate taking up by Tolkien of those specific characters into his secondary world, or simply an example of 'applicability' due to some, often vague, similarities? I don't think the former can be the case, as Tolkien specifically denied 'inventing' very much of the story.

Yet he also revised a lot, which makes the former actually the more likely explanation, given the amount of revision that took place. But haven't we gone over this before?

It is also an idea put forward in a quite obscure text which Tolkien would not have considered would even be read by many (if any) of his fans

To what particular text are you reffering to? That idea appears in the letters, in the On Fairy-stories public lecture, he mentioned that to friends (and it made it to his biography) and even in the above quoted poem. Hardly obscure.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I know that it has at times embarked on diversions away from the original post, but can we at least please get back to discussing Tolkien and his works.

It seems satire is out of place here, so if I may explain my position.

1)I think it coud be argued that 'Pink Elephantism' is no more irrational or ridiculous than any other religion & is as deserving of dis/respect as any other. Perhaps we could have a list of 'religions deserving of respect' & 'religions open to mockery' along with the criteria by which they are to be judged to be one or the other.

2) I think, if examined objectively, it will be found that LotR contains/confirms elements of any & every religion/belief system/world view that has, does, or will ever exist. This being the case I consider the 'discovery' of Christian elements in LotR to be supremely irrelevant as a topic as one could find Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, humanist (& very probably Pink Elephantist elements) in there because you'll find whatever you look for.

3) If LotR is to be considered a 'Christian' work it has to be proved that it is not an 'anything else' work, or at least that it is a more 'Christian' work than it is an 'anything else' work. To me that has not been done & we've been at this for more years than I care to remember ...

Originally Posted by Raynor

It seems to me that your statement disregards the source of the work. I am curious, if the pope would have been the author of this story, and if he declared it is catholic, would you still express your doubts about it?

Well, I wouldn't just accept it as a fact. I'd want to know in what sense he considered it to be 'Catholic'. You seem to be saying that as a Catholic wrote the book it is a Catholic story. In what way is LotR 'Catholic' to a non Catholic reader?

Forget who wrote it, forget all Tolkien's statements. Just look at the story itself. What would make an open minded reader of no faith think 'This is a Christian book'?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

Forget who wrote it, forget all Tolkien's statements. Just look at the story itself. What would make an open minded reader of no faith think 'This is a Christian book'?

But davem, the problem is taking the author out of the equation. Once a book has been written, yes, it becomes a separate entity. But it's like saying that a child, once grown, does not have within him some of his parents' biological makeup.

I see your point though. If I did not know that Tolkien was a devout Catholic, would I see Christian ideas within the book? Probably, because I was raised in a rural W.A.S.P. community. That's just the way most of NY is. I would spot it because that's what I've been submersed in since I was born. You see what you're used to seeing.

But let's say that I wasn't raised in such a setting, that I didn't know Tolkien's life story, that I knew nothing pertaining to religion in either of our lives... but I still knew religion enough that I'd be curious enough to try to guess what his leanings were.

I would see Celtic nature worship in beings like Goldberry, I would see a Christian Satan in Melkor, I would see, probably, a bit of Buddha's compassion and unattachment to material goods within Bombadil. I would spot the Valar with their individual talents as maybe Greek or Roman gods. Eru would be a conglomeration of the god[s?] of every monotheistic religion. I don't know enough about any other religion to make the connections.

So your point of non-Christian Universalism is clearly accurate. There is nothing within the text to say that the work has Christian ideals in it. It is not, as I believe Raynor said, a portrait of Christ. You can't call it a Christian book, but if you read a story with underlying themes of ultimate goodness that's written by a devout Christian, those "good" qualities, whether or not they apply to every other religion, are probably going to lean more into the Christian slot of the roulette wheel.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

But davem, the problem is taking the author out of the equation. Once a book has been written, yes, it becomes a separate entity. But it's like saying that a child, once grown, does not have within him some of his parents' biological makeup.

I see your point though. If I did not know that Tolkien was a devout Catholic, would I see Christian ideas within the book? Probably, because I was raised in a rural W.A.S.P. community. That's just the way most of NY is. I would spot it because that's what I've been submersed in since I was born. You see what you're used to seeing.

But let's say that I wasn't raised in such a setting, that I didn't know Tolkien's life story, that I knew nothing pertaining to religion in either of our lives... but I still knew religion enough that I'd be curious enough to try to guess what his leanings were.

I would see Celtic nature worship in beings like Goldberry, I would see a Christian Satan in Melkor, I would see, probably, a bit of Buddha's compassion and unattachment to material goods within Bombadil. I would spot the Valar with their individual talents as maybe Greek or Roman gods. Eru would be a conglomeration of the god[s?] of every monotheistic religion. I don't know enough about any other religion to make the connections.

So your point of non-Christian Universalism is clearly accurate. There is nothing within the text to say that the work has Christian ideals in it. It is not, as I believe Raynor said, a portrait of Christ. You can't call it a Christian book, but if you read a story with underlying themes of ultimate goodness that's written by a devout Christian, those "good" qualities, whether or not they apply to every other religion, are probably going to lean more into the Christian slot of the roulette wheel.

Me too. I mean, brought up in a rural community where going to church was 'the norm'. But I read the books when I was most definitely a Christian, I used to go to church every Sunday religiously (well, you would, wouldn't you? ) and was confirmed - a big deal to me. After reading the books it was as though I'd had a revelation. There was a whole world out there that was not bound by the church, bound by rules or dogma - as I then began to see it. I saw that you could be good, and heroic, and all that other stuff just by living. The books woke me up to the older world, to the Celtic myths, to the peoples who lived in Britain before the Romans brought this Middle-Eastern religion.

I saw nothing remotely Christian in the books, and I still don't see that.

And yes, I had read the biography and I knew full well Tolkien's religion. I also knew Catholicism well as my grandmothers were both catholics - one rejected it entirely and vehemently as she was 'cast out' for 'sin', the other used to sneakily give me catechisms and the like to read as bedtime stories (sneakily as my father found this to be a bit disturbing for a child to read such stuff). And believe me, I read the books over and over and over.

So why, if the book was Christian, was it the catalyst for me not being a Christian any more? Nobody can answer me that. And its probably at the root of why I always refute that it is a Christian book in the sense of any dogmatic message, as I fundamentally find it to be anything but. It's wide open, Universal and wonderful and totally above differences of religion.

[mark12_30]

Wow.

The throad goes ever ever on.

Well, then. Will Fea's questions ever be taken seriosly? We wonders, aye, we wonders.

Here's a possibility. I could open another thread, with a narrower thesis, and see if the discussion can proceed along more orderly lines. Maybe either here in books, or, elsewhere such as in Novices and Newcomers... how pedestrian! .....and I could place in the opening post something like this:

Tolkien has produced a large body of work, incuding letters, lectures, various notes and outlines, numerous smaller stories and tales, and the legendarium. Some of this was published with his consent, some was published posthumously. Using any of this material, and, the reference material commonly used by adherents to the Christian and Catholic faith, discuss the effect and affect that Tolkien's Christian and Catholic faith had or may have had on the development of his Legendarium. Discuss his stated background, his stated assumptions, his stated goals, and his stated intentions (contradictions included).

Please do not attempt to prove or disprove the veracity of Tolkien's positions as that is NOT the purpose of this thread.

[davem]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Tolkien has produced a large body of work, incuding letters, lectures, various notes and outlines, numerous smaller stories and tales, and the legendarium. Some of this was published with his consent, some was published posthumously. Using any of this material, and, the reference material commonly used by adherents to the Christian and Catholic faith, discuss the effect and affect that Tolkien's Christian and Catholic faith had or may have had on the development of his Legendarium. Discuss his stated background, his stated assumptions, his stated goals, and his stated intentions (contradictions included).

Please do not attempt to prove or disprove the veracity of Tolkien's positions as that is NOT the purpose of this thread. :

You bring the bulldozer, the Tower's over there....

[Lalwendë]

So, no kind of critical analysis of assumptions made would be allowed then?

[davem]

The Lord of the Rings is the story of a time long ago, 'in the quiet of the world, when there was less noise & more green', a time when Elves, Dwarves & Hobbits walked the woods & fields, when wizards & warriors fought great battles against Goblins, Trolls & wicked Men, when Trees walked, & dragons took wing against the stars.

It is a tale full of heroism, courage againts the odds, of friendship & sacrifice, beauty & terror, of love & betrayal & the victory of good over evil.

Its not an allegory, its not a collection of disguised Biblical symbols, or Pagan symbols or even (loathe as I am to say it) Pink Elephantist symbols.

If people would just stop pulling it apart, analysing it, explaining it, claiming to understand or appreciate it better than other people I'm pretty sure the world would be a better place, global warming would go away, we'd win the war on terror & we'd all live happily ever after...

[mark12_30]

You have stated your opinion many times.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

So, no kind of critical analysis of assumptions made would be allowed then?

You would of course be free to start a separate thread about that.

[davem]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

You have stated your opinion many times.

Can't have too much of a good thing...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

You would of course be free to start a separate thread about that.

Sorry but I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of threads which people are not welcome to contribute towards. Factions and Ghettoes. Sure, discussion has got heated in this thread, but if people wish to discuss ideas which are controversial then others will wish to argue. That's what forums are about. I also feel quite strongly about freedom of speech.

I won't stop anyone from saying what they want to say on here. I merely respond to the points I feel I want to discuss, which haven't all been just critical of religion's place in LotR. I discussed the place of a Miltonic Satan earlier on.

[mark12_30]

Lal, no one is questioning your freedom to post, or your freedom to speak. But the downs DOES have rules on topic versus off-topic. And my suggested topic is simple literary analysis which (IMO) should have a place in Books.

The thing we are NOT supposed to do on the Downs is have a protracted debate about religion. And that is where this thread keeps going.

When Maril had her thread on Shire-immorality ( on a family-friendly site no less) I decided I wasn't comfortable with it. So I stayed away from the thread. I'm aware of several others who did so. I could have gone in thundering; sometimes I was tempted. But what would it have gained?

I understand you have strong feelings, and as I have mentioned, you are naturally free to open a thread to discuss them. But the content of a thread is guided by the thread owner, with the mods having veto power. That's the way the Downs has always been run.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Sorry but I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of threads which people are not welcome to contribute towards. Factions and Ghettoes. Sure, discussion has got heated in this thread, but if people wish to discuss ideas which are controversial then others will wish to argue. That's what forums are about. I also feel quite strongly about freedom of speech.

I won't stop anyone from saying what they want to say on here. I merely respond to the points I feel I want to discuss, which haven't all been just critical of religion's place in LotR. I discussed the place of a Miltonic Satan earlier on.

[davem]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

The thing we are NOT supposed to do on the DOwns is have a protracted debate about religion. And that is where this thread keeps going.
.

How are you going discuss the Bible without mentioning religion?

This thread has been examining whether there is anything specifically Christian about LotR. There has been agreement that the work is generally in conformity with Christian principles & values, but any attempt to provide specific, one-to-one correspondences has faile to come up with the goods.

It seems to me that the thread you are proposing is more of a 'prayer group', where Christian Downers will examine the text for uplifting Christian analogies, & from which non-believers/critics will be excluded (cast into the outer darkness, where there will be wailing & gnashing of teeth, & rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight O'clock & stuff).

At the same time, for all my criticism of the idea, I'm tempted by the idea of starting threads where only those in agreement with you are allowed to post anything...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Lal, no one is questioning your freedom to post, or your freedom to speak. But the downs DOES have rules on topic versus off-topic. And my suggested topic is simple literary analysis which (IMO) should have a place in Books.

The thing we are NOT supposed to do on the Downs is have a protracted debate about religion. And that is where this thread keeps going.

When Maril had her thread on Shire-immorality ( on a family-friendly site no less) I decided I wasn't comfortable with it. So I stayed away from the thread. I'm aware of several others who did so. I could have gone in thundering; sometimes I was tempted. But what would it have gained?

I understand you have strong feelings, and as I have mentioned, you are naturally free to open a thread to discuss them. But the content of a thread is guided by the thread owner, with the mods having veto power. That's the way the Downs has always been run.

Firstly, how could it be literary analysis if nobody is seriously analysing?

Secondly, a thread of that nature would be by nature discriminatory if it did not also consider contra-opinions. The reason I would not be comfortable with the idea is that I have always found the discussion on the Downs to be rigorous and interesting, and in discussing topics with those with opposing views I find I often come to new opinions. Closed debate does not allow that. It becomes little more than a cosy reading group.

As I've already said, I've also contributed ideas to this thread, not to mention I've had serious discussion with Raynor about free-will etc. But not closed discussion.

And I'm well used to defending controversial opinions I've put forwards. That to me is the nature of discussion, and is the only way we learn from others.