Gandalf as Religion

[BlackCaptain]

I had a speaker today at school... A philosopher. He was talking about how Religion was something that really helped him through his life, and made a rather interesting analogy. Now I'm just paraphrasing here:

'Now has anyone ever seen the Lord of the Rings movie?'
*My hand shoots up. Everyone points at me. haha*
'Well, you know that scene where Gandalf fights the giant Bulrog guy? The flaming giant goat?'
*I cover my face to stop from laughing*
'Well I'd compare my religion to Gandalf. He defeated that giant demon, but still fell into this giant abyss, out of all hope of life. But unlike the Demon, Gandalf survived; Gandalf survived'

That made alot more sense when he was saying it, but his point was that Religion survives no matter what, even in the darkest of times. I know how I typed it made it sound like a very futile statement... but those aren't his exact words, and he made it sound unbelievably believable... so to speek. Just go with me on this one...

What are you're opinions on this statement? Do you think it's accurate from a LotR perspective? From a Religious perspective?

[Zale]

Sort of hard to reply to, 'cos Gandalf is of the same order of being ('though maybe of lesser magnitude) as the Valar, effectively the Gods of ME. In our world, according to the Christian faith (or almost any other, come to think of it) there is nothing even approaching the kind of being God is (ignoring arguments about the Devil). So it is hard to make any meaningful comparaison.

(Unless you take Illúvatar to be the ultimate God of ME.)

[BlackCaptain]

Well I mean from the movie stand point... Like for someone who knows barely anything about Tolkien's works... is that a good comparison?

[Zale]

I suppose that the Valar (God) were responsible for Gandalf's (our) salvation because he believed so yes, it can be looked on as a good analogy for religion.

[laurelindorenan]

Hmm. Depends on how you look at it. I mean. if you think of Galdalf as this other-worldly being, then certainly it would be hard to overwhelm him. Obviously, Tolkien didn't kill off Gandalf for the sake of the story, but if he had been lost forever, what then? Sorry, that's beside the point.
Speaking as a non-religious person in any way, you have to think about wether you believe that your god is all-powerful and rules all others. In this sense, this viewpoint is not accurate if you think that Gandalf could be defeated. You also have to think about what is the opposition to your faith. How bad could it be for you to abandon God forever? When you are face to face with the Devil? OK, I took the statement too literally.

It all depends on what you believe and think can happen, thinking, 'Is there a boundary to this? Can you do that?' Also what you think is the correct way of thinking and who you can trust to tell you the truth.

Again, I have totally deviated from the point.
Ah, forget this!

[Zale]

It may help if you see Gandalf as an angel, and the Valar as God(s). I'm not particularly religiou either, but here it just gives me a clearer view.

[syongstar]

Napoleon said"I don't believe in God but I do believe in religons"
The Koran states that different prayers are given to different races.Jesus said,"judge not lest ye be judged" what I'm trying to say is that it does'nt matter how you tune into spiritual energy only that you do.
the fellow ship is about stopping evil,they don't judge one another on little things like the hobbits love food,dwarves love gold.....each are free yet they are one in stopping evil~~*~~

[Zale]

Hmm. Can lots of small sins be 'cancelled out' by just one selfless deed? Or would you still have to pay come the final judgement?
I wouldn't say that loving food, or gold, or in fact anything would be bad in God's eyes: in fact, love is what Christianity is all about.

[klugiglugus]

I don't think that Tolkien liked analogies toward faith. However there is a spiritual link between the Tolkien’s work and old Europe.

[simon_hibbs]

Originally posted by BlackCaptain
What are you're opinions on this statement? Do you think it's accurate from a LotR perspective? From a Religious perspective?

JRR certainly was religious, so I'm sure he believed that faith can be a powerful motivating force. On the other hand, not all of his faithful heroes are triumphant, or even survive. However such tragedies tend to occur off-stage.


Simon Hibbs

[Hirila]

What about this:

If you don't think of Gandalf, the Valar and all that stuff as real places, people and times, but as of ideas.
Then I'd suggest, the Valar represent some super-beings that help explain the wold. Help explain why the world is, how it works and such questions.
Then Gandalf is the idea of the good surpassing the bad. The neverending idea of the battle between good and bad is (obviously) a central point Tolkien's mythology. Then "Gandalf" is the faith we can keep, that the good can be overthrown. But it will rise again, and to more power than before. Nothing lasts forever, not even the good among us. But once fallen, the good can come to new life and thus spread a new hope, whereas the bad is gone forever.

I like the idea of "Gandalf" as a kind of religion. Religion is a kind of faith in something that helps us get through the world and through life. A "Gandalf" may help with that.

[Dwarf Lord]

I am personally not a religous person either, but besides the ignorance in which the man stated it I think it fits. I personally don't know of any actual instances, but I believe it can be comparible. Gandalf stands falls into the ayss and defeats the balrog, but dies himself. Only to be reborn as a stronger being. Where as religon on a personal way it could be that the person has tough times and eventually pulls through. The old weak self is replaced by a stronger one. If that makes sense.


DWARF LORD

[Thorondor_]

In our world, according to the Christian faith (or almost any other, come to think of it) there is nothing even approaching the kind of being God is (ignoring arguments about the Devil).


Actually, in christianity, Jesus says "The Father and I are one" and also says that we should follow his path. In most oriental religions, the ultimate goal of life is realising God in THIS life; also, buddhists have the concept the incarnations of boddhisatvas (a conscioussness level ALMOST united with God) and hinduists have the avatars, and both categories of beings incarnate in order to help us on the spiritual path.

(Unless you take Illúvatar to be the ultimate God of ME.)

Well I guess we'd be off Tolkien's world if we don't do that. Remember that Eru brings into being all sort of events, conditions and beings which do not come from the past/vision. He is permanently involved.
I mean. if you think of Galdalf as this other-worldly being, then certainly it would be hard to overwhelm him.
Both Gandalf and his enemy are supposed to have maia ancestry, so they are kinda of the same level (well, excluding the fact that "God and me form the majority":))
How bad could it be for you to abandon God forever?
Creation isn't eternal, so one way or the other you will acknowledge His existence. Or maybe the quote reffers abandoning Him from one's heart, even if mind brings testimony to His existence - well, then this is a sad case.
the fellow ship is about stopping evil,
One interpretation I very much like is seing the whole LotR story in archetypes terms. Frodo is the infant self, which must develop into the heroic self, which is Aragorn; we have Galadriel as the higher (good) spirit and Shelob as the higher (bad)spirit. We also have Old Wise Man, in both his aspects, positive (Gandalf) and negative (Saruman). I guess that overcoming hurddles in this story (our story and The Story) are actually landmarks for our development, and not the other way around.

Can lots of small sins be 'cancelled out' by just one selfless deed? Or would you still have to pay come the final judgement?

Yes ... the saiyng goes "one good deed can bring light where darkness ruled for ages" (the other way around is true also); however, "good deeds of the far ones are sins of the near ones" - the closer we get to Him, the harder we have to try.

I wouldn't say that loving food, or gold, or in fact anything would be bad in God's eyes: in fact, love is what Christianity is all about.

I would say it would be bad in his eyes if this "other" love is greater than one's love for him.

The old weak self is replaced by a stronger one. If that makes sense.

That is "normal" development. The ultimate development is total destruction of the ego/illusion/limitation and becoming one with the Light. And I guess this is what Gandalf showed us, so I would say the initial comparison is correct.

[Thorondor_]

I would also like to add that religion, re-ligare, "bond between humans and gods", is something which is objective, and never changing. However, our faith, which is the reflection of this bond in our conscioussness, can, at sometimes, fluctuate, but the bond is always there... :)

[Barliman Butterbur]

...I'd compare my religion to Gandalf. He defeated that giant demon, but still fell into this giant abyss, out of all hope of life. But unlike the Demon, Gandalf survived; Gandalf survived'... What are your opinions on this statement? Do you think it's accurate from a LotR perspective? From a Religious perspective?

I think the key is in the notion of survival. Religion exists because man craves assurances that there is a Higher Purpose to this way-too-often ghastly existence (which is mostly of our own doing). So religion will always survive because mankind needs it, creates it, and keeps it going. (It also allows man not to take responsibility for his own actions and their consequences — "All is God's will".) Many people would, in living their lives, be in despair were it not for the assurances of a higher purpose and the concomitant hope that religion gives them — whether those assurances and explanations be true or not.

Barley

[Thorondor_]

I think the key is in the notion of survival. Religion exists because man craves assurances that there is a Higher Purpose to this way-too-often ghastly existence (which is mostly of our own doing). So religion will always survive because mankind needs it, creates it, and keeps it going. (It also allows man not to take responsibility for his own actions and their consequences — "All is God's will".) Many people would, in living their lives, be in despair were it not for the assurances of a higher purpose and the concomitant hope that religion gives them — whether those assurances and explanations be true or not.Barley
I disagree, you are not talking about religion per se, you are talking about whatever people devise to keep themselves in above the waterline. As I mentioned, religion reffers to our bond to God, and this bond cannot lead to neither to irresponsability nor despair (which are the result of complacency in a self-devised system of values), and furthermore, religion, in its fundamental aspect, is not created by humans, at most, it is revealed to humans.
Also, there is a contradiction in what you said: first, you reffer to a higher purpose, then you say this leads to irresponsability (then how come it is a higher purpose?

[Barliman Butterbur]

I disagree, you are not talking about religion per se, you are talking about whatever people devise to keep themselves in above the waterline. As I mentioned, religion reffers to our bond to God, and this bond cannot lead to neither to irresponsability nor despair (which are the result of complacency in a self-devised system of values), and furthermore, religion, in its fundamental aspect, is not created by humans, at most, it is revealed to humans.
Also, there is a contradiction in what you said: first, you refer to a higher purpose, then you say this leads to irresponsibility (then how come it is a higher purpose?

I stand by what I said: that religion is a man-created system of thought in which the concept of a Prime Creator — the "God" described in the world's holy books — is propounded. You assume and accept the existence of such a God; I don't. You accept that there is a God who reveals wisdom and a Higher Purpose — God's purpose — to mankind; I don't. For me there is no contradiction, we simply differ in our beliefs.

Barley

[Thorondor_]

Let's agree to disagree - a very fine and dear principle. The one thing we don't agree upon is that religion can't lead to iresponsability. Perhaps you are talking about dogma (or corrupted dogma for that matter). Also, absolute god, as pure existence, is,beyond atributes; religion shows the way to him; religion doesn't apply attributes to him - show me a religion/dogma that does attribute!